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.

 

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I infact dont know if you are talking to me or not? i shall try my best neways regardless based on the thread!

If one is to be a pskeptic and you do make it out to be true.. tho you provide onl arguments as evidence,,

im somewhat confused?

not by you tho granted you are infact linked as you are the person with the opinion who made the thread in what im commenting on..

So i deduce some things :

a Pskpetic is infact a person who will claim to be obstructive..? for no reason other than to be obtuse "a pain in ones ass".

now in some ways i can agree with this but as in regards to ET and other topics one uses as a defence or to point it out would be what?

You see i have infact read every single post on this thread EVERY SINGLE ONE OF EM

and i can say hand on heart that its infact an argument not based on facts but opinion

and what i mean by that is.. and btw im not blaming you but i am connectinng the dots here

a person would have to from an opinion that would require a rebuttle correct?

but yet one fails to even understand one can not base there logic on a question?

is that no the premiss of the very thread we are talking about regardless of ones own thoguhts?

i could think aliens come from planet cheese? does tht make any more sens than a pskeptic who is infact on your side but does not agree with the methord of what your own opinion bases ur argument on?

I see this as ilogical for many reasons as show above..

I mean for me its kinda simple here.. we have GOD for a start so whatever you say in the regards to using aliens is still only a question based on ones opinion

or why infact have religion??? can you not see why im arguing here? or that infact im not insulting you but trying my best to show you that infact the topic at hand we are debating is infact only an opinion? and will get us no place?

and i have the evidence for it as my ats points befor coming here were 500+ then dropped to -364 then infact got 2 applueses for my comments by the very mods who took away my points...

You see the reason why i was infact deducted my points was not the faul of the mods nore mine or yours but the very word itself

it will make us argue because you wish to defend a indefensible word that makes not sens coz its an opinon and we can all that them..

please understand i dont think lessor of you as a person nore did i insult you in away way but alteast admit this thread is very bad for reasons i have stated very clear and in a manner that is not off topic nore is it an insult to you as a person.

its is only linked to you because its your thread and you own opinion and the way it is worded would infact bring that to a head.. so to speak

so please for me and for others who are trying our best to not be pskeptics but show you the error of ones ways

have some humilty and admit you infact have it wrong.. is that to much to ask in regards of the thread?

this is ats.. we are here to learn not argue about a position one takes when infact one is in there own right to do so..

correct? or do i need evidence for this claim?




posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I did kind of say please introduce variant arguments separately.


Sorry about that. I've had no training in formal logic and I'm learning as I go here. I am not quite sure I understand what I'm doing yet.



In fact one of then, "There is no evidence" was just made against me in another thread


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.


So there is no disagreement between us in whether the arguments used in the OP are pseudoskeptical fallacies.


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.


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.


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.


There is no relationship between behaviour and ones level of mathematical, scientific and logical knowledge.


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.


human abducts animals and does scientific tests and experiments on them.


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.


scientific evidence will make no difference to the status quo.


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.


in the end they chose to believe what they want to despite pretending to want scientific evidence.


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.


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.


Not what I meant. If the A set of evidence is accepted as proof of the existence of a non-human hominid, by which I DO only mean an unknown primate species, then if the B set of evidence is equal, it should be accepted as proof of non-human flying objects. The converse is also true, by which we arrive at the argument

(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.


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.


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.


A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.
Source

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?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

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.



Troublemaker?

I highlighted why I believed that your rebuttals were flawed in the reasoning department. Mainly your 100% probability that life exists on other planets by using data based on our planet. That is a probability fallacy by my definition.

Admittedly, I injected what I perceived to be a little humour in to the post but I do not see how that is uncivil?

You resort to labelling everyone else's comments as fallacy this and strawman that, ad hominem this and invalid argument that.

Is that uncivil? It could be deemed so when you are clearly pushing people out of this thread.

And really: 'ignore'? Is that how you deal with people who oppose your point of view?

I believe I made some valid points in my post - yes there was some humour in there, but that's only because I enjoy these debates - that is why we are here right?


C'mon - stick me on your Friend list


[edit on 4/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


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.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Heike



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.


 


Heike, a fallacy is simply a false idea or belief which can be expressed in a statement, it does not have to be formulated in a formal argument. So they can't be rejected as fallacies on that basis.

fal·la·cy (fl-s)
n. pl. fal·la·cies
1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.

