It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hoaxers, Believers, Researchers, & Debunkers: A Case Study

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket

The confusion is all yours - the difference between logical analysis and confirmation bias.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket


The right logic is "illusions are intangible does not imply intangible phenomena are illusions"

which, of course, was never my point. you could say that are indistinguishable.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket
Your flowchart leaves lots of things off. What if it's not real and not a hoax? There's no path on your flowchart for that.

That's how I'd describe the Oldfield UFO:

The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.


I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.


You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.


It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.


Your selection of that particular "methodology" is the definition of arbitrary.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Paperjacket

The confusion is all yours - the difference between logical analysis and confirmation bias.


You can definitly claim that, it is your free will.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Paperjacket
Your flowchart leaves lots of things off. What if it's not real and not a hoax? There's no path on your flowchart for that.

That's how I'd describe the Oldfield UFO:

The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages


Well a more precise term rather than HOAX in my chart would be NOT REAL, Hoax is in fact a sub-set of Not Real.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.


I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.


You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.


It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.


Your selection of that particular "methodology" is the definition of arbitrary.


However you need to prove that.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket


Well a more precise term rather than HOAX in my chart would be NOT REAL, Hoax is in fact a sub-set of Not Real.

Hallucinations are a real phenomenon indistinguishable from external reality. It is pretty well documented that people who take a certain substance will see beings and other worldly landscapes in very vivid detail. They consider these experiences real. Many of these accounts are indistinguishable from some UFO encounters. A mild form of this would be a misidentification where a person perceives something but "sees" more than is there and then interprets as "alien". In order to determine if something is "real" or not you have to eliminate misperceptions which is practically impossible in most cases without some external verification.
External verification could be other witnesses, radar, ect.,

You also pointed out that some "intangible" yet real phenomenon could be possible but since that is not really known to exist , it would be indistinguishable from something not real.

Your category of what is "NOT REAL" seems to be another arbitrary assertion. Hallucinations, misperceptions and all other related phenomenon belong in the unknown section replacing "Extraterrestrials" as your default. Anything that is not identified may very well be psychological until the object is identified. So its not alien until is identified to be so. Until then, misperceptions are the logical default.

hoaxes are their own category which has nothing to do with misperceptions or your definition of reality.

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,[1] or rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes

edit on 31-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.


I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.


You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.


It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.


Your selection of that particular "methodology" is the definition of arbitrary.


However you need to prove that.


For definitions of words I usually refer to a dictionary.

Arbitrary

1 :depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2 a :not restrained or limited in the exercise of power :ruling by absolute authority
b :marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

3 a :based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
Heck -- a misidentification and an unintentional exaggeration of events as they remember them could make a sighting of a terrestrial aircraft sighting seem "unexplainable" in the mind of the only eyewitness.

That eyewitness may THINK he saw it as he remembers it, but memory is not an infallible and absolute thing. memory is NOT a perfect recording device.

The flow chart does not cover that. In the OP's flowchart, this eyewitness misidentifaction and mistaken memory of the sighting of a terrestrial aircraft would be called "extra terrestrial".



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Absolutely. Recall is a whole other thing to deal with. Obviously anything perceived has to be recalled.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket


Well a more precise term rather than HOAX in my chart would be NOT REAL, Hoax is in fact a sub-set of Not Real.

Hallucinations are a real phenomenon indistinguishable from external reality. It is pretty well documented that people who take a certain substance will see beings and other worldly landscapes in very vivid detail. They consider these experiences real. Many of these accounts are indistinguishable from some UFO encounters. A mild form of this would be a misidentification where a person perceives something but "sees" more than is there and then interprets as "alien". In order to determine if something is "real" or not you have to eliminate misperceptions which is practically impossible in most cases without some external verification.
External verification could be other witnesses, radar, ect.,

You also pointed out that some "intangible" yet real phenomenon could be possible but since that is not really known to exist , it would be indistinguishable from something not real.

