Is there an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum?

originally posted by: chachonee
Hello,

I feel the same way, I had a experience a while back and wanted to tell the world, but decide to be quiet.

I know what you mean some folks from my co-op went camping and we all saw something as well.

However if you say that we all saw something on this forum skeptics will just explain it all away.

Ever see a high altitude plane shine and become about the size of the moon in the sky before? Nope didnt think so.

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I was saying even if there is no physical evidence, which I believe is highly possible, what kind of attitude we should have towards those who claim being abducted. In fact people are skeptical, the difference lies in if we are willing to accept something unusual. Some people are not, while some other people are and the latter discover new worlds.

The latter have to prove that they've discovered new worlds.

originally posted by: chachonee
Hello,
I feel the same way, I had a experience a while back and wanted to tell the world, but decide to be quiet.

You feel the same way as whom?

You're welcome to describe your experience. It's only claims of fact that are met with demands for testable evidence. Descriptions of personal experiences are welcome.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

I knew the discussion would lead to this scenario

Suppose you had a weird dream last night and you decide to share the dream with your friends. You tell them your dream and that is all you can do in fact because it is very personal and of course with no witness. Do your friends ask you for "testable evidence"? No, they won't because the dream itself is untestable. They may believe your dream or call you a liar. If they call you a liar, what would you do? If you don't care, you may say Ok! believe it or not! If you are so determined to make your friends believe what you have dreamed about, you may say OK! I would rather go polygraph. Now things have changed. You don't prove your dream is true because it is untestable, instead you want to prove that you did not lie to your friends. By doing so, they may believe your dream.

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.

You seem to be a bit confused about how this works. The onus is on the one making the positive claim (ie. I was abducted by aliens) to prove his/her claim of fact. It is not the job of someone questioning the claim to disprove it. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. A polygraph test would only demonstrate whether the person believed s/he was telling the truth not whether it was the actual truth. I did notice that you didn't offer any testable evidence, whatsoever, to prove that ETs exist, have visited earth and have abducted people. Shall we assume that you are not going to make that claim of fact?

It seems that you don't understand what I was saying at all. In order to set up mutual understanding of what we are talking about so that we can communicate, please answer my following question: Do you dream?

BTW, as far as the existence of extraterrestrials is concerned, not only do I believe there are the ETs visiting our planet, but I have some theories/hypothesis on that such as :www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I was saying even if there is no physical evidence, which I believe is highly possible, what kind of attitude we should have towards those who claim being abducted. In fact people are skeptical, the difference lies in if we are willing to accept something unusual. Some people are not, while some other people are and the latter discover new worlds.

The latter have to prove that they've discovered new worlds.

Again you missed my points. What I was saying is the latter have the chance to discover new worlds and what I did not point out directly is the former are just door men. Of course, if a new world is discovered, it should be proved.

the UFO forum on ATS and UFO study in general is undermined by the idiots who blindly believe and post ANY claim - without any thinking .

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the UFO forum on ATS and UFO study in general is undermined by the idiots who blindly believe and post ANY claim - without any thinking .

I kind of think the idots that think we are the most intelligent form of life in the universe are what undermine it.

There are alot of stupid people out there. . . .

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

No I am not confusing anything. If we talk about mathematics, the most rigorous science in this world, you will find out that many mathematical theories are based on pure assumptions.

Well, you must be confused about something, because there are no theories in Mathematics. Nor are there any assumptions, other than those used when constructing a proof by contradiction.

Postulates, upon which Mathematics is built, could be considered to be assumptions by the untrained, I suppose. However, they are defined to be true, not assumed.

An example of a postulate would be that, when two lines intersect, they intersect at only one point. You can't really call that an assumption, because Plane Geometry is built on the definition of that (and several other) postulate(s) as true. Other types of Geometry exist, and they are built on postulates such as if two lines intersect, they intersect at more than one point.

See, all the possibilities are covered and each creates its own sort of Geometry.