And they are presented as arguments for dismissal -therefore they employ logical fallacies - of the ETH, if not always very sophisticated ones. But that is irrelevant. They are listed in the OP because they are fairly common fallacies, not because they are all great examples of convoluted fallacious arguments. You wanted the examples of fallacies to be common "real life" types didn't you? In fact you wanted to reject discussion of fallacies which did not meet that criteria. Well, common 'real life' fallacies are often absurd, brief, erroneous statements, used in dismissal and denial (which is an 'argument' - "A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason", in this case, to deny or dismiss)

Further, it seems very strange that after so many pages we are still debating whether or not the arguments listed in the OP as examples are technically "fallacies" or not. You are not arguing that all those arguments are "correct", are you? So essentially you agree with Indigo that many of them - or all, I don't know - are fallacious. Why quibble over the definition of fallacy? I think it would be more productive to 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.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

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.


First of all I responded to each rebuttal pointing out what I believe to be fallacious thinking.

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 made perfect reference explaining the fallacy on the main points - there were a couple that were clearly humourous and I even acknowledged agreement with one of them using the


I do not need to write out several pages of uber-speak when one word/sentence will suffice in demostrating the fallacy.

And tell me this Malcram, 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.


Please address the post and not the poster should you respond.

[edit on 4/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

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.


Logical fallacies have been codified as part of the study of Logic. Anyone can make up names of fallacies and apply them without demonstrating how they are fallacies. To do so would be a "Logical Inversion Fallacy". See what I mean? Neither the fallacies listed nor their application were validated.



I do not need to write out several pages of uber-speak when one word/sentence will suffice in demostrating the fallacy.


You didn't "demonstrate it'. You labeled it and without providing any real justification. As I said anyone can do that.



Please address the post and not the poster should you respond.


I did so in my last post, and in this, and I don't appreciate sarcastic baiting. This will be my last response on this. it's clear to me further discussion between us on this matter would not be productive. Indigo can address your claims that he used of fallacy if he wants - if he can see your posts.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Malcram, I referenced the OP perfectly well implying a probability fallacy and then raised below point to which you are now ignoring. So I ask again:

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.


It's a simple question.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


had to edit as it choped off half my post


ill try again!...

debunking pseudoskeptics...

One can not debunk and argument.. only facts..

there thats the short version lol!!!

all the other comments one will read regarding this infact topic are what?

arguments.. not facts but arguments about how one talks to another about evidence...

There is infact no evidence to debate.. only an opinion

= we are going to argue into infinity

If the reason was to show people that others can be..

(1) obstructive
(2) play devils advorcate
(3) general pain the arse

Then this has been proven.. On the other hand if its to "imply"

(1) people question the word itself "not the poster"
(2) Do not get the chance to debate the meanin of the thread
(3) Put forth a valid counter claim to the thread "not the context of ones own opinion based on ones own arguments

Then it fails in all respects to do so..

I could and will list after keeping an eye on this threa to use as more evidence that infact the thread is an argument and not infact a debate based on facts

there are no facts to debate, just ones opinion...

2) The probability of life on planets is 100%.

that is not a fact but was used as a rebuttle.. in order to make ones own argument

that is indeed a falacy and it also would require "logicaly" that the arguments present are aswell....the thread is the argument and the reason to defend it is infact the rebuttle

Opinion is the key word here so please read what it is im pointing out befor you go slamming each other..

[edit on 4-4-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Apologies to Mods in advance but the quoting in this case was necessary in order to discuss the points raised coherently




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.


Yes, I agree with Indigo's statement 100%. It's a fact. The problem is it is a subtle statement and you have misunderstood it, not provided the context in your quote which explains what it means, and assumed that it was presented as if "sufficient to make a case". Indigo never claimed it was "sufficient to make a case" he was presenting it as one point in a body of rebuttals to specific claims.

Further, 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."


This means that people cannot rightly claim that life on other planets is impossible. Earth proves the idea of impossibility to be illegitimate. Obviously he was not claiming this was "sufficient to make a case" or that life on other planets was 100% established. He explicitly said otherwise. He was simply pointing out that the probability factor of life occurring on planets is already established as 100%, by Earth, "Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere".

