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.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I did kind of say please introduce variant arguments separately.
In fact one of then, "There is no evidence" was just made against me in another thread
So there is no disagreement between us in whether the arguments used in the OP are pseudoskeptical fallacies.
The converse that we cannot infer they are incapable of it either is invalid. ... it means there can be no valid objection to ET doing interstellar travel because of the possibility that they have falsified our science.
There is no relationship between behaviour and ones level of mathematical, scientific and logical knowledge.
human abducts animals and does scientific tests and experiments on them.
scientific evidence will make no difference to the status quo.
in the end they chose to believe what they want to despite pretending to want scientific evidence.
The evidence for A does not establish anything. It may establish non-human hominids but could be an unknown ape-species and does not necessarily mean underground or underwater civilisation.
If the evidence shows such as in the case of the UFO over LA that there was a huge physical craft, that was shot at, intercepted for more than an hour and photographed and the skeptic instead rejects all this evidence to maintain it was a weather balloon then it is clearly a fallacy.
Source
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by skibtz
That's it, you're going on my ignore list for being a troublemaker. If you find it difficult to have a civil discussion, perhaps you should leave ATS.
Well, slightly there is. I maintain that they can not be fallacies if they are not arguments, and in the logical sense they are not arguments. No induction or deduction is being used, no premises are presented.
Originally posted by Malcram
You listed his comments and simply said there were "fallacy" underneath each one with barely any commentary, often with fantasy fallacy names. And you made little or no attempt to demonstrate how they were fallacy. Anyone can do that. Demonstrating it is another matter entirely.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%.
This is a probability fallacy. Mere probability is not sufficient to make a case, especially when it has been distorted to give the appearance of fact.
Originally posted by skibtz
I am entitled to reference the fallacy any which way I please - I did however reference the fallacies according to the root of the fallacy.
I do not need to write out several pages of uber-speak when one word/sentence will suffice in demostrating the fallacy.
Please address the post and not the poster should you respond.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%.
This is a probability fallacy. Mere probability is not sufficient to make a case, especially when it has been distorted to give the appearance of fact.
Originally posted by skibtz
Do you agree 100% with this statement:
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%.
This was my criticism and it was made clearly thus:
This is a probability fallacy. Mere probability is not sufficient to make a case, especially when it has been distorted to give the appearance of fact.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
"Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere."
Originally posted by Indigo Child
Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.
This is an empirical fact fallacy. While there is empirical data to suggest there is life on Earth, there is absolutely no empirical data to support life on another planet. Yet.
originally posted by Indigo_Child
Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here...
Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen....In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.
Originally posted by Skibtz
This is the motive assumption fallacy. All this way - to Earth?
Originally posted by Indigo-Child
Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.
Originally posted by Skibtz
This is the assumption fallacy. Mere assumptions are not sufficient in making a case.
stick to identifying which of the fallacies listed in the OP you think are actually legitimate and defend them, or, identify where you feel the rebuttals fail to address the listed arguments.
Well, it is too bad that people don't express themselves better and make statements which are patently false. However, that does not make them logical arguments. They are just false statements.
Possibility. Not certainty. We can not infer that they are incapable of it, however we can not infer that they are capable of it either. All we can say based on the incompleteness of available data is that we do not know if they are capable of it or not. Which proves nothing either way.
However, we can say that it is possible that the theory of relativity is in fact a law which will not be falsified, in which case it must apply to ET also if they are in the same physical universe we are in. If we assume that the law of gravity is a true law which will not be falsified, then other planets must have gravity. So IF the theory of relativity is a true law, it must apply to other planets and their inhabitants also. This is not a certainty, but it is a possibility. Therefore we can not say with certainty that the theory of relativity does not apply to them.
On an individual level, no there is not. A murderer may just as well be educated as not. However, on a collective level there is an effect. Collectively, does not humanity act differently now than when the Europeans colonized America? Americans probably have the technology and military superiority to take over parts of Africa, but we do not because we know it is wrong and collectively human society will not allow it.
If we wish to make the assumption that getting to Earth is so easy that individual ETs can do it at will in their equivalent of a personal vehicle, then no assumptions about their behavior are valid. However, here is an alternate argument:
a) they have superior technology because they have been sentient longer than we have
b) if they have been sentient longer than we have, they should have a superior civilization
c) if they have a superior civilization then collectively they should act "civilized" when dealing with other sentient beings
d) If getting here is difficult enough to require a collective effort on their part, similar to us sending an expedition to Mars, then the behavior of UFOs is does not make sense because it is not civilized.
If their technology and civilization are more advanced than ours, then they should be able to tell that we are not animals but intelligent beings and they should not treat us like animals.
That is your opinion, not a fact. I submit that if my scenario of physical evidence being provided to the public with verification from authorities were to happen, most people would accept it as proof.
Because one person has acted in this manner, you can not make a valid argument that everyone will. Some people may, but other people will not.
(If) There is equal evidence for Sasquatch as there is for non-human flying objects, then it is inconsistent and illogical (and arguably hypocritical) to believe in non-human flying objects and not believe in Sasquatch.
No. This is a factual error. A weather balloon which is punctured by artillery shells will fall, so the LA object simply could not be a weather balloon. No logic or reasoning is being used if one says anyway that it was a weather balloon, the "skeptic" is simply stating an obviously incorrect fact.
Source
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.
On the other hand, the guy who says it was an illusion might have a point. Was the object tracked on radar? (I can't remember) If not, then what is the conclusive evidence for it being a large physical craft?
Originally posted by Malcram
...we are discussing probability and the probability of something already established 100%. Indigo did not say "The probability of life on OTHER planets is 100%". He said that "The probability of life on planets is 100%". And his explanatory comments immediately below that show exactly what he meant.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
"Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere."
Originally posted by skibtz
The OP is not presenting the claim as a theory - they are presenting the claim as fact.
The only valid, undisputed claim that can be made from the above statement by the OP is that life exists on Earth.
We do have empirical evidence that other planets exist - there is none to support the claim that life exists on other planets.
Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by Malcram
You are mistaken. Here it is in it's most simple form:
Life on Earth is not evidence that the probability of life on planets is 100%