Your category of what is "NOT REAL" seems to be another arbitrary assertion. Hallucinations, misperceptions and all other related phenomenon belong in the unknown section replacing "Extraterrestrials" as your default. Anything that is not identified may very well be psychological until the object is identified. So its not alien until is identified to be so. Until then, misperceptions are the logical default.

hoaxes are their own category which has nothing to do with misperceptions or your definition of reality.

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,[1] or rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes


There is no need to go into any word games because it doe no good to discussion. Real things can not be unreal and unreal things can not be real, it is quite simple. Someone's experience in psycological field can be real, and one's illusion can never be real. That's it.

Your logic is just wrong when you claim that " In order to determine if something is "real" or not you have to eliminate misperceptions which is practically impossible in most cases without some external verification". Real things can not be proved by eliminating misperceptions and misperceptions can not be ruled out by external verifications either. Why? Because opposite to REAL is UNREAL while not misperception. misperception is the false perception of our brain to the outer world REAL or UNREAL. You may perceive something real as unreal or something unreal as real, in other word, your perception has nothing to do with REAL or UNREAL. UNREAL things should be proved by evidences while not through group perceptions since a group of people may come to the same misperception.

Hoaxes of course have nothing to do with misperceptions. As what I have explained, they belong to UNREAL/NOT REAL in which field misperception has no position at all.

I know the discussion now is becoming brain burning and I strongly suggest you to check your logic at first.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.


I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.


You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.


It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.


Your selection of that particular "methodology" is the definition of arbitrary.


However you need to prove that.


For definitions of words I usually refer to a dictionary.

Arbitrary

1 :depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2 a :not restrained or limited in the exercise of power :ruling by absolute authority
b :marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

3 a :based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something


Definition does no help, please prove it. It is OK even if you can't prove it since I have already said it is your free wll to claim anything.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket
you're in over your head and confused.


Real things can not be proved by eliminating misperceptions and misperceptions can not be ruled out by external verifications either.



re·al
adj.
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.



Because opposite to REAL is UNREAL while not misperception.

you cant be for real.


edit on 1-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket
you're in over your head and confused.


Real things can not be proved by eliminating misperceptions and misperceptions can not be ruled out by external verifications either.



re·al
adj.
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.



Because opposite to REAL is UNREAL while not misperception.

you cant be for real.



Sorry seems to me you are lost.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket
you're in over your head and confused.


Real things can not be proved by eliminating misperceptions and misperceptions can not be ruled out by external verifications either.



re·al
adj.
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.



Because opposite to REAL is UNREAL while not misperception.

you cant be for real.



Sorry seems to me you are lost.

No, I mean by definition, you cant be for real since nothing you are asserting can be verified.


re·al
adj.
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.


fer real



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.


I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.


You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.


It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.


Your selection of that particular "methodology" is the definition of arbitrary.


However you need to prove that.


For definitions of words I usually refer to a dictionary.

Arbitrary

1 :depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
2 a :not restrained or limited in the exercise of power :ruling by absolute authority
b :marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

3 a :based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something


Definition does no help, please prove it. It is OK even if you can't prove it since I have already said it is your free wll to claim anything.


The definition of a word is proof of its definition.



Here's a time saver for you: from now on just type "nuh-uh!".



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Can you point out any logical flaws in this:




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

Can you point out any logical flaws in this:





Looks familiar...



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Well let me explain for you. You said:


originally posted by: ZetaRediculianIn order to determine if something is "real" or not you have to eliminate misperceptions which is practically impossible in most cases without some external verification.
External verification could be other witnesses, radar, ect.,


And I try to correct you by state" UNREAL things should be proved by evidences while not through group perceptions since a group of people may come to the same misperception. “ Simply “other witness" are not sufficient to rule out misperception.

Also you can't prove something REAL by eliminating misperception because misperception is the false perception to the outer world real or unreal. The only way to prove something is to use the methodology I have mentioned such as direct proof, mathematical induction, etc.



new topics




 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join