You also claimed his comments had been "distorted to give the appearance of fact". But as you appear not to have understood what was said and no distortion is evident, it seems likely any perceived "distortion" arises from not having comprehended what was actually written.



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.


That is a Strawman fallacy. He didn't suggest there was. His point was that: "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" Again, you appear to have not understood what was said.




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?


This is another Strawman fallacy in that the fallacy you claim to be rebutting is not even present in the text. If there is a "motive assumption fallacy" then it is used in the argument Indigo is rebutting. Nowhere in this rebuttal does Indigo assume motive for the idea of ET's visiting earth. His contention is that we do not know their motive or their technology.



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.


Again, nowhere is this assumption made and so you cannot demonstrate it. There is no assumption made of ET's motives. In fact, he is saying that we cannot judge ET's actions against our own by assuming they must correllate. He then gives an example of how human cultures even appear strange to us. That is not assumption, that is a fact, and he does not insist or assume that the same holds true for ET's. He merely presents it as a possibility, and his rebuttal does not rest on this possibility. It was merely an explanatory aside. His contention regarding ET's is confined, quite rightly, to the fact that "If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen".

Actually, every single one of your claims of fallacy in that post turn out to be fallacious themselves. Not one of them stands scrutiny. This highlights the problem of labeling arguments as fallacy without demonstrating it. When demonstration is required, the claimed fallacies cannot, in fact, be found. And I am happy to continue with the rest of your post to demonstrate this is the case if you wish? I only stop here as I am aware that I have had to quote excessively already in order to keep this post organized and clear and it is already too long.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


First, I must admit with some chagrin that I have, indeed, received proof via u2u that some people on ATS actually say this stuff. My bad. I apologize to both of you (Malcram and Indigo_Child) for giving ATS'ers way too much credit for being reasonable people, and for doubting your word that people actually use fallacies so glaringly obvious that a fifth grader could spot them in defense of their position. :sigh:

 



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.


I think it's time to reduce this equation to simplest terms. So a fallacy is basically any false statement? So the entire OP amounts to "people say things that aren't true."
Okay. This was ever in question? People lie, and people make mistakes. I know it, you know it, Dr. House knows it, everyone reading this knows it (or should).

However (yep, there it is - it sounds more sophisticated than "but"), in every case, debunking the fallacies only gets us to "this statement is incorrect."

Example: It is impossible for ET to get here.

Yup, that's a false statement. We can't know that it's impossible for ET to get here. And, what, exactly, does that prove? Does it prove that ET CAN get here? No. It merely proves that we don't know if ET can get here or not.

So what, exactly, has been accomplished? You've annoyed a bunch of people by proving them wrong in what they said, and gotten no closer to the ET hypothesis.

The fallacies you presented are now a possibility instead of a negative. ET possibly exists, ET can possibly get here, ET could possibly have such different motivations that their behavior doesn't make sense to us. So what? As you yourself have often said, you can't make a case from possibility.

So what was the point? To prove to ATS that people say things that aren't true? To force everyone to admit that negative statements aren't accurate?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

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.


An argument is a statement that makes a truth claim. A statement can be either valid or invalid. If it is invalid it is a logical fallacy, which can be either formal or informal. The statement that "There is no evidence" when this person was provided with three peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, extracts from books, articles written by academic authors, original citations and other evidence is an argument which is making a truth claim, "no evidence" It is invalid because I have provided him the evidence. Therefore it is a fallacy.

This kind of fallacy is more common than you think. I know it is absurd, it's damn right stupid, but it is commonly used in the world. Maybe you have been fortunate enough not to encounter it, or maybe you have just not recognised it.


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.


I have covered this somewhat in the rebuttals. The basic argument I am making is: There will be more falsifications. Why? Because none of our sciences are complete(physics, chemistry, biology) and they still rather young. The fact that our science is not complete means that there is an unobservable universe in which there are other potential observations that will falsify current observations. This has already happened with Einstein GR, the the quantum theory of entanglement and quantum effects says action at a distance does take place without a physical medium. Einstein did not like this conclusion and derided it as "spooky action" So we are no closer to knowing gravity, electricity, light, atoms than we were 100 years ago. Today physics has become a competition between competing theories. The jury is out on whose actually right because every theory has an inherent contadiction: Classical physics cannot account for space and time; relativity cannot account for quantum effects; QM cannot account for determinism and realism. All bets are on string theory to reconcile them all.

