Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

reply to post by DelMarvel

And what is "threatening" about someone disagreeing with (for example) one's UFO theory?

I don't know if I can explain that. But you do realize that it's disagreeing with the OP... therefore disagreeing with the spirit and progress of the thread....

For those who don't get why they should check off posts that disagree with the OP... then if this is implemented, moderators would be able to step in and help.

reply to post by Quaesitor


Sadly, this doesn't apply to most people who claim to be skeptics.

These people use skepticism as a way to shield their close minded belief system.

Most people who claim to be skeptics have reached a conclusion before they even see any evidence. Saying their skeptical is just a way to convince themselves and try to convince others they have an open mind.

We have heard the usual skeptic nonsense coming from you and others.

You say people have to make a leap of faith to reach these conclusion.

Another person talked about Pink Unicorns.

Someone said we just think U.F.O. = Aliens.

It's the same silly nonsense coming from closed minded people who claim to be skeptics.

Like I said earlier, you act like science is some sort of panacea of absolute truth. Scientist come to conclusions on many things based on the available evidence and in most cases they don't know the origins of these things and they also haven't been verified.

Do you know that many Biologist accept Abiogenesis? Where's the verifiable evidence for Abiogenesis? Are these Biologist just making a leap of faith?

I don't agree with Abiogenesis but I'm secure enough in my position to say they didn't make a leap of faith to come to their position. They just looked at the available evidence and came to a different conclusion than I did.

The U.F.O. skeptic can't accept this because they're insecure about their position. They can't say that someone else looked at the available evidence with logic and reason and came to the conclusion that extraterrestials exist.

The so called skeptic has to say nobody can come to this conclusion unless they take a leap of faith or they just wake up one day and say U.F.O.'s = Aliens.

I'm sure someone has had to mention this already, but there is a clear difference between a skeptic and a biased debunker. A skeptic is something we ALL should strive to be, someone who will no follow blindly down any road but rather examines all the factors, evidence, and surrounding context to form a conclusion. Being a skeptic does not equate to being a non-believer. As far as a biased debiunker, they are the ones who at all costs will formulate an opinion to try and offer any other explaination other than what is being reported. They will resort to personal attack and misdirection to circumvent critical thinking and when all else fails will simply look down on anyone who does not believe them.

reply to post by HomeBrew


I think this goes without saying because throughout the thread I have said I respect skepticism and yes I'm skeptical about things. So this argument that we have to respect skeptics doesn't apply to this thread.

I'm talking about people who claim to be a skeptic because they think it puts a better light on their closed minded positions.

They will say I'm a skeptic and I have an open mind but...

Then they start talking about pink unicorns, leaps of faith, vivid imaginations and more.

Skepticism doesn't say that your belief has to define the sum of knowledge of others.

When skeptics try and tell me I can't reach a logical and reasoned conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence, what they're saying is that I have to conform to their closed minded belief system.

reply to post by neoholographic

When skeptics try and tell me I can't reach a logical and reasoned conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence, what they're saying is that I have to conform to their closed minded belief system.

You have every right to your opinion. But why should it carry more weight than someone who thinks UFOs are angels or "light beings"?
You aren't talking about skeptics though.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Quaesitor

 

Your position is "irrational" and "kooky" because it's based on your assumption that I took some sort of "leap of faith" to reach my conclusion.

Could you then please example your logical path of reasoning toward a conclusion for us?

I've exampled a logical path of reasoning toward a conclusion of "unknown/unidentified" HERE, thus, it wouldn't be out of order for you to perform a demonstration of your reasoning so as to enlighten us.

Please show us how you arrive at an "Aliens" conclusion.

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Neoholographic,

While I understand what you are saying, I do not necessarily agree..

So at the end of the day, a skeptics opinion is meaningless when weighed against eyewitness accounts from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more.

Police, pilots, astronauts are not UFOlogy experts.

