The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Brighter

Exactly.

atlasastro's posts above contain multiple fabrications and some blatant errors that you've already pointed out. And as his main argument rested on them, there's nothing much left to talk about.

Once again, it's painfully obvious that the pseudoskeptical position is firmly rooted to falsities and blatant logical errors. It's very telling that anyone would identify with such drivel.

It is fairly sad to see that poor logic is actually embraced by men and women purporting to be fair skeptics. The truth is, dumb people come in all shapes and sizes. None of them have any obvious formal training in logic or science. They lack the necessary understanding to come to good judgements. If they did they would side with you on this obvious issue.

Instead they get all mushy when they think their friend scores a rhetorical point. It's almost like kindergarten.

this is kind of funny because this exactly what you just did.

At what grade level do you learn to use the emoticons?

reply to post by RoScoLaz

i would say non-ballistic motion; following a path that cannot be explained or reproduced by conventional aircraft.

How is that an example of control? Balloons follow non-ballistic trajectories. And what would indicate intelligence? Meteors can achieve speeds well beyond those of conventional aircraft.

Originally posted by atlasastro
You took the bait...
Unfortunately, you think this is all there is. Thats was the bait.
Here is the hook... "Newspaper accounts of SIGHTINGS furnished by the clipping service are being retrieved at approximately a constant rate; howerver the LIFE articles is now responsible for only HALF of the clippings. Originally the clipping were copied at Battelle and then transmitted to the sponsor."

Maybe logic really is not your thing?

You dangle empty bait and think anyone will bite?

What's happening here is this: Just as you confuse and improperly interchange the words 'evidence' and 'proof', now you assume or are trying to plant the false inference that 'clipping' = 'sighting'. As in 'clipping' = '1 entire SR14 sighting'.

Is that done with purpose, or due to carelessness?

(Answer: purpose, and a few paragraphs below I'll prove it without a doubt.)

I asked you this before, and I'll ask again:
what evidence do you have that any significant portion of those ~3000 final SR14 sightings were sightings which contained only a single newspaper article as their 'evidence'?

That is what you've been trying to imply. Don't avoid the question; I'll just ask again.

Amazingly, the "punched cards are being prepared" sentence you mention is in a completely separate section of the summary. Did you not see, or just not care to point out that big underlined "FUTURE WORK" heading?

WHY did you say this:
[Discussion of news clipping service]
"next page and paragraph reads" [link] 'The available files will be coded and punchcards will be prepared....' "
when it does NOT actually say that?

Everyone see here. And the previous page.

Astounding. And so tedious to highlight. But it's important to see that user atlasastro doesn't think it relevant that the second portion of his quote is in an entirely different section of the document ("Future Work") than the first portion of his quote?!

This is EXACTLY the kind of desperate trick many 'skeptics' (haha) will pull to 'win' a disagreement or plant false inferences.

Catalogued, right here. "The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic." There ya go....

Just to be 100% clear here, the project update begins,
"A preliminary analysis of the existing report files has been completed. Information derived from this analysis has been applied in improving the present interrogation form." [That was Intro to paragraph 1]
"The facts reported in present files or on new sightings are to be entered on the observer's data sheet. This information will not be coded for direct entry on punched cards. Instead, the facts will be classified and analyzed before entries are made on the punched cards." [Paragraph 2's beginning]
"The final element in the data record is the punched card on which the results of coded calculations and analyses are entered." [Paragraph 3 intro]"
Finally in paragraph 4 we see mention of the news clippings, which he quoted. Then on the next page, an entirely new section entitled "Future Work" appears, and that's where his "available files will be coded..." quote begins.)

Disgusting! Your "news clippings" quotes and the inferences you'd like others to draw from them are entirely misleading. Do you care?

Have you noticed that I tend to insert much longer passages than you?

As long as any of the posters in here just keeps pasting in portions of documents, which is all that's really possible, then that individual is vulnerable to an "out of context" accusation, true or not. But I hope that people will read all of this material -- Blue Book Special Report 14, + all 12 of these Project Stork updates -- so that it will be entirely obvious (if not already) who here is attempting to mislead and plant false information.

Lastly, I keep writing "~3000 sightings" not because I'm not sure or am trying to mislead; it's because of the difference in the Report between "Unit Sightings", "Object Sightings" and "All Sightings". They numbered 2554, 2199, and 3201, respectively. So, my saying "~3000" is justified. You missed that portion of SR14?

