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: 23
16
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
If you have another explanation then present it but to try and lump all these things together to try and belittle the evidence for things within ufology is illogical.

Again, there is a set of facts to build a hypothesis on. You are just debating against a point that was never made.


Actually, you made the point in your OP that you think ET is the most likely explanation and implied that your frustration with "skeptics" is that they will not admit this.

I'm not trying to belittle any evidence either. I'm asking you, why is the evidence for UFOs/ET "special" or different from the evidence for other phenomena that has similar characteristics?

If I show the best bigfoot video ever, someone will say "it's a guy in a suit." And there will be no way to prove that it isn't a guy in a suit, not from a video.

If you show the best UFO video ever, someone will say "it's a super secret US black ops project." And there will be no way to prove that it isn't a super secret black ops project, not from a video.

Same same.

I think that there are several explanations for UFOs which are equally likely and reasonable, and I'm curious as to what specific evidence you think makes the human-level intelligent being from another planet the most likely explanation?

And - again - what set of facts and observations do you have which can be demonstrated at will that support the ET hypothesis?

If I want to explain to you the reason/logic/evidence behind the theory of gravity, all I have to do is drop an apple. Or drop anything, you'll see it fall.

What can you show me that explains the reason/logic/evidence behind the theory of ET?

A scientific theory explains something that happens all the time, over and over again, repeatedly and predictably. None of that is true about UFOs/ETs!




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Also, it may be that we can circumvent this problem. I have a new theory called the NETH - the No Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis. This is most definitely falsifiable. I have already cited evidence in my previous posts that supports the view that the theory is false

[edit on 20/3/2009 by MarrsAttax]


You have devised a theory so you can debunk yourself?


Well, be careful. I've heard doing that will actually open a wormhole and propel you into the future


On a serious note, how does doing this "circumvent the problem"? Forgive me if I'm being a bit slow.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


The problem it circumvents is that the ETH is not falsifiable and by extension not a scientific theory. By turning it on its head we now have a scientific hypothesis which can be tested against evidence. It is now an easy matter to introduce radar-visual evidence, ground traces, multiple eye-witness testimony in order to try and disprove the hypothesis.

(I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek when I said this so don't expect it to stand up to heavy scrutiny



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
A scientific theory explains something that happens all the time, over and over again, repeatedly and predictably. None of that is true about UFOs/ETs!


If what you're saying is true (and I agree it is) then we have to accept that this phenomena cannot be unravelled by science.

To get back to the thread title I think that the Skeptic's dilemma is that when faced with a phenomenon that resists scientific scrutiny, he/she is left with no means of discovering what the truth may be, which while it is a completely logical position must also ultimately be a frustrating one.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I'm wondering if we couldn't possibly use some crytpozoology techniques to resolve our mystery.

Let's compile evidence and see if we can figure out something that UFOs are attracted to and bait a trap!

Then, by golly, we'll see what the heck they are!



Seriously, I think you guys get way too frustrated and upset about the "skeptics." There are people out and about taking the evidence seriously and trying to investigate as best they can. I don't know why you aren't after the people who possibly have the knowledge and are keeping it above top secret
instead of butting heads with the skeptics all the time.

The skeptics are just a little more down-to-earth than some of us. There have to be people with their feet planted firmly on the ground to keep us balloon riders from just floating away.... Most of them will be the first to admit they were wrong if and when disclosure occurs.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Hey I don't know.

It seems like some sort of major point is forever being ignored or simply remaining "unseen". I say that because in many successive repetitions the re-explanation about the "appeal to authority" fallacy and the very real "variance of the perceiver" theory get invoked over and over again.

Those issues cloud clarity.
Those need to get Occam's razor because those predicates multiply entities beyond what is needed ina recurrent circle dynamic.

We all know that those issues are problematic. But we have solution for those.

The issue about aliens has other problems that we cannot focus on if and only if we have to keep dealing with the fuzzy side issues.

