The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer

Originally posted by elevatedone
Discuss the questions that UFO skeptics can't answer.

Yes, Polomontana. What are those questions again?

We have answered them, but because you do not like the answers, does not mean an answer was not provided or evidence presented.

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by rawsom

 

Your whole post doesn't make any sense.

I replied as a summary to this entire thread. Every single one of those criteria you and I listed for figuring out pseudowhatever applies, occasionally, to both sides of debaters. Nobody's perfect.

However, you do have to remember that such lists are usually a sign of imcomplete logic in a sense that there are other lists like this in professional logic literature. Medical literature also uses these, but there is something that makes those lists different. Those say, for example:

If 6/8 of the following criteria are true in case X, then we must accept that subject/person is actually a |whatever|. When logic is not complete in a sense that no context involving meaning and use of lists is included, people just take one of those criteria and claim subject/person to be |whatever|. This is wrong, illogical and unreasonable.

If you want to call believers pseudobelievers go ahead.
If you want to use the term pseudoscience, go ahead.

I don't want to invent new words to insult people who do not deserve it. There is no point in that. In science, correct term would be proto-, and pseudobeliever doesn't exist as of yet (most just use dumb, which is wrong of couse, but using a latin-based word doesn't actually change anything). I'd like to explain people as not interested about logic that much, instead they are just being faschinated by a subject.

Just because you think these things apply to believers, doesn't mean they don't apply to pseudoskeptics.

I'm fine with stating your opinion, but it's not in context with what I claimed.

I think we will have to end here, because you are asking me questions in a form of claims. I believe this has come down to a point in where we cannot really answer questions that skeptics can answer anymore, because all that exists are claims that require an answer. I don't want to bother myself that much as to explain why I take a claim as a question. Its too much trouble in this case.

I said based on the evidence as reported and investigated extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Then I listed 4 or 5 cases out of thousands and you can't supply any evidence that counters the evidence as reported and investigated.

If we have two stances, where both are not willing to accept other's stance even in theory and theathretically for the sake of debate, we are not going to get anywhere.

Everybody I know who are able to debate are ALSO able to change their point of view. We can as well, but in case where people insist on something without showing much of a progress in generally accepted good behaviour for sake of being able to debate, that would not work.

Show me in my claim where I talked about belief?

Everything not supported by evidence and/or logic is a belief until that happens. Even if true.


Sorry for mods about debating these things, but it does get impossible if it is not allowed to counter a claim and stay on questions. I'm sure and so are others that this thread is all about just figuring out a single sentence we cannot answer easily.


[edit on 22/8/08 by rawsom]

As regards discussing "the questions UFO skeptics can't answer, " we have been there and done that, twice over, and it didn't help. But here we go again:

"The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer"

Then the first statement in the OP says:

You say that you know or think that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings can't or don't exist, are you saying that the eyewitness to an event can't know these things either?

Haven't we already determined that a skeptic is an open-minded person without pre-conceived beliefs? The ones who have already decided that "ETs/EDs can't or don't exist by definition would be debunkers or disbelievers, not skeptics.

Therefore the title of the thread should have been "The Questions UFO debunkers can't answer" or perhaps "The Questions UFO disbelievers can't answer."

The OP has not asked a question that a SKEPTIC can't answer, since by his very first statement he clearly defined that the people he is asking these questions of are NOT true undecided and open-minded skeptics.

Second question:

Are you limiting another person's sphere of knowledge based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?

Again the person with a "pre-existing belief" that ET cannot exist is not a skeptic.

do you say these things could not have happened based on your personal belief about these issues? Are you saying that your friend couldn't know and experience these things based on what you believe?

Again, a SKEPTIC would not say these things could not have happened, a skeptic would consider the evidence and the testimony and try to figure out what did happen.

Dear Mr. Montana,

You have not asked a single question that a UFO SKEPTIC can not answer. In fact, you have not asked a question that is even valid to ask of a SKEPTIC.

And Polomonta, the thread author, will most likely ignore this ON TOPIC post just as he did the first time I posted it.

