A question to sceptics.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
The sceptical position is one of neutrality and being able to consider evidence on both sides.

Why stop at both sides?

Why not consider evidence from ALL sides?

And inside!

And why be neutral all the time?

Consider the extreme points of view to get a different perspective.

[edit on 25/8/2008 by nerbot]

reply to post by Phage


Yeah, "single shred of proof" is definately a bad choice of words. However, the point is that you can have evidence without proof. This is what leads to circumstantial convictions.

As for the other thing, habeas corpus SERIOUSLY IS gone. It is VERY possible for a person to be convicted of a crime without any proof AND without any body. I don't know if a precident of this particular incident has been set, but a possible scenario would be: You are in the area of a murder while it takes place; you look nearly precisely like the murderer; you are named in a lineup by more than one person; the real murderer stashes the body in a place it is never found.

In the end this is STILL coming down to a debate of physical proof vs. circumstantial evidence and people are missing the point entirely. I was ready to drop my participation until I found people continuing to not understand, either willingly or unwillingly, my position on the subject.

reply to post by Phage


You must understand the implications of what you just said about enemy combatants and terrorists, right?

A terrorist is simply someone that is deemed an aggressor to the state. ie, treason. It is a semantical ploy.

You could restate that by simply saying. "You have habeas corpus unless we decide you don't."
Laws work on precidents. Saying that the law does not apply to said person goes against everything this constitution was founded upon.

Another way to state it is: "If you are accused of treason you are not permitted due process."

Another way to say it is: "We are repealing the bill of rights and it will now read: No man is above the law but me."

No sir/mam, habeas corpus is gone until someone mops up Bush's follies. (completely off topic now but that is a bunch of hogwash)

What is a skeptic you ask.

Here's the thing. we as humans are at a point in our intelligence that we can comprehend. Many things we can never understand. but in our same brain we must make sense of our world around us. So we fill in the blanks when absolutely necessary instead of admitting that anything we think up is not the correct answer.

example. modern medicine. not so long ago. we were suppose to bleed to get the bad stuff out of our body's. before that when we were sick it was a punishment from god or some witches curse. Today it is chemical imbalcnes or germs attacking our cell structures and molecules.
Today we still no almost nothing of mental illnesses. we only have treatments no cures. sort of a trail and error experiment.

my point is this. UFO's are no different.
A true skeptic will say yes all of the possibilities are great to think about.

aleans, secret gov. spy planes. peoples imaginations.
But while we know something is happening we will never beable to come close to what that is no mater how much we fantisize.

No man! Don't leave. I'm not coming down on you personally, the whole point is reasoning it through. Discussing your proposition.

By the way, habeas corpus has nothing to do with dead bodies. And it can only be suspended in certain circumstances.

Wup, just saw your next post. Yes, I'm fully aware of the implications of what Bush signed are but we're not talking about that are we?



[edit on 25-8-2008 by Phage]

what is habeas corpus?

reply to post by wojtczak9


Go back a few posts in this thread. I gave a brief description.

"example. modern medicine. not so long ago. we were suppose to bleed to get the bad stuff out of our body's. before that when we were sick it was a punishment from god or some witches curse." Before all of that, the ancient egyptians were performing open heart surgery and even BRAIN surgery.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Phage


Actually the discussion kinda' went there. The comment was that habeas corpus (due process, btw) was gone. And that is true.

I actually thought I *was* leaving. I had to leave the house for a bit and I didn't know if I would get back on tonight or not. Tonight I'm leaving town for work and I figured by the time I got back my 'exploratory' thread would have deginerated greatly by the time I got back to the point I was done with it.

Haha, this is actually an experimental thread. I have been working on the premise for, what I hope, will be a great thread. I was trying to see what sort of response I could generate with this, admitedly shaky, thread in order to better present the one that I actually CREATED this account for!
I believe that I will push forward and create it tonight. I really do appreciate the responses, guys!

o sorry thought it was ufo's but same difference. evidence and all. I would agree that although being found guilty with no evidence or even a trial is not right. i would agree it happens everyday.

lemme get this straight you were simply posting to see what staments get what responses and what stems off of those. sort of a non scripted but planed reaction reality show. trying to manipulate me in to saying things. you probably were trying to get me to say this that is why you posted that?????