Someone has clearly pointed out that we believe things on scant evidence. I would say that this is simply what people do. This is how they form unsubstantiated beliefs.

As children, the majority of us believe in the tooth fairy...ad nauseum.
We find out differntly later on.

However, the difference between Santa and Rhann the Alien, in the current point argument, is that if we say that the arguments are the same about Santa and Rhann, then we only need to realize that knowledge of a prior solved mystery does not change the questioning part simply because we NOW know that answer. So prior to gaining the knowledge, the investigative portion is the same. It is not the case that current knowledge ex post facto destroys what the prior questioning process was.

The real point is that categorically, when we look at clairvoyance, sasquatch, prescient dreaming and etc. we are dealing with issues that elude hard evidence. ESP testing actually turned out to be inconclusive.
Experiments that support hypothetical assumptions sometimes yield no results.

So the real may be that we ought not expect scientific responses on these subjests. Why? Because it all seems to yield negative returns and circularity.


Sans Hard Evidence, perhaps a set of rules governing Soft Evidence is what we collectively ought to develop in order to form a more coherent theory.

We CANNOT expect the scientific community to accept such rules, given the standards that they use. We cannot correlate or combine the theories about general existence until such time as we can get the evidence that fits within their rules.

So I am saying that YES we can develop these theories. It is the INSISTANCE of some parties that the modifier be "scientific" theories, that gets in the way. We cannot simply insist that they are scientific because we simply want the to be.

There are Rules.

Sasquatch can't read them.
If Rhann can read, perhaps he doesn't give a crap.

All I am saying here is that the scientific evidence needed is not present because the evidence we get doesn't follow the rules.

So aptly put by so many people here is that.. this is no justification for throwing out the theory. Lack of eveidence for a theory does not prove the theory false. (pointed out by many here) It DOES prove the theory "ideterminate". I think this is true!

We should call our theories "Soft Theories" and I am NOT joking here. We should do this until they fit. So we ought say that we do not claim that we have scientific theories but that that sort of theory is what we seek. Scientific verification is what we seek, until then we will use what we have as a guide for further investigation.

So may we form a theory about alien occupation on our planet. Yes.
We must be prepared for "Oh.. Conspiracy Theory number 96!" but so what? If the goal is to merge the evidence with solid theories, then we ought not stress about the detractors.

But for lack of proper evidence, we cannot form "scientific" theories that say aliens exist.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I hate the fact or rather seeming fact that those who have the knowledge keep it from those who desire the knowledge. the Enlightenment was basically predicated on just that thought.

But there isn't much we can do about it. We MUST catch "Santa" at the tree.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by akalepos]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Again, you keep trying to debate a point that was never made.

Nobody compared the E.T. Hypothesis to gravity.

Nobody compared the E.T. hypothesis to general relativity.

We have build this hypothesis on a set of data that has been repeated throughout the years.

That's abduction cases, pictures, video, trace evidence, radar, eyewitness accounts, mass sightings and more.

Nobody denies these things occured. The only disagreement is about the explanation behind why these things occur.

I don't think every abduction case s fake or mistaken.
I don't think every mass sighting is fake or mistaken.
I don't think that every video is fake or mistaken.
I don't think that every trace evidence case is fake or mistaken.

I don't put this vast universe that we don't fully understand into a box that started 4.5 billion years ago. Everything in the universe doesn't have to begin and end with earth.

You have NASA finding liquid water on Mars and like a NASA scientist said where there's life there's water. NASA is saying that they see signs of microbial life on Mars.

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

We have found bacteria in our atmosphere that may not be from earth.

Physicist talk about extra dimensions, parallel universes, the multiverse, braneworlds and more.

So when the bogus or pseudo skeptic acts like the E.T. hypothesis is such a reach, it's because reason is thrown out of the window when it comes to these things.

You don't want to weigh these things within reason because you want to leave these things unexplained and unidentified forever so you can lump just about anything wit the E.T. hypothesis.

