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: 21
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by akalepos

Careful in recommending me books Akalepos.

A little education and I might be dangerous




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by akalepos
 


I just answered the question.

If you took it the wrong way I don't know why.

Like I said, just because we don't know the origin of something does not mean we can't weigh the evidence within reason.

That was my only point.

This is why some skeptics use terms like 100% proof, absolute proof or they want something proven. We never work this way in life.

We never have to prove something exist before we weigh the evidence within reason.

If we did we would still be stuck in caves.

You can't give all of these things equal probability of being true. It's not logical and it only applies to ufology or things like the paranormal.

This is why I say extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings. It's very broad because I don't know where they originate from. To say we can't reach this conclusion based on eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence, videos and pictures by weighing this evidence within reason doesn't make sense.

We always have to speculate and use reason when we are forming a hypothesis.

Why can't we do this with ufology? Why do we have to keep these things unexplained or unidentified ad infinitum?

It's because if you don't come to a conclusion by weighing the evidence within reason the skeptic will keep these thing unexplained forever. The explanation could be anything that they agree with accept exta-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings.

So of course it will remain unexplained if you allow for all possibilities have an equal probability of being true.

I can say that all of these things are caused by the flying pink monkey. The skeptic will say that has an equal probability of being true alongside extra terrestrial or extra dimensional beings.

Again we have reason and logic, why is abandoned when it comes to things like the paranormal and ufology?

I liked the question by the way.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by akalepos
 


Essentially I agree with what you are saying. However, if you think about it, the point you make can be applied to many things which society and the scientific community accepts as "true" or "fact", and yet they find a way past that problem. They do not refrain from reaching conclusions.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Malcram]


You are right about that.
However, I would have to object that "getting around" what may really be true in order to form inconsistent conclusions is not something I would care to do and is consistent in fact with performing psudo science which every good researcher decries.

But it you apply things within the way that logic, and I mean Formal Logic, has been set up by the philosophy meisters, (OVER THE CENTURIES.. [this is for that other guy]) you won't have many problems. You may not like the results, but what one likes or doesn't like has nothing to do with it.

Yes, I do sort of intuit where yer comin from. I feel that way too most days. But I do not have to perform "thinking" they way they do and I am grateful for that.

my bio on the book will tell you a little bit about me.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by akalepos]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


The last time I quoted someone here they deleted the quote. I didn't know it was too big.

I am with ya here mostly/

Its just the PITTS>>>> that we have to accept things the way they are "knowing" in our heart of hearts that there is some serious weird "stuff" going on and that the Chimps with the Magic, won't give it tous Baboons. (Ok, I'll speak for myself hehehe)

All you can do is investigate.

I BELIEVE ufo's exist and so do the aliens but I am suspicious of their origins.

Just remember that.. oh wait. I can look at you post in another window. Man I can be a real retard sometimes.

Oh heck no, I am not upset in the slightest in reality. I just like a good mental challenge sometimes...

and you're right: You haven't said it but some "skeptics" can just be plain old boneheads. Its like you can't convince Grandpa that there are cars in the world that have right hand drive... hehe

This sort of "stuff" is why I said in some other forgotten post that we need to be able to get comfortable with the uncomforatble.

In philosophy, you would say that "vagueness" is part and parcel of the project.

Boy did I hate that! But it finally reduces to the truth of the matter that darn it! no matter how I want it to be, it may not be that way!

I love life dude! Don't you? Don't all of you?

To be honest as long as those "people" don't break out the "War of the Worlds" machines... I am cool about it.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Forming theories abuot things we know nothing about is absolutely fair.

But it is our responsibility to form a coherent theory.

There are ontological, epistemological and other commitments that have to be met inorder for our theoies to be REALLY accepted. It is rough..

Conceptual development being what it is,,,, most theories never make it where the rubber hits the road.

But you guys all know that!

I'm getting tired.. too many typos.



[edit on 19-3-2009 by akalepos]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
My question is why is everything either an explanation that agree's with someones belief system or it's thrown into the unexplained column?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

You ask for evidence on one hand and then when evidence is presented it's fake, mistaken or unexplained.

These things are not explained because we don't accept the explanation.

When a person says they went through an abduction experience, it HAS to be something else.

When a person describes what occured during a mass sighting it HAS to be something else.

When an eyewitness describes what he/she saw it HAS to be something else.

Why couldn't have been what they said they saw?

Everything that people can't understand or that goes against their pre-existing belief is thrown into the unexplained or unidentified column.

Again, we keep these things unexplained because we don't want to accept the most obvious explanation. If you exclude extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings then of course these things will remain unexplained ad infinitum.

