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: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
I'm glad the skeptics are finally answering the question.

This shows that most people hijack skepticism and they are really closed minded debunkers.

You didn't even read the question.

I said Can?

You will not even allow for the possibility that extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings can be the most likely explanation for these things.

This proves my points beautifully!


Nice catch. Welcome to my friends list.


Occam's Razor works both ways. Don't let the pseudo-skeptics forget it


-WFA




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 






Here is what you miss; when motivation is relevant to the discussion it does not make discussing motivation an ad hominem attack. If motivation were not relevant, then yes it would be an ad hominem attack. And since my concern is how such labels as "bogus skeptic" will be used, it is very relevant to the discussion.


At the point you began a rant about our supposed secret motives for even raising the issue of Bogus Skepticism our motives were not in any way relevant to the discussion. It was ad hominem. Plain and simple. I'm afrad this is pure doublespeak SC.

Your later expressions of "concern" that talk of Bogus Skepticism might lead to some to misapply the term is not ad hominem - I never said it was - it's just irrelevant. I'm afraid we can't veto certain legitimate phrases just because somebody, sometime, might misapply them. That's absurb. As I said, bogus skepticism is commonly referred to in many fields including within the scientific community and it has a legitimate place at ATS. I suggest you just get used to it.



You're on ignore. This is pointless and ridiculous.


As you wish, that is where I had to resurrect you from in order to debate this with you anyway, so I am happy to put you back there too.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
When and where did I take this "pot shot?" Was it when I asked a specific person a specific question that had nothing to do with "anyone professing the ET hypothesis." I asked him to name someone unconvinced of the ETH they would consider a real skeptic. That is a far cry from a pot-shot at everyone who believes in the ETH.

Just astonishing you would consider it such.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]


If you'd like Savior, I could go back through the last 3 threads this debate has been occurring through, and list several times where you've taken a direct shot at the ETH.

Oh wait, I see here on page 6 I think that Malcram beat me to it, using this thread only...

And the pot-shot you took was at the ETH itself, that's what ruffled my feathers. Just so you know, you can lambast people with ridiculous ideas all day and I won't bat an eyelash. But when you start acting like the ETH is crazy talk, you can expect myself and other true scientific skeptics to argue against you, and you can expect us to bring some evidence along in our back pockets.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by platosallegory
Can extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for abduction cases, mass sightings, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts, pictures and video?


No. Because they have not been shown to exist, and therefore are not a very likely explanation for anything. There is no likely explanation for authentic instances of the things you mention. They are unknown.


Come now Nohup, you're own best hypothesis in the BOLA case (time-travellers) that fits with the observable evidence has not been proven possible either.

Please be fair. It certainly can be the most likely explanation even if it isn't the correct one.

-WFA

p.s. thanks for answering his/her question directly without a character attack. You're posts read as an example to other skeptics on the best way to present an argument, and it does not go unnoticed.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
If you'd like Savior, I could go back through the last 3 threads this debate has been occurring through, and list several times where you've taken a direct shot at the ETH.


Go right ahead. Please. By all means. I have that Malcram on ignore, so I have no idea what lies he's telling. So please, show us these posts where I have taken pot-shots at people for believing the ETH. Please, go right ahead. Show us, using your words, where I have somehow insulted people for subscribing to the ETH.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 



As you wish, that is where I had to resurrect you from in order to debate this with you anyway, so I am happy to put you back there too.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]


Malcram, can I please ask you what this means? Were you on ignore before this?

Cuhail



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 






Here is what you miss; when motivation is relevant to the discussion it does not make discussing motivation an ad hominem attack. If motivation were not relevant, then yes it would be an ad hominem attack. And since my concern is how such labels as "bogus skeptic" will be used, it is very relevant to the discussion.


At the point you began a rant about our supposed secret motives for even raising the issue of Bogus Skepticism our motives were not in any way relevant to the discussion.


Hello Malcram
I'd like to point out to those reading that the issue of Bogus Skepticism in this context first arose when MarsAttax (a very nice and charitable person) used the term Philosophical Skepticism as a very charitable olive branch in order to draw C.H.U.D. away from personal attacks and back into relevant debate.

In the link at Wiki for Philosophical Skepticism, there are other types of Skepticism mentioned, one of those being 'Bogus Skepticism'.

So in fact, the term and it's definition entered the debate purely by accident.
This is something that SaviorComplex knows very well, having participated in that thread.

It was intellectually dishonest of SC not to include this information when hypothesizing that there was some ulterior motive behind the use of the term.

Anyone who would like to read the thread (When does evidence become Proof?) for themselves can do so here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


-WFA



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Hi.

SC said "You're on ignore", meaning he had just put me there. I was saying that my ignore list was where SC was immediately prior to this debate and that I had to un-ignore him in order to debate with him in this thread. As I said, that's where I will put him again.

I had not had any discussions with SC before this. But I have been reading ATS for a long time and so have had many opportunities to observe SC's 'style'. Therefore, he had made it to my ignore list long before we actually talked here.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
This is something that SaviorComplex knows very well, having participated in that thread.

It was intellectually dishonest of SC not to include this information...


You are a liar, WitnessFromAfar. There are no other words to describe it. I did not take part in the conversation you linked to. You are a total and absolute liar.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
This is something that SaviorComplex knows very well, having participated in that thread.

It was intellectually dishonest of SC not to include this information...