The numerical difference between the three, by the way, has to do with there apparently being many multiple witness sightings. (Zeta?)

And did you forget that ~800 'reports' were completely tossed? Not included in the tables, in the "Other" category, or in the "Insufficient Information" category... but just tossed out completely. (On p.11: "In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a factual level failed completely, the report was eliminated from further consideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis. About 800 reports of sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner.")

You just forgot that part when accusing me of inventing or ignoring the numbers? Or you didn't read it?

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Harte
In those days, studies of the variability of what multiple eyewitnesses report hadn't been widely circulated and eyewitness testimony was thought to be more valuable than we consider it today.

Could you support this statement with reasonable facts and evidence?

APA: "How Reliable is Eyewitness Testimony?"

Science Daily: "Eyewitnesses Are Not as Reliable as One Might Believe"

Simply Psychology: "Eyewitness Testimony."

If you check these sources, be sure to note the dates. It is a fairly recent finding (compared to the 1940's and 1950's) that eyewitnesses are usually far less reliable than was previously thought.

Harte

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
reply to post by DJW001

 

i would say non-ballistic motion; following a path that cannot be explained or reproduced by conventional aircraft.

Yet there are invisible lines of magnetic force that can control the movement of visible objects. Again, like plasma (balls.)

Such movements cannot be replicated by conventional aircraft but are not "intelligently controlled" either.

Harte

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

Have you noticed that I tend to insert much longer passages than you?

yes

OK well after reading the entire thread including the article the title is based off of here are my thoughts. The article itself seems to be an example of logical trickery and the contents are void of actual logic. As for the thread it could be renamed as “Over 100 examples of logical fallacies countered by logic”. As far as how this thread has swayed my opinion on the matter of ETs I can say I am now more skeptical of the possibility that they have visited our galaxy and especially our solar system than ever.

The proponents of the belief in alien visitation in this thread have done a horrible job of making a case it has been so bad that I am still not certain if they are knowingly using logical fallacies or if it is the only way they know how to make their case. Early on in the thread I am sure some of them didn’t even know they were doing it and others had to explain to them the error in logic. Reading the thread I envisioned a cat toying with a confused mouse. Yeah it was that bad. I can’t even call what I read a debate because one side brought nothing to the table.

I wanted to jump in at one point and tell the proponents to quit while they were ahead but there was never a point where they were even close.

Anyway thanks it was an interesting read in its own rites I got more than a few lols out of it and there were a few face palms involved. I think every point has been made that could be. I still hope UFOs of the ET kind can be shown to exist one day I readily await supporting evidence that shows it.

FYI if you all keep posting I will keep reading.

Originally posted by draknoir2
There's just so much wrong here, both logically and factually, that discussion would be fruitless. You even managed to distort and abuse the principle of "Occam's Razor". ET Theory requires the LEAST amount of assumptions? Really?

Yeah, I think I'm done with you.

You've been looking for a way out, I know....

Before leaving, why don't you explain your understanding of Occam's Razor, and point out specifically where I "managed to distort and abuse" it.

I'll walk you through this step by tedious step then....

Here's the 2nd sentence of the Wikipedia entry on Occam's Razor (the first sentence merely mentioning other names for it): "It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."

In other words, if there is evidence of something, even something we can't yet completely identify or know (the "assumption"), then we choose to pursue / confirm / endorse the hypothesis that requires the least number of revisions to our current knowledge... i.e., the hypothesis that is the most comfortable fit with the universe as we now know it... i.e., the one which requires us to insert the fewest assumptions.

In this UFO context, that is the ET hypothesis. (It doesn't make it correct; just the default.)

So... insertion of assumptions is allowed. See the DEFINITON:
"The hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Thus... assumptions can be part of hypotheses!! In fact they're a necessary part.

Assumptions can be part of hypotheses.

Assumptions can be part of hypotheses....

Get it? We need only minimize the assumptions, not extinguish them.

Several of you simply cannot grasp this. Which amazes me, since you're obviously not dumb people.

You want very badly to say, once again, that something must be "proven" before it can be part of a hypothesis. (And please, oh please, tell me I just inserted a "straw man", so that I can use your own words to prove you wrong once again.)

But read this over and over: "The hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."

