It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A problem with UFOlogy

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:38 PM
The classic M.O. of UFOlogical arguments is this:

We have evidence that this alien/UFO encounter was real.
If the evidence has been discredited or removed, it was due to government interception. And we are powerless against an all-powerful government because it has the power to intercept evidence, not to mention influencing the mass's beliefs.

Try explaining why there hasn't been any concrete evidence for XYZ case to a non-believer and he/she will just discredit it as circular reasoning. I can't provide evidence because a figure more powerful than me is tampering with the evidence.

You also can't expect most non-believers to accept that the government is intercepting evidence simply because of Occam's Razor. People believe things that are more likely/simpler to occur and/or things that they want to believe.

So to sum up WHY I think we can't convince non-believers:

1. Our explanations appear as unappealing circular reasoning.
2. Our explanations are more fantastical than simpler reasons (even if they are less logical). Human nature abides by Occam's Razor.
3. People don't want to believe.


To convince the public that the more fantastical is true (Occam's Razor doesn't always point the way to truth), we'll have to use a different strategy. Keep doing what you're doing and you're only gonna keep getting what you're getting. We need evidence, but more powerful figures are cockblocking us. We need ways to undermine the powers of these figuresl; otherwise, it will only be a losing battle. IMPOSSIBLE to convince the public. UNLESS:

1. The government makes a mistake.
2. The government changes its mind.
3. The government loses power.

The more power and organized somebody has, the less likely they'll make a mistake. So #1 is basically nearly impossible. #2 may be achievable through clever social engineering, but that is absurdly difficult since the government ALREADY is implementing social engineering, not to mentino they are DAMN good at it. So rule out #2 since there's no way we can keep up with them. So we are left with #3. Again, another difficult task, but it's probably the least difficult. In my opinion, we are powerless. I'm just gonna wait and hope something happens where #2 actually finally occurs.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by thiopental sodium]

[edit on 15-2-2006 by thiopental sodium]

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 04:53 AM
Occam's Razor is a wonderful tool when applied correctly!

The common misconception is that the simplest explanation is the true explanation. Which is simply false!

Occam's razor only suggests that unnecessary causes be excluded from consideration as preferred hypothesis.

As per Government interception. There have been many mistakes , and the phenomena is Global! It is obvious that UFO sightings can not be contained.

Reporting a UFO back in the days would have been much more damaging personally than it is today. Forget Orson Wells just listen to this contemporary Radio report about Roswell!

Try explaining why there hasn't been any concrete evidence for XYZ case to a non-believer and he/she will just discredit it as circular reasoning. I can't provide evidence because a figure more powerful than me is tampering with the evidence.

Only works when you assume evidence was present to begin with!

The circular reasoning comes from the non-believer , because they assume no evidence exists to be found so the fact that you have not found it is proof of its non existance!

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 05:37 AM
Exactly, I think there is an underlying assumption here that every UFO case ever reported falls short of some minimum evidential threshold that would stop it being confirmed as a "real" event. In particular, mainstream media coverage of things like the Roswell incident tend to focus more on the government cover-up than the actual substance of the event, which may work in the government's favour actually by blurring the lines more than they already are.

There are some cases, in particular Tehran 1976 and Rendlesham where the evidence is just too concrete to ignore.

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:32 AM
Even the Project Blue Book report and Ruppelt's 1953 Report on Unidentified Flying Objects still have somewhere between a 15-20 percent "Unknown" rate. The "bar" for it remaining unknown was that there was sufficient evidence to rule out known explanations (weather balloons, Venus, F-86s on a joy ride...)

I think there's a problem with both sides of the UFO argument. On the one hand the Believers tend to defend *everything* (If I state the 1948 Aztec, NM UFO crash was an obvious and proven hoax, I'll get people coming out of the wordwork claiming Gov't conspiracy and defending it to the hilt) but at the same time the Skeptics tend to dismiss *everything* based on a small sampling. (If Mantell was chasing Venus when he crashed, then every pilot who's chased a UFO is chasing Venus.)

That's one of the things I like about ATS, the central "deny ignorance" theme applies to both. Don't embrace the ignorance of obvious hoaxes (*cough* Serpo *cough*) but don't embrace the ignorance of denying something just because you can't understand/explain it... They can't *all* be weather balloons.

I guess the main problem is it takes someone with no bias and no preconceived world view to research UFOs effectively, and lets face it, just about everyone has a personal view on it... especially in a group of people who come together to specifically discuss UFOs.

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:53 AM
As a skeptic who has personally seen 2 UFO's of real question...

I have to say the biggest problems are:

1) No physical Evidence. As an ex-material scientist, I'd love to get my hands on something tangible.

2) Large numbers of UFOlogist talking about bat# crazy stuff like global plots and space councils and other complex things will beyond ANY evidence.

I see the stuff on aliens much like i look at religion. It is a strong belief, it has sane normal people and real crazy zealots. It has some kind of basis in experience, but no evidence. So I just check in from time to time because I'm curious, but mostly spend my time working on things a lot more likely to be real.

A lot of UFOlogy is a modern cult. There are "holy" books (Icke) and clergy (older UFOlogist) and lots of different followers. I don't discount it. But having seen strange craft myself, I still have no reason to buy the "standard religious" interpretation of it.

top topics

log in