The Argument from Logic

The topic of extra-terrestrial visitation and the UFO phenomena, is laden with illogical argument, both pro and con. Both sides, sniff out each other's lack of logical thought and harp on it endlessly. Meanwhile, few (if any) ever change their initial stances, even after being shown the lack of logic in their approach to the topic. I submit to you, the reader, that such behavior is: Totally illogical! Furthermore, it has created alternative thoughts on the alternative thoughts and official thoughts. The net result has been chaos!

We now have variant arguments vying for prominence in the same individual's mind. People, while discussing these topics, have begun to sound a bit schizophrenic. Most of this has been fueled by lack of a standard knowledge platform from which these questions can receive adequate, satisfying answers. Rather, the entire thing is routinely tossed out into the public arena and the contestants allowed to descend on each other with the same playbooks they had 10 years earlier. It's exasperating.

Let's face it: there's no way you're going to convince a logical, sane, well-educated individual, that they did not see that UFO back in 1968. And, alternatively, there's no way you're going to convince a skeptic that you personally witnessed an UFO back in 1968, no matter how hard you try, no matter the evidence you've compiled to support the possibility. Even a video will not suffice (it can be fabricated).

The answers/arguments must be satisfying, intellectually and as a result of serious inquiry and consideration, something you can't glean from repeating the same lines over and over again or beating the same drum, ad nauseum. This is one of several reasons the entire thing has fractured into so many individual niches.

Anyone even remotely interested in the topic has heard about Roswell and all the variant approaches to what happened. But is there a standard review, from which all can draw their own conclusions? Not really. There are as many approaches to Roswell as there are to ways to prepare salad. Few agree on any single feature and some who believe in UFO phenomena, don't believe Roswell stories at all. It's completely disorganized.

So, after reviewing this strange trend and considering potential options, I concluded that a bit of logic is in order. Let's call it a potential, new playbook. Observe:
------------------------------------

For Skeptics

From henceforth, do not engage in anomalous, UFO, ET phenomena discussions, unless you are prepared to do more to prove your point than you did the last time you posted (this is to encourage everyone involved to actually take the topic seriously, thereby remedying the auto-insult implicit in pat answers and the standard disqualifying wave, while clenching science textbook, reverently).

---------------------------------------------

For Pseudo-Skeptics

Avoid using reverse psychology-> ever. again. It just creates more chaos.

---------------------------------------------

For Drive-By Posters

You know the M.O. You arrive in the thread and post one sentence, which usually contains words like "laugh" "farce" "idiots" "why is this thread still open?!!" "hoax", etc.
Whatever you do, don't post in the Aliens/UFO forums. Don't even read them. Just avoid the entire topic like the plague. Your post is not going to do a bit of good, either for or against the issue, and actually wastes space.

-----------------------------------------

For Believers

Don't bring evidence you have seen successfully shot down or swept under the rug, hundreds of times before, unless that evidence is a new approach to the topic with excellent corroborating/supporting evidence. And for the love of all that's honest, don't hoax a video/image to garner support for UFOlogy. Might as well just give up posting videos/images altogether, unless they are so obvious, you'd have to be blind to not see the evidence. Skeptics even ignore anomalies in NASA videos and pretend they can't see anything in NASA images, so expecting this to change because of your personal video/testimony is just wishful thinking.

----------------------------

Use your common sense. If it didn't work the first 1000 times, learn the meaning of futility. Your brain is a learning computer!

in my opinion

the easiest and simplest logical thing about aliens is the universe is getting bigger every day planets heat up and cool off like ours did

EVENTUALLY another life form will PROBABLY happen

simple as that, you can't say it will NEVER happen because there is always a chance it will

now the next step is looking at the evidence and well...i have my opinion based on my logic of never being able to rule out the possibility (and probability) and the evidence i have seen so far

but when i hear someone say "there are no aliens" well....i smell fear (maybe of the unknown?) because logically you can't rule out the possibility of another life form on another planet right now at this point in time because we are here and that means something else could happen too in a galaxy far far away

Sure we believe in UFOs but its people like yourself with the stargates theory, soulcollecters and such that make normal people think we are nuts in the first place.

Apart from that you just cant press youragenda on other people and tell them when to post or not.

If you cant take the heat then dont post

Though, I think it is fair to presumptively label someone a hoaxer if they are really standing behind a video they could easily know is CG OR if they are stating something as fact that can't be externally verified UNLESS they credibly could have been the only person to know something (abductees, for instance).

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
in my opinion

the easiest and simplest logical thing about aliens is the universe is getting bigger every day planets heat up and cool off like ours did

EVENTUALLY another life form will PROBABLY happen

simple as that, you can't say it will NEVER happen because there is always a chance it will

now the next step is looking at the evidence and well...i have my opinion based on my logic of never being able to rule out the possibility (and probability) and the evidence i have seen so far

Oh I agree with you, no doubt about it. Problem is, without giving some really indepth treatment to the individual topics inherit in your statement, the skeptic is set to descend on you with righteous fury and beat you silly with the ToE and a few other, hand-selected, science "facts."

