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.

 

Debunking the notion that those who believe official government denials are "skeptics"

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: KnightLight

And why do you think it's impossible to not come to a conclusion??

Because it is. Even if that conclusion is there is not enough evidence to say for sure, you have come to a conclusion.


I'm actually a skeptic when it comes to aliens.. An actual skeptic.. I don't believe anyone who says they know they are not here or know they are here.. I havn't come to a conclusion..

Not according to your definition you are not. All we need is one "official story" that you investigate and come to the conclusion that particular case was not alien in nature and BAM you are not a believer! See how stupid that is?

According to the way the word is actually used you probably are. Which would be you investigate each case and regardless of how the investigation pans out you view the next case with an open mind to any possibility.
edit on 1-2-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Great post, NoCorruptionAllowed, well said and much appreciated.

Not only do I take issue with their use of the word "skeptic", I refuse to describe them as "debunkers". It, too, is a heavily biased euphemism intended to bolster their credibility and diminish the validity of those who find that the evidence points to alien contact.

You can't "debunk" what isn't "bunk". So let's stop fighting uphill and letting them control the discussion with pejorative labels.

They aren't skeptics, and they aren't debunkers, either.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Not according to your definition you are not. All we need is one "official story" that you investigate and come to the conclusion that particular case was not alien in nature and BAM you are not a believer! See how stupid that is?


What makes you think that?

A believer is someone with a belief. If I investigate one story and find out it's not aliens, you are then assuming I form a belief about the entire world from one case.. I would form a belief about that case, and would no longer be a skeptic about that case.

You are the one who thinks it's possible to have enough knowledge about the entire world, to know one way or the other if aliens have come here or not.

I don't hold that belief..

I doubt you can know these things.

Call me skeptical of your conclusions..


Conclusion


a final decision or judgment : an opinion or decision that is formed after a period of thought or research


I am always wondering I have no final decision or judgement.. I havn't formed an opinion on what I believe..
You underestimate my skepticism sir.



People shouldn't say things like I'm a skeptic, without qualifying that statement in exact parameters.
edit on 1-2-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers

The reason why the organisation "Skeptics" call themselves "Skeptics" is out of humbleness.
In the world of science, if someone who has done research makes a claim, the proper attitude towards this is to assume that the claim is accurate, investigate the details and question the details (or be skepticall) if there is reason to do so.

So, the Skeptics forum is about momentarily dropping preconcieved thoughts about science, listening to random claims about something paranormal and then become skeptical as there are missing pieces.

Please read about the organisation if you still wonder why the name is incorrect.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   


SKEPTIC


noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.


A Skeptic has NO answers.


In order for you to understand the reason for the name, please read:
Why they call themselves Skeptics

You should realize that the whole reason to be skeptical is because the theory at hand lacks answers.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nevertheless


You should realize that the whole reason to be skeptical is because the theory at hand lacks answers.


I am only talking about the word itself. If they are using the word correctly that's good. If they use it incorrectly that's bad.
I find it odd you are talking about that with me, as I have not said anything about those people.

It seems they know as I do the words meaning and they are saying the same thing as the OP

From your link


Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position.



That is what this thread is about. Skepticism is not one side over the other. And no sacred cows.. As in you better not have conclusions and beliefs getting in the way of skepticism..

They are in agreement with me.



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



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: KnightLight

What makes you think that?

A believer is someone with a belief. If I investigate one story and find out it's not aliens, you are then assuming I form a belief about the entire world from one case.. I would form a belief about that case, and would no longer be a skeptic about that case.

Except that is what most of the "skeptics" he is bashing do. They have looked at the evidence and determined in this specific instance there is no indication of alien interaction.


You are the one who thinks it's possible to have enough knowledge about the entire world, to know one way or the other if aliens have come here or not.

False. Another problem with UFO believers. It's not up to me to say I know everything so it is not true, it's up to THEM to show it DID happen, and that there is no plausible/possible explanation other than "aliens".


I don't hold that belief..

I doubt you can know these things.

Call me skeptical of your conclusions..


Conclusion


a final decision or judgment : an opinion or decision that is formed after a period of thought or research


I am always wondering I have no final decision or judgement.. I havn't formed an opinion on what I believe..
You underestimate my skepticism sir.

It's impossible to have formed no conclusions. Having formed a conclusion does not preclude you from altering that conclusion with new evidence.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

It would be helpfull if someone could suggest how this might be achieved.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

False. Another problem with UFO believers. It's not up to me to say I know everything so it is not true, it's up to THEM to show it DID happen, and that there is no plausible/possible explanation other than "aliens".


I'm not a ufo believer..


I'm not arguing burden of proof. You are getting goofy on me. I am defining words. You cannot prove a negative, and if you think you know aliens have not come here for sure you are proving a negative... you are not being a skeptic. You are being a rationalist.