So simply put there is no agreed upon paradigm of our physics. So no limits are certain, even for us, let alone ET. So simply put there are no limits on whether ET can get here or not. Nothing is prohibiting ET from getting here.

What does ET mean? It means life on other planets. What do we know about life? It comes in all shapes, sizes and ages. Thus there will be some ET that are shorter than us, some taller, some younger and some older, some dumber and some smarter. Those of which are older and smarter are not restricted by human standards.



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.


Your own example is falisified by current events: Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no such thing as identical collective behaviour, because a collective is made out disparate entities. There can be consensus amongst disparate entities, but no consensus is very rigid, it will change with historical evolution and how it changes is unpredicable because of infinite variables.


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.


There are two kinds of development: Intellectual and Spirtual. A civilisation that has advanced technology is intellectually developed, but not necessarily spiritually developed. Your argument is a modernist argument which thinks that intellectual development = spiritual development. However, this is contradicted by events like WW2, holocausts and terroism today which are occuring in an intellectually developed civiliation, but spiritually very underdeveloped. Likewise ET could have superor intellectual development but not necessarily superior spiritual development.

Secondly, maybe ET's which are visiting us have superipr spiritual development, but we cannot recognise that because we are spiritually underveloped.


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.


There is no difference between an animal and a human. Humans are also animals, except quantiatively we are superior to animals, but only just. Dolphins also are vey intelligent. Nonetheless we treat dolphins like lower life forms. A superior ET would be quanitatively superior to us, and thus just like we treat life forms lower than us, it too could see us exactly in the same way.

This does not mean ET is hostile to us it may be very compassionate, just as we can be compassionate to animals, but still see us as lower life forms.

When you say were an "intelligent being" imagine how meaningles that would be to an ET with an IQ of 1000, age limit of 1000, powerful paranormal powers and knowledge of the entire universe and how it works. Nor is ET insensitive to us, else it would have invaded us and taken over, instead it is adhering to some kind of protocol of non-intervention. A sign of maturity.


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.


Scientific evidence does not make a theory certain. It shows it works under certain conditions. When new conditions are discovered its invalidated. This is not an opinion, this is a fact on how science works. An authority accepting something or millions believing in them does not mean 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.


Most people do. Most religious people do not accept evolution and big bang. Scientific evidence does not change the status quo on anything. I've had debates with people and brought up QM to explain myself, their instant response is, "It's just a theory"


(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.


Right, but that's assuming such evidence exists. Everything has to be treated on a case by case basis.


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.


A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.
Source

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?


This is not a factual error, it is an explanation, "It was a weather balloon" which is why it is an argument(a statement making a truth claim). It is invalid. Henceforth it is a fallacy.

It cannot be a weather balloon if you accept the empirical evidence. Nor can it be imaginary(this was dismissed by the authority itself, because it made them look stupid) because it was seen by tens of thousands, it was photographed, it was directly shot, fallout of which fell on people and injured them and killed some: direct-hits were recorded. It continued for an hour. This is a real event, a physical craft which is clearly not ours which can withstand constant arillery fire and fire from fighter planes. It is luminious and it can hover in mid-air. None of this is human technology.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
In relation to this thread

Cosmology used to be regarded as a pseudo science, an area where wild speculation, was unconstrained by any reliable observations. We now have lots and lots of observational data, and a generally agreed picture of how the universe is evolving.

In this case you are compleaty wrong ?

notice the word USED to be???

This is the reason for why i post.. its infact based ON OPINIONS untill the facts become clear

you are aruging that a person who has infact read the same evidence will put a rebbutle forth that is not logical to you based on the evidence

This is called opinion .. "aka" decsion making and they are in there right to do so.. based on the comment i put forth..

Now if one is to argue that infact they are wrong

how can it be even possible for one to move from flat earth to round earth?

the logical answer is all answers are infact incrorrect

why? becuase your asking them in the first place


Quantum physics 101

now understand why others like me who are alot smarter and infact not trolls can not work out your argument

as its BASED ON A FLAW IN THE FIRST PLACE..