Why do you act like we just pulled this hypothesis out of a vacuum?

That is so intellectually dishonest.

People didn't wake up one day and say, I will take the E.T. hypothesis for $100 Alex.

There's evidence that supports the conclusion that extra-terrestrials or extra dimensional beings are behind abduction cases, mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, pictures, trace evidence and video.

It's not the only explanation and we can weigh all of these explanations within reason.

My ego is not big enough to put this vast universe into a box that had to have started on earth 4.5 billion years ago. Physicist have to go beyond the big bang in order to try and unify gravity with the other forces of nature and we may exist in an infinite number of universes.

It would be silly and illogical of me, based on this set of data, to exclude the E.T. hypothesis as the most likely explanation for these things.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory

Again, you keep trying to debate a point that was never made.

Nobody compared the E.T. Hypothesis to gravity.


You said that ET theories have as much or more evidence going for them as theories about dark matter and parallel universes and so forth. I was using the theory of gravity to point out to you why they are not the same thing and are not directly comparable. Apples and oranges.

The ET theory does not explain a set of observed data that can be reproduced at will such as an object falling due to gravity. You can't conduct an experiment on a UFO - because you don't have one. You can't analyze an EBE to see where it is from - because you don't have one. Thus the repeated request for PHYSICAL evidence. Only when we have something physical to test and analyze can we have a valid scientific theory of its origin.


It would be silly and illogical of me, based on this set of data, to exclude the E.T. hypothesis as the most likely explanation for these things.


No. It would be silly and illogical to exclude the ET hypothesis. It is not silly or illogical to conclude that an Earth based civilization living in our deepest oceans is just as likely - more likely since we eliminate the travel distance problem. It is not silly or illogical to consider that some animal species sort of like a jellyfish lives in our atmosphere and is seldom seen due to excellent camouflage. This would explain the many sightings of "morphing" and appearing/disappearing UFOs.

I agree with you that the ET hypothesis should be included. I do not agree with you, based on the evidence I am aware of, that the ET hypothesis is the most likely to be correct.

I have asked you twice to point out to me which evidence points specifically or exclusively to "human-level intelligent entities which originate off planet Earth" and you have not answered. Why not?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

You said that ET theories have as much or more evidence going for them as theories about dark matter and parallel universes and so forth. I was using the theory of gravity to point out to you why they are not the same thing and are not directly comparable. Apples and oranges.


Yes it is the same. Parallel universes are not gravity. Dark matter/energy are not general relativity.

There are physicist who dispute these things because parallel universes have not been proven to exist and we don't know what constitutes dark matter/energy. There's still alot of reasearch going on and debate and people coming to conclusions after they weigh the evidence within reason.

Some even say dark matter/energy doesn't exist and there's other things that may be causings this to occur (sound familiar).


The ET theory does not explain a set of observed data that can be reproduced at will such as an object falling due to gravity. You can't conduct an experiment on a UFO - because you don't have one. You can't analyze an EBE to see where it is from - because you don't have one. Thus the repeated request for PHYSICAL evidence. Only when we have something physical to test and analyze can we have a valid scientific theory of its origin.


Again, this doesn't make sense. You don't need physical evidence to build a hypothesis as to what's behind these things. We never say we have to have physical evidence or that we have to prove something before we can build a hypothesis in any walk of life. That's illogical.


No. It would be silly and illogical to exclude the ET hypothesis. It is not silly or illogical to conclude that an Earth based civilization living in our deepest oceans is just as likely - more likely since we eliminate the travel distance problem. It is not silly or illogical to consider that some animal species sort of like a jellyfish lives in our atmosphere and is seldom seen due to excellent camouflage. This would explain the many sightings of "morphing" and appearing/disappearing UFOs.


Here you go again.

Your debating something that I never claimed.

I never said anything about earth based civilizations living in our deepest oceans.

