It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Soylent Green Is People
It is not about proof - at least not scientific proof. Common sense and an astute argument based on reason can prove things. Science is not the only way to knowledge.
Hmm. I'm not sure about that one.
Let's forget alien visitation of Earth for a minute. Let's instead consider the question of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
I personally believe that there is almost surely life elsewhere. I'm 99.9999...% sure of it, considering the circumstantial information we have (  the size of the universe, and  Our knowledge on extremophile life, and how life seems to thrive anywhere once it takes hold).
However, I don't yet know there is life elsewhere. "Belief" and "Knowledge" are two different things. My belief is strong, but my belief could be wrong. To actually know that life exists elsewhere (i.e., for it to become a "Truth", with a capital "T"), I think we would need to somehow come in contact with that life, either directly or indirectly.
Back to the ET hypothesis for UFOs:
You are welcome to feel the evidence for the ET hypothesis is enough for you to "believe" in that hypothesis, but I can't see how that evidence would be enough to make you "know". Like I said, "Belief" and "Knowledge" are two different things, and they require different levels of evidence.
Yes, but it is still possible to debate which is the best common sense explanation.
ZetaRediculianThe "debate" here has nothing to do with the best common sense explanation.
This is the level on which ETH exists. We use our mental faculties in a non scientific way to draw conclusions. I see no reason why this kind of thinking should be inferior to scientific thinking; they both have their limitations but are both valid.
Pages and pages of what boils down to common logical fallacies:
1: Negative proof - Claimant demands proof that the "null hypothesis" is true.
2: Burden of Proof - Claimant demands others prove the claimant's assertions to be true as "due diligence".
3: Appeal to popularity - If enough people make a similar claim then it's "tantamount" to proof.
4: Genetic fallacy - Claimant rejects anything from those they label as "skeptic" and "blind debunker".
5: Ad Nauseum - Claimant repeats claim throughout entire thread rather than addressing specific indictments.
6: Ad Hominem - Claimant attacks the character of others instead of responding to their arguments.
7: Appeal to Authority - If Edgar Mitchell said it, it must be true.
8: Appeal to common belief - Edgar Mitchell said it.
9: Straw Man Fallacy - Claimant misrepresents the position of those with whom they disagree in lieu of addressing their actual position.
edit on 14-4-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)
The problem here is debunkers want to debate the existence of extraterrestrials and avoid the data surrounding U.F.O.'s.
If I'm wrong about how science works in the previous post explain to me where I'm wrong.
It cannot be shown that Bigfoot does not exist.
It cannot be shown that unicorns do not create rainbows.
Why does science need to show that bigfoot doesn't exist or the silly unicorns doesn't exist?
You are confusing verification of data with falsification of a hypothesis.
What am I verifying exactly?
You are trying to apply rigid scientific criteria to a hypothesis that is not strictly scientific. It is a reasonable hypothesis and only a reasonable falsification is required. The thinking behind the ETH is more subtle and requires a lot of common sense, savvy, and intelligence. A common sense argument can have the force of scientific proof but it is not scientific. Science is not the only way to knowledge.
What exactly am I verifying?