Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

reply to post by Quaesitor


No, I don't think unidentified = Alien, I just think it can equal Alien and in some cases there isn't any other conclusion that can be drawn based on the available evidence.

Again, I'm just seeking the truth, not just to placate my belief system. I can accept that some evidence and witnesses are so strong, that they experienced extraterrestrial visitation.

The skeptic will not entertain this as a possibility. They have to have an explanation that conforms to their belief system or it will have to remain unidentified ad infinitum.

Again, if you start with the priori that there has to be an explanation that fits what you already believe, then how are you searching for the truth?

reply to post by neoholographic

So again you're crying wolf and you're not making any sense. If you're not like the skeptics I talked about in my OP, what are you debating?

I am objecting to this statement.

Most so called skeptics reduce eyewitness testimony from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more to just a bunch of blathering idiots with vivid imaginations.

I do not think that most skeptics take that approach.

reply to post by neoholographic

I just think it can equal Alien and in some cases there isn't any other conclusion that can be drawn based on the available evidence.

In your opinion there can be no other conclusion than ET for some cases. To paraphrase the thread title, Why should your opinion be given any more weight than that of a skeptic?

reply to post by Phage

Saying "the testimony is true" only means that the witness is relating what they believed they observed. So I guess that's a difference between you and me, I usually believe a wittiness's report is "true". I don't necessarily believe it is accurate.

That is exactly what I was trying to get across ! Have to say though..sounds good coming from you !

And that was SonoftheSun's free compliment of the day.

reply to post by Phage


First, I don't assume it's false. I have no reason to until there's evidence that points to it being false.

You said:

I usually believe a wittiness's report is "true". I don't necessarily believe it is accurate.

Of course you don't believe it's accurate. This is the closed minded attitude I was talking about. You don't think it's accurate based on a pre-existing belief that the person couldn't have seen what they saw.

Of course you will deny this like most so called skeptics do. So you don't believe it's accurate based on past accounts. That makes no sense. Each account stands on it's own.

You have a bias before you even read an eyewitness account. How is this searching for the truth?

As it applies to police: This might be relevant
Here's another relating to that: Police reject candidate for being too intelligent

Thus, regarding police, in consideration of the links above, anything outside of the direct application of police work as it involves every day crime, or anything that might seem to lay outside of a police officer's narrow range of experience, should certainly be taken with a grain of salt.

Regarding pilots: Air Canada Pilot Dives to Avoid ... Venus

Essentially, no one is infallible and all eye witness accounts need be questioned with a degree of skepticism.

Why would a Skeptic's opinion count?
It depends on the skeptic.
Besides that, what's the point of asking a question regarding an unknown if you don't have a reasonable field of answers from differing standpoints applicable to the subject?

reply to post by neoholographic

Of course you don't believe it's accurate. This is the closed minded attitude I was talking about. You don't think it's accurate based on a pre-existing belief that the person couldn't have seen what they saw.

I said I don't necessarily believe it is accurate and you have no idea what I base my assessment on in any particular case.

Each account stands on it's own.

Yes it does. In the example I linked, I accepted the witness's description as it was given.

You have a bias before you even read an eyewitness account.

If by that you mean I'm interested in looking for "mundane" explanations, you're right. But you seem to have a bias against doing so.

reply to post by Phage


You said:

If by that you mean I'm interested in looking for "mundane" explanations, you're right. But you clearly have a bias against doing so.

Nope, I just don't have a bias against accepting the eyewitness account as accurate.

I will accept a "mundane" explanation but I will also accept an "improbable" explanation. This is because subjective meanings to words like mundane and improbable only serve as barriers to people searching for the truth.

You have already come to the conclusion that the improbable can't be an explanation before you hear the account. That's closed minded and this is exactly what I was talking about in my OP.

reply to post by neoholographic

You have already come to the conclusion that the improbable can't be an explanation before you hear the account.

That's quite a statement from someone who just said this:

I don't know you or I haven't read any of your post except on this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are wrong and you seem to have a very narrow definition for "improbable".

reply to post by Phage


No I'm not wrong.

If you can direct me to a post where you accepted the improbable as an explanation, then I take back what I said about you.

I haven't read your post but based on what you're saying, you seem to have a bias against the improbable which would be mundane.

We live in an improbable universe. There will always be low probability events and more mundane high probability events.

Is there a post where you accepted the improbable as accurate or do you have a bias towards the mundane?

reply to post by neoholographic

You mean something like this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But you may not be satisfied with "unidentified".

reply to post by Phage


LOL

You can't be serious. I guess I was right about your bias. You said:

Interesting.
There was a bright pass of the ISS later and more to the the south.

Judging by the contrails being illuminated further away I would be inclined to guess that it was a jet reflecting sunlight. With the angle changing the reflection would fade. But as it is, yup...UFO. Unidentified.

Saying it's a U.F.O. is about as mundane as it gets. It's just saying it's Unidentified.

Most so called skeptics will call something unidentified until the cows come home. So either it's a mundane explanation or it's unidentified until they find a mundane explanation or someone makes one up.