Originally posted by Heike
....Again, a SKEPTIC would not say these things could not have happened, a skeptic would consider the evidence and the testimony and try to figure out what did happen....

Here are definitions of a skeptic:

SKEPTIC:

1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism.

2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles.

Here are definitions of skepticism:

SKEPTICISM:

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.

2 a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics.

3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation).

The most significant quality of a skeptic is doubt. Here are definitions of doubt:

DOUBT noun:

1 a: uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making b: a deliberate suspension of judgment.

2: a state of affairs giving rise to uncertainty, hesitation, or suspense.

3 a: a lack of confidence : distrust. b: an inclination not to believe or accept.

Pay attention to definition 3b above wherein it says "an inclination not to believe or accept."

Therefore a skeptic is a person who rejects things that are not within his sphere of knowledge or belief.

www.m-w.com...

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
b: an inclination not to believe or accept.

[SNIP]

Therefore a skeptic is a person who rejects things that are not within his sphere of knowledge or belief.

How intellectually dishonest is that? You took that definition and re-defined it to fit exactly what you wanted it to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. That definition does not say that.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
b: an inclination not to believe or accept.

[SNIP]

Therefore a skeptic is a person who rejects things that are not within his sphere of knowledge or belief.

How intellectually dishonest is that? You took that definition and re-defined it to fit exactly what you wanted it to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. That definition does not say that.

You want to twist things again Penny? I thought you saw a psychiatrist for your paranoia. You haven't. Anybody who can read can say that that is what the definition states, an inclination not to believe or accept. Your statement is absurd, not to mention it is a rogue rationalization to force somebody to believe what you want to believe.

reply to post by NoRunRichard


That simply warrants a huge....WOW!!! You go girl!!!! Although I do like the "rogue rationalization"...good use of alliteration.

Whatever...if that's your idea of reasoning....might as well have some fun with it , ey?

Originally posted by NoRunRichard

Pay attention to definition 3b above wherein it says "an inclination not to believe or accept."

Therefore a skeptic is a person who rejects things that are not within his sphere of knowledge or belief.

www.m-w.com...

in·cli·na·tion [in-kluh-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key
–noun
1. a disposition or bent, esp. of the mind or will; a liking or preference: Much against his inclination, he was forced to resign.

dictionary.reference.com...

Given the current value of evidence within the sphere of knowledge pertaining directly to the existence of Extra-terrestrials and Extra-dimensional beings , this value has many sceptics inclined towards being doubtful of there existence. Those inclined to believe do not occupy a different sphere of knowledge, they are inclined to accept the current value of the evidence as proof.
Your post is really funny. Really, really funny.








[edit on 24-8-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by NoRunRichard


I had stopped posting on this thread, but I could not let this pass.

As English is not my native language my interpretation may be wrong, but shouldn't you use the definition of "doubt" as a verb instead of "doubt" as a noun?

The definitions talk about "an attitude of doubt", "systematic doubt" and "doubt concerning basic religious principles ", aren't those actions? If they are shouldn't you use the verb definition?

1archaic a: fear b: suspect
2: to be in doubt about (he doubts everyone's word)
3 a: to lack confidence in : distrust (find myself doubting him even when I know that he is honest — H. L. Mencken) b: to consider unlikely (I doubt if I can go)
intransitive verb
: to be uncertain

Source

That definition is closer to what I think is the best definition of a sceptic and closer to what I think myself to be, someone that is uncertain about some (or all) things.

PS: your conclusion of what is the definition of "skeptic" is based on one of the five possible definitions of "doubt", aren't you limiting the possibilities too much? What about all the other possibilities based on the other definitions?