Yes, they give a description of what they have seen, to the best of their abilities, just like anyone else. Doesn't mean they are right, doesn't mean they are wrong. It is their testimony. Oftentimes, it is based on what they do think they saw and it doesn't necessarily mean what it actually was.

A testimony is just that. A testimony. Skeptics question and have every right to do so. Questioning leads to learning.

Just my opinion.

Pilots (specially military pilots) know a lot more about aircraft then 99% of the "ufologists" period. The fact that most pilots won't come out due to fear of ridicule or loss of employment is telling. My extended family has 3 civilian pilots, 2 naval aviators and 2 retired airforce pilots (one flew the B2 and the other F 117's) ALL of them have either heard stories or witnessed strange sightings . One thing they have ALL said is they will never file FAA reports because they would lose flight status AUTOMATICALLY and maybe permanently.

Its considered a no-no to talk about UFO's in both civilian and military aviation.

I don't know why people can't grasp something so simple.

Question for skeptics. Why can't I reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence?

Why do I have to take some leap of faith to reach this conclusion? Can't you just accept that I have reached a different conclusion than you have? So called skeptics have to act like you can't reach this conclusion and that's just silly.

When I say that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence, this implies probabality and not absolute certainty. I don't speak in absolutes like most so called skeptics.

reply to post by neoholographic

Question for skeptics. Why can't I reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence?

You can.

Why can't I reach the conclusion that no conclusion can be reached based on the available evidence?

I don't speak in absolutes like most so called skeptics.

The irony escapes you completely, doesn't it?

If anyone else has questions about the two-tiered thread model for ATS, please refer to the link at the bottom of my signature... There's 2+ pages of discussion that will hopefully answer your questions.

Thank You....

reply to post by Phage


Another question that shows how closed minded skeptics are.

Why can't I reach the conclusion that no conclusion can be reached based on the available evidence?

What do you think I have been saying this entire thread?

You can reach that conclusion if you accept it's subjective. A skeptic can disagree with me all day, what they can't do is try to tell me what conclusion I can or can't reach based on the available evidence.

I didn't have to take a leap of faith to reach this conclusion.

I didn't wake up one day and say Aliens = U.F.O.'s.

So you can have that position all day but you can't turn that subjective opinion into an absolute.

reply to post by neoholographic



That's exactly how I think. I've always been saying my acceptance of such possibility aliens to have visited a few or several times (and not every day like some people seem to think) is entirely based on the existing data, not belief. And in fact, for me this possibility has been getting less and less due to some clues surrounding incidents that scream 'human action'.

But I still do not exclude it, as less possible as it seems to me. And skeptics who are absolutely certain that there is no way this to have ever happened are wrong. An alien entity may have visited once, twice, crashed, then has been reverse engineered.

Clues such as Hitlert's interest in the ET topic, lots of other symbolism, stories, texts, petroglyphs, etc. One should be open for that possibility as well,. being certain in it's Not when there is so much data is wrong.

You want to be objective, skeptics ? Stay in the Middle of the Scales - Keep Equilibrium, don't move to the left or right, or your balance will be lost.

reply to post by neoholographic

What do you think I have been saying this entire thread?

You certainly haven't been saying that "unidentified" is acceptable from your point of view.

Originally posted by neoholographic

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.

reply to post by Imtor


Good points especially when you said this.

is entirely based on the existing data, not belief.

Exactly my point. Some so called skeptics act like you can't reach these conclusions without a leap of faith or just blindly coming to this conclusion. It's based on data not something that's made up in a vacuum.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Imtor

 

Good points especially when you said this.

is entirely based on the existing data, not belief.

Exactly my point. Some so called skeptics act like you can't reach these conclusions without a leap of faith or just blindly coming to this conclusion. It's based on data not something that's made up in a vacuum.

Maybe they think you've made a mistake in your interpretation of the data.

For example I've heard it repeated many times that the [large] number of UFO reports made throughout the years somehow reinforces the extraterrestrial hypothesis--the number itself of such reports. I guess the argument is basically, "they can't all be wrong." The thing is, you can't say they can't all be wrong. What is the probability that a UFO sighting is a true positive sighting of extraterrestrial craft as opposed to a false positive? For all we know it might be 0%. If there are no alien spacecraft visiting the earth, then every reported sighting of an extraterrestrial craft would be a false positive.

