The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

Originally posted by fleabit

I don't think this was the best possible analogy... not only is there compelling evidence that the military secretly develops aircraft, but there is absolute proof that they have.

And while that is very true, I think the "black project" is a huge excuse. It's the last bastion of defense for a debunker who has nothing left to fall back on. When nothing else fits, use the military aircraft excuse - it's impossible to prove it wasn't, so it's a great last ditch attempt to explain a sighting away.

Skeptics are fine. I am very skeptical myself. But there are many people who say they are skeptics, but who are actually debunkers. These are people that have already made up their mind that UFO visitation is impossible, and they approach every sighting from that angle, instead of basing it on its own merits, in an unbiased manner. I've seen a lot of people here who say they are skeptics, but they are not.. they are debunkers. They will never admit something might be unexplainable - they have an excuse for every sighting, even if it's a ludicrous theory.

Actually it should be one of the first, having verifiable historical and current precedence, unlike the extraterrestrial "theory", which has only wild, unconfirmed speculation.

I can go to an air show and see, touch, even watch a former black project fly. I can meet the pilot before and after the flight and ask questions about him and the vehicle.

You, on the other hand, can only roll your eyes at conventional explanations and cry "debunker!".

I have little use for the term, as it implies a fundamental shift in the burden of proof.

Neither should you have any love for the term, as it also implies that the claim is bunk.

Originally posted by fleabit

And while that is very true, I think the "black project" is a huge excuse. It's the last bastion of defense for a debunker who has nothing left to fall back on. When nothing else fits, use the military aircraft excuse - it's impossible to prove it wasn't, so it's a great last ditch attempt to explain a sighting away.

Skeptics are fine. I am very skeptical myself. But there are many people who say they are skeptics, but who are actually debunkers. These are people that have already made up their mind that UFO visitation is impossible, and they approach every sighting from that angle, instead of basing it on its own merits, in an unbiased manner. I've seen a lot of people here who say they are skeptics, but they are not.. they are debunkers. They will never admit something might be unexplainable - they have an excuse for every sighting, even if it's a ludicrous theory.

The problem here would seem to be an indication that a designation of "unknown" is of any significance at all.
There are THREE designations a UFO sighting can develop:

1. The overall vast majority are very common flying, floating, and/or other aerial objects or phenomenon misidentified by overly saucer-eyed gawking ignorance, including outright attempts at perpetuation of a hoax or simply telling elaborate lies about things that never happened in the first place.

2. The sighting/report remains UNKNOWN. UNKNOWN is just that and has zero significance.

3. It's non-terrestrial/interdimensional intelligently controlled and/or artificially manufactured phenomenon.

Too often, the so-called "objective" person is of the sort that maintains a designation of 2; unknown, is of any significance.

Unknown is simply, unknown, and is typically so due a lack of data regarding the specific photo, video, report, rumor, event. Unknown has no significance.
Unknown does not mean "aliens" any more so, or less so than "aliens" means "aliens" or "pancakes".

There's also THIS you may have missed.
I suggest reading and making an effort to understand all of what's said.

Back to designations; There' s never been a designation beyond known and unknown.
Too often, that's when the overly frustrated closet zealot/believer loses any and all pretense of "objectivity". I put "objectivity" deliberately and conspicuously in quotations since the very term is often is overly objectified and misunderstood by the majority of people that take an interest in the UFO phenomenon since they're NOT Scientists.
This loss of pretense to "objectivity",pseudo-objectivity, or objectivity-of-convenience, then leads to claims of pseudo-skepticism, "debunkers", and other such terminology.

The problem here, often lies with the very phenomenon that the UFO subject attracts complete nutters, often entirely without academic training, some might actually be rather clever and smart complete nutters, but, in the end, the kooky nonsense always seems to find a way to bubble up to the surface, letting slip the charade.

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Whenever there is enough evidence to make you wonder, don't act like you know for sure all is fake and just stories, stay open for anything until conclusive evidence comes.

I never said that or "acted like I know for sure all is fake" . If I did, can you point that out?

^ If that wasn't clear enough for you, wow, learn Reading Comprehension. Come on! Even the fewer cases are credible, deny all and dismiss as lies will you?? Where is your evidence of all being lies?

Where did I dismiss all as lies? I have no idea what you are referring to. Can you point this out.

Even the best cases cannot convince me there are aliens but they are enough to remain open for possibilities, do you understand??

Yes. I think so. Possibilities, probabilities, yes. But you still are arguing about something else.

