U.F.O. skepticism is very subjective

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

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

No, that isn't a good question at all. It is based on a caricature of skeptics that exists only in the minds of the fundamentalist believer, not in reality.

First, you are confusing being unconvinced of extraterrestrial visitation is the same as a disbelief in extraterrestrials. The two are not one in the same; the only person who subscribes to such thinking is the fundamentalist believer. Skeptics do not subscribe to such thinking; almost every single skeptic believes that extraterrestrials exist, we just do not necessarily believe it is coming here. Nor do we say UFOs do not exist; that is a ridiculous notion, as it is self-evident people will see things in the sky they cannot identify. And here again we have an insight into the mind of the fundamentalist believer, believing that unidentified is synonymous with extraterrestrial.

Thus, a skeptic does not start out from a position of trying to disprove such things exist. Rather, they attempt to show what else it may be, that there may be mundane explanations without jumping to the supernatural.

The question is just as valid as the question of "Do they exsist?".

It is not an attempt to confuse the two or combine the two. Clearly both are seperate nor have I ever said they were the same. Please indicate where I said that.

A skepitc SHOULD attempt to show what else something may be with evidence other than foul mouthed bad breath posts, which is my point! There is one set of evidence presented by those who believe, and there should also be evidence presented by those who say its something different. What is so complicated about that? It isnt complicated at all.

When a case is heard in a court of law, both sides, the prosecution, and the defense, present evidence to support their case. The evidence from both sides are examined, questioned, cross examined and questioned, and then a jury decides who is right after the examination of evidence and testimony. Never does any case in a court of law ever get decided without evidence from both the accuser and the defense. EVER.

So why is it so difficult to expect the same from someone shouting "bull" and "nonsense"? Why is it so hard for those particular ones to show us WHY it is "bull" and "nonsense"? Do you honestly think that any judge in any court case will gladly accept someone's word of "bull" and "nonsense" to come to a decision? Why should those who believe or anyone else also accept just the word "bull" or "nonsense" without something to support the counter-claim??

Its a balance. If the opposing side has nothing but words, and even if the side saying this is a UFO has nothing but words, or fake evidence, than why should ANY of it be accepted as valid?!

BOTH sides have the duty to present evidence, hard data that can be examined and explored. Words dont mean a darn thing without evidence, especially in these cases. If words were all it took, this world would be in such a tangled mess that no one would believe anybody's word.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 8-12-2008 by RFBurns]

reply to post by Dodecahedral


The skeptic should ask the tough questions to get the answers. Some of the answers are not going to be liked by the UFO believers. There are many excellent cases out there of UFO sightings, landings and abductions. The problem is sorting out the good stuff from the bad and hoaxes.
The Hill case is good because there is a lot of physical evidence to back up the claim. It is far from perfect, as it still relies on the eyewitnesses, but the radar confirmation of the object witnessed is a giant step.
The Travis Walton case has major problems, the first being a lie detector test that was failed and then covered up. The failure isn't the main problem, it is the cover-up. That raised a lot of flags, and the whole case starts to have problems.
A good skeptic also has to accept when the case is not explained by normal causes.

reply to post by RFBurns


RFBurns - I'm sorry, but you're wrong about this. There are shades within the argument, though, and they can get confusing.

The default position is a lack of any belief about something: neither yes or no. When someone is presented with a proposition, they evaluate the evidence, and alter their beliefs accordingly. If someone claims something, it is up to them to supply the evidence. Until then, the other person is justified in maintaining no belief whatsoever.

Nobody has to disprove a claim. Otherwise, it would be up to you to disprove invisible pink unicorns, not to mention an infinite number of other possible claims. Instead, you would say "Why should I believe in these things?", and quite correctly.

When a photograph is presented, and claimed to be alien, it is not up to a skeptic to disprove this claim. It is up to the claimant to present evidence it is alien. If the skeptic says "it's definitely swamp gas" then they have made a claim and should justify it. If it is unclear it is an alien, then many skeptics - myself included - will simply say "Not good enough". I don't know what it is, but it's not good enough evidence to make me change my position of no belief.

