Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: buddah6
Let me start by saying that I'm not so arrogant as to believe that there is no other life in the universe.

If I had a nickel for every post that started by saying that...

IF you had that nickel; you'd be able to buy a cup of coffee...

When was the last time you bought a cup of coffee? The Great Depression?

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
A skeptics mind is always on the 'NO' side of the argument that is what makes them a skeptic.

In software engineering there are a couple of higher level "pragmas"; One is the pessimistic view...where every thing is initialized to and sort of works off the "negative"...binary/logical false.

The other is the optimistic view; where the opposite exists and it is all positive and logically "true".

Neither works out well in all instances, so the application of logic, experience, common sense must be employed. The same sort of conditions exist in all things, and especially in searching for ET.

The best "pragma" is typically a "neutral" one.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
A skeptics mind is always on the 'NO' side of the argument that is what makes them a skeptic.

In software engineering there are a couple of higher level "pragmas"; One is the pessimistic view...where every thing is initialized to and sort of works off the "negative"...binary/logical false.

The other is the optimistic view; where the opposite exists and it is all positive and logically "true".

Neither works out well in all instances, so the application of logic, experience, common sense must be employed. The same sort of conditions exist in all things, and especially in searching for ET.

The best "pragma" is typically a "neutral" one.

You seem to be much more comfortable with dogmas.

originally posted by: draknoir2
You seem to be much more comfortable with dogmas.

Dogma = Rigors of Science!

originally posted by: Diablos
What has always puzzled me is typically the same skeptics who strike down subjects such as UFO's using the catchphrase "because there is no evidence" go on to believe in modern ideas that don't have much more tangible evidence such as the multiverse, string theory, climate change, etc. They can't come up with any truly physical reason backed by data as to why a multiverse should exist, or why string theory is a true candidate for a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, or why climate change is a fact, and it all essentially boils down to taking the word of a bunch of very smart "mainstream" people. One of these very smart people, Sean Carroll, who possibly dismisses the field of UFOs believes the scientific method should be altered so that it can accommodate ideas such as the multiverse.

Climate change egh? You're one of those people who thinks it's a massive conspiracy then. Diablos. I'll try to not read your posts in the future. Thanks.