That intelligent ET exists is not even so controversial of an assumption. Every week it seems we hear of new extra-solar planets, more and more of them 'Earth-like'. Mainstream scientists are now predicting that ET should have or might have been here by now. (See here. And those are well-respected, mainstream scientists. The kind who don't dare even utter the acronym 'UFO'. And they're saying that we should be looking right here close to home for evidence of intelligent ETs: on the moon, in the asteroid belt, in the Kuiper belt.

None of this makes the ET hypothesis correct; it just means we default to it.

Again, the central part of the definition of Occam's Razor:
"The hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Hypotheses can (and must) contain assumptions. We must only minimize them. With respect to UFOs, that's precisely what the ETH does. It may not be correct. We won't know. But we have minimized the assumptions. dy/dx = 0 there.

Don't you realize that science often starts with hints at or predictions of 'X'? 'X' can never be truly 'proven', but it can be shown to be more and more likely, as cumulative, mounting evidence comes in. Eventually it's so likely that we consider it truth.

If you can't follow this, then... you can't follow it.

But the logical problems do surround your ideas, unfortunately, and not mine. The very definition of Occam's Razor illuminates that fact nicely.

There's no nice way to say this, but several of you have been wrong -- just simply in error -- for several pages now. Several threads, even. (Several years?)

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets:
Have you noticed that I tend to insert much longer passages than you?

Cleverly posted by ZetaRediculian in reply:
yes

It could be some evidence that I'd like people to not be misled, and to even read the entire Reports and summaries themselves, huh? As I've said outright a few times now....

Alternatively, yeah, I guess I could've pasted short and unconnected sentence fragments together like your buddy atlasastro. But I'm just not that desperate ... which is one of the nicer benefits of having the official data and documents on your side.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

You've been looking for a way out, I know....

Same here. do you know how much robot time I have missed because of this thread? Obviously, we will not get anywhere. I admit, I am basically a retard on the internet.

Ad nauseam

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Blah, blah blah blah blah....wha, wha wha blah bla bla

I concede.

I have a question.

What would be the circumstances where the default or simplest answer is another race of sentient life crossed the galaxy braving endless perils in the vacuum of space to arive at earth and be seen by us humans?

What is the least amount of assumptions in your opinion where that would be possible?

I am really trying to understand how that could possibly be the simplest answer.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
OK well after reading the entire thread including the article the title is based off of here are my thoughts. The article itself seems to be an example of logical trickery and the contents are void of actual logic. As for the thread it could be renamed as “Over 100 examples of logical fallacies countered by logic”. As far as how this thread has swayed my opinion on the matter of ETs I can say I am now more skeptical of the possibility that they have visited our galaxy and especially our solar system than ever.

The proponents of the belief in alien visitation in this thread have done a horrible job of making a case it has been so bad that I am still not certain if they are knowingly using logical fallacies or if it is the only way they know how to make their case. Early on in the thread I am sure some of them didn’t even know they were doing it and others had to explain to them the error in logic. Reading the thread I envisioned a cat toying with a confused mouse. Yeah it was that bad. I can’t even call what I read a debate because one side brought nothing to the table.

I wanted to jump in at one point and tell the proponents to quit while they were ahead but there was never a point where they were even close.

Anyway thanks it was an interesting read in its own rites I got more than a few lols out of it and there were a few face palms involved. I think every point has been made that could be. I still hope UFOs of the ET kind can be shown to exist one day I readily await supporting evidence that shows it.

FYI if you all keep posting I will keep reading.

Thank you for your impartial opinion. check is in the mail.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I have a question.

What would be the circumstances where the default or simplest answer is another race of sentient life crossed the galaxy braving endless perils in the vacuum of space to arive at earth and be seen by us humans?

What is the least amount of assumptions in your opinion where that would be possible?

I am really trying to understand how that could possibly be the simplest answer.

Your gift of hyperbole is impressive....

The short answer: if one can show that there appears to be some intelligence behind some UFOs (and that can be shown), then the ETH is the hypothesis which requires us to make the fewest assumptions about where that intelligence is from and how it gets here.

Do you disagree that our science predicts that intelligent extraterrestrials exist?

Does it predict that time travel back in time exists?

Does it predict that a large 5th (or higher) spatial dimension exists?

This is not difficult... for most. ;-)

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You mean I can get paid for this stuff. Yahoo Where do I sign up?

