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.

 

The Skeptics Dilemma

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
"The skeptics are not using logic and reason when it comes to things like ufology and the paranomal."


Oh my..., you don't understand anything about skepticism, do you ?

That is almost sad to see how some people got it all backwards :

A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

Source : en.wikipedia.org...

This is skepticism in theory, now and like I said before believers are sometime right when they point out that some skeptics are just as "bad" as some believers, is it clear enough now ?


Cheers,
Europa




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Likewise you might not always be able to prove that a specific UFO had aliens piloting it. But you might have many credible government officials or workers who give testimony to having seen alien bodies, and/or to have personally seen live aliens and/or to have read government documents clearly discussing ET's etc. Further, you might have radar and other evidence which proves that the UFO observed did things which no man made craft could, or was of a size which no man made craft is etc. I could go on but you see my point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do see your point. I too was very impressed with some of the witnesses of Steven Greers (I think thats right) Disclosure project but at the end of the day it's just an amazing series of tales. I know military witnesses who claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster even though it has now been proven that there can be no large animal living in those waters. Similarly, a good friend of mine works for BAE and is at the top of his tree. He claims that his lab is haunted and that he's seen the ghost several times. Using your own way of thinking we should just accept what they say and not question it!
As for the craft and there size. There is absolutely nobody who Isn't in the upper eschelons of the system who can honestly say that something was too big to be man made or was performing aerobatics which no man made aircraft could accomplish because we simply don't know what they are secretly flying. One UFO investigator claims that there are flying machines in Area 51 which would make George Lucas envious. Top secret advanced aircraft are just that- secret and advanced. They get to fly these over inhabited areas because when they are seen the UFO community , the newspapers and the general media report them as alien spacecraft.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Europa733
This is skepticism in theory...is it clear enough now ?


Unfortunately, your words are going to be totally ignored, Europa. PlatosAllegory/Polomonata's problem is there mere existence of skeptics. Notice how he ignores us when we say we do not discount the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation, claiming we believe it to be impossible. It's useless to try to reason with people of such intrinsic closed-mindedness.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
When I was young I believed in the tooth fairy, Father Christmas and the monsters under the bed. As I grew older I learnt that such things exist only in the imagination of children.
I think aliens are just a cheap replacement for the childish beliefs we had to leave behind as we reached adulthood. If they truly existed the evidence would be everywhere. Instead we have a few grainy photographs or amazing photo-shopped ones.
Sure, aliens must be out there somewhere but the distances involved for them to get here is just too great.


To get here from where? you speak of them as if you knew where they are or should be. So where is that?

My question is rhetorical, of course, you don't know where they are, but you ASSUME that they have to be far if they exist. What substantiates your assumption?

-rrr

edited for spelling

[edit on 17-3-2009 by rickyrrr]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Europa733
 


It seems that anyone who attempts to help them straighten out their thinking about skepticism proper, gets ignored in favor of the bully session going back and forth.

You're right it is sad, but it makes Socrates right, as always, in that the average person seems to want to believe that false things are true and true things are false and therefore live in a world of inverted values.

Because they like to make things up as they go along, they think everyone else does too. So if you tell them the truth they think you're making it up. hehehe



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
When it comes to scientific research we can weigh the evidence within reason and come to a conclusion even if you can't prove something exists. This also is how are court systems work, investigative reporting and police investigations.


Polomontana/Plato...you have brought up this fallacious argument before, and you have been shown to be wrong every time. The standards of evidence are quite different in science compared to the court system or journalism. Far different. Please do some research on what constitute proof in these different fields before making this argument again.


Originally posted by platosallegory
You gather evidence and then you can weigh the evidence within reason and come to a conclusion. The skeptics have an illogical standard when it comes to extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings and some even know this so they use the excuse that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This is truly illogical and nothing in life works this way.


That is exactly how life works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For example: If someone says they saw a dog walking down the street, this is something you can accept with little-to-no evidence; you know dogs exist and that they have a tendency to walk down the street from time to time. However, if someone says they saw an alien walking down the street, that is an extraordinary claim that requires a different standard of proof; aliens are rather questionable quantity in our world, something that does not exist in our day-to-day lives. Extraordinary claims, of any sort be they about the paranormal or more mundane things, are not just accepted on word-alone in the world of science; it requires a cogent argument supported by evidence.