I've seen UFOs myself. My inability to explain what I saw makes a statement about my ignorance, it says nothing about what those UFOs actually were. Probability that they were extraterrestrial craft: Unknown. Now multiply that unknown by the millions of other UFO reports and you get a big fat unknown. The question obviously becomes what clues would indicate if something actually involves the extraterrestrial, and how do we test for those properties?

Originally posted by neoholographic
I don't know why people can't grasp something so simple.

Question for skeptics. Why can't I reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence?

Why do I have to take some leap of faith to reach this conclusion? Can't you just accept that I have reached a different conclusion than you have? So called skeptics have to act like you can't reach this conclusion and that's just silly.

When I say that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence, this implies probabality and not absolute certainty. I don't speak in absolutes like most so called skeptics.

As I just asked, show us your logical path of reasoning just as I've demonstrated myself which leads you to such an "Alien" conclusion.

Do you have a logical path of reasoning toward conclusion?
If so, then, please demonstrate.

We're curious how you get to "Aliens". Maybe you have data that we don't and can learn from your example?


Do you include Angels, Demons, Nth dimensional beings and time travelers into your probability base, and at what level of bias would you include such along side the "alien" probability, or do you dismiss any such because they don't fit your own bias? Do Aliens rank higher as a probability over Demons and if so, why?

We'd really like to know how you arrive at these conclusions.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Question for skeptics. Why can't I reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence?

You can, like anyone else, but, in my opinion, if, as you said in the end of your post, that implies probability, I think you should have said "conclusion that extraterrestrials probably exist".

Having a consistent wording helps avoid confusion in people that do not know what you have in mind (and most people do not)

PS: I think that if you have used the expression "pseudo sceptics" when talking about people that present themselves as sceptics but are not, most of the confusion about what everybody was talking about could have been avoided.

A small advice: in the opening post provide a clear meaning of the words you are using and that may have different interpretation by different people, that way people will understand better what you mean and everyone will know what is the subject.

Originally posted by MarkJS
If anyone else has questions about the two-tiered thread model for ATS, please refer to the link at the bottom of my signature... There's 2+ pages of discussion that will hopefully answer your questions.

Thank You....

Yes I have a question. What is the point of this proposed system other than to allow certain people to live in an echo-chamber in which their preexisting beliefs are always reinforced?

In my experience, the system is pretty redundant anyway. People tend to pick up on the tone of a post within the first sentence or two and skip past it if it disagrees with their preexisting ideas.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I read just now that Neil Armstrong has died. RIP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Imtor
That's exactly how I think. I've always been saying my acceptance of such possibility aliens to have visited a few or several times (and not every day like some people seem to think) is entirely based on the existing data, not belief.

We all need a fixed point from where to start, but we should always add (even if only mentally) a "based on the available data" to our conclusions, because that data may be accurate, incomplete, wrong or even fake, so our conclusions are affected by the quality of the data.

And that's why I think witnesses reports are less likely to be accurate than physical measurements, as their reports are their interpretation of what they witnessed. But they are obviously important data.

And skeptics who are absolutely certain that there is no way this to have ever happened are wrong.

They aren't sceptics, a real sceptic is never absolutely certain about anything.

You want to be objective, skeptics ? Stay in the Middle of the Scales - Keep Equilibrium, don't move to the left or right, or your balance will be lost.

That's what we do, and many times we are the ones that provide alternative ideas instead of the two sided battle that we usually see about deniers and believers.

1. Formulate a question.
2. Perform research and record observations.
3. Construct hypothesis and make predictions.
4. Test with experiments.
5. Analyze results, draw conclusions.
6. Determine whether or not hypothesis is corrobrated, then either try again or report results.

Or just be skeptic and wait for someone else to do it for you.