If you understand that Mathematics is not designed to define reality, rather it is designed to have internal consistency, you'll understand that Mathematics is not analogous to any position you may take regarding the nature of reality.

originally posted by: Paperjacket For example, some of theories study multi-dimensional space which is far beyond our recognition of 3 dimensional world. Assumptions, in fact, do not hamper any theory. It is reasoning that make a theory stand. On the other hand, facts themselves do not make a theory. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is a hypothesis because it is not rigorously proved.

No, that's a theory. Darwin's Theory has been supplanted by a better model, by the way, and that model makes testable predictions which have been shown to agree with the data collected.

Also, rigorous proof cannot exist outside of Mathematics. Hence, no scientific theory can ever be "rigorously" proven. In fact, no scientific theory can be proven true at all, and none ever has been.

The best you can do is prove a theory is not true, and that's happened many, many times.

Harte

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Not everybody does have a camera phone, i dont even have a mobile of any kind.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

No I am not confusing anything. If we talk about mathematics, the most rigorous science in this world, you will find out that many mathematical theories are based on pure assumptions.

Well, you must be confused about something, because there are no theories in Mathematics. Nor are there any assumptions, other than those used when constructing a proof by contradiction.

Postulates, upon which Mathematics is built, could be considered to be assumptions by the untrained, I suppose. However, they are defined to be true, not assumed.

An example of a postulate would be that, when two lines intersect, they intersect at only one point. You can't really call that an assumption, because Plane Geometry is built on the definition of that (and several other) postulate(s) as true. Other types of Geometry exist, and they are built on postulates such as if two lines intersect, they intersect at more than one point.

See, all the possibilities are covered and each creates its own sort of Geometry.

If you understand that Mathematics is not designed to define reality, rather it is designed to have internal consistency, you'll understand that Mathematics is not analogous to any position you may take regarding the nature of reality.

originally posted by: Paperjacket For example, some of theories study multi-dimensional space which is far beyond our recognition of 3 dimensional world. Assumptions, in fact, do not hamper any theory. It is reasoning that make a theory stand. On the other hand, facts themselves do not make a theory. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is a hypothesis because it is not rigorously proved.

No, that's a theory. Darwin's Theory has been supplanted by a better model, by the way, and that model makes testable predictions which have been shown to agree with the data collected.

Also, rigorous proof cannot exist outside of Mathematics. Hence, no scientific theory can ever be "rigorously" proven. In fact, no scientific theory can be proven true at all, and none ever has been.

The best you can do is prove a theory is not true, and that's happened many, many times.

Harte

I am sure that I am not confused and you are in fact the very first person I have met in my whole life who has guts to claim there are no theories, no assumptions in Mathematics because this is equally to say that you know nothing. Do you have any idea that there are many many branches in Mathematics such as Topology, Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Mathematical Analysis, Control Theory, etc. If you had ever heard about these, you would not have said there are no theories and no assumptions. And the example you give is very very basic Geometry dealing with two dimensional space and I don't think we have any intersection to allow us to communicate as if you live in a two dimensional space and I however deal with multi-dimensional issues.

When you claim that Mathematics is not designed to define reality, again I have to say you have no idea about what is MATHEMATICS. Mathematics is everything about reality. You apparently have no idea how Mathematics improves your life. Of course there is no way for you to know anything about so called Mathematical Physics which deals with sophisticated issues in REALITY such as how to control a missile.

My suggestion to you is do not make claims on what you do not know about, it is however dangerous.

originally posted by: Paperjacket

I am sure that I am not confused and you are in fact the very first person I have met in my whole life who has guts to claim there are no theories, no assumptions in Mathematics because this is equally to say that you know nothing.

Somewhat doubtful. As a Math Major and a Math teacher, I can assure you that everything I posted is absolutely true.

It is a common condition for the ignorant to be sure that they are not confused.

originally posted by: PaperjacketDo you have any idea that there are many many branches in Mathematics such as Topology, Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Mathematical Analysis, Control Theory, etc. If you had ever heard about these, you would not have said there are no theories and no assumptions. And the example you give is very very basic Geometry dealing with two dimensional space and I don't think we have any intersection to allow us to communicate as if you live in a two dimensional space and I however deal with multi-dimensional issues.

