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: 18
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 



Okay, why can't extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for these things?

Who said anything about it being established that they are the most likely explanation for these things?

If you can't even allow the possibility that extra-terrestrials and extra-dimensional beings are the most likely explanation for these things than your a closed minded debunker.

Why do you exclude extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensial beings from being the most likely explanation for these things?

The only way you can do this is if you start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist.

That's the whole point of this thread.

I have debated skeptics who can easily say that extra-terrestrials or ectra-dimensional beings can be the most likely explanation for these things even though they don't think that they are.

That's because how can you exclude a possible explanation for these events before you make an open and honest inquiry?

That's just common sense.

Mod Edit: Removed big quote.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Gemwolf]




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
When he asked if we thought the ETH was the best explanation for UFOs and we all responded "no, but still a possibility," he said we were saying it wasn't a possibility at all. Any argument presented, any argument at all, is cast by him as being a "pseudoskeptic" or "bogus skeptic" argument. Notice he has also stopped using those terms and just refers to skeptics; to me this proves they are interchangable in his mind.


I thought the first thing was actually an accident on his part, that how he phrased it initially, and how he remembered doing so later, varied a bit. (I screw up sometimes too.) Maybe I just gave the benefit of the doubt. I noticed that previously; and the title of the thread. Though I felt some of the responses on the other side were overdone as well, so it seemed to balance out a bit, and hence, didn't leave me feeling like any one side was worse off.

I suspect that having ranged from skeptic to scoffer myself in the past on topics I now am forced to debate from the other side, I am slightly biased: I've seen so much abuse of the skeptic title by people who aren't, it's become almost a knee-jerk assumption that a good 99% of the people claiming to be skeptics aren't. It's easy to be sympathetic with arguments against the scoffer position as a result. Real skeptics are rare and valuable.

I also think that some legitimately skeptical positions are simply inappropriate in some subject matter and in some applications (because measurable physical objective facts are simply not part of them; which to me does not invalidate them, it simply puts them in another category of study, much like qualities of nature you can't get in a test tube [eg the dead butterfly is not the same as the live one]), and when forced into them it becomes a form of at best pointless and at worst bullying. That is even with legit skeptic stuff never mind what isn't.

When I first began having anomalous experiences (which is really all I can "fairly" call them since I really don't know WTF was going on there for sure, though I've adopted the slang of assumption for conversational purposes), I actually wrote them up and sent them to the arch-skeptic of a discussion forum I was involved with in compuserve at the time. I figured he was going to hunt me down and stick a fork in me either way, might as well start there LOL. And I wanted his input, I wanted his critique and his intelligent if sometimes searing review because right up until then I'd been in his shoes and I respected his opinion. He was a genuine skeptic not a scoffer, which was helpful to me, and we had a real discussion as a result, which as he was seriously studying the subject, was helpful to him and others as well.

One of the primary areas of dispute about personal accounts (as this thread has gone about) is what amounts to the belief or suspicion that everybody reporting such things is either stupid, lying, or insane -- or at best, 'honestly mistaken' to such a degree it qualifies for one of the former. As irritating as it really is, a whole lot of people talking about it sound like it. But study the subject deeply enough and you start to find quite a few people who are clearly none of the above, who are extremely well credentialed, well educated, or simply absolute no-nonsense people, who you'd trust implicitly on just about any other subject under the sun, who've never been hypnotized about any of it, who themselves are often very skeptical and hesitant to form conclusions, and it suddenly starts seeming less like a whole world of raving lunatics and wannabes, and more like something very odd and unusually pervasive which, even if it's just bizarre psychology, is worth exploring.

A friend and I once did a sort of experiment. We'd be talking with people in some social gathering about any given thing, long enough for people to see that we were rational and had brains, and then just slide in some mention of UFOs, aliens, whatever, and then move on. Often at the time, all the people around would laugh, make jokes, etc. But we'd be real serious about it -- validating and logical -- and then drop it. And then just count. People would come back. Furtively sneaking up to you when nobody else was around, trying to find a way to get you alone, so they can tell you about the time they and their wife and kids drove to the family dinner 2.5 hours away and got there 9 hours later and the kids had bizarre memory fragments of stopping the car and following some improbable animal into the woods, or the time he shifted from heavy coke-bottle glasses to perfect vision overnight and the family doctor later had to sign an affidavit to get him into the air force because his eyes showed signs of laser surgery which he'd never had, or the mysterious gigantic scar he pulls his hair back to show that showed up literally one day never seen before, but they don't want you to tell anybody, and they'd never admit it publicly, and they're clearly disturbed about it and relieved to have someone they can tell about it who won't mock them and whose intelligence they trust, on and on the experiences go, a rather surprising % of people, including a whole lot of people who were sneering and joking around others. It's very... enlightening.