Aside from that, I sense that many skeptics are believers who are just fed up with the lack of disclosure, the hoaxes, and the pretenders to the throne, and are having what amounts to "temper tantrums," that just never seem to end.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by undo]

reply to post by undo


I think a lot of people who are labeled skeptics are in fact believers with high standards of proof. Like myself. Call me egotistical, but I think a lot of these dustups could be avoided if we ALL had high standards of proof.

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
Sure we believe in UFOs but its people like yourself with the stargates theory, soulcollecters and such that make normal people think we are nuts in the first place.

Actually, this didn't dawn on me till I witnessed several threads being closed down or moved to Skunkworks. Essentially, this translates to: if the believer is going to post a topic on the subject, they should arrive prepared to answer as many questions as possible and present evidence that hasn't already been beaten to death many times before. The new trend is: videos are useless, photographs must be official and have links to the originals, and personal testimony is just asking for a black eye.

BTW, your post didn't address the topic. Expected, of course, but not logical.

reply to post by undo


That's your opinion alone that it's illogical. I can see the connection and I can see the logic. Basically, it's us believers with high standards of proof (BWHSOP from here on out) trying to explain ourselves and demonstrate that we are not the pure skeptics you may think we are.

reply to post by undo


Haha goodone Undo

But it certainly is logical as i said:

crazy topics --> normal people think we are nuts

Sounds very logical if you ask me

Originally posted by mentalempire
reply to post by undo

 

I think a lot of people who are labeled skeptics are in fact believers with high standards of proof. Like myself. Call me egotistical, but I think a lot of these dustups could be avoided if we ALL had high standards of proof.

Yes, that is the trend. It's not a pretty thing, but it's the direction the subject is going in on ATS. Not that high standards are bad, mind you. But if the options are, you either see the anomalie/ufo/et or you don't, then how can upgrade another person's visual acuity? To add to that, you have the issue of differences in resolution and gamma/contrast settings, between monitors, ISP aberrations (some ISPs have limited the amount of bandwith allocated to images and auto-compress them), color blindness, and of course, the host of other arguments such as political, religious/non-religious perspective, financial considerations, and popularity seekers. It's a jungle out there, I tell ya, a jungle!

reply to post by mentalempire



Yep we sure need higher standards of proof with more scientific evidence then this mumbojumbo one can read here on a daily basis thats nothing more then the opinion of the poster.

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

crazy topics --> normal people think we are nuts

Sounds very logical if you ask me

Ah, but in that instance, you were referring to my personal contribution on a different thread. You did so without evidence to back up your accusation and in a thread that wasn't about any particular individual's thread(s). This is exactly what causes trouble on ATS. If you wish to address an individual's lack of believablity on a specific topic, it'd be logical to address it to the thread in question. This is not the logical place to make accusation on a personal level regarding prior work, as it suggests you have the evidence to support your accusation, and that you plan on offering it in this thread, which is not about that topic. Ergo, you are being illogical. I have pointed no fingers at individuals because this isn't about any particular person or theory. It's about the illogical approach some people take to the topic.

See? If not, don't worry about it. I'm not going to.

No need for evidence as your threads in the ancient civilisations forum speak for themselves

You were debunked time after time by Byrd and Marduk what more logical proof do you need?

This is not the logical place to make accusation on a personal level regarding prior work

But you started the thread didnt you? If you cant take the heat dont post

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Fett Pinkus]

Fett,

Well I'm taking my own advice and ending this particular line of conversation with you as it is not only off topic, it's illogical and futile.

reply to post by undo


As soon as logical information gets posted you choose to not post anymore? Sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to hear more?




Byrd and Marduk debunked you enough times dont forget that

The topic is about how to make the conversations between skeptics and believers on the subject of anomalies/ufos/ets, more logical. One way that can be done is to post in the appropriate forum. Another way is to post a counterbalance argument, and more proof than you came to the table with the last time, preferably addressing the OP's points as stated.

Pseudo-skepticism is a broader field than I originally thought. It also incorporates believers who are attempting to remove from consideration, topics they don't agree with, thus controlling the dissemination of information. Some may only appear to be so on first perusal. Further investigation may reveal some are not believers at all, or they are believers, but they are of the opinion that only certain individuals should be privy to all the facts, and so work to help keep the rest of us in the dark. These are silly mind games, and should be eradicated on the premise that they add nothing to the conversation, only confuse it, an illogical approach to the topic and to the inherent science.

Afterall, science is a journey, an ongoing, fluid environment, not a exclusive club.