So yes you can point out people who will simple tell you by way of lying or wanting to dissagree coz the they can

BUT ITS NOT BASED ON FACTS because your talking about HUMANS TALKING TO OTHER HUMANS

NOT HUMANS QUESTONING SOMETHING ESL

i said that in caps just so you relpy as you malcrum and heki seem to be having a slanging match..

thats what im pointing out to all people "the thread is desinged for this" because its opions vs opinions

no facts what so EVER



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
You are not understanding this argument....

A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious

correct? but yet you place this word infront of it? "the word"

now check this for a joke

The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]


what word stands out ? "opinion"...

still not sure of what im talking about??

THE ENTIRE THREAD IS BASED ON OPINON

NO facts what so ever.. as you are infact ARGUING about the termanolgoy of a word that was based on OPINION not a fact...

clear as day...

even the thread title is ilogical based on this..



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

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."


The OP is not presenting the claim as a theory - they are presenting the claim as fact.

And here is where the mistake has been made by the OP.

The only valid, undisputed claim that can be made from the above statement by the OP is that life exists on Earth.

Empirical evidence that life exists on Earth is not empirical evidence that it exists anywhere else.

Edit: I removed some nonsense about empirical evidence (18.46 GMT)


[edit on 4/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz




The OP is not presenting the claim as a theory - they are presenting the claim as fact.


What claim? The only claim here is the one that was stated thusly: "The probability of life on planets is 100%" That is a cast iron fact, as was demonstrated. Again, you seem not to understand the statements you are debating, despite explanation.



The only valid, undisputed claim that can be made from the above statement by the OP is that life exists on Earth.


That was the only claim he was making! It was merely stated in terms of that facts relevance to the issue of probability regarding life on planets in the Universe. Again, you clearly don't understand the post you are attempting to refute. It has already been explained so I'm not sure how else to clear up your incomprehension except to encourage you to go away and ponder the post for a while before responding. The claim you seem to be implying he made, is shown absolutely not to be the claim he was making by the context!



We do have empirical evidence that other planets exist - there is none to support the claim that life exists on other planets.


He didn't claim there was. This was already explained.

I think a major part of the problem in this thread has been people trying to debate comments they have not understood and attempting to rebut their own misunderstandings rather than simply asking what the poster meant, or rereading the posts more carefully, seeing as the meaning is perfectly apparent within them.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
In the New Age movement, indigo children are children who are believed to represent a higher state of human evolution. The term itself is a reference to the belief that such children have an indigo-colored aura.[1] Beliefs concerning the exact nature of indigo children vary, with some believing that they have paranormal abilities such as the ability to read minds, and others that they are distinguished from non-indigo children merely by more conventional traits such as increased empathy and creativity.

There is no scientific support for these claims.[2]


fasle claim in relation to the very thread... no evidence what so ever...

i told you i would use the evidence at hand and infact YOU are my evidence to prove my case

Not you as a person but infact the very words and reasons for making the thread

Why did you think i insulted you? do you know why because its your opinion and you felt like it was an insult to infact dissagree!!!!

that is why YOU WONT EVER AGREE because its YOUR opinion !!!

My evidence shows this!!!



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
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%

It is evidence that life exists on Earth.

If life on Earth is not part of the OP's evidence to back up their statement that the probability of life on planets is 100% then what is the OP's evidence?

Still chillin



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

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%


Yes it is, because Earth is a planet, and as one of the planets, if the question is posed "What is the probability of life on planets in this universe", the question is not regarding an unknown, but the known. The answer is "100%. Because planet Earth holds life and life is a planet"

Where you are confused is that you do not seem to be including Earth as a planet.

This is why you also seem to be claiming that this point was intended to imply that life on OTHER planets was a certainty, as if he was intending to extrapolate and prove one thing based on another, when the context in which it was said includes the explicit statement that this is NOT the case. Life on earth only proves that life on planets is possible (or rather 'certain', since it has occurred). Nothing else was claimed. There in no error in what was said whatsoever.

And I have to say, I still find it truly incredible that after so many pages we are still dealing with quibbles about the definition of 'fallacy' and making claims of non-existent fallacies supposedly in the rebuttals to the fallacies, but no discussion whatsoever of the fallacies that were rebutted in the OP themselves? Do you who are questioning the rebuttals accept the fallacies that they were rebutting? If not, why are the rebuttals being targeted for criticism rather than the fallacies they addressed? Very strange.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


the big difference is the (s) on the end of planet(S)

hope that helps


hes is right and infact you are incorrect in this instance..



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join