The difference is that a well grounded person on the 'experience' side won't expect others to simply take their word on it and change their own belief systems based on their testimony. Why should they. It's a lot like psychic stuff; there is no reason to believe any of it until you start having it, then something happens and you get irrefutable feedback; then this repeats, often enough that you start realizing there's something to it. People who've never had that experience have no reason to assume it's true for others. If they dove deeply enough into the science they probably would but most people without the experience really just don't care that much frankly.

On the other hand, having had enough of the experience to know, I consider those onlooking to be acceptable -- if they're interested I will share, and some of the best insight, questions and critique I've gotten over time have been from skeptics -- but rather beside the point; their opinion or label means nothing to the experience itself, and whether or not they believe any given thing is pretty much irrelevant to me; it's their life not mine, and I cannot crawl inside their head, so it's an impasse.

PJ



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
...how can you exclude a possible explanation for these events before you make an open and honest inquiry?


We are not doing that at all. We have stated again and again that extraterrestrials are a possible explanation. Yet time and time again, you ignore this.

By the by, sockpuppets are against the T&C, Polomontana.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Okay, why can't extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for these things?

Who said anything about it being established that they are the most likely explanation for these things?

If you can't even allow the possibility that extra-terrestrials and extra-dimensional beings are the most likely explanation for these things than your a closed minded debunker.

Why do you exclude extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensial beings from being the most likely explanation for these things?

The only way you can do this is if you start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist.

That's the whole point of this thread.

I have debated skeptics who can easily say that extra-terrestrials or ectra-dimensional beings can be the most likely explanation for these things even though they don't think that they are.

That's because how can you exclude a possible explanation for these events before you make an open and honest inquiry?

That's just common sense.

Mod Edit: Removed big quote. Again?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


We heard you the first time, Polomontana.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by platosallegory
...how can you exclude a possible explanation for these events before you make an open and honest inquiry?


We are not doing that at all. We have stated again and again that extraterrestrials are a possible explanation. Yet time and time again, you ignore this.

By the by, sockpuppets are against the T&C, Polomontana.


Sorry, all possibilities are not weighed equally. That's not how logic and reason work.

We always weigh evidence within reason and again you prove my point.

You want all possibilities to be seen as having an equal probability of being true.

We always weigh things in terms of what's most likely and less likely.

Again, the pseudo skeptics don't want this and that's why it took them 3 tries to answer my question.

They exclude extra terrestrials or extra dimensional beings as being the most likely explanation for these things because they don't weigh these things within reason.

Complex and others are proving my point beautifully.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


LoL are you being serious?

so someone sees a light in the sky that they cant I.D and you think an equally probable explanation is Extra Terrestrials in a spaceship?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


I do allow for the possibilty that there is ET life and technology. I allow the possibility that is a possible explaination. But, to allow it to be the most likely explaination is cutting corners I don't think can be cut and still commit to learning the truth.

And I don't accept your label of "close-minded debunker". Period. I don't debunk. I investigate and hope to form conclusions. For myself, not for others. I think the terms "debunker, skeptic, believer, etc, point to a determined path to follow. I follow no determined path.

How's this: I believe there is ET life in our own Galaxy, however, I am skeptical of their presence here on Earth. Visitation-wise or other.

It hasn't been proven to me yet.

To opponants on both sides of this argument:

Notice how I deal and refer to only my thoughts and feelings on the subject? That's because I don't have the imput to refer to anyone else...like psuedoskeptics, tactical-believers or whatever else. I know only me. You know only you. And when there is an attempt by one person, or persons, to describe another, or others, they can only generalize. You may say you try to focus it only on certain personality types, but, you still only generalize. There is no winner to this debate unless everyone only refers to himself, and is honest, which I don't think can be done.

It's a vicious circle I have to step out of.
Believers, go believe. But don't cry when your beliefs are challenged. You put them out there.
Skeptics, question away, but, be aware that there are believers who will believe no matter what you say.

I'll stick to worrying about me.

Cuhail



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
Sorry, all possibilities are not weighed equally. That's not how logic and reason work.


You contradict yourself...


Originally posted by platosallegory
We always weigh things in terms of what's most likely and less likely.



