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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers




My experiences are a fact. Nothing can change that. My experiences are true, they really happened. My experiences are information presented as having objective reality.

Therefore, my experiences are a fact, by definition.



Not when you throw perception into the the mix.

Your perception of your experience is a fact only to you and those that believe you at your word.

That does not make a fact in your perception equal a fact in reality.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers

A true skeptic is doubtful of BOTH the government's story and the ufologist's story. But a true skeptic can also favor one opinion over the other (the one with the most objective evidence in its favor). Ufologist has ZERO objective evidence in its favor. Therefore we either believe the government's story or say "I don't know what that is." UFO used to be such a great acronym for those objects, then it got hijacked by the aliens crowd and has become synonymous with aliens.

You don't know what a skeptic is.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence


Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.


Objective evidence is what ufo believers are missing and until you can produce it, you are being intellectually dishonest about aliens visiting this planet.
edit on 2-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers




This is twice now I have asked you to stop putting words in my mouth, please stop misrepresenting my statements, I'm starting to think it is intentional.


Do you see the question mark at the end of their question? do you remember what you have posted earlier on?

They asked, they didn't put anything in your mouth. Oh and you were also quoted.

Occam said it perfectly about posting if logical fallacies were outlawed.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

Not when you throw perception into the the mix.

Or that he may not be being truthful.



Your perception of your experience is a fact only to you and those that believe you at your word.

That does not make a fact in your perception equal a fact in reality.

Nobody is obligated to believe him or his anonymous internet postings. If we go by his definition of fact, than we have to accept every delusion and drug induced hallucination as facts also. There is no distinction between any subjective experience and reality in this case.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
ahh, ,much better , normality has resumed


funbox



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I understand completely the definition-flip the OP intended, I mean, I totally get it.

I will say that to look at something or someone with a "skeptical eye" does not mean that one wishes to pick them apart and maliciously trash them. I think it means a desire to not be naive and accept as Gospel Truth whatever is presented, be it a photograph, video, or story. Some people do tend to want what I consider to be an inapplicable form of "proof."

(For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts? How would we take the event of my marriage into the lab??? Now if my husband wants to know if our kids are really our kids - which they 100% are and it is obvious - but say he had amnesia or something...then he could have a Lab test our DNA to find the inevitable match, were he to be that outrageously skeptical of our relationship. See? Different things can be proven in different ways - not always by a Lab!)

And others seem open-minded and will consider all evidence pretty justly, and even-so reasonable minds may come out with their own, opposite, conclusions. In other words, believing or not believing something to be "real" evidence does not make someone automatically a fool, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.

I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

peace,
AB



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand completely the definition-flip the OP intended, I mean, I totally get it.

I will say that to look at something or someone with a "skeptical eye" does not mean that one wishes to pick them apart and maliciously trash them. I think it means a desire to not be naive and accept as Gospel Truth whatever is presented, be it a photograph, video, or story. Some people do tend to want what I consider to be an inapplicable form of "proof."


Most skeptics do that.


(For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts? How would we take the event of my marriage into the lab??? Now if my husband wants to know if our kids are really our kids - which they 100% are and it is obvious - but say he had amnesia or something...then he could have a Lab test our DNA to find the inevitable match, were he to be that outrageously skeptical of our relationship. See? Different things can be proven in different ways - not always by a Lab!)


Well a marriage license signed by you and your spouse WOULD be testable evidence of your marriage. Testable evidence doesn't mean that it is discovered or seen in a lab. All testable evidence is, is objective evidence. Objective evidence is ALWAYS the go to evidence for scientific inquiry. All alien/ufo evidence is subjective evidence. That is why there is no consensus that we've been visited.


And others seem open-minded and will consider all evidence pretty justly, and even-so reasonable minds may come out with their own, opposite, conclusions. In other words, believing or not believing something to be "real" evidence does not make someone automatically a fool, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.


Again, there are two types of evidence, subjective and objective evidence. The key is to know which type of evidence you are dealing with when looking at someone's presented evidence.