However, you want it the other way; you want things accepted on word alone.


Originally posted by platosallegory
We never ask for proof that something exists before we gather and weigh the evidene within reason.


You accuse skeptics of doing this, but it is not in keeping with reality. Your problem is that skeptics have done this, but since they do not draw the conclusions you want, you accuse them of never looking at the evidence in the first place.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I do see your point. I too was very impressed with some of the witnesses of Steven Greers (I think thats right) Disclosure project but at the end of the day it's just an amazing series of tales.


Yes, but 'tales' in court are called testimony and it is legitimate evidence. Of course I'm not suggesting that the proof relies merely on such testimony, but on the full range of high quality evidence, including credible testimony, that must be examined together, as a whole.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
And once again another thread has been beaten down by people pointing fingers and arguing.

If only we understood unity and understanding. To be awake is so much more then just understanding conspiracies.

We're all to blame, all sides, each of us.

I have begun to wonder if there is more to this site then meets the eye.

There are times when all that becomes visible is the flaunting of ego, it is most unfortunate, nothing gets accomplished, everything gets deflected.

We will learn soon enough.

Be In Peace.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


However, as SaviorComplex has already pointed out scientific proof is different from scientific proof. In court you just need to convince 12 people that your argument is the correct one. Scientific theories need a bit more than this to be accepted as fact.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Malcram
 


However, as SaviorComplex has already pointed out scientific proof is different from scientific proof. In court you just need to convince 12 people that your argument is the correct one. Scientific theories need a bit more than this to be accepted as fact.


I agree. But what exactly is your point? I was simply pointing out that in all other fields of investigation, including in a legal setting, various types of evidence is considered and the weight of the full range of evidence is used to reach a conclusion. Cumulative evidence eventually constitutes "proof". It is the same in a scientific setting. Now, whereas this procedure is followed and allowed to run it's course in all these other fields, it is not so with regard to the UFO issue. That is the problem. There is a double standard.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
But there's just as much evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy, etc, as there is for your aliens. In fact there's more, as I see Father Christmas every year in my local stores grotto! I've never seen ET in there. . . I've said it before, it doesn't matter whether you're a politician, pilot, policeman or Uncle Tom Cobbley, when these highly trained and skilled individuals are faced with something unexpectedly they are just as likely to make mistakes as you or I.


I'm shocked you actually got stars for that rediculous comment. Some skeptics really are a joke.


Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
But there's just as much evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy, etc, as there is for your aliens. In fact there's more...


No, there isn't.



as I see Father Christmas every year in my local stores grotto! I've never seen ET in there...


Well, by your logic, someone dressed as E.T at a Sci-Fi Convention is just as much evidence as Santa displayed in a store. In fact, we see pictures of ETs all the time, on posters, TV...hell, even on mugs.



I've said it before, it doesn't matter whether you're a politician, pilot, policeman or Uncle Tom Cobbley, when these highly trained and skilled individuals are faced with something unexpectedly they are just as likely to make mistakes as you or I.


True! But, you forgot something...yep...numbers. How possible is it, that through all the eye witnesses we've got, 1 of them is 100% right? Is that a possibility? Yes or no? And, I'm only talking about the specially trained witnesses here. You know, navy seals, pilots, astronauts...even Government officials.

What about documentation? Ever heard of The Disclosure Project? To date, hundreds of high ranking officials have come out and say, yes we have alien technology, yes we have worked on them, yes we have studied alien life, yes we have the documents to prove it, yes some UFOs are identified as extra terrestrial life and yes, we're risking our jobs, societal status and professional careers to tell you what certain forces are keeping from you! I guess all those folks are mad and are probably just making a really big "mistake" as you put it. You have to be kidding me.

What about the sightings where not one, but 2 or 3 pilots are witnesses? What if those same sightings have been picked up on radar on many occasions? I guess the radar made a "mistake" too. LOL, don't make me laugh! What about sightings where entire villages witness something clearly not of this Earth? Mass sightings are probably "mistakes" as well. I'm not saying we don't make mistakes. I'm saying, it's foolish to think that all the millions(yes, millions) of UFO stories, witnesses, documents from early years to today are all big "mistakes". Does that really sound logical to you? If so...then we're a waste as a society and civilization, if we keep making such stupid mistakes 100% of the time.