Originally posted by platosallegory
Again, the pseudo skeptics don't want this and that's why it took them 3 tries to answer my question.


We answered your question the first time, liar.

You know, it is the height of stupidity for you to lie about something like that when anyone can review this thread and see we have answered your question every time it has been asked. However, you ignore it each time or spin our answers so it they mutilated beyond recognition.


Originally posted by platosallegory
Complex and others are proving my point beautifully.


The thing we are proving is that you are closed-minded, a hypocrite, and a liar.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
so someone sees a light in the sky that they cant I.D and you think an equally probable explanation is Extra Terrestrials in a spaceship?


You are right. He is not even making sense. He is contradicting himself.

First he attacks us for not agreeing with him, saying we are closed-minded for not accepting his views as the most-likely explanation. Then when I say I still consider it a possibility, but not the most likely, he says I want all explanations to be equal. Then he tells us we must find some possibilities are more likely than others.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
If you can't even allow the possibility that extra-terrestrials and extra-dimensional beings are the most likely explanation for these things than your a closed minded debunker.


In a blinding flash of insight ( . . . ) I suddenly see the other guy's point of view on this discussion.


Why do you exclude extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensial beings from being the most likely explanation for these things?

The only way you can do this is if you start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist.


I don't agree. I KNOW they do exist, so I certainly am not guilty of assuming they don't, yet I don't agree.

I personally think, subjectively, that the assumed-entities I've interacted with are both 'here' but hidden by tech (and 'nearby' like inside moon or mountains or ocean), and 'not-quite-here' as in traveling from or through some other bandwidth of frequency or beat pattern we don't normally perceive.

But I don't personally think, objectively, that UFOs have as their "most likely" explanation ETs or EDs. A "possible" explanation yes -- but not "most likely".

Perhaps you are not using the english terms very well and this is a semantics confusion.

"Most likely" is a probability phrase. If I didn't have my experience-set -- because I trust myself a good deal more than I trust anybody else of course -- I would think it was at least equally (if not more) likely that "anomalous psychology" was the answer to 'abductions' and that 'secret technology' was the answer to 'UFOs'. Based on what has been 'objectively revealed as factual' in my past observation of the world, both of those have a higher probability than the ET/ED hypothesis.

Only my subjective experiences, in cumulation, tell me that both of those things exist but are not usually the answer, at least for most people I have known well. (I can't speak to the lunatics on the internet hahaha.) But I can't expect people without that shared experience to have any good reason to see it that way.

In order to share your perspective they would have to believe the majority of the literature/claims from 'contactees'. They would also have to make a leap of faith that even I don't make, regarding the relationship between UFOs and 'contact'. It is not ... just, as in fair, to demand that of them. A genuine skeptic is not going to believe you are right, although they might believe you are sincere, and although they might be moved to an interest to further investigate -- which might eventually lead them to believing you are right. But they have to get there on their own. Simply demanding it of them isn't going to make it happen, it's just going to make them see you as irrational.

As skeptics-not-scoffers, they should admit that ETs or EDs are one possibility for explaining 'abduction' or 'UFO's. But they did... about 20 times.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
Sorry, all possibilities are not weighed equally. That's not how logic and reason work.

We always weigh evidence within reason and again you prove my point.

You want all possibilities to be seen as having an equal probability of being true.


By the way, Polomontana/LucidDreamer/Platosallergory...I never claimed that as possibilities were equal.

Your words again, hypocrite:


Originally posted by platosallegory
Also, you continue to try and debate claims that I never made.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Please explain why extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings can't be the most likey explanation for abduction cases, eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence, pictures and video.

Again, the only way that you can deny this if you start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist.

This is an illogical position.

Why do you exclude them from being the most likely explanation for these things?

You can only say this if you don't weigh the evidence within reason and you see all evidence as having an equeal probability of being true.

Again, this just proves my point.

We always weigh things as most likely and less likely but the pseudo and bogus skeptic wants to throw out reason and logic.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I'm waiting for skeptics to answer as to why extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings can't be the most likely explanation for these things.

I was just debating someone on parallel universes and some people saw it as the most likely explanation and others thought it was a less likely explanation.

People weighed the evidence within reason.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 



Okay man. You officially pushed me to the conclusion that, to you, there is no answer but the one you give.
I gave you my response. Asking for it again does nothing. Giving it again does nothing.
Your debate is illogical and circular and the only answer you will accept is the one you hold to so hard. Your mind is closed on this, in my opinion.

And my opinion, of course, means nothing.