With a CGI hoax, to further the example, it's worth pointing out how it was done. This is more like the court situation, where the defence - under no obligation to provide evidence at all - may decide to refute apparently good evidence from the prosecution.

But basically, most of the photos that appear on here - in terms of supporting the proposition "aliens exist" - would not make it as far as court.

Originally posted by Majorion
Nice try in twisting my words, you know damn well what I meant by me supporting skeptics on the issues of hoaxers, lies, bogus crap. It is obvious what I meant by that.

If I misread, I apologize.

Originally posted by Majorion
My words belie my "true attitude"?

Yes, it is a word.

Originally posted by Majorion
Who's the real conspiracy nut now?

I never said you were a conspiracy nut; and in order to be a conspiracy nut myself, I would have to make a charge that you were in cahoots with other parties. I never did this.

Originally posted by Majorion
Edit to add: one more thing SaviorComplex, you say you had your own sighting, was it the moon?

No, it was not.

However, I did have an interesting experience Friday night involving the Moon. On the way back from watching a movie, I saw what appeared to be an unusual light in the sky. It looked like either a stationary spotlight (like the Bat-Signal), or some sort of aircraft sitting motionless in the clouds. After a minute or so of watching, the clouds broke and revealed the Moon. It does happen, people make mistakes.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Acewombat thats a great post about pseudoscepticism

Found this interesting link when looking throught the Rockefeller briefing document:

web.archive.org...

Stereotypes die hard. The myth among scientists that UFOs are a "nonsense problem" without any substance was firmly established more than 50 years ago and persists until this day.

Among the deeply embedded misconceptions of scientists are:


UFOs are nothing but vague fleeting lights seen at night,
No trained or experienced observers have reported truly puzzling UFOs,
UFOs are prosaic objects or phenomena that are converted into spaceships by "believers,"
A religious-like "will to believe" in salvation from the outside drives the entire UFO phenomenon, and
Nothing of substance has been reported that science could investigate even if it wanted to.

These notions all are demonstrably false

Rockefeller briefing document:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

only one word will save us from doubt my friends.....


DISCLOSURE.

Peace.

Claudia
22050hz.blogspot.com

reply to post by damagedoor


Well I happen to disagree. Anyone who insists on saying something is not then show me the proof that it is not. The same goes the other way. Anyone who insists on saying this is what it is, such as a UFO or alien in a picture, then prove it to me.

Just because someone who in their own belief and happens to be skeptical cannot be considered correct at all without providing some form of evidence of their own besides "thats not real". Just saying the sky is blue doesnt tell me which shade of blue it is.

Now perhaps I should be more specific in saying, I also want to see proof that the UFO in picture A is real or that alien in video B is real or that claim about hidden base C is real with some evidence, some proof to back it up.

I also expect it from someone saying "no that is not a UFO" or "that alien is a puppet" or "that document is a fraud" and show evidence to the counter-claim. Your basically saying that only their word is to be taken as absolute proof enough that their counter claim is correct. That is WRONG!

If your saying that skeptics need not have evidence to clearly show their side is valid, then your also saying that the other side making a claim need not show proof either. That doesnt work at all!

Real scientific analysis is done through examination of the data, counter examination of same data, both sides present more data to support their initial conclusions, and the cycle repeats until the prevailant and widely accepted one wins.

If we just go by someone's word that this is or that this is not, then there is no reason for anyone to say anything because there wouldnt be the need to show that it is true or that it is not true. Its so simple I dont see why so many have a difficult time understanding that. Its called balance of burden, to which not just one side has the burden of proving, both sides do.




Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns

Real scientific analysis is done through examination of the data, counter examination of same data, both sides present more data to support their initial conclusions, and the cycle repeats until the prevailant and widely accepted one wins.

Not exactly. Science is not democratic.

It is done by verification of results or falsification of results. If results are independently replicated and verified without contradiction a theory becomes validated. If the original results are contradicted or invalidated the theory is invalidated or modified to account for the results. If a theory is not falsifiable it is not subject to the scientific method. Science does not go about attempting to prove things don't exist or do not happen. There are theories that preclude the existence certain things and occurrences but proving such is not the goal.

reply to post by Phage


Well yes it has to be replicated and verified by all sides studying the data and if those conclusions come to the same result, then the conclusion can be said to be valid.