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Back on track now. Your original proposition was that, in a court of law, the volume of circumstantial evidence would probably lead to a verdict supporting the presence of ET's on Earth. You used the example of a murder trial which requires the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

What circumstantial evidence is there that would be accepted in a court of law? Just a few pieces will do and remember you limited it to circumstantial evidence so that rules out eyewitnesses.

I bet you're gonna be more careful with your thread starters from here on out.



[edit on 25-8-2008 by Phage]

what do ats and bts points mean

reply to post by Phage


Holy crap you're right about being more careful! You guys can be some crafty deducers! Haha!

Alright, Roswell, New Mexico and the subsequent 1952 (5 years later) introduction of the, until recently declassified, Silverbug project.

This, to me, is nearly smoking gun evidence of a recovered craft (as first reported by the US Army) and later reverse engineering of said craft that had been moved to Wright Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio.

I won't bother going into the specifics, but this is clearly evidence of a recovered craft that was reverse engineered under order of the U.S. Army.

BTW, eyewitness testimony is most certainly circumstantial evidence. ESPECIALLY when combined with other evidence.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


The problem with your OP is that you are likening the case for alien existence to that which is proven in a court of law.

The question of alien existence has no place in a court of law; it belongs within the realm of scientific inquiry, and regardless of what any poster has heretofore said, they are quite simply not the same thing.

Science is often used within the judicial system to substantiate evidence, but do not confuse that with thinking that scientific inquiry and judicial inquiry are the same creature. The judicial system is primarily concerned with determining who did what for what reasons, not with determining the nature of what who is.

reply to post by thrashee


With all due respect please see my post above regarding the fact that our judicial system is, IN FACT, PRECISELY a mirror of our scientific method.

The scientific method is merely a philisophical construct constructed to best explain a perceived phenomena. The judicial method is THE SAME construct constructed to determine fault, or lack thereof, in a crime.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by thrashee

 

With all due respect please see my post above regarding the fact that our judicial system is, IN FACT, PRECISELY a mirror of our scientific method.

The scientific method is merely a philisophical construct constructed to best explain a perceived phenomena. The judicial method is THE SAME construct constructed to determine fault, or lack thereof, in a crime.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Wrong. And wrong.

Eye witness testimony doesn't cut it for scientific inquiry. Circumstantial evidence doesn't, either.

Science is concerned with testing things, with falsifying theories, with experiments. The judicial system is interested in no such thing.

I'll try to take this analogy a little further.


Person X says: "So and so came to me on the beach in a shiny metallic object from the direction of the big dipper constellation on the night of - at very high altitude and very quickly... He looked like (insert any description you like, most often grey guy with big eyes)."

Person Y says: "So and so came to me on the beach in a shiny metallic object from the direction of the big dipper constellation on the night of - at very high altitude and very quickly... He looked like (insert any description you like, most often grey guy with big eyes)."

Person Z says: "So and so came to me on the beach in a shiny metallic object from the direction of the big dipper constellation on the night of - at very high altitude and very quickly... He looked like (insert any description you like, most often grey guy with big eyes)."

Another way to put this is.. Liquor store is robbed.
Person X says: "So and so came out of the liquor store with a gun in his hand and he was running minutes after such and such happened. He looked liked (insert description of yourself)." you have no alibi

Person Y says: "So and so came out of the liquor store with a gun in his hand and he was running minutes after such and such happened. He looked liked (insert description of yourself)." you have no alibi

Person Z says: "So and so came out of the liquor store with a gun in his hand and he was running minutes after such and such happened. He looked liked (insert description of yourself)." you have no alibi

In a court of law you are guilty - period. That is simply the way it works unless you are O.J.

reply to post by thrashee


I assume you aren't familiar with the innerworkings of a courtroom. At this point I would further presume you didn't read my definition of sKeptic at the beginning of this posting.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]