I gave an elementary example to you based on what you have claimed. You see, your post indicates that you have only a very elementary knowledge of Mathematics. You know, there are at least 4 different geometries of a four dimensional nature in which I'm well enough versed to talk about, and a couple that I can still work with, though it's been 33 years since I was sitting in a Mathematics class (other than the ones I teach, that is.)

Multiple dimensions are a piece of cake in the other branches of Math. Geometry is the tough one, but even then the toughness lies in the inability to visualize it (and only then because Geomertry, being mostly concerned with figures and shapes and their relationships, causes the student to want to visualize it.)

Regardless, postulates in any mathematical field are always elementary. Obviously, some of them may not seem so elementary to you.

So, please state for us one of these multitudes of Mathematical "Theories." Try to make sure you are not citing a Mathematical Theorem.

originally posted by: PaperjacketWhen you claim that Mathematics is not designed to define reality, again I have to say you have no idea about what is MATHEMATICS. Mathematics is everything about reality. You apparently have no idea how Mathematics improves your life.

You apparently know very little about Mathematics. It's all a game of logical conclusions based on postulates that are defined as true. There is no other Mathematics, unless you are limiting yourself to counting and arithmetic - both of which are also based on postulates, i.e. the definition of an operation, the definition of a number, etc. And arithmetic contains extremely unreal areas completely unrelated to any actual reality, though you'd need to go beyond your apparent understanding in order to experience that.

originally posted by: PaperjacketOf course there is no way for you to know anything about so called Mathematical Physics which deals with sophisticated issues in REALITY such as how to control a missile.

I have a Mechanical Engineering degree. I know enough about Physics that they let me teach one section of Physics as well.

Is it possible you are unaware of the disconnect between reality and Mathematics, about which there has been decades of papers written and speculations put forward as to why mathematics should actually apply to reality?

Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronics Engineering at The University of Adelaide in Australia, has written a perspective piece to be published in the Proceedings of the IEEE in which he argues that mathematical Platonism is an inaccurate view of reality. Instead, he argues for the opposing viewpoint, the non-Platonist notion that mathematics is a product of the human imagination that we tailor to describe reality.

This argument is not new. In fact, Abbott estimates (through his own experiences, in an admittedly non-scientific survey) that while 80% of mathematicians lean toward a Platonist view, engineers by and large are non-Platonist. Physicists tend to be "closeted non-Platonists," he says, meaning they often appear Platonist in public. But when pressed in private, he says he can "often extract a non-Platonist confession."

So if mathematicians, engineers, and physicists can all manage to perform their work despite differences in opinion on this philosophical subject, why does the true nature of mathematics in its relation to the physical world really matter?

The reason, Abbott says, is that because when you recognize that math is just a mental construct—just an approximation of reality that has its frailties and limitations and that will break down at some point because perfect mathematical forms do not exist in the physical universe—then you can see how ineffective math is.

And that is Abbott's main point (and most controversial one): that mathematics is not exceptionally good at describing reality, and definitely not the "miracle" that some scientists have marveled at. Einstein, a mathematical non-Platonist, was one scientist who marveled at the power of mathematics. He asked, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"

Read more at: phys.org...

Interestingly though, once we have a logical language which describes the mathematical relationship between objects, then we can do away with the objects and simply consider the exact logical (mathematical) relationships. Hence mathematics has a remarkable power which people did not understand, that further enhanced its mystical aspect.

Mathematics was associated with a more refined type of error. Mathematical knowledge appeared to be certain, exact, and applicable to the real world; moreover it was obtained by mere thinking, without the need of observation. Consequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which everyday empirical knowledge fell short. It was supposed on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to observation. If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. ... This form of philosophy begins with Pythagoras. (Bertrand Russell)

Herein lies the great weakness, and the great strength of mathematics. It is possible to evolve more and more complex relationships between things, which shed light on ideas far beyond the original relationships. Unfortunately, it is also possible that these things do not actually exist, except as evolved complex mathematical relationships.