I just think that it's time to expand our minds as a species.

We can't keep trying to put the universe, life and everything that we don't understand into a box.

We don't know what constitutes over 96% of the universe.

Physicist are talking about braneworlds, parallel universes, the multiverse and more.

Liquid water on Mars and signs of microbial life. Bacteria that's not from earth found in the earth's atmosphere.

How can we exclude extra terrestrial or extra dimensional beings from being responsible for these things?

Is our ego so big that we think the universe can't produce life that's more advanced than we are?

People ask where's the evidence and it's right in front of their face. They just don't want to accept it so it's put in the unexplained or unidentified black hole.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by akalepos
 


Your right akalepos, it's always good to question these things. If all of these things turn out to be a natural phenomana and evidence is presented I will accept it. I just don't see it that way now based on the evidence.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Doh. Double post.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Uhm. Hate to rain on the parade. But it doesn't matter what we call it or think it is. We don't know the truth of the matter and this whole skeptic versus believer crap gets in the way of any sort of resolution. And BOTH SIDES are horribly guilty of it.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
 



Of course we don't know the truth of the matter and that's why you have debates.

I don't know the truth of the matter about quantum gravity.

I don't know the truth of the matter about the Holographic Principle.

I can still debate these things and pointing out the iloogical argument of the bogus or pseudo skeptics is great.

If a skeptic is going to hop on every thread and say it's a weather baloon, it's a kite. it's a chinese lantern, these things are not real, it's a fairytale they should be able to defend their position.

It's a message board so of course these things will be debated.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by platosallegory]


..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 22-3-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



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


Debate is fine, debate is great. The polarized party politics bullcrap you *and others* are playing is not, all this polarized skeptics versus believers bullcrap and constant ad hom of each other is nothing more than masterbation that is getting the debate as a whole NO WHERE. And before you claim you are not guilty of it I refer you to the OP of which you typed.
You are allowed your opinions and to state them. Which is fine and I applaud you for doing so. For the love of the gods give others that right as well, without attack.
Disagreeing with you does not equate to some sort of mental lack or refusal to accept facts or even some sort of fanaticism against you. Especially considering the matter is FAR from proven or disproven concretely regardless what other side wants whoever yo believe.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by akalepos

Careful in recommending me books Akalepos.

A little education and I might be dangerous


Oh man... there is so much more.
You owe it to yourself and no one else to fill your library with as much right information as you can.

I am 56 this year. If I stop doing it, I will die. I think you die in the head first, then the body atrophies and drags you down the black hole of destiny!



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Maybe some of what appears to be animosity isn't really, but rather a poor choice of words sometimes. Not everyone can be a word smith.


I try to take it that way so that I won't be the one that starts reacting. It sure is tempting once in awhile!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Shouldn't the standard for evidence/proof for aliens/extraterrestrials be the same as for other more or less similar phenomena? I apologize in advance to anyone who may be offended by my lumping UFO's together with ghosts, cryptozoology, and other paranormal phenomena .. but that's more or less where they belong whether you like it or not.

The existence of the giant squid, which is fairly mundane compared to ET's visiting Earth, was not generally accepted until we had a body that could be examined, dissected, tested, etc.

We have pictures, video, and EVP recordings of ghosts which are at least as good or "convincing" as the evidence for aliens, and yet the existence of ghosts is not yet generally accepted, either.

Obviously there is something going on .. all the people who see UFO's and/or ET's are not crazy (myself included). BUT .. what they are and where they're from won't be accepted until we have physical evidence.

Show me a body or body part, a piece of a craft made of something not found on Earth, some alien DNA, or some tangible, physical evidence other than pictures, videos, personal accounts, and "trace" evidence such as burnt grass.

Otherwise, the "evidence" for ET's and their craft is no more compelling than the cold spots, EMF readings, photos, videos, and personal accounts regarding the existence of ghosts.

If you disagree, please tell me why the standard for evidence of ET should be different than the standard for proving any other relatively rare phenomena which doesn't have physical evidence?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 



I think that you are right because the problems are the same.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
Shouldn't the standard for evidence/proof for aliens/extraterrestrials be the same as for other more or less similar phenomena? I apologize in advance to anyone who may be offended by my lumping UFO's together with ghosts, cryptozoology, and other paranormal phenomena .. but that's more or less where they belong whether you like it or not.

The existence of the giant squid, which is fairly mundane compared to ET's visiting Earth, was not generally accepted until we had a body that could be examined, dissected, tested, etc.

We have pictures, video, and EVP recordings of ghosts which are at least as good or "convincing" as the evidence for aliens, and yet the existence of ghosts is not yet generally accepted, either.

