No.
skep⋅tic
/ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skep-tik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
Nowhere in that definition is any requirement for a skeptic to investigate anything or arrive at any conclusions. Questioning the validity of
something or maintaining a doubting attitude does not require investigation.
This is a proof by definition fallacy. The definition of the word skeptic as I used it is specific and refers to professional skeptics, who do
investigate cases. I made a distinction between a professional skeptic and a pseudoskeptic, where a skeptic is one who investigates and a
pseudoskeptic is simply one who doubts.
The act of questiontining the validity of something is an investigative act. You cannot evaluate something without first analysing the avaiable
data.
No, there isn't. There is quite a bit of evidence that UFOs exist, but none of it (except contactee/abduction stories) points specifically to
an ET explanation.
There is also significant evidence for ET as well. You are going against facts by claiming this evidence does not exist. I suggest you go to
ufoevidence.com and read all the evidence that is available on UFO's and ET.
No, it isn't. It is the job of the person who has a claim to prove it.
In the case of a ET phenomena witness, they have no need to prove their claims, because to them they are self-proof and unproblematic. To the debunker
who attempts to disprove their claims, they have to investigate their claims and explain it with a hypothesis that is consistet with the available
data.
The debunker cannot just come up with any random explanation, their explanation has to fit the available data, so the debunker also carries a burden
of proof. Are you asserting the debunker has no burden of proof? If you are, then your position is only an emotional and dogmatic one and can be
rejected as invalid. You do strike me as a very emotional person by the way.
No. The probability of life on THIS planet is 100%. The probability of life on at least one planet is 100%, the one being this one. The
probability of life on any other planet is less than 100%.
I have already answered this debate. I am obviously aware that the argument that life on other planets is induction, but such an argument is valid
because our only way of forming knowledge of our observable universe is induction. In our observable universe life on planets is a known phenomenon,
and there is no reason to believe it does not occur elsewhere in the universe. As demonstrated earlier the argument from possibility is fallacious. To
say "Well, we only have evidence of life on this planet, how do we know it does not exist on others" is like the existence of other minds argument I
already compared it to, or like saying "There is no gravity on Jupiter, we have only observed gravity on Earth and the moon, not Jupiter"
The problem with induction is that nothing can be concluded, but nonetheless we have to use induction all the time. If not we would be in perpetual
doubt over absolutely everything - "Should I jump of this high building, I know that all objects in the past fell, but perhaps when I jump I won't
fall" This is what I call stupid skepticism.
So anything we can know is through induction, and through induction we must build a comprehensible universe.
A terrible analogy. There are hundreds of people around you who communicate with you and claim they have a mind. Since you have a mind, and
they say they do, it is reasonable to believe that they do, also.
Not so terrible in Philosophy or for Betrand Russel. The claim that "I have a mind" is not the same as the proof that I have a mind. I have
absolutely no evidence that you are an independent mind, I only induce that you are.
You can? Have any other planets contacted you and claimed that they, too, have life? If not, the analogy fails.
No, because I don't need perception alone to form conclusions. I also use inference(reason and logic) which is what distinguishes me from animals and
unthinking humans.
Since we are not dealing with absolutes, but likelihoods and probabilities, it is reasonable to say that the probability of things we think of
as "unbelievable" is much lower than things we do find believable.
Probability is not a valid argument. It is improbable that somebody wins the lottery or is struck by lightening, but it happens.
However, this theory has been around for a while and it hasn't been disproven, either. It therefore makes FTL somewhat less likely to
be a reality. Probabilities, remember?
Something can only be disproven if it already claims to be proven. No scientific theories are proven or claim to be proven.
They are? Please provide your reasoning for this statement.
It's pretty obvious really: They are from other planets and more advanced.
We have NO observation of their culture, history, religion and science. They are unobservable.
How did you conclude that they are not within the observable universe?
This is another proof by definition fallacy. I did not used Hubbles definition of an observable universe, but a philosophical definition of a universe
that is beyond our observation.
No. If I perform experiment/action A hundreds or thousands of times and the result is always B, I can make the scientific observation that A
causes B. In fact, some scientific theories and hypotheses are all about determining causes rather than effects.
You are commiting a causal fallacy. If A causes B, then what causes A? All observables are effects, not causes. There is no such thing as a simple
causal chain, all causal chains are complex: B causes C, A causes B etc
There is no reason to believe that they can, either. We have no theories or knowledge to suggest that such a thing is possible, which makes it
less probable than things we know ARE possible.
You said it, there is no theory of ours that suggests it is possible. But as I have said many times before, none of our theories are complete and thus
cannot generalise beyond. It sounds like you are in denial of the limitations of science, an almost religious sentiment.
No one is asking for this. You have twisted the request for observable scientific evidence into this statement to make it seem unreasonable. No
one expects ET DNA to be delivered to their home. But where are the pictures? The lab test reports? The corroborating reports from other scientists
who also examined the evidence?
Such evidence allegedly exists but we must accept it as proof? That doesn't make sense at all. There are also claims that physical
evidence of Bigfoot has been found, examined and tested by scientists. Will you also agree to accept these claims as proof that Bigfoot exists? If
not, then you are the one being duplicitous.
Look at the above quotes again and it will become apparent who is being duplicitous. The the former you asking me where is the scientific evidence,
and in the latter you are saying that the available scientific evidence is not proof.
Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and
whatever to exists.
Who said this? Where? I have never, ever heard anyone say this.
You alluded to it in your previous quote by bringing up the example of Big Foot. Apparently if I accept scientific evidence on UFO, I must also accept
scientific evidence on Big foot? Then you go onto to say UFO's share characteristics with other paranormal thing(spirits etc). You are commiting the
slippery slope fallacy even while denying you are, hilarious!
No, it isn't. The skeptic doesn't have a job nor any responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the person who wants the skeptic to
believe to prove it to them. No one is required to do any certain amount of investigation of something before saying "I doubt that."
Then you have no point or purpose in this thread. You are just a doubter, while this thread is a critical discussion on pseudoskeptical arguments and
the fallacies they commit. It does not take special effort to doubt, anybody can doubt, you just say, "No" doubting does not contribute anything.
Perhaps this is the wrong thread for you.
If a child says "there is a monster under my bed," do you really need to investigate before saying, "No, I don't think there is."?
Some children recount past life memories to their parents. The parents initially doubt them, and then some parents investigate them and realise it
produces more data that supports their claims. So yes, even something as little as "Monster under my bed" is to be investigated.
None of my team would say anything like what you are suggesting here. But that's because .. you made it up and it's not real, nor even any
kind of reasonable approximation of real.
How do you do your investigations from an armchair? You give me the impression of a very lazy investigaor with your assertions that you have no
responsibility to investigate a claim to judge it.
Another strawman: I never said that skeptics produce questions like in my example, I was giving an example of a pseudoskeptical investigation.
A list of fallacies you have used so far:
Strawman fallacy
Argument from possibility fallacy
Slippery slope fallacy
Proof by definition fallacy
It is ironic you are defending fallacious pseudoskeptical arguments with fallacies
[edit on 25-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]
