It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

U.F.O. skepticism is very subjective

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I noticed u.f.o. skeptics are very subjective when it comes to ufology.

How can the skeptic say that they are seeking the truth when they limit the truth at the start?

This means they already know the answer will be something that fits their subjective view of what's a "natural explanation" or it stays in the unexplained column. This is very illogical.

Think about it, if there's no answer it's unexplained even though the eyewitness explained what they encountered. This means the explanation doesn't fit what they already believe so it is unexplained until they find an explanation that fits their subjective view of a "natural explanation" and if they can't find one that fits then it remains unexplained.

What is a natural explanation? Would an extra dimensional or extraterrestrial being be a natural explanation? OF COURSE THEY WOULD.

Extraterrestrial beings would arise from the evolutionary process and extra dimensional beings would arise within an extra dimensional universe. These are both scientific explanations and therefore they would constitute "natural explanations"

What this shows you is how subjective the term "natural explanation" is.

When physicist debate things like parallel universes and the Copenhagen Interpretation, they come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence.

We can do the same thing with ufology. There's eyewitness accounts from police officers, astronauts, military and more. There's abduction cases, trace evidence, implants, pictures, videos, cave paintings, ancient manuscripts and more.

We can come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence.

The logical conclusion is only left unexplained when the explanation doesn't fit the subjective view of a "natural explanation."

The logical answer to all the evidence is extraterrestrial or extra dimensional beings exist because you can't start of limiting what's a "natural explanation" in a universe that many believe is infinite.

This is not saying that the answer is definately extraterrestrial and or extra dimensional but until you come up with a logical answer outside of unexplained then this is the most logical answer based on the evidence.

The only way that you can continue to call alot of this evidence unexplained is if you start off with the subjective view as to what constitutes a "natural explanation."




posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I do believe in some form of extraterrestrial intelligent form of life: i just find it ANNOYING that in order to prove that is being used stuff that proves NOTHING.
Long story short: can you prove the existence of some intelligent extraterrestrial form of life?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Dodecahedral
 


Bulloni. WE DO not limit the explanation at the start. We do not say to ourselves, "it couldnt possibly be aliens!"


We go where the evidence leads and so far no evidence leads to the things alot of UFO proponents say. and alot of the evidenc given by so called ufo proponents is either faked, not reall evidence or a total lack of understanding of certain aspects of science.
See the starchild skull thread for an example of this, they are buying into the idea the skull is alien because they couldnt extract the fathers DNA, but they could hwoever get mitochondrial DNA, which means its from Earth. tell them this? they dont want to believe it.
most UFO proponents I know arent searching for the truth, they are searching for anything to try and validate ther claims.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
I do believe in some form of extraterrestrial intelligent form of life: i just find it ANNOYING that in order to prove that is being used stuff that proves NOTHING.
Long story short: can you prove the existence of some intelligent extraterrestrial form of life?


The short answer is no, I can't prove that extraterrestrial or extra dimensional beings exist and I never claimed that I could.

Just like I can't prove quantum loop gravity, parallel universes, black hole computers and gravity exists but I can come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence that's not restricted by a subjective view of a "natural explanation."



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dodecahedral
The short answer is no, I can't prove that extraterrestrial or extra dimensional beings exist and I never claimed that I could.

Just like I can't prove quantum loop gravity, parallel universes, black hole computers and gravity exists but I can come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence that's not restricted by a subjective view of a "natural explanation."

And that's true: what i'm trying to say is that UFOlogy is being literally devastated by people who is unable to distinguish what is evidence and what is junk: look at the most discussed threads and you will find out that attention seekers get attention while informative discussions almost never get attention: a white dot against a black background will never prove the existence of some extraterrestrial intelligence, while serious research CAN.
And yes, to try to explain all the phenomena using our terrestrial criteria is ridiculous, (and it does not work btw): what you say does make sense to me.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


However there is nothing in the field of UFO study yet that suggest terrestrial explanation is 10 percent ot of the question. nothing has popped out and said "aha! it must be aliens!~there is no other way!"