It's impossible to have formed no conclusions. Having formed a conclusion does not preclude you from altering that conclusion with new evidence.


Actually you don't have to form conclusions. It's a choice. You can always just go I wonder?






Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism.


Do you get it now?? This from the skeptics website again..

I just want people to use words correctly. Extrapolate from that quote, that pure skepticism is NOT KNOWING anything. And then what you are not skeptic about is something you DO KNOW.. IE people arguing from knowledge are not being skeptical..
edit on 1-2-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: debonkers

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

It would be helpfull if someone could suggest how this might be achieved.

The only way it can be done is by finding a case that can be proven actually occurred and where aliens is the only explanation. There is no such case.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: KnightLight
I'm not a ufo believer..


I'm not arguing burden of proof. You are getting goofy on me. I am defining words. You cannot prove a negative, and if you think you know aliens have not come here for sure you are proving a negative... you are not being a skeptic. You are being a rationalist.

My position, the skeptic position the OP hates, is not that I know they have not, it's that there is no evidence of it. If there is no evidence, it didn't happen, whether it happened or not.




Actually you don't have to form conclusions. It's a choice. You can always just go I wonder?


Then the conclusion you have formed is that with the current information it's impossible to determine. Either way you have made a conclusion. Conclusions are able to be altered.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
My position is not that I know they have not [aliens come to earth]
If there is no evidence, it didn't happen, whether it happened or not.


Yea right got it.. Tangled webs..





Then the conclusion you have formed is that with the current information it's impossible to determine. Either way you have made a conclusion. Conclusions are able to be altered.

Nope I havn't made that conclusion either.. You are putting your own traits of thinking on me. I don't think like you. I havn't decided it's impossible to know. I havn't decided I know. It's just there like a movie that's playing.. I don't have to guess the end, or the middle, or the part I already watched.. I can just watch it.
edit on 1-2-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nevertheless
a reply to: debonkers

The reason why the organisation "Skeptics" call themselves "Skeptics" is out of humbleness.
In the world of science, if someone who has done research makes a claim, the proper attitude towards this is to assume that the claim is accurate, investigate the details and question the details (or be skepticall) if there is reason to do so.

So, the Skeptics forum is about momentarily dropping preconcieved thoughts about science, listening to random claims about something paranormal and then become skeptical as there are missing pieces.

Please read about the organisation if you still wonder why the name is incorrect.


Apparently you've never been there.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: KnightLight

Yea right got it.. Tangled webs..

Tangled webs is what "believers" weave. I keep it simple. Show me the evidence. You have none? Great get back to me when you do. Simple.




Nope I havn't made that conclusion either.. You are putting your own traits of thinking on me. I don't think like you. I havn't decided it's impossible to know. I havn't decided I know. It's just there like a movie that's playing.. I don't have to guess the end, or the middle, or the part I already watched.. I can just watch it.

Of course. But you can not watch it and not form an opinion on it. When the movie is over you will form conclusions about the movie whether you want to or not, it's impossible not to. Once you "wonder" about something a conclusion will be made, it is only if you do NOT wonder that you can not form a conclusion.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: debonkers

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

It would be helpfull if someone could suggest how this might be achieved.

The only way it can be done is by finding a case that can be proven actually occurred and where aliens is the only explanation. There is no such case.


Proven to who? You? Proven to a jury of one's peers? Proven to Neil Degrasse Tyson?

Because it's certainly been proven to millions of people who experienced alien contact first hand.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: debonkers

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

It would be helpfull if someone could suggest how this might be achieved.

The only way it can be done is by finding a case that can be proven actually occurred and where aliens is the only explanation. There is no such case.


Proven to who? You? Proven to a jury of one's peers? Proven to Neil Degrasse Tyson?

Because it's certainly been proven to millions of people who experienced alien contact first hand.

I can prove to you iron exists. Can you prove to me aliens have visited Earth? No? Thought not. Thanks. When you get evidence let me know.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers

.....what?



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Tangled webs is what "believers" weave. I keep it simple. Show me the evidence. You have none? Great get back to me when you do. Simple.


Sure some of them do, but you saying...



is not that I know they have not,[aliens come to earth] it's that there is no evidence of it. If there is no evidence, it didn't happen, whether it happened or not.


is quite a tangled web of double speak.




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: KnightLight

No, it's not. If aliens came to Earth 2 million years ago and there is zero evidence for it then there is zero evidence, ergo, it did not happen.

I work in healthcare, if I work with a patient and I do not chart what I did then I did not do it, end of story, insurance is not reimbursing for my work. Evidence or it did not happen.

Be a skeptic, think about what I said, and you will agree unless the concept is beyond you, which you seem intelligent enough it should not be.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Apologies , I don't thing I explained things to well.

I was suggesting that someone might like to offer suggestions on how to challenge the concept that the word 'skeptic' infers that they have the high moral ground.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join