I never said that this can't be the most likely explanation for these things but I don't agree with it now you mentioned it.

As I said earlier, I don't have to put everything in a box that begins and ends with earth.

If you have more evidence to support this conclusion than present it.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Now I've asked you three times:

Point out to me which evidence points specifically or exclusively to "human-level intelligent entities which originate off planet Earth" and you have not answered.

Why not?

Edit to add: Based on your OP this is a perfectly reasonable question. I will not address anything else with you until you either present your evidence or tell me why you won't.

I will answer your direct questions, I expect you to answer mine.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Heike]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
 



Again, you are debating claims that nobody made.

When you show where I said anything about "specifically" or "exclusively" I will answer your question.

I have already laid out the reasoning behind my conclusions several times.

Instead of reading what I said, you want to debate something that I never claimed.

So please quote where I said that anything about "specifically" or "exclusively."

I will give you time to search this thread to find the post where I made this claim.



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

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



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Well if the OP won't answer you, I will.

Read Pages 18 to 20 of the Cometa report - the section headed 'Close Encounters in France'. If there's a theory that fits the facts better than the ETH for the first case I'd like to hear it.

There is a bit more info on the Cometa report at www.ufoevidence.org...



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


Good link,

But it has nothing to do with the E.T. hypothesis.

People have laid out evidence all throughout this thread and others.

They are not stupid, they know what the E.T. hypothesis is.

It has everything to do with:

Extraordinary evidence
100%
specifically
exclusively
absolute proof

These are things nobody has ever claimed.

They just want you to present evidence so they can keep saying that it could be something else.

Of course it could be something else but that doesn't exclude you from saying that you think the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.

The goal here is to debate a claim that was never made.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 



There's alot of evidence to look at that supports extra-terrestials or extra-dimensional beings.



So when you try to equate some fairy with the evidence that supports extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings it's just being intellectually dishonest



I never said it was proven when it comes to extra-dimensional or extra-terrestrial beings. I said it was the most likely answer within reason.



There's a set of facts to support the E.T. hypothesis.

There's eyewitness accounts from police, pilots, military and more. Video's, pictures, abduction cases, trace evidence, radar and more.



I said when I weigh these things within reason the E.T. hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.


There you go. Over and over again you say that the evidence points to ETs as being the most likely answer. I'm just asking you, what evidence?

What is it about the evidence that points you to the ET hypothesis over any other?

I agree that there is a lot of evidence that there is "something." I personally haven't seen evidence which causes me to conclude in favor of one hypothesis over another which is more likely, so I'm just asking you to explain to me what evidence causes you to conclude that ET is the most likely hypothesis.

This should be easy for you, based on your statements above.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


I stand behind everything you just quoted.

When did I ever say anything about "exclusivly" or "specifically."

That's pretty obvious.

People have laid out evidence throughout this thread.

Pleas don't act like you just heard of the ET hypothesis today.

I said I think it's the most likely explanation for these things as I weigh the evidence within reason.

I also explained just a few posts up as to why and how I reached this conclusion.

Mods forgive me for posting this again but I have said this several times now and it just not getting through.

I said:

Again, you keep trying to debate a point that was never made.

Nobody compared the E.T. Hypothesis to gravity.

Nobody compared the E.T. hypothesis to general relativity.

We have build this hypothesis on a set of data that has been repeated throughout the years.

That's abduction cases, pictures, video, trace evidence, radar, eyewitness accounts, mass sightings and more.

Nobody denies these things occured. The only disagreement is about the explanation behind why these things occur.

I don't think every abduction case s fake or mistaken.
I don't think every mass sighting is fake or mistaken.
I don't think that every video is fake or mistaken.
I don't think that every trace evidence case is fake or mistaken.

I don't put this vast universe that we don't fully understand into a box that started 4.5 billion years ago. Everything in the universe doesn't have to begin and end with earth.