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by internos
 


However there is nothing in the field of UFO study yet that suggest terrestrial explanation is 10 percent ot of the question. nothing has popped out and said "aha! it must be aliens!~there is no other way!"

Correct. In other words, the point is that serious research can be made only ruling out mundane explanations, natural phenomena and misinterpretations. This is NOT what is being done. The process of analysis is being inverted by people who have the only purpose to prove the existence of extraterrestrial life. It's like to act as some lawyer: if one wants to prove one point, then he's conditioned. If one looks for the truth, the he's FREE to research. This is why the serious researchers in this subject matter are less than ten, worldwide.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I think a good skeptical question would be...."Can it be proven that ET life/UFO's do NOT exsist?"



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
I think a good skeptical question would be...."Can it be proven that ET life/UFO's do NOT exsist?"


WRONG!

You're suggesting that the burden of proof lays on the 'skeptic' and not the person spinning the tale! You're in essence asking someone to disprove something put into an unfalsifiable context.

Your logic is flawed.

IRM



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dodecahedral

Just like I can't prove quantum loop gravity, parallel universes, black hole computers and gravity exists but I can come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence that's not restricted by a subjective view of a "natural explanation."


Logic itself is highly subjective. What seems logical to you may appear completely illogical to someone else.

That's why it's hard for many people to agree on anything.

IRM



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by RFBurns
I think a good skeptical question would be...."Can it be proven that ET life/UFO's do NOT exsist?"


WRONG!

You're suggesting that the burden of proof lays on the 'skeptic' and not the person spinning the tale! You're in essence asking someone to disprove something put into an unfalsifiable context.

Your logic is flawed.

IRM


WRONG! I submit your logic to be wrong. If a skeptic is insistant on demanding proof, then the reverse is also demanded of the opposite side of the subject...ie the skeptic has to also provide evidence/proof of their conclusion..as does the believer provide evidence/proof.

You are saying that a skepitc does not have to prove anything but be skeptical of everything. That is so lopsided its not even funny.

Flawed logic.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by RFBurns
I think a good skeptical question would be...."Can it be proven that ET life/UFO's do NOT exsist?"


WRONG!

You're suggesting that the burden of proof lays on the 'skeptic' and not the person spinning the tale! You're in essence asking someone to disprove something put into an unfalsifiable context.

Your logic is flawed.

IRM


WRONG! I submit your logic to be wrong. If a skeptic is insistant on demanding proof, then the reverse is also demanded of the opposite side of the subject...ie the skeptic has to also provide evidence/proof of their conclusion..as does the believer provide evidence/proof.

You are saying that a skepitc does not have to prove anything but be skeptical of everything. That is so lopsided its not even funny.

Flawed logic.



Cheers!!!!


what a bunch of nonsense. If i tell you there are invisible pink extra dimnensional unicorns the onus is on me to prove it, even when you demand proof. The burden does not shift because people demand proof. the onus is still on the proponent



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
I think a good skeptical question would be...."Can it be proven that ET life/UFO's do NOT exsist?"
Cheers!!!!

That would be good, but not correct, because it would move the burden of proof from the right side to the wrong one. What we do know is that WE exist, while other civilizations are far from be proven to exist. This says it all



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


No... Nice twisting of words though. I've noticed you like to do that.
What I'm saying is, the burden of proof isn't on the person not making the claim. If you tell me aliens live in a secret base below your backyard, the burden is flatly on YOU... not me!

To say, "prove something doesn't exist" IS putting it into an unfalsifiable context. What part of that is too difficult for you to comprehend?

Twist & Spin RFBurns



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
But the other side must be proven wrong...correct? One just cannot say that they are wrong unless there is something to show that they are wrong...correct? Without anything to show definative proof that they are wrong..how can it be proven that they would in fact be wrong?


To simply say.."you are wrong" is not in anyway proving they are wrong.

Same goes with the other side. They cannot simply say "this exsists becasue I say it is". There has to be some proof, evidence that clearly shows that statement to be valid...correct?