Don't sit there and tell me there's no evidence for extra terrestrial life. There is! But, it's even worse if you, or anyone says there's no evidence for UFOs. Because, that we have enough evidence of.

Maybe, you can say, there's not enough evidence that satisfies you. That, I can sadly accept, but accept none the less.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I don't really see where there's a double standard. We don't accept the claims of scientists if all they have is an anecdote of something they accomplished in the lab. They need to be able to provide empirical results that will allow others to replicate their results. If they can't do this then their claim is thrown out. Let me ask you this, do you believe in the existence of a stone that can turn lead to gold? There are kings and scholars, amongst others, who claim they have seen the Philosopher's Stone at work and yet never has it been replicated in laboratory conditions.

I'm not saying that you can't believe in the ET theory based off of what evidence you've seen, but to say skeptics are misguided or what have you seems a bit selfish. You're never going to convince the public of the existence of aliens unless you can convince the skeptics. You can sit here questioning the motives of skeptics and saying that we're what's wrong with ufology, as some have claimed in the past, but if you ever want the field taken seriously it's our lead that you're going to have to follow. No matter how many unexplained lights in the sky are recorded on cell phones or how many government officials come forward, the public at large aren't going to listen until you find the empirical evidence that skeptics have been looking for for years.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on The Disclosure Project under
"Criticism". I would say it all starts to unravel as you pull at the threads.

MF





... Dr. Greer has also been drawing a considerable amount of criticism from his own corner. Already before the May 2001 Washington press conference, astronaut Edgar Mitchell had distanced himself from the project, allegedly because Dr. Greer "began to overreach his data continuously".

Another accusation is the use of unreliable witnesses. Among them could be counted the New Age radio host Dr. Fred Bell. In the "Disclosure" book, Dr. Bell appeared as "Dr. B." and was only described as "a scientist and engineer who has worked on top-secret projects almost all his life."

Dr. Greer has spoken extensively about Project Moon Dust, Project Blue Fly, claims from within SETI that apparently extraterrestrial signals have been detected, and an internal CIA document describing the agency's close ties to press. Critics state that Dr. Greer has failed to mention that the Disclosure Project did not uncover any of this information, but instead that respectively investigative journalist Howard Blum and the Washington Post were responsible for this.

... the Disclosure Project released two pages of a supposedly secret internal document from the Strategic Studies Institute, which talked about a staged alien invasion. However, the document was not written by anyone of the Strategic Studies Institute. It was a fictional scenario, written by anti-electronic surveillance activist Julianne McKinney ...





posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Thats old news my friend

try to prove anything is hard to do



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
The skeptics dilemma is they have no reasonable explanation for eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, abduction cases, trace evidence and more.

The skeptic will say we don't know what it is but you can't assume that it's extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional but they never tell us why we can't make this assumption.

It's not like we are coming to this conclusion about these things in a vacuum. There's alot of evidence to look at that supports extra-terrestials or extra-dimensional beings.

So why can't we make this assumption based on reason?

The skeptic says we can't explain what it is but we can tell you what it's not.

So on one hand they ask for evidence and then in the next breath they exclude extra-terrestrials and extra-dimensional beings thereby eliminating any evidence for these things. Do you see how illogical that sounds?

You then have skeptics who realize this position is illogical because you can't exclude them as a cause for these events. What they do is say, it could be extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional but it could be a weather balloon, chinese lantern or anything else and all of these things are weighed equally with extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings. If they don't have any explanation that's weighed equally with extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings.

This makes no sense. We always weigh things within reason and say this is the most likely answer.

The skeptic does not do this when it comes to things within ufology. They don't weigh it within reason because they have to be able to equate any explanation or non explanation like we can't explain it but that doesn't mean it's alien, with extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings.

Nobody is saying that these things are proven but that there's evidence to weigh within reason that extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings are the explanation for things like abduction cases, mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, trace evidence, pictures, video and more.

The skeptic wants to keep these things in the realm of possibility without weighing these things within reason so that all possibilities are given equal footing.

Let me ask the skeptics a question, can extraterrestrials or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for these things?

If no, please explain why.


There are explanations for all those, and proven time after time.
If there wasn't any Hoaxs there would be job vacancies for skeptics.
Hoaxs are "usually" linked to Books,DVD which is all about money.