I will let you know I've been taught critical thinking a lot, as well as staying neutral and objective, many if you lack it.

Many of us lack what? Being taught critically thinking a lot? How would you know that i lack being "taught critical thinking a lot"? I may have been taught this a lot by a lot of people a lot as well as staying neutral and objective, a lot. I was taught a lot of things a lot.

Oh and how is that with accepting possibility of aliens SOMEWHERE in the universe? What makes you think there are aliens? So aliens absolutely cannot have come here BUT You Believe Alien Beings Exist Somewhere In The Universe

Again, who are arguing with? Did I say "aliens absolutely cannot have come here"? How do you know what I believe? Did I state my beliefs about aliens existing in the universe?

No, you do not believe, you just repeat like a parrot what SCEINTIST X SAID ON TV,. you don't even have theories or analyses of your own! And the same goes for all of you.

Can you show me where I parrot "scientist x"? Is he from Spider-Man or something?
I certainly do have my own theories and hope to be famous one day.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Talk about flawed logic!
Because how many people are discussing the subject there must be a grain of truth to it?

Really?


X number of people just can't be wrong?
Some tiny fraction of X number of people just HAS to be true?
Think again.

Now if someone had polled thirty Helens, THEN we'd get the truth.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Then what are you arguing about? The so called 'straw man' theory I said thousand times, is not what I use, I do not base existence on the theory 'no one proved it doesn't exist'. I am basing it on inconclusive evidence of something happening, something that makes even non-terrestrial not sound too wild, until discovered...

So what is your problem? I am arguing against those who are believers in alien life in the universe, yet doubt aliens can reach this planet, doubt aliens may have visited. That makes no sense, or are we arguing that all the cases are lies and NO WAY show aliens?

Yes I said thousand times, I do not think any of the evidence is enough to claim aliens but I think there are a lot of cases to not be so sure "it is not aliens"

Ok drones, some aerial phenomena? No, controlled by intelligence in some cases. I just wonder, how is it possible, so many cases, ALL to be a lie, why? Why waste tiem? How come no one ever said

"Yes we created the whole UFO alien story to hide our stuff:" Why? Never? ,,,

The straw man theory if you are saying - has logical fallcy? Yes if you use it to claim existence based on lack of evidence of nonexistence... but when the case is - I have an apple, you doubt it because you didn't see me eating it. So I must be lying? If this is what you call STRAW MAN, well, it's naturally wrong to base things on what you personally see.

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Then what are you arguing about? The so called 'straw man' theory I said thousand times, is not what I use, I do not base existence on the theory 'no one proved it doesn't exist'. I am basing it on inconclusive evidence of something happening, something that makes even non-terrestrial not sound too wild, until discovered...

It's not a "theory". It is exactly what you do but I said you probably are not aware that you do that. It has nothing to do with your actual argument if things exist or not. It has to do with arguing against a position that you made up and not the actual position of the person you are arguing with. You go on and on about something that I never said...anywhere.

So what is your problem?

Logical trickery. I'm trying to make people aware of what it is and how people like you use it. No problem but thanks for helping me make my point.

I am arguing against those who are believers in alien life in the universe, yet doubt aliens can reach this planet, doubt aliens may have visited. That makes no sense, or are we arguing that all the cases are lies and NO WAY show aliens?

That is fantastic but I think it is off topic.

Yes I said thousand times, I do not think any of the evidence is enough to claim aliens but I think there are a lot of cases to not be so sure "it is not aliens"

I give up. It's not aliens. It's just not ok.

Ok drones, some aerial phenomena? No, controlled by intelligence in some cases. I just wonder, how is it possible, so many cases, ALL to be a lie, why? Why waste tiem? How come no one ever said

"Yes we created the whole UFO alien story to hide our stuff:" Why? Never? ,,,

Now I'm just going to say random things so that you can continue with whatever point you want to make to yourself.

The straw man theory if you are saying - has logical fallcy? Yes if you use it to claim existence based on lack of evidence of nonexistence... but when the case is - I have an apple, you doubt it because you didn't see me eating it. So I must be lying? If this is what you call STRAW MAN, well, it's naturally wrong to base things on what you personally see.

edit on 16-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)

Ahhhh...... I see. You have no idea what a straw man argument actually is. So that explains why you are going on and on about something else. Wow.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Is that clear yet?

Originally posted by ImpactoR
That makes no sense, or are we arguing that all the cases are lies and NO WAY show aliens?