PPS: if you write an answer with expressions like "rogue rationalization" I may not understand it, my knowledge of English is limited to what I learnt by earing people talk on the movies.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Given the current value of evidence within the sphere of knowledge pertaining directly to the existence of Extra-terrestrials and Extra-dimensional beings , this value has many sceptics inclined towards being doubtful of there existence. Those inclined to believe do not occupy a different sphere of knowledge, they are inclined to accept the current value of the evidence as proof.
Your post is really funny. Really, really funny.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by atlasastro]

Skeptics occupy a different sphere of knowledge or belief than the believers. Skeptics deny the existence of alien intelligence and visitation of Earth, they don't believe in these things. The believer is the opposite.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by NoRunRichard

 

I had stopped posting on this thread, but I could not let this pass.

As English is not my native language my interpretation may be wrong, but shouldn't you use the definition of "doubt" as a verb instead of "doubt" as a noun?

The definitions talk about "an attitude of doubt", "systematic doubt" and "doubt concerning basic religious principles ", aren't those actions? If they are shouldn't you use the verb definition?

1archaic a: fear b: suspect
2: to be in doubt about (he doubts everyone's word)
3 a: to lack confidence in : distrust (find myself doubting him even when I know that he is honest — H. L. Mencken) b: to consider unlikely (I doubt if I can go)
intransitive verb
: to be uncertain

Source

That definition is closer to what I think is the best definition of a sceptic and closer to what I think myself to be, someone that is uncertain about some (or all) things.

You're right, you can also use doubt as a verb like you indicated above. However you are using that last definition in order to agree with what you believe a skeptic ought to be. The definitions above are all correct, that a skeptic could be uncertain, he has a lack of confidence, etc. All the definitions of a skeptic above are true but in this forum this is not the case, the skeptics in here consider alien existence and visitation as highly unlikely, conforming to sense 3b of your definition of the verb doubt above. So I am not limiting the definition of doubt here.



[edit on 24-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

This has gone crazy, no question about it. I don't even find this funny. Reasoning here goes like with people who think that they have to wash their laundry, yet they have a machine to do that for them. What they have to do is something very different than that actual job.

Now, I believe you people if you can prove to me that it is impossible for a skeptic to believe in things that have been proven.

Given that there are a lot of things in our world that are proven true, if any single one of those is someday proven false, the skeptic in me allows me to grasp this new knowledge without much of a fuss. Belief would not be in my way when I have to comprehend. Obviously I believe and know that earth circles the earth, but I can however remain with an open mind to _everything_. That does not really mean that I wake up at morning and doubt whether my toaster is in reality a toilet seat or not, or whether my shirt exists or not, or that I really care to think things like that much.

Oh and by the way.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

That's a little quote about what ad hominem is all about. Read it very, very carafully en.wikipedia.org....

To attack us by redefining what skepticism is all about is an ad hominem, and if not, this is becoming very very close to it. I believe there is a term out there that is more exact, but I don't want to bother finding it.

Can we please go back into the subject and stop attacking each other's world views?


[edit on 24/8/08 by rawsom]

Moderator-Note:

From this point forward no more personal attacks. Make this an exercise in Civility and Decorum folks.

Thank you.

Semper

Originally posted by rawsom
Now, I believe you people if you can prove to me that it is impossible for a skeptic to believe in things that have been proven.

The proof that skeptics disbelieve is in all of the posts they made in this forum. All point to rejection of everything the believers offered as proof and evidence.

Originally posted by rawsom
To attack us by redefining what skepticism is all about is an ad hominem, and if not, this is becoming very very close to it. I believe there is a term out there that is more exact, but I don't want to bother finding it.

It's not redefining skepticism, the definitions are already there. Who should we believe, rawsom, somebody or the dictionary? And you can't avoid interjecting personal comments in forums in trying to clearly make your point. This thread is made up of entries by human beings and human beings almost always do things according to their beliefs, attitudes, and emotions.



[edit on 24-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
The proof that skeptics disbelieve is in all of the posts they made in this forum. All point to rejection of everything the believers offered as proof and evidence.

That's simply not true. Never once have I said that extraterrestrials do not exist, and in fact several of the 'skeptics' in this thread have said that they do believe in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.

What we have said, over and over and over again, is that we are not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that "extraterrestrials are visiting Earth" is a proven fact.