I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

peace,
AB


I bolded a key word in that last sentence. Unexplained DOES NOT mean that you can substitute your own answers for it. It means there ISN'T an answer for it. So if you have an unexplained event then immediately start saying that it was alien visitation or ghosts or bigfoot or esp or anything like that, YOU are substituting an answer for an unexplained event that you don't have the evidence to properly explain.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers




This is a terrific post, LaughingGod, I thank you for your input. I think willful ignorance is an apt description for the mindset of those who reject the past 70 years of alien contact.


Past 70 years or 7000 if not more years?


Are you talking about witnessing Flying saucers as per Kenneth Arnolds descriptions or Alien visitation that is said to be happening for way more than 70 years?


For the sake of this particular discussion I referred only to the modern era of UFO sightings, although I hate to use the term"UFO", which is another heavily biased euphemism. Alien contact has most likely gone on for far longer, but my immediate experiences go back only to the late 1950s, so I'm unable to discuss earlier alien contact with certainty. I prefer to discuss only what I know to be factual.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers




As long as you embrace the official governmental, academic, and mainstream media viewpoint, you have no justification for calling yourself a skeptic.

Conformist? Yes.

Skeptic? No.



You need to add the words before skeptic because some are skeptics towards claims made by Jo blow just as others are skeptics to claims made by Governing officials.

Everybody is a skeptic in one way or another.




Ponder it yourself.


You should ponder on more things than what you say others should instead of ranting here about your beliefs.


I prefer to stick to the facts.
edit on 2-2-2015 by debonkers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers




My experiences are a fact. Nothing can change that. My experiences are true, they really happened. My experiences are information presented as having objective reality.

Therefore, my experiences are a fact, by definition.



Not when you throw perception into the the mix.

Your perception of your experience is a fact only to you and those that believe you at your word.

That does not make a fact in your perception equal a fact in reality.


Sorry, my experiences fall well within the definition of fact.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

A true skeptic is doubtful of BOTH the government's story and the ufologist's story. But a true skeptic can also favor one opinion over the other (the one with the most objective evidence in its favor). Ufologist has ZERO objective evidence in its favor. Therefore we either believe the government's story or say "I don't know what that is." UFO used to be such a great acronym for those objects, then it got hijacked by the aliens crowd and has become synonymous with aliens.

You don't know what a skeptic is.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence


Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.


Objective evidence is what ufo believers are missing and until you can produce it, you are being intellectually dishonest about aliens visiting this planet.


Quite the opposite, actually. I would be intellectually dishonest if I did not say aliens are visiting this planet.

You are free to disagree, and you are free to set any evidenciary standard you like. Neither of which have any bearing on my experiences being factual.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers




This is twice now I have asked you to stop putting words in my mouth, please stop misrepresenting my statements, I'm starting to think it is intentional.


Do you see the question mark at the end of their question? do you remember what you have posted earlier on?

They asked, they didn't put anything in your mouth. Oh and you were also quoted.

Occam said it perfectly about posting if logical fallacies were outlawed.


"They" asked? Who are "they", and what exactly did they ask? Now you're putting words in somebody else's mouth.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand completely the definition-flip the OP intended, I mean, I totally get it.

I will say that to look at something or someone with a "skeptical eye" does not mean that one wishes to pick them apart and maliciously trash them. I think it means a desire to not be naive and accept as Gospel Truth whatever is presented, be it a photograph, video, or story. Some people do tend to want what I consider to be an inapplicable form of "proof."

(For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts? How would we take the event of my marriage into the lab??? Now if my husband wants to know if our kids are really our kids - which they 100% are and it is obvious - but say he had amnesia or something...then he could have a Lab test our DNA to find the inevitable match, were he to be that outrageously skeptical of our relationship. See? Different things can be proven in different ways - not always by a Lab!)

And others seem open-minded and will consider all evidence pretty justly, and even-so reasonable minds may come out with their own, opposite, conclusions. In other words, believing or not believing something to be "real" evidence does not make someone automatically a fool, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.

I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

peace,
AB


Well said, thank you for your intelligent post.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: debonkers

Except personal experience is subjective evidence. That isn't testable, therefore I have to take your word that you are telling the truth. Unfortunately for you, as a skeptic, I know that liars abound. Since I cannot know for certain if you are telling the truth, then I cannot accept your evidence. Of course, since your brain lies to you, you may not even know what you experienced.