As I implied and made statement to in THIS POST it's entirely possible that every single mention, suspicion, rumor, account, and report addressing anything along the lines of aliens is entirely delusional.

As said before, and I'll say again; sure, there's UFOs, but, UFOs are a PHENOMENON.
Going any further beyond "phenomenon", into claims, guesses, or wacky tabacky reasoning about aliens is the very kind of "reasoning" that makes Ufology such a laughing stock.

If you're not a scientist, no matter how much you want to be, or think you are, you are NOT a scientist, and if anything, are probably, like so many other "investigators", and "researchers" are doing more harm to the subject than help.

UFO = Phenomenon.
UFO = Unknown.

Not aliens.

You can talk about "evidence" all you want, but, need I remind you about all the "evidence" for the existence of WMDs in Iraq?
The evidence for WMDs in Iraq was far more convincing than any such for aliens.
What happened there?
Were any WMDs found?
hmmm?

No.

Originally posted by Moresby
Scientific skepticism is very selective. There is currently very little skepticism about the existence of Dark Matter. Despite the fact that there is no direct evidence of its existence.

In fact, there is some direct evidence of it's existence - it's gravitational effect.

Observations made of a couple of instances of galaxies that are in the process of colliding clearly show the influence of far more gravity than can be accounted for in the observed masses of the galaxies.

Also, the lensing effect that dark matter has on light travelling over vast distances has been observed, allowing crude maps to be made of the presence of dark matter in the space between us and the light.

Of course, exactly what dark matter is is anyone's guess, and scientists do not dispute that this is unknown.

Originally posted by MoresbySimilar statements could be made about String Theory and other ideas that the scientific community thrives upon.

String theory has yet to be accepted by the scientific community. You mischaracterize again here.

Originally posted by MoresbyThere is more evidence of alien spacecraft, and other Fortean phenomena, than there is for either of these theories. Of course, that's not a tall order. As there's only some indirect evidence of Dark Matter and zero evidence of String Theory.

There is exactly zero evidence for any alien spacecraft. Zero.

Originally posted by MoresbyYet more scientist devote their lives to supporting these theories than being skeptical about them. And they make very little effort to prove them. A bit more in the case of Dark Matter. But that's only because there's next to none for String Theory.

Utter mischaracterizations. Is this your modus operandi? Mischaracterizing facts in order to try to make some point about Aliens that would otherwise be completely invalid without your mischaracterizations?

You condemn science for not attempting to find evidence for string theory (for example) in one breath, and then condemn them for spending their lives working on string theory in another.

Exactly how is it they are supposed to find a way to validate the theory if time spent working on the theory is time wasted?

Harte

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by atlasastro

 

I am pointing out a major failure in the logic of all of you to think that something isn't there because you don't see it in flesh and blood...

Simply point out where I say that. Point it out.

And don't tell me that according to that logic all exists because there is no evidence it doesn't. This is not my logic in case you didn't get the memo. I am saying - there are UNPROVEN cases even those that went public, there probably could be even bigger cases kept away from public.

Unproven and "what might be". Thats all you have!

I am simply stating that I am skeptical of the current evidence. Unfortunately, that simply statement seems to send you off in a tizz.

I am basing possibility on unproven incidents including ones that defy human or sometimes natural explanations NOT on IMAGINATION, if you ALL can't nail that down, I will just ignore you, you are just pseudoscientific

What I find humorous is that you continuously state how may "top secret military bases" and "projects" there might be, but then state that there are "incidents including ones that defy human".

How do you differentiate between incidents that defy humans technology from what might be secret projects?
Quite a conundrum you have created for yourself now huh?
Skepticism of any "alien claim" of unexplained objects would seem logical considering your persistent claims of "secret military bases and projects" that we don't know about.

The reason why I am not pseudo like you and I am actually objective is, I am making theories, possibilities, I do not take anything as a fact, unlike believers. In fact, shutting up unlike you, saying 'could be anything even aliens
makes me at the RIGHT PLACE unlike you all scoffers that give what something is not, while you yourself don't know what from all the stories might be true.

Your argument is absurd, simply show me the evidence you have viewed objectively that presents the possibility of aliens.
The argument is that simple but you cannot do that.
Until you do people will remain skeptical.

Get over it!

So pseudoscientific. If you don;t test it, how will you know? You have to bother with what's possible, try it, compare it, or wait until someone else does it as in the current case. Until there is CONCLUSIVE evidence DO NOT EXCLUDE, based on existing data.