Seriously though this was an interesting read just for the complete differences in how each side approached the subject. I have to admit I was lost at points. If I ever find myself on the opposite end of a debate with some of you I am going to take a step back and reevaluate my position. I would have to bring my a+ game that is for sure. My hat is off to you.

As far as the subject of UFOs I am not very knowledgeable I haven’t studied the phenomenon to any real extent in my life. Some documentaries one or two books and reading a lot of threads on here but I have never taken an in depth look at declassified files or anything. Interesting story my grandparents lived right outside of Roswell when the incident whatever it was happened but my grandmother has said no one ever said anything about it in fact they never heard about it till years later when Hollywood made some movies about such things she said after that it was like a cold everyone at some point or another came down with it.

My grandparents even though they saw one at a point but they didn’t think much of it but it wound up being an experimental aircraft they caught a glimpse of. My grandparents were interesting earnest people my grandfather was a rough neck in the oil fields during the war he worked on part of the Manhattan project (he didn’t know it at the time) My grandmother was a secretary for some colonel or general for the army air corps she retired from there. She said it was Hollywood that got the whole thing rolling as far as sightings went every time a new movie came out that was any good she would get a dozen calls over the week of reported sightings. Nothing ever panned out from what she said.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Actually I clearly stated earlier that I do believe that there is life somewhere else in the universe based on mathmaticle probability but that is a huge leap from assuming that life traversed space to our little corner. We know life is at the bottom of the ocean but how simple is it for us to travel to the deepest part of the Ocean. The journey is where your logic falls flat traversing space is not as easy as walking across the street which is how you seem to be equating the likelihood. No simple task at all.
So your answer is another dimension which can’t be proven and that to you is the simplest answer? Time travel?

I have thought about it before without assuming other dimensions or star gates, time travel and such which BTW all of the above is not a simple answer it is for Hollywood not real science though.
Yes other dimensions exist in theory so do aliens but now you want to add two theories together neither of which do we have tangible proof. Again this to you is the simple answer? You know you are really sounding like more religion to me that anything else because you are asking for a lot of faith. Are you religious by any chance? FYI I am not I require evidence. I am a skeptic.
Let’s just take a look at some other possibility’s dealing with this dimension and our time.

For me I would first have to assume the life form is something completely foreign to us as in non-organic maybe silicon based of mechanical. Living tissue is very fragile and prone to breaking down. Then you need propulsion and there are time constraints along with mechanical breakdown regular wear and tear I would think they would need something like a star trek replicator onboard to fix the ship then there is the energy source it would have to be powerful something completely foreign to us…. Ermm I haven’t even scratched the surface of what would need to happen to where that becomes the simple answer.

At this point, it's mostly pointless to go on with any debate.

Those that haven't got it by now on either side, aren't going to.

Thus;
UFOs are magic
or
UFOs are an unknown phenomenon (which may or may not include magic as a possibility for some cases).

If magic is the answer that requires the least amount of assumptions for some folk, there you go. You can keep your magic fairy dust and go home. Have fun with that.

Some of us, however, require a far more prejudicial, rigorously testable, zero assumption position as well as remaining objectively aloof in maintaining a classification of 'unknown' until such times there are data substantially indicative to posit reasonable comparison to match.
Zero or insufficient data for us is far more acceptable than jumping to 'magic' answers.

Magical answers to us are lazy, and entirely intellectually irresponsible since magic can do anything, be anywhere, look like anything, and answer every question posed to it regardless the complication.

If magic IS the answer, then, please feel free to laugh at us when we finally get there.
Until then ...

reply to post by Druscilla

Magical answers to us are lazy, and entirely intellectually irresponsible since magic can do anything, be anywhere, look like anything, and answer every question posed to it regardless the complication.

...and this is really what it comes down to. In one of the best cases ever, the key witness rationalized why a radar return would look like a cloud instead of a solid object as being due to a special kind of alien metal.

It IS magic in the guise of advanced technology. It is really the only way to explain why a giant mothership would appear like a cloud....alien metal!

That kind of sums it up and why there is no talk about that. Instead we are to talk about some archaic math.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Apparently the gov't is looking for people like you to discredit the whole UFO thing. I think there are some grants and incetives but you have to know where to look.

reply to post by Grimpachi

The short answer: if one can show that there appears to be some intelligence behind some UFOs (and that can be shown), then the ETH is the hypothesis which requires us to make the fewest assumptions about where that intelligence is from and how it gets here.

"appears" is the opperative word and appearances can be decieving.