But to have one side just say "your data is flawed" without showing something that concludes it is flawed, then how can anyone just accept the words of it is flawed without that verifying evidence of the conclusion?

Ok suppose I showed a picture of a UFO and I simply said "look I took this picture last night of this UFO hovering over the mountian south of town here, its real as real can get".

What would be the first response to that claim?

Simple...."Can you prove its a UFO and not just an airplane or ballon?"

Then it would be up to me to provide evidence that it is a real UFO...correct? Ok.


Now suppose we take the same example above and someone comes along and simply says "that is a fake, nonsense, bull". And thats it. Nothing else. Am I or anyone else expected to just take their word because they happen to just say its a fake, nonsense, bull?

Hardly.

Now if said person came in and said "thats a fake, look I have evidence that you faked that picture because I was able to make a picture just like yours and its not of a UFO, but of a splattered bug on a windshield and I even have a 2nd picture showing me taking the first picture of the bug splat"

Now wouldnt that be more of a valid coutner-claim to the words "thats a fake"???

IMO, yes.





Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now perhaps I should be more specific in saying, I also want to see proof that the UFO in picture A is real or that alien in video B is real or that claim about hidden base C is real with some evidence, some proof to back it up.

I also expect it from someone saying "no that is not a UFO" or "that alien is a puppet" or "that document is a fraud" and show evidence to the counter-claim. Your basically saying that only their word is to be taken as absolute proof enough that their counter claim is correct. That is WRONG!

Yes and no. I'm actually just saying that claims need to be justified rather than refuted.

We need evidence in order to say "I know x to be true"; we don't need evidence to say "I don't know x to be true", which is the basic skeptical position. I have no belief right now about whether there is a dog in my garden.

The upshot of this: until there is evidence to support a claim, life carries on as though the claim isn't true. It doesn't occur to me to wonder if a dog is in my garden.

In addition, existing knowledge and evidence can make it very unlikely the claim is true, which means the new evidence in favour of it needs to be very good. To believe a dog is in my garden, someone simply telling me might be sufficient. To believe a horse is in my garden, I would want better evidence. To believe a unicorn is in my garden, the evidence is going to have to be pretty spectacular.

To believe a light in a photograph is alien in origin is going to require spectacular evidence. (Which is almost never submitted). It is not the skeptic's job to rule out all the other possibilities. If they make a claim - "definitely a balloon" - they should back it up. But saying "it's not extraordinary evidence because it could be a balloon, or something terrestrial" requires nothing else to justify it.

If someone shows me a satellite image of my garden with a blob in it, the fact the blob remains a 'UFO' does not support the unicorn claim. Nor does it mean it's equally likely to be a unicorn or a dog.

Originally posted by Phage
Not exactly. Science is not democratic.
It is done by verification of results or falsification of results. If results are independently replicated and verified without contradiction a theory becomes validated. If the original results are contradicted or invalidated the theory is invalidated or modified to account for the results.
If a theory is not falsifiable it is not subject to the scientific method. Science does not go about attempting to prove things don't exist or do not happen. There are theories that preclude the existence certain things and occurrences but proving such is not the goal.

I agree,the values of independant confirmation of results from other sources and arriving at objective judgement 'after' dispassionately examining evidence are very important and should be respected (as well as practised) by everyone.
'The truth does not fear free enquiry' and all that.

Heres a great link explaining what science is not (usualy reserved for young earth creationists):
www.indiana.edu...

And then theres Carl Sagan's truly magnificent baloney detection kit:
www.carlsagan.com...

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Cheers Karl



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by AceWombat04
While not everyone does it, there are some who do limit themselves to only certain explanations at the outset. They are not skeptics however; they are pseudoskeptics.

If thats the case then I think the UFO cynic Philip Klass had it down to a fine art.

en.wikipedia.org...
Wiki pseudosceptic defintion:

""a variety of pseudoscience: the behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics.""

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]