Again, who cares what is possible.
Its not even an argument. My poo could be piloting ships. Its possible! There you go. If you question the possibility of my poo piloting UFO's you are a psuedo-scientific scoffer who is not objective.

How does your argument look now?

Skeptical is fine, denying without knowing what else as evidence exists to suggest it, is wrong. I am uncertain too, the point is, I accept it as possible, I am not certain of it, do you make a diffence between those two? I do not conclude based on the current evidence, I just remain open for any possibilities... Close-mindness doesn't make you more credible.

Wow, you actually comprehended one of my sentences!

Once again, who cares what is possible.
Point out one post where I make a defining statement on the existence of aliens or the nature of UFO's.
Point it out dude.

Please point it out because you have been ranting for pages about absolutely nothing!

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

It has nothing to do with your actual argument if things exist or not. It has to do with arguing against a position that you made up and not the actual position of the person you are arguing with. You go on and on about something that I never said...anywhere.

I am speaking in general to those deniers who argue when the whole picture is still unclear, so when it's unclear what gives those deniers the right to decide what something is and what something is not when they don't know??

I give up. It's not aliens. It's just not ok.

OH! Now it's not aliens for sure, you are saying. It is not but it could be some of the cases, should I go back where you said you did not exclude alien visitation? What's that now playing word games?

Now I'm just going to say random things so that you can continue with whatever point you want to make to yourself.

And yet, no whisleblower ever said 'we created the whole alien story for coverup' - documents show the military and those involved often do not know what they are dealing with, But's all man made for sure right? And those so called skeptics believe in aliens in the universe but dismiss the unexplained cases ancient evidence as certainly not related to aliens. Where does the certainty come from? I can say for my opinion - yes, ancient pictures and drawings could be all art, it could not be descriptions of aliens, then again some are weird and can be.,,. see both are a possibility for me.

But keep on avoiding questions where your denial fails such as 'I believe in aliens in the universe but not visiting us' or avoiding the question why no one ever revealed staged alien stories??

P.S if you think I make up a position you do not have, then consider my criticizm towards those who have exactly the position I am talking about and which I criticize, again I am speaking in general, not about your position specifically.

reply to post by Druscilla

As I implied and made statement to in THIS POST it's entirely possible that every single mention, suspicion, rumor, account, and report addressing anything along the lines of aliens is entirely delusional.

If you haven't learned, for me both are possible, meaning all to be a lie, and some of it to not be lies. Do you see - I am open for both, not only for the aliens position and not only for the 'not aliens' which side you take.

As said before, and I'll say again; sure, there's UFOs, but, UFOs are a PHENOMENON.
Going any further beyond "phenomenon", into claims, guesses, or wacky tabacky reasoning about aliens is the very kind of "reasoning" that makes Ufology such a laughing stock.

Don't teach me what UFOs are and that UFOs != aliens, I am saying, I do not exclude the possbility some of them to have been of non-human origin. This is called open-mindess, what you seem to lack. What's the matter, can't say 'I DONT KNOW;' ever? Always has to be explained and if it is not certain, has to be explained with something explainable..

The evidence is not enough to be certain about it but it is enough to think it is possible.

Originally posted by atlasastro

I am simply stating that I am skeptical of the current evidence. Unfortunately, that simply statement seems to send you off in a tizz.

Your argument is absurd, simply show me the evidence you have viewed objectively that presents the possibility of aliens.

- the unexplained cases talking about them, those that have not been and cannot be dismissed as lies, due to their unexplained case and failure to explain with something ordinary

Skeptical is fine, being certain of what it is not, is NOT fine. Why accept such as possibility, you're asking? Because make an evaluation of the evidence - it suggests enough, need I start about the logical holes in human evolution, history, mysteries? Why do they exist at all? Just for the fun and entertainment? Cominbe all, combine all the cases, and at least if you have a gram of open mindness which anyone who wants to claim scientific approach needs to have, then you wouldn't be so certain about it.

I respect scientists who are open minded for anything, considering how much we don't know, I am not respectful to those who stay close minded and do not evaluate the huge amount of evidence and instead say 'Either 100% proof or it does not exist'

I repeat it hundreds of times, skepticism is good but close-mindness when there is enough ti suggest possbility, that's just plain wrong.
___________


ALL: Now label me as a believer, even though I do nto claim anything is certain such as alien visitation. If you can't make the difference between #ing open mindness and belief, it's your problem

You know, read Haisch, I am sure there are some others like him, he is a scientist, unlike you, he can defend or deny both sides, which is what I am doing, that's people that should be listened to, biased and one sided like you, No.