As I have mentioned before, the amount of evidence required to convince someone "beyond a reasonable doubt" that something is true varies from person to person. A hung jury is a fine example of this.

As has also been said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For many, if not most people, "extraterrestrials are visiting Earth" is an extraordinary claim. Evidence sufficient to be considered "extraordinary proof" has not been provided. There are no DNA samples, no living or dead specimens to be examined by scientists, no spaceships which can be examined by engineers, no clear communications from these extraterrestrials, and few if any photographs or videos which can be proven not to be hoaxes or mundane objects.

Zoologists are having a tough time trying to convince "mainstream" science that the ivory-billed woodpecker is still around in spite of personal sightings, taped audio, and pictures. And the survival of the ivory-billed woodpecker is much less extraordinary than "extraterrestrials are visiting Earth."

It has nothing to do with denial, pre-existing beliefs, refusal to believe, or any of the other things that "believers" tend to accuse skeptics of. The majority of skeptics are willing to be convinced by sufficient evidence, but in their opinion that evidence has not yet been shown.

Look at the 59 page Bigfoot thread. From the beginning the skeptics were concerned that the whole thing was a hoax, and many posters argued with them and attacked them. We have pictures of the body and DNA samples; what more do you want, they asked. And yet, the skeptics were right - again. It was a hoax.

If you believe, look for better evidence. Do research and present cases. Instead of arguing with the skeptics, try to give them what they need, if it's important to you. Insulting, baiting, and ridiculing them will only drive them further away. Instead, find the evidence that will help them believe and show it to them. Be constructive instead of destructive.

reply to post by polomontana


What you say is logical and true.

The problem I am having is that from the beginning I have been led to think extra-terrestrial (meaning outer space and/or from another world). Just because we first saw the crafts in the air, we assume they must be from some where else (meaning outer space and/or from another world). Why? Human nature I suppose.

Let us all get out of that box and consider every thing logically.

Do or do we not have excellent radar capabilities?
Can we or can we not with radar, see from so many feet above the earth to miles and miles above the earth?
Do we or do we not have the ability to monitor the outer space around us?
Are we or are we not constantly watching the sky?
Is or is not the progress of civilizations hampered by negative social issues?

reply to post by Heike


Fine, the skeptics in here believe in the existence of aliens. However there are a lot of pictures and eyewitness accounts of aliens and their spacecraft visiting Earth that are the Real McCoy yet because there are photos and witnesses that are hoaxes all the rest are also considered as fakes by the skeptics also, which is not fair, a sweeping generalization that is. "Extraordinary evidence" is nowhere to be found therefore we have to make do with whatever evidence is at hand and this is what we believers base our beliefs on. Credible photographs are a good example to believe in and in fact photos are admissible in courts, why are they not acceptable out here? And there are abductions, investigations of landing spots, videos, etc. What is needed is to show the skeptics the real aliens and their spaceship but they will say that they are in a state of dreaming. Anyway, these evidences are in the possession of the Government and divulging them to the public will never happen. And if they would be revealed the skeptics will say that "even Lockheed can build these things." If a skeptic does not believe in alien visitation NOTHING can convince him the aliens are actually here.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
Fine, the skeptics in here believe in the existence of aliens. However there are a lot of pictures and eyewitness accounts of aliens and their spacecraft visiting Earth that are the Real McCoy yet because there are photos and witnesses that are hoaxes all the rest are also considered as fakes by the skeptics also, which is not fair, a sweeping generalization that is.

Not true. We consider each case on its own merit. To suggest that we're simply sweeping away all evidence because of the existence of some hoaxes is what is not fair. I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, other than what we've all seen as a bias against skeptics simply because they do not share your beliefs.

"Extraordinary evidence" is nowhere to be found therefore we have to make do with whatever evidence is at hand and this is what we believers base our beliefs on.

It's not the skeptics' fault that such evidence is nowhere to be found, but it is precisely because of this that a skeptic remains on the fence. Cough up some "extraordinary evidence", and you'll find your skeptics will become believers.

Credible photographs are a good example to believe in and in fact photos are admissible in courts, why are they not acceptable out here?