So if someone comes out and throws some picture or some article or some theory about something, and says it is true, would not a good way to show that it is not true would be to proivde evidence that it is not?

Simply saying "its bogus" or "nonesense" is hardly any way of proving something is not.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


No, wrong again. the proponent must prove it. The other side has no obligation to disprove anything. especially in this field. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Its not twisting words my friend. Its simply asking a skeptic to prove to me that what I am presenting is not true, other than the skeptic simply saying it is not true.


Now anyone foolish enough to say "there is an alien base in my backyard" would obviously be foolish enough to set themselves up for a pretty simple debunking. But if said person were to provide some evidence, documentation, no matter what the subject is about, and there is counter evidence and documentation to disprove, why not present that evidence and documentation to support the opposite point of view besides "bogus" or "nonsense"?

Im not saying that claims have no burden of proof. What I am saying is that the other side of the fence surely has something more than just "bull".


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by RFBurns]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Again, your twisting the argument!

Let me simplify the concept for you because you appear to be struggling with it.

Skeptics are not saying "you are wrong", they're saying "prove it, back your statements, back yourself, show me the evidence that made you come to this assumption". If you can't be accountable for your theory, then it's not the fault of the skeptic or inquiring mind. The flaw lays with the evidence or the lack thereof.

Anyway, this thread presents a redundant argument. It's been beaten to death on this forum so many times before, it's not worth my time.

IRM Out!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I have yet to see a skpetic on ATS merely say its bogus and leave it at that. I have a feeling you ar alluding to my posts, if your not then I am mistaen but if you are, in everyone of my posts I lay out the case and the actual scientific explanation for the phenomenon displayed. If yu choose to ignore this it is your problem.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Nice how you can assume to think I am struggling here. Far from it. It seems to me that you are reaching in the air to find a random label to apply to something that is so simple to understand.

Usually those who assume something are only attempting to cover their own confusion. I find that quite funny.

It really doesnt matter to me if someone spouts this is real or that is real, nor does it matter to me if someone says no its not. What matters to me is both have something other than hot air from the backside to back up their case.

In a court case, both sides must provide evidence. It is no different here with someone showing something claiming it is true or real. If another point of view does not agree, then it is expected for them to also present something that can disprove that it is not real or true.

I dont ever recall any case ever being won by any side when all they had was their word.

It really isnt that difficult to expect some kind of proof of the skeptic side of the issue, nor is it that difficult for the skepitc side of the issue to provide that coutner-proof.

But as I said..it really doesnt matter to me. I seem to be comfortable with that concept...obviously skeptics here at this forum..some of them anyway, seem to have quite a serious problem with that concept and continue to imply that all they have to do is simply state "bogus" or "nonsense".

I recall one thread that had some photo about a UFO shooting up out of the water. Right away I could see it was a fake simply because of how the splash was not consistant with something comming up through the water surface. The debate went back and forth for a page or two, then evidence was presented that completely disproved the claim, the real photo found at the NOAA website and a side by side comparison.

Now to me that is skepticisim that merits a salute. Proof was presented that clearly disproved the claim, as well as disproved the faked photo.

That member, a mod I believe, didnt just pop in and fill the thread with "bogus" and "nonsense". (Hi broken record!) They provided positive proof. Now if said member, mod or not, had just came in and had simply said "I found a photo that is obviously the real thing and shows your photo is faked"..without showing anyone that proof, would their claim be considered as valid without that evidence?


No it wouldnt.


THAT is my point my friend.


Ok well as I have stated before, I used to be a very skeptical person, more than most here and I always presented evidence and proof with my replies to claims on another forum, one that exsisted long before this one did. And I never had any issues with the other side arguing or trying to run rampids to say I was full of it. In fact the end results usually turned the others making the claims to come to realize that perhaps they were wrong and needed to re examine their conclusions.


So the burden of proof falls on everyone, no matter who makes a claim, cries "bogus", or whatever. For one, providing evidence does give more credibility to either side than just throwing out words.




Cheers!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join