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Don't teach me what UFOs are and that UFOs != aliens, I am saying, I do not exclude the possbility some of them to have been of non-human origin. This is called open-mindess, what you seem to lack. What's the matter, can't say 'I DONT KNOW;' ever? Always has to be explained and if it is not certain, has to be explained with something explainable..

The evidence is not enough to be certain about it but it is enough to think it is possible.

edit on 17-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)

Wait.
What?

What do you think UNKNOWN means?

You're the one taking the extra step into non-objective speculation in some wacky tabacky circular reasoning that makes you feel like there's some possibility for aliens.

It's either identified, or, it's UNKNOWN until identified.
Period.

Anything beyond that is the province of all that's made the investigation of UFOs a complete and total joke.

Accepting UNKNOWN as the value of the totality of all potential answers is vastly more open minded than speculating on some cute little idea like aliens.

reply to post by Druscilla


I am not criticizing the skepticism towards the evidence, the doubt that ther is aliens visiting or living on the Earth. I am criticizing the certainty in its non-existence based on ancient drawings, writings, some of the events that actually happened, today's accounts, the classificiation of documents over the topic. If you tell me that all that exists around the topic is not enough to at least consider such a possibility, then y ou haven't read about it enough.

Have in mind that the evidence you know about is not all. I can see that only by the released UK documents that do not contain any information about some well known cases, so this can't be all. I can bet money there is a lot more classified documents, maybe even bigger proof.

^ This is my message to all of you in my posts and all I am saying, I am criticizng the close-mindness not the skepticism. If you were skeptical but accepted some things as possible, I wouldn't be arguing.

reply to post by ImpactoR

P.S if you think I make up a position you do not have, then consider my criticizm towards those who have exactly the position I am talking about and which I criticize, again I am speaking in general, not about your position specifically.

Ok I considered it and it would appear that I know of no one here who has the position that you argue against. Why not argue your points with exactly who holds the view you describe. Why rant on and on to people while projecting some viewpoint that they don't have? It really comes across as crazy.

Here is my position that i think you want me to have: it is possible that aliens are here but they can't possibly be here. There is no evidence of them being here so they don't exist. Stories are all made up and fake about all of it. I am certain but there is a possibility of it being true. They exist but not here. I scoff at you.

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Druscilla

 

I am not criticizing the skepticism towards the evidence, the doubt that ther is aliens visiting or living on the Earth. I am criticizing the certainty in its non-existence based on ancient drawings, writings, some of the events that actually happened, today's accounts, the classificiation of documents over the topic. If you tell me that all that exists around the topic is not enough to at least consider such a possibility, then y ou haven't read about it enough.

Have in mind that the evidence you know about is not all. I can see that only by the released UK documents that do not contain any information about some well known cases, so this can't be all. I can bet money there is a lot more classified documents, maybe even bigger proof.

^ This is my message to all of you in my posts and all I am saying, I am criticizng the close-mindness not the skepticism. If you were skeptical but accepted some things as possible, I wouldn't be arguing.

This is my message to you: Nobody has this viewpoint here, Nobody! Point out out one person here who said something wasn't possible. Just one. If you can, then go argue with that person. You are just ranting absurdities. At least it is Entertaining.

Originally posted by ImpactoR


I am speaking in general to those deniers who argue when the whole picture is still unclear, so when it's unclear what gives those deniers the right to decide what something is and what something is not when they don't know??

What is a "denier"?

The way you are using the term implies a deliberate, irrational rejection of a widely accepted "truth".


And you are apparently speaking "in general" to those who are not even participating in this thread, which makes little sense.

Originally posted by ImpactoR
If you were skeptical but accepted some things as possible, I wouldn't be arguing.

This is a false statement.

Originally posted by draknoir2

And you are apparently speaking "in general" to those who are not even participating in this thread, which makes little sense.

I completely disagree. It does not make little sense, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

However, I will star your post.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImpactoR
If you were skeptical but accepted some things as possible, I wouldn't be arguing.

This is a false statement.

edit on 17-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

if I get bored enough and have some time, I might just find the quotes from all the skeptics in this thread where they say things are possible...but I have a robot to work on and you know how much time that takes.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
if I get bored enough and have some time, I might just find the quotes from all the skeptics in this thread where they say things are possible...but I have a robot to work on and you know how much time that takes.

Actually I do.

Seriously.