It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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...
It is not the "job" of skeptics to do anything. Anyone is entitled to think whatever they want, with or without investigation. Everyone does not have a responsibility or "job" to investigate everything.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by Heike
I think your response is overly emotional and really has little to do with this thread. I am sorry that you have been attacked for having skeptical views on ET, but I have not participated in these attacks and will not be participating in these attacks in the future.
Again I would like to reiterate how silly your demands are for physical evidence,
I could take your absolutist skeptic position and demand physical proof the Earth is round
I am afraid, as I argued initially, you are using a slippery slope fallacy here. It is invalid, sorry.
It is less reasonable because you are multiplying quantities unnecessarily.
The purpose of this thread is simply to debunk common fallacious pseudoskeptical arguments,
Originally posted by platosallegory
The pseudoskeptic vs. the skeptical person who accepts the ET hypothesis.
The pseudoskeptic is not truly skeptical they are really closed minded debunkers.
It is not the "job" of skeptics to do anything
Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything... But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming [UFO] was actually due to an artifact - he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary--for example, that a UFO was actually a giant plasma...In such cases the negative claimant also may have to bear a heavier burden of proof than might normally be expected.
Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. .A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence...If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. - On Pseudo-Skepticism. A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi
Originally posted by Malcram
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448905/
Obviously, you are being