Heck even if you ARE telling the truth 100%, you still cannot be intellectually honest by saying that you know for certain that they are aliens. All you know is that you had an experience that you cannot explain. So explain to me why "aliens" is an adequate explanation? Sounds like a god of the gaps argument to me.

One more thing, skeptics generally follow Occam's Razor, the idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. But hey, it's easy to pretend you aren't making assumptions when you are blinded by confirmation bias.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts?


Marriage is really a legal issue. You could provide all the evidence you want but it really depends on the local laws if the marriage is recognized. I had to prove that I wasn't married before I could get married again.

But I think I understand what you are trying to say. There are some things that don't need evidence because they are accepted as true by default.


I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

Yes, absolutely. But really, everyone has their own experiences of the world. Some people may have had similar experiences as your own but interpret them differently. The issue is when one side wants to dictate their version over the other. One person may believe they were abducted but in a similar experience, the other person attributes their abduction experience to sleep paralysis. The experiences may be identical on paper but who is to say what the other experienced?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

False. Panther skeletons, video of panthers, there is a lot of evidence proving panthers have teeth aside from being bit. You people wouldn't be able to post if logical fallacies were outlawed.


LOL you didn't even understand the symbolism.

the phrase "until the ostrich feels the bite of the panther, there is no danger" or the way I said it, is symbolic of your mindset and a few others here.

I guess you fall well below the grade to comprehend any of these things. But many of us have been observing this and laughing. To us who have understanding and comprehension, your displays are just those of the blind.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

In my previous post, I spoke about how two minds, justly looking at the same data, could come to totally different conclusions as to what that data meant. When we are not in the narrowly defined milieu of the scientific lab with a certain set of parameters that we are experimenting on in order to prove/disprove a hypothesis, then it does get messier and interpretation of data can become broader.

(btw - Thank you for taking my intended meaning regarding the marriage metaphor...
)

As you mention, one man's sleep paralysis is another man's abduction - but who is to say that, psychologically speaking, if the event SEEMED real, the brain does not define it AS BEING REAL. In other words, whether or not someone was PHYSICALLY abducted or had a psychological/physiological experience of being abducted, BOTH could be considered real to that person and have the same effects. Given the odd non-physical and "portal" / "vortex" concepts surrounding hot-spots like Skinwalker Ranch and other places, it becomes even harder to define the nature of this phenomenon.

The UFO phenomenon and abduction phenomenon could be BOTH a physical "real" (i.e. in the four dimensions of space time) thing, and in the realm of consciousness and paranormal weirdness and individual perception. Connecting the dots from Skinwalker Ranch, to the Ranch in Colorado (Merging Dimensions - a book on that area), to the experience of Dorothy Izzat, to other areas of multiple phenomenon, which are both physical and weirdly "energetic and non physical" like intelligent balls of light, etc, well, it gets freaky and messy to be sure.

I'm not saying these things like I've got answers or have drawn conclusions. I'm just keeping an open enough mind to hold the possibility that this is a very complex and strange phenomenon that may exist on multiple levels of being - physical and "consciousness" or non-physical, and perhaps "otherworldly" in multiple ways of expressing that.

peace,
AB
edit on 2-2-2015 by AboveBoard because: added stuff...a bit...



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I am not taking sides, and I appreciate skeptical approaches to research in order to weed out the grain from the chaff, so to speak. I do not take every story at face value, and while I have an open mind to subjective and objective evidence, I don't simply leap from "story" to "TRUTH." Does that make sense? I have a level of skepticism in my own approach, in an effort to tease out and discern the truth, as best as I am able. I am all for objective evidence!




Again, there are two types of evidence, subjective and objective evidence. The key is to know which type of evidence you are dealing with when looking at someone's presented evidence.


Please, then, let's define the sought-after evidence as "objective" evidence and not "testable" because those are two different things. Testable is done with scientific method in a lab or other appropriate setting for an experiment - the word "test" implies "experiment." If you want to talk "objective" v "subjective" then I agree that is a great place to start, and to determine where objective and subjective intersect in a report of UFO activity or, really anything (a crime scene, etc.). Testable evidence is simply a category of objective evidence.



bolded a key word in that last sentence. Unexplained DOES NOT mean that you can substitute your own answers for it. It means there ISN'T an answer for it. So if you have an unexplained event then immediately start saying that it was alien visitation or ghosts or bigfoot or esp or anything like that, YOU are substituting an answer for an unexplained event that you don't have the evidence to properly explain.