Obviously there is something going on .. all the people who see UFO's and/or ET's are not crazy (myself included). BUT .. what they are and where they're from won't be accepted until we have physical evidence.

Show me a body or body part, a piece of a craft made of something not found on Earth, some alien DNA, or some tangible, physical evidence other than pictures, videos, personal accounts, and "trace" evidence such as burnt grass.

Otherwise, the "evidence" for ET's and their craft is no more compelling than the cold spots, EMF readings, photos, videos, and personal accounts regarding the existence of ghosts.

If you disagree, please tell me why the standard for evidence of ET should be different than the standard for proving any other relatively rare phenomena which doesn't have physical evidence?


Good questions.

The answer is, you don't have to have physical evidence of something to weigh it within reason.

We never ask for something to be proven before we investigate and build a hypothesis. If this was the case we would still be in caves.

We don't have evidence of extra dimensions, parallel universes, the multiverse what constitutes dark matter/energy, the holographic principle and more yet physicist come to conclusions about these things all the time. Should they have to wait until these things are proven before they come to a conclusion based on reason and the available evidence? No because science doesn't work that way. Nothing works that way.

There's no reason why we have to keep these things unexplained or unidentified forever because we are waiting to find some future explanation that agree's with someones belief system.

Why isn't dark matter/energy labled supernatural. What about extra dimensions, parallel universes and the universe as a quantum computer. All things that some have accepted without it being proven.

Why don't these things require extraordinary evidence? Why does this only apply to ufology and the paranormal?

The answer is people have a set belief that trumps reason. They don't want to look at these things within reason.

If you say they have to have extraordinary evidence then your basically saying that no evidence wil do. What is extraordinary evidence? How do you weigh it?

You don't need extraordinary evidence just evidence.

I should be able to look into ufology and the paranormal the same way I study extra dimensions or parallel universes and the skeptics doesn't require extraordinary evidence for those things. I have never seen or measured a parallel universe. I have seen a picture, video or eyewitness testimony from someone who has seen a spacecraft or something paranormal.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


I think public contact with an alien being is the only way that the proof would be sufficient enough. And really that is the way it should be.

And please stop with the generalizations please. Not every so called "skeptic" agrees on everything, just as I am sure you disagree on certain points with so called "believers".

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


My post was in response to a specific claim that UFO witness eye testimony is unlike other testimony in that it is not accompanied by physical, measurable evidence, which was demonstrably false.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 

Dark matter and dark energy are postulates, created to account for observed phenomena. Extra dimensions are mathematical "toys" to make the math of relativity work. Likewise, parallel universes are extensions, taken to extremes, of the mathematical constructs of quantum mechanics.

There is no evidence that any of these things exist and they are not accepted as "real". To prove them real would indeed require extraordinary evidence. They are not, at this point, falsifiable. They cannot be proven to exist experimentally, "only" mathematically.

The extraterrestrial hypothesis is no different. It is not falsifiable. It does require extraordinary evidence to be proven.


What is Dark Matter? This is the open question. There are many possibilities, and nobody really knows much about this yet. Here are a few of the many published suggestions, which are being currently hunted for by experimentalists all over the world. Remember, you need at least one baryonic candidate and one non-baryonic candidate to make everything work out, so there there may be more than one correct choice among the possibilities given here.
math.ucr.edu...


The long and short of it is that Dark Energy - as conceived by our modern physicists - is a fanciful notion that would bring a Mona Lisa smile even to Einstein's lips. There is no proof that it exists, but it must exist...

www.aetherometry.com...


Therefore, by adding a fifth dimension to the universe, the same equations that apply to electromagnetism could also apply to gravity. It was later shown that not only is one additional dimension required for this link to be solidified, but six more dimensions. Even further down the road, it was discovered that the formulas used to determine this number (which are actually mathematical methods of approximation, since the actual formulas are unknown) we slightly off, resulting in yet another necessary dimension. Therefore, our three physical dimensions plus one time dimension plus seven additional dimensions results in there being eleven dimensions!

library.thinkquest.org...


"This is simply a way of trusting strictly the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics," says Barrau. "The worlds are not spatially separated, but exist as kinds of 'parallel' universes."
www.dailygalaxy.com...

[edit on 3/20/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The extraterrestrial hypothesis is no different. It is not falsifiable. It does require extraordinary evidence to be proven.


Huh? Extra dimensions and dark matter are things we would never be able to touch, were as an extraterrestrial we would if they do exist and are here. Well, they were to reveal themselves and allow us to touch them.


Apples and oranges my friends apples and oranges.




top topics



 
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join