Excuse me, but I do not even remember that thread. How can it be intellectually dishonest of me not to recall a thread from months ago? That is very, very unfair of you, WitnessfromAfar. Very unfair.



I apologize. Seriously, I was wrong there.
I just went back and looked at the thread and you weren't in it.

I thought sure that you were, because I was debating this topic and debating with someone who's brain I actually respect (it was Yeti101, but I thought it was you)

It wasn't intellectually dishonest of you at all and I apologize. I don't usually mis-associate posts like that, sorry. You and Yeti (and Nohup and a few others) actually hold a very high place in my heart, and I guess I mixed the two of you up there for a minute.

I'll try to get back to you on the places you flat out attacked the ETH. As you know, it takes time to dig back through old threads, but I'll do my best.

Here's one I found a minute ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

-WFA



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
This is something that SaviorComplex knows very well, having participated in that thread.

It was intellectually dishonest of SC not to include this information...


You are a liar, WitnessFromAfar. There are no other words to describe it. I did not take part in the conversation you linked to. You are a total and absolute liar.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]


Wow man, give a person a chance to respond before you edit. I liked it better when you were not calling me a liar. I'm not a liar. I read your post and went back and checked, and then I came back to report you were right.

These things take a minute. Chill out.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
And S.C. you should actually check out that link I posted above, where Bogus Skepticism entered the debate.

I thought you were already aware of the thread, which is why I was mad about you portraying Malcram's use of the term.

You weren't aware, no big deal, sorry for getting it wrong.

But you SHOULD read the thread, and the clear bogus skepticism exhibited by C.H.U.D. that's where this debate started, and you should have the facts about Malcram. He wasn't on a smear campaign.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'll try to get back to you on the places you flat out attacked the ETH. As you know, it takes time to dig back through old threads, but I'll do my best.


You're having to go through old threads to find something when you accused me of doing it in this thread?


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Here's one I found a minute ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Are you kidding? This is what I said...


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Threads such as these are pointless. They serve only to make a certain group of believers feel better about themselves. I refuse to participate in them other than to urge you to focus on the evidence not on how much you hate skeptics.


Where is the "flat out" attack on those who believe in the ETH? How can this possibly be construed as an attack on people who believe in the ETH?

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Come now Nohup, you're own best hypothesis in the BOLA case (time-travellers) that fits with the observable evidence has not been proven possible either.

Please be fair. It certainly can be the most likely explanation even if it isn't the correct one.


I do think time travel is a better fit to the available data on a wide spectrum of UFO cases. However, I usually try to add that while I might think that, it's in no way a likely or even good explanation because there's no proof any of that stuff is even possible. I hope I'm also clear that regardless what I might personally suspect, I don't have a good working hypothesis for such a thing, and until better evidence leading to proof shows up, I still have to return to my basic "I don't know" position.

I've often wondered how a good hypothesis of time travel could be constructed for testing. I wonder if there's some way around the problem of evidence of change vanishing in an effect => cause scenario, and not being accessible in an altered timeline. Somebody mentioned the Double Slit Experiment earlier. Maybe something can be cooked up along those lines, where a condition is altered in the past, but still leaves some trace that can be found in the primary altered reality.

Maybe there's a way to accurately remote view it, since remote viewing seems to work outside the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian model of the universe. Or maybe it's just not possible until we can figure out a way to artificially amplify our own points of view, which could be tough, since those things exist in different concept fields. Oh, well.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Thank you. I wasn't sure what you meant. I understand now.


__________________________________________________________

reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Ouch! But, I looked over your thread involvement and the thread he points to has no posts by you, so, yeah. Point- SC.

Cuhail


[edit]

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



I apologize. Seriously, I was wrong there.
I just went back and looked at the thread and you weren't in it.

I thought sure that you were, because I was debating this topic and debating with someone who's brain I actually respect (it was Yeti101, but I thought it was you)

It wasn't intellectually dishonest of you at all and I apologize. I don't usually mis-associate posts like that, sorry. You and Yeti (and Nohup and a few others) actually hold a very high place in my heart, and I guess I mixed the two of you up there for a minute.


That was huge.
Props for humility.

[/edit]

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Cuhail]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Wow man, give a person a chance to respond before you edit. I liked it better when you were not calling me a liar. I'm not a liar.


No, WitnessFromAfar. You are a liar. Your post about my "flat out" attack on people for believing the ETH proves just that. You are a liar.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Thanks for the clarification, sorry I don't have more time for a full reply. Savior requested the only time/attention I can spare at ATS today, and I want to address his complaints if I can.

Great response!
As always, you make me think!

-WFA



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Wow man, give a person a chance to respond before you edit. I liked it better when you were not calling me a liar. I'm not a liar.


No, WitnessFromAfar. You are a liar. Your post about my "flat out" attack on people for believing the ETH proves just that. You are a liar.


Actually it just proves that I haven't had time to find the posts and link them.

But I've got to say man, check the attitude if you'd like me to continue humoring you.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I've also recently been looking at this interview with John Lear and around 4.40 he says some interesting things...


Interesting watch



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Not really, because SC was making ad hominem attacks in THIS thread by insisting there were ulterior motives for us discussing the concept of Bogus Skepticism. That point still stands. Whether or not he knew that the discussion of Bogus Scepticism first arose in another thread purely by accident is irrelevant and doesn't excuse his ad hominem attacks in this thread. He had no right to impugn our motives and make all sorts of false claims about our supposed hidden intent in doing so.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join