Source

You can read this for more, if you care to expand your way of thinking.

originally posted by: PaperjacketMy suggestion to you is do not make claims on what you do not know about, it is however dangerous.

I do not make such claims. I have merely pointed out your erroneous thinking on the matter. You can deny it all you want but the evidence is in your posts here.

Harte

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I kind of think the idots that think we are the most intelligent form of life in the universe are what undermine it.

Are you talking about the people that merely think this and don't actually post this? If so, how does a persons personal thought process undermine anything? Can you find one quote along the lines of "I think we are the most intelligent form of life in the universe"? Even if you do, how would that undermine anything? Can you tell what I am thinking right now?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

I kind of think the idots that think we are the most intelligent form of life in the universe are what undermine it.

What does the Illinois Department of Transportation have to do with it?

a reply to: Harte

Well if you were majored in Mathematics, you could understand what I have said. You can claim anything indeed because we know who you are by reading your posts. And the more you talk the more you are exposed. Let me tell you something how we see through you. For example, we do not visualize multi-dimensional space, totally different from what you have claimed that "the toughness lies in the inability to visualize it" and furthermore multi-dimensional space does not mean four dimensional space. Another example is we do not use the word GAME as you have claimed that " It's all a game of logical conclusions based on postulates that are defined as true" because there is the Game Theory and the word game could be very confusing. And of course you know nothing about so called the Mathematical Physics and now you see that we do not have any intersection for proper communication. So please stop now.

The internet is so attractive because it allows people claim anything without being confronted face by face, fantasti

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Harte

Well if you were majored in Mathematics, you could understand what I have said. You can claim anything indeed because we know who you are by reading your posts. And the more you talk the more you are exposed. Let me tell you something how we see through you. For example, we do not visualize multi-dimensional space, totally different from what you have claimed that "the toughness lies in the inability to visualize it" and furthermore multi-dimensional space does not mean four dimensional space. Another example is we do not use the word GAME as you have claimed that " It's all a game of logical conclusions based on postulates that are defined as true" because there is the Game Theory and the word game could be very confusing. And of course you know nothing about so called the Mathematical Physics and now you see that we do not have any intersection for proper communication. So please stop now.

The internet is so attractive because it allows people claim anything without being confronted face by face, fantasti

Who are "we"?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

a reply to: Paperjacket

You can claim anything indeed because we know who you are by reading your posts.

Well, I have no clue who he is but I am damn sure that I wont be arguing about math with him.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket

You can claim anything indeed because we know who you are by reading your posts.

Well, I have no clue who he is but I am damn sure that I wont be arguing about math with him.

If you had a Ph.D in Mathematics or lets say a Ph.D in Mathematics sitting beside you, it would be a different issue.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Harte

Well if you were majored in Mathematics, you could understand what I have said. You can claim anything indeed because we know who you are by reading your posts. And the more you talk the more you are exposed. Let me tell you something how we see through you. For example, we do not visualize multi-dimensional space, totally different from what you have claimed that "the toughness lies in the inability to visualize it" and furthermore multi-dimensional space does not mean four dimensional space. Another example is we do not use the word GAME as you have claimed that " It's all a game of logical conclusions based on postulates that are defined as true" because there is the Game Theory and the word game could be very confusing. And of course you know nothing about so called the Mathematical Physics and now you see that we do not have any intersection for proper communication. So please stop now.

The internet is so attractive because it allows people claim anything without being confronted face by face, fantasti

Who are "we"?

You got a mouse in your pocket?

Well when I say WE, I refer to those who understand Mathematics.

originally posted by: Paperjacket


Well when I say WE, I refer to those who understand Mathematics.

Oh, so you meant to say "they".

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket

You can claim anything indeed because we know who you are by reading your posts.

Well, I have no clue who he is but I am damn sure that I wont be arguing about math with him.

If you had a Ph.D in Mathematics or lets say a Ph.D in Mathematics sitting beside you, it would be a different issue.

He has like 33 million stars. That's got to be equal to at least 2 Ph.Ds!