As to your "bolding" of the word "unexplained" let it be known that I personally have not had an experience that would lead me to conclude I know WHAT I saw, nor do I leap to "aliens," nor do I leap to "black budget project" or whatever. Unexplained is unexplained, so I'm not sure why you are choosing to chastise me on that point.

I saw an Unidentified Flying Object that did something impossible by the standards of knowledge that I am aware that we possess. I don't expect my experience to in anyway be taken as proof of anything to anyone else, but it does inform my own interpretation of what is possible when I look at both subjective and objective evidence.

As to my sighting, I don't know what it was, only that the best "fit" for it was somewhere in the category of UFO or UAP. Saying UFO doesn't mean I have identified is as an alien craft, even were it to be one, without further evidence I can't draw that conclusion from my own experience.

I feel like you are talking to me as if I were simply a "wide eyed believer" and not as someone who is attempting to rationally and logically look at presented evidence, whether it be subjective or objective. I may come to different conclusions for myself after looking at the same pieces of information as others do, and other people may think that I am flat out wrong.

I'm not here to please other people. I'm am here to use both the evidence presented and my own background, research and experience to come to my own conclusions. If someone else happens to find my arguments compelling, then that's great! If not, they may have something to teach me, or they may just be seeing things differently.

peace,
AB




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



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I am not taking sides, and I appreciate skeptical approaches to research in order to weed out the grain from the chaff, so to speak. I do not take every story at face value, and while I have an open mind to subjective and objective evidence, I don't simply leap from "story" to "TRUTH." Does that make sense? I have a level of skepticism in my own approach, in an effort to tease out and discern the truth, as best as I am able. I am all for objective evidence!


Fair enough.


Please, then, let's define the sought-after evidence as "objective" evidence and not "testable" because those are two different things. Testable is done with scientific method in a lab or other appropriate setting for an experiment - the word "test" implies "experiment." If you want to talk "objective" v "subjective" then I agree that is a great place to start, and to determine where objective and subjective intersect in a report of UFO activity or, really anything (a crime scene, etc.).


Testable and objective evidence are the same thing. All objective evidence is testable evidence and vice-versa. Testable doesn't mean it needs an official experiment conducting in a lab. Testable evidence can be simply a recording of something. As long as the recording is doctored, it is testable.


As to your "bolding" of the word "unexplained" let it be known that I personally have not had an experience that would lead me to conclude I know WHAT I saw, nor do I leap to "aliens," nor do I leap to "black budget project" or whatever. Unexplained is unexplained, so I'm not sure why you are choosing to chastise me on that point.

I saw an Unidentified Flying Object that did something impossible by the standards of knowledge that I am aware that we possess. I don't expect my experience to in anyway be taken as proof of anything to anyone else, but it does inform my own interpretation of what is possible when I look at both subjective and objective evidence.


Good. Too many people forget what the U in UFO means and just stamp the "alien" label on top.


As to my sighting, I don't know what it was, only that the best "fit" for it was somewhere in the category of UFO or UAP. Saying UFO doesn't mean I have identified is as an alien craft, even were it to be one, without further evidence I can't draw that conclusion from my own experience.

I feel like you are talking to me as if I were simply a "wide eyed believer" and not as someone who is attempting to rationally and logically look at presented evidence, whether it be subjective or objective. I may come to different conclusions for myself after looking at the same pieces of information as others do, and other people may think that I am flat out wrong.

I'm not here to please other people. I'm am here to use both the evidence presented and my own background, research and experience to come to my own conclusions. If someone else happens to find my arguments compelling, then that's great! If not, they may have something to teach me, or they may just be seeing things differently.

peace,
AB


Sorry if I came off a bit rash. I deal with a lot of confirmation bias on these forums.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers




My experiences are a fact. Nothing can change that. My experiences are true, they really happened. My experiences are information presented as having objective reality.

Therefore, my experiences are a fact, by definition.



Not when you throw perception into the the mix.

Your perception of your experience is a fact only to you and those that believe you at your word.

That does not make a fact in your perception equal a fact in reality.


There is no such thing as a fact based on experience or belief. Fact is based on testable evidence only. At best, he simply believes it's a fact.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join