What you haven't done is accept an improbable explanation as an accurate account as to what occurred. Unless there's a post out there that rebuts what I'm saying.

You have a bias towards the mundane. I don't.

I accept an improbable explanation as well as a mundane one. It makes no sense to claim your trying to find the truth when you have decided what can't be true before you started searching.

reply to post by neoholographic


How can you identify something that is UNIDENTIFIED when all reasonable explanation fails to Identify it?
Speculation?

Speculation on the nature of something that by all accounts is unidentified is just wild guessing where all answers are essentially equal. Anyone saying Aliens would be just as close to the truth as someone else saying it's magical dung beetles rolling a light across the sky.

That's what UNIDENTIFIED is.
Once something is definitively identified, it typically becomes mundane.

reply to post by neoholographic

It's just saying it's Unidentified.

Yes. What would you suggest instead, based on the evidence presented?

What you haven't done is accept an improbable explanation as an accurate account as to what occurred.

I guess I'm missing your point. There is something wrong with saying "I don't know?" Would it be better to say this was a case of being an ET rather than a fairy or a spirit or a "critter" or an improbable meteorological or astronomical event? Why pick one when there just isn't enough information?

It makes no sense to claim your trying to find the truth when you have decided what can't be true before you started searching.

It makes no sense to claim you can find the "truth" based on the statements of eyewitnesses.

How do you know what I have "decided"?
I do not think it likely that ET is visiting Earth. I have not "decided" that they are not.

reply to post by Druscilla


The first line in your post shows the flaw in your thinking. You said:

How can you identify something that is UNIDENTIFIED when all reasonable explanation fails to Identify it?

All reasonable explanations is subjective on your part. How can you identify these things if you have already decided what is and what isn't a reasonable explanation? That is as closed minded as it gets.

I don't do that. I'm willing to accept the improbable as an explanation. Like I said, we live in an improbable universe and improbable events occur all the time.

I don't know how anyone can be open minded when they have already decided what the answers can't be.

reply to post by neoholographic


Right, so, when following a logical path of discovery in investigating probabilities, you typically take a list of probabilities and examine them one by one:

1. Is it a dog?
2. Is it a cat?
3. Is it a goldfish?
4. Is it an alien? (just for you)

Well, It flies, so, it isn't a dog, which also rules out cats, and though fish have been known to fall from the sky, it's improbable that it's a goldfish.
Does that make it an alien?
Well, since no one knows what an alien looks like, we can't say that it's an alien either.

Hmmm. Well, it's thus unknown. Let's call it "Unidentified".

There. I just ran through a logical path including several improbable variables that could be applied to any UFO case.

reply to post by Phage


You said:

I guess I'm missing your point

No you're not. You know exactly what I'm saying. It's obvious you have a bias and I'm sure if I clicked your profile and looked at your posts, the bias would be evident. Just like I described in my original post. Most people who claim to be skeptics just use skepticism to mask what they already believe.

I don't do that. I'm willing to accept the mundane and the improbable as an accurate explanation as to what occurred. I don't know how anyone who wants to know the truth, thinks they can find it by limiting what can or can't be true before they even start searching.

You have a bias towards what fits with what you already believe.

I have a bias for the truth wherever it leads to. I don't decide what can or can't be an explanation beforehand.

Originally posted by Quaesitor

For those who make no assumptions about the origin of UFOs, what the word means is "the observer was unable to identify an object he or she saw in the sky." Therefore saying "UFOs exist" means nothing, since we know there are objects in the sky (birds, planes, weather phenomena, etc) and not every person who has observed the object or phenomena has the knowledge or capacity to identify it.

There is another definition of UFO that I feel is more useful in moving the conversation forward. In addition to the object being unidentifiable by the witness, a "true" UFO remains unidentified after close scrutiny of the details of the report by competent investigators and after thorough consideration of all known conventional explanations.

Most reports can be reasonably attributed to misidentification by the witness(es) of known objects or phenomena. For some cases, a reasonable explanation has remained elusive despite detailed, articulate reports from stable, responsible people. Far from being "fuzzy lights in the sky", a number of these cases involve observations of structured objects of large angular size (meaning they take up a large part of the observers visual field) which appear to be very near the ground - and sometimes very near the witness and which behave in very unconventional ways.

There are many reports out there like this. I think a lot of people are unaware of that fact.

This thread is rather similar to ones that were often posted by a member named Polomontana. For example: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In fact, much of the OP's word use and arguments are just like Polomontana's. The debating tactic is the same, more concerned with attacking skeptics than using evidence to show aliens pilot UFOs.

reply to post by neoholographic

You have a bias towards what fits with what you already believe.

How you get that from my saying "I don't know" is beyond me. It sounds like you are guilty of the same thing you complain about in your OP.

I have a bias for the truth wherever it leads to.

Well hurray for you. What a meaningless but impressive sounding statement.

From a previous post:

I just think it can equal Alien and in some cases there isn't any other conclusion that can be drawn based on the available evidence.

You are welcome to your opinion. Just don't lose sight of the fact that it is nothing more than opinion.