Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You say that skeptical people do not make any of the those common pseudoskeptical arguments I made and therefore I am misrepresentng them.
Okay. Let's pretend we're having an ATS convention. All 10,000 ATS members are here in the coliseum. I'm at the mike recognizing various subsets of
ATS members .. all the Writers stand up .. yay! .. all the SME's stand up .. yay!.. All the pseudoskeptics stand up .... ... ... ...... ....
... uh .. guess what ... nobody stood up. You know why? Because there's actually no such thing as a pseudoskeptic. It's a derogatory term that
somebody made up to insult people who don't believe in things.
I assure you that nobody ever decided to become a pseudoskeptic.
Joe Hillbilly, he don't believe in aliens. Has he ever investigated the evidence? No. So why doesn't he believe? Cuz he ain't never seen one and
the guv'ment says they ain't real. And Joe ain't GONNA believe, until either the guv'ment says so or one walks right up to Joe and says "take me
to your leader!" So, hey presto! Joe is now a pseudoskeptic because he has 'contempt' prior to investigation. He ain't looked at the evidence but
he don't believe.
If someone says "I heard that interstellar travel is impossible, so how could ETS even get here?" Hey, presto! They just became a pseudoskeptic and
their fallacy needs to be debunked!
Bah. The whole "pseudoskepticism" thing is about insulting and belittling people who don't believe extraterrestrials are visiting Earth (or
whatever your thing that they don't believe in happens to be).
They're just regular people, getting by the best they can. Gentle education by way of some of the less spectacular (or troubling) cases will get you
further than denouncing them as pseudoskeptics and "debunking" them.
You might as well just tell them they're idiots and they're stupid not to have noticed all this overwhelming evidence for ET. You'll get about the
same reaction either way.
Right, just like you had not seen any skeptic ever say interstellar travel is impossible. We already know your memory is, shall we say,
questionable.
No. There is nothing wrong with my memory. I said I haven't seen any skeptics (or pseudoskeptics) say that it is impossible for ETs to get here.
What does that have to do with your links to scientific papers? Some astronomer writing a paper on the impossibility of interstellar travel is NOT the
same as an ATS member saying "UFOs can't be ET because ET's can't travel to Earth."
If you try to claim again that it is my memory or my honesty that is lacking here, you will be the one being deliberately deceitful - as well as
obtuse.
Nope, a theory is only valid insofar as it can explain the available data.
All right! A straight answer! Maybe we're getting somewhere now.
1. The Suboceanic Civilizations Hypothesis (SCH) is more valid than the ETH because it explains:
a) why UFOs travel into, out of, and through/under the oceans
b) why UFOs monitor and watch us without announcing themselves
c) why UFO occupants are so concerned about what we are "doing to" the Earth
The ETH does not provide satisfactory explanations for any of this observed data.
2. The Extra Dimensional Hypothesis (EDH) is more valid than the ETH because it explains:
a) UFOs which change size, shape, color, and density
b) UFOs which appear to violate our laws of physics (the ETH says they have technology which transcends our physics, the EDH's simpler explanation
says they aren't bound by our laws of physics because they aren't "phsyical" in our dimension
c) why UFOs seem to just hang around Earth and do as they please without any real plan - it's just the backward world "next door"
d) UFOs which suddenly appear and/or disappear, and continue to "travel" while "invisible"
The ETH does not provide satisfactory explanations for any of this observed data.
My hypotheses are more valid than your hypothesis!! Nanny nanny!!
Pseudoskeptical arguments are invalid and therefore they are easy to debunk. Even you admit all of the pseudoskeptical arguments are
invalid.
The problem is, pseudoskeptical arguments don't exist. It is peoples' points of view, opinions, and beliefs you are insulting and "debunking"
here.
You have won debates on an internet forum? OK....
Not just any forum, the ATS debate forum!
Here is my record:
Heike _________________8_____________5-2________2__
That's 8 points, 5 wins 2 losses, and current winning streak is 2. My most recent win (in round 2 of the ongoing tournament) is still linked in my
signature.
In the most recent case you categorically asserted nobody has said interstellar travel is impossible, then I prove you wrong, and rather than
admiting you were wrong, you shift the goal. Hardly respectable.
I addressed that above. Scientific papers on the impossiblity of interstellar travel are NOT the same as a skeptic (or pseudoskeptic) saying that UFOs
can't be ET because it is impossible for ET to get here. Or do you claim that that astronomer was one of your opponents arguing against the ETH
somewhere?
Frankly, I don't even know what your position is anymore. That is how much you have changed your position.
Sheesh, how many times I gotta state it before you GET it?
The evidence is insufficient to validate the ETH.
Which means that people CAN have valid objections to the ETH without being pseudoskeptics (or bogus skeptics, or debunkers, or any of the other
associated derogatory names).
Nope, I have said that those who do not accept ETH as the most valid explanation for UFO's are psueoskeptics.
Uh .. isn't that the same as what I said you said?
Another strawman. I never said those who question ETH for UFO's are bogus skeptics. A bogus skeptic is one who makes invalid arguments, not
someone who disagrees with you.
Okay, wait a minute .. first you say "there can be no valid objection to the ETH for UFOs" and then you say "a bogus skeptic is one who makes
invalid arguments." Sooo... any objection to the ETH is therefore invalid, making anyone who objects to the ETH a bogus skeptic by your definitions.
Got it.
Well, as I am not treating others as being stupid or ignorant
Yes, you do, and I am not the only one who has seen it or mentioned it. It's a shame you can't see it, as you can't change it until you recognize
it.
This never was a thread against skeptics.
Right. It was a thread against pseudoskeptics. Which a) don't exist and b) are defined as "those who do not accept ETH as the most valid explanation
for UFO's."