You have NASA finding liquid water on Mars and like a NASA scientist said where there's life there's water. NASA is saying that they see signs of microbial life on Mars.

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

We have found bacteria in our atmosphere that may not be from earth.

Physicist talk about extra dimensions, parallel universes, the multiverse, braneworlds and more.

So when the bogus or pseudo skeptic acts like the E.T. hypothesis is such a reach, it's because reason is thrown out of the window when it comes to these things.

You don't want to weigh these things within reason because you want to leave these things unexplained and unidentified forever so you can lump just about anything wit the E.T. hypothesis.

Why do you act like we just pulled this hypothesis out of a vacuum?

That is so intellectually dishonest.

People didn't wake up one day and say, I will take the E.T. hypothesis for $100 Alex.

There's evidence that supports the conclusion that extra-terrestrials or extra dimensional beings are behind abduction cases, mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, pictures, trace evidence and video.

It's not the only explanation and we can weigh all of these explanations within reason.

My ego is not big enough to put this vast universe into a box that had to have started on earth 4.5 billion years ago. Physicist have to go beyond the big bang in order to try and unify gravity with the other forces of nature and we may exist in an infinite number of universes.

It would be silly and illogical of me, based on this set of data, to exclude the E.T. hypothesis as the most likely explanation for these things.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME THIS QUESTION AGAIN.

I have explained over and over as to why I think the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation.

I have presented evidence.

Others have presented evidence.

You know what the ET hypothesis is.

LET ME ALSO STIPULATE:

THERE CAN BE OTHER EXPLANATIONS BESIDES THE ET HYPOTHESIS FOR THESE THINGS.

When I weigh the evidence I just think that the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.

I didn't say anything about:

100%
specifically
exclusivly
extraordinary evidence
absolute proof

Is this that hard to understand?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


don't forget plato's allegory.

Don't forget what he says about the distictions between opinion, belief, and knowledge.

as far as ufos and aliens go, we reside at the divided line between belief and knowledge, between not knowing and knowing.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
 



This goes without saying.

That doesn't stop you from weighing the evidence within reason and coming to the conclusion that the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.

Nobody who supports this hypothesis on this thread has claimed to have some Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious type of evidence and that's the point that we are making about bogus or pseudo skeptics.

They want to debate extraordinary evidence (whatever that means) instead of the ET hypothesis. Nobody has claimed exclusive, 100% or absolute evidence, so why should we debate that?

Of course there can be other explanations but I think that the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.

We always weigh things like this in all walks of life.


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

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



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Post your best possible proof. I mean the BEST you have, and I'm not talking about blurry dots on youtube.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Standard "skeptic" versus "believer" conversation.

Believer: And here you see undeniable proof that aliens exist and are visiting Earth. *shows a grainy picture with something vaguely looking like a flying cigar* If you don't agree you're just a good for nothing skeptic.

Skeptic: No you do not see undeniable proof. That's Venus reflecting off swamp gas refracted off a beetle's butt. You crazy ufo people never cease to amaze me in your ignorance of science. *followed by various condescending ad hom comments*

Believer: What!?!?!? It simply CANNOT be anything but an alien space craft! You just don't want to believe it is because you are *various ad homs now follow*.

*Then the conversation turns into a childish bickering match complete with insults and accusations, otherwise known as getting no where, but it makes the participants feel great about themselves and their various stances.*

Which is really what this thread was started as. *I salute you in not wasting your time in build up.* One extreme of one side accepts anything they see as evidence readly and the other extreme of the other side will not accept any evidence and both sides will continually bicker as to why the other needs to accept their position. IT IS POINTLESS! Believe what you going to believe, you're not going to change ANYONE'S mind if they are not open to it being changed. Insulting them and whining and weedling *which is what you have been doing from the get go OP* will not change their mind, it will only cause them to dig in.

And one must really ask themselves why they care so much what each other thinks. Considering the insults they cast at each other.

With that I will not shut the heck up. Have a great day all.


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



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join