Unfortunatly, Alien and UFO hunters never have to prove it is real,
it always comes back to the skeptics to prove it is not real.

All the evidence for Alien and UFO is Circumstantial evidence.
It is just a collection of facts that, when put together come to
a conclusion. But any of those single facts is not proof of anything.
Where as a single fingerprint or DNA is proof of a Murder.

If you can post ANY Alien/UFO information from this board where
each of the facts can be viewed as evidence in their own right
then it will be treated as a UFO and not a Hoax.

Any cop will tell you, the Eyewitness is the most unreliable of any
evidence. If they are trained to observe as part of their job they are
regarded as more reliable. The next problem is digital cameras, since
they arrived the number of "sightings" has skyrocketed because they
are so easy to alter.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


But having said all that...

If a real 'ALF' landed in my backyard and I took it into any coffee shop in
any city, how many would think it real?.
And I'm sure even the beleivers would think it was Fake, and expecting
some sort of narly Magic Power.

I would practically have to pull its fur off to proof it might actually be real.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   


I would practically have to pull its fur off to proof it might actually be real.


I would`nt pull Alf`s fur if I were you! LOL

Sorry,couldn`t resist


[edit on 18-3-2009 by johnjohn808]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Thats old news my friend

try to prove anything is hard to do



When you have to resort to pressure tactics, rounding up attention seeking questionable people, and plain ol' dishonesty, it gives an indication of how strong your case is.

From what I've seen, the current crop of UFOlogists are very much a mixed bag composed of gullible people, fantasy seeking students and more than a few delusionals, corralled by conmen trying to make a living with their videos, books, and on the convention circuit.

The Net and Youtube have further obscured the line between fact and fiction.
I give little or no credence to any photographs or videos I see online. Like the work of fiction the Disclosure Project tried to pass off as a document,
even amateurs can manufacture superficially convincing evidence of anything.

There may be a new generation of serious UFO investigators who are willing to weigh evidence objectively without predetermined conclusions. They will have their work cut out for them sorting through 60 odd years of accumulated data, information and misinformation, and more than a fair share of untruths. I wish them luck.


Mike F



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on The Disclosure Project under
"Criticism". I would say it all starts to unravel as you pull at the threads.


You can't simply reject all the testimony because there were a few bad apples involved.

This from the same article:



Selection of witnesses

The Disclosure Project selected most of its witnesses from within military/governmental departments.

Below is a partial list of some of the more notable people involved in the Project:[4]

* Nick Pope: British Ministry of Defense Official
* Dr. Roberto Pinotti: Italian UFO expert
* Astronaut Gordon Cooper (deceased)
* Astronaut Edgar Mitchell
* Monsignor Corrado Balducci (deceased)
* Dr. Carol Rosin
* Dan Willis: US Navy, Communications
* Admiral Lord Hill-Norton: Five-Star Admiral, Former Head of the British Ministry of Defense (deceased)
* Gordon Creighton: Former British Foreign Service official
* Dr. Robert Wood: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Engineer
* Dr. Alfred Webre: Former Senior Policy Analyst, Stanford Research Institute
* Denise McKenzie: Former SAIC employee
* Colonel Philip J. Corso: US Army (deceased)
* Colonel Ross Dedrickson: US Air Force/AEC (ret.)
* Lieutenant Walter Haut: US Navy
* Dr. Hal Puthoff
* Dr. Eugene Mallove
* Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. Bearden: US Army (ret.)
* John Callahan: FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations
* Larry Warren: Security Officer, RAF Bentwaters Woodbridge, NATO
* Major George A. Filer III: US Air Force (ret.)
* John Maynard: Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
* Captain Robert Salas: US Air Force, SAC Launch Controller
* Don Phillips: US Air Force, Lockheed Skunkworks, design engineer/CIA contractor, worked with Kelly Johnson
* Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown: US Air Force (ret.) Office of Special Investigations, Project Grudge
* Mark McCandlish: US Air Force, conceptual artist for Rockwell X-30 and HYSTP programs
* James Kopf: US Navy/NSA Crypto Communications
* Major General Vasily Alexeyev: Russian Air Force



A lot of the people involved are extremely credible, whatever the original motivations of Stephen Greer may have been.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 




It is just a collection of facts that, when put together come to
a conclusion.


Sorry, had to highlight this
It reminds me of the Homer Simpson quote - 'Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!'



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join