Because the existence of aliens is not something to be determined in a court of law, but rather by the scientific community. The insistence on proof is to science's credit, and it's absurd to think that it should lower its standards simply to placate the beliefs of those who have lower standards when it comes to evidence.

Anyway, these evidences are in the possession of the Government and divulging them to the public will never happen.

Really? You can't even prove the existence of aliens, much less that the government is in possession of such evidence. Why don't you stick with one battle at a time.

And if they would be revealed the skeptics will say that "even Lockheed can build these things." If a skeptic does not believe in alien visitation NOTHING can convince him the aliens are actually here.

Again, you are clearly demonstrating your own beliefs and biases about skeptics, not about the real issue. It's simply absurd to proclaim that because the evidence that does exist today is not good enough, then nothing ever will be.

The point is simply this: you consider the evidence to be enough for you to believe, and that's absolutely fine. We have no problem with that. However, it's not enough for science, or for us, to consider it proof. Why can't you have the same courtesy and understand that? Why must you lash out at skeptics as "impossible to convince" simply because we have higher standards?

Isn't that really demonstrating your own close-mindedness?

reply to post by thrashee


You have turned this argumentation into a court, in case you didn't know that. Your demands reflect those that are used in court. We are debating in here like in the court of law therefore this issue can also be resolved logically. Isn't logic the tool we use in this debate in here? You are lying when you say you consider each case on its own merit. All of your posts in here point to sweeping generalizations of rejection of extraterrestrial visitations and extraterrestrial existence. And what is this "scientific proof" you're always whining about? Will you skeptics really be convinced by your "scientific proof" and "extraordinary evidence" after all this 1,300 posts in this forum that lead to nowhere because you reject everything, even the obviously credible evidences? We have high standards in determining the existence and visitations of extraterrestrials, we were the first to acknowledge and witness the facts that happened in Roswell, Rendlesham, and others. And all the skeptics did was make fun of and ridicule the believers. You have a low sense of character, thrashee. You don't have high standards, what you have is annoying impertinence like all the skeptics. And you twisted things around again. Sorry, but I can never believe you.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
You have turned this argumentation into a court, in case you didn't know that. Your demands reflect those that are used in court. We are debating in here like in the court of law therefore this issue can also be resolved logically.

I have? I did not realize that logical discourse was equivalent to the environment of a court of law. That being said, that speaks NOTHING about the evidence and what science needs for proper evidence. That's what we've been arguing the entire time. Don't confuse banter in a forum to be equivalent to the actual arena in which the existence of aliens will be proven--you didn't really believe said existence was going to be proven on ATS, did you?

All of your posts in here point to sweeping generalizations of rejection of extraterrestrial visitations and extraterrestrial existence.

Not true. We've rejected the links that Montana has repeatedly provided. Once again, your logic is quite faulty: the rejected examples within this forum do not constitute the entirety of evidence....do they?

And what is this "scientific proof" you're always whining about? Will you skeptics really be convinced by your "scientific proof" and "extraordinary evidence" after all this 1,300 posts in this forum that lead to nowhere because you reject everything, even the obviously credible evidences?

I've said this before to Montana, and I'll say it again now to you: if such evidence is so obvious, then why isn't the existence of alien life accepted as a truth by the scientific community? Please, try to forego any ridiculous conspiracy theories when answering that.

We have high standards in determining the existence and visitations of extraterrestrials, we were the first to acknowledge and witness the facts that happened in Roswell, Rendlesham, and others.

And what are those standards again? I'm sorry, but "believers" weren't really a category back in 1947; Roswell largely prompted the entire UFO craze--much later.

You have a low sense of character, thrashee. You don't have high standards, what you have is annoying impertinence like all the skeptics. And you twisted things around again. Sorry, but I can never believe you.

Sense of character? So you resort to yet another ad hominem attack when faced with someone who doesn't believe as you do. Again, your reactions are quite telling. And I'm sorry, I didn't twist anything around.

There's nothing to believe regarding me--I'm not the one clinging to a belief here.