Cuhail



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by platosallegory
Again, the only way that you can deny this if you start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist.


Once again, Plato, you show yourself to be a liar.

He did not say these things cannot or do not exist. He stated he believed they are a possibility. That is a far cry from the lie you are spinning.


Originally posted by platosallegory
Again, this just proves my point.


No, it just proves you are a lying piece of filth who should be banned.



Again Complex,

If it's a possible explanation then why can't it be a most likely explanation of these things?

We always weigh possibilities within reason.

I just asked can it be the most likely explanation for these things and if you thinkit's possible why do you exclude that it could be a most likely explanation?

Again, it shows how illogical the pseudo or bogus skeptic is.

I can say easily that the most likely explanation is that we don't know what these things are.

But when I weigh the evidence within reason, I say extra-terrestrials or extra-terrestrial beings is a more likely explanation than unexplained or we don't know.

It's very simple.

The pseudo or bogus skeptic doesn't weigh the evidence within reason because they want these things to be "proven" first.

Again, if extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings are a possible explanation, why can't they be the most likely explanation for these things? Why do you even exclude the possibility?

It's because you want to throw out anything and then say it's a possible explanation.

This is why you can throw out fairytailes and goblins when talking about ufology.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
Please explain why extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings can't be the most likey explanation for abduction cases, eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence, pictures and video.

Which one?

The things with video aren't the things with trace evidence.

The mass sightings aren't the things with recounted abductions.

There are thousands of reports of different things, in different circumstances, by different people.

There is no one answer to ALL of them.


Again, the only way that you can deny this if you start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist.


Or if you think there's a ton of anomalous stuff and there is probably more than one answer depending on the item in question, or if you think that until you have better info you can't spec which is most probable.

If someone's brother they totally respect and believe tells them they were abducted, and there was a newspaper report of a UFO they said they saw just prior, they might give it a different possibility the classification of "most likely" in their answers, than if Silver Moon Princess on the internet, while explaining she is an Indigo Child which is why the hazards of an ordinary job are too much for her subtle senses to bear, claims to have been abducted by greys and then channels the Pleiaidians to explain it all for us.

I mean, this is fair, a lot of how anybody classifies information depends on the package it arrives in.

If 3 radars and an F-16 chase it, it's probably not hallucination or lying or insanity, check! That doesn't make it from another planet or dimension, but it could be; so far we ruled out 3 options, and we can rule out a few others like isn't "known tech" from us, the Russians, etc. We can't rule out aliens... or the descendents from secret nazi experiments... or a culture that's lived underground for a couple thousand years that we don't know about... or tech that is totally NOT known to us [the source of that unclear]... all of those are possible.

I think we can rule out the easter bunny and superman. I grant that anybody who uses such analogies is NOT admitting any possibility of ET/ED but is clearly assigning it to fiction, you were right about that part.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


If you have a better explanation for these things then present it and lets weigh it within reason.

Of course we can keep these things unidentified and unexplained ad infinitum but that's not how science works.

You come up with different hypothesis and then you weigh the evidence within reason. You then look for ways to test and measure these things.

The pseudo and bogus skeptics want extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings to be tested and measured before we weigh the evidence within reason and that's illogical.

So again, you can keep it unexplained or unidentified forever and I'm sure that's what alot of skeptics want so tthey can throw out any possibility like fairies or goblins.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
I'm waiting for skeptics to answer as to why extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings can't be the most likely explanation for these things.


Because:

1. We have no record of ETs being found (proved) to be responsible for UFO sightings in the past.

2. UFOs that have been explained in the past, have been found to be mis-identified natural or man made phenomena.

3. It's unlikely for various reasons that even if ETs could find us, that they would be able to travel here.

--

Edit to add: It's likely ETs exist, but that is not a given either.

and also, 4. It's *very* likely that there are terrestrial phenomena, that have yet to be identified, and this alone could account for those UFOs that can not be explained.

Look at it this way:

If some animal breaks into your chicken coop and steals a chicken, you don't get on a plane and and look for evidence in another country. That would be stupid, right?

The first thing you do is look for evidence of what it was in your own back yard, and surrounding area.

Earth, our own back yard, is still mostly unexplored.

Until we know our back yard well enough, and can safely say we have excluded all possible terrestrial phenomena/possibilities, we can only speculate that what people have seen *might* be due to something ET, but because of all the reasons given above, it's more likely that inexplicable UFO sightings are caused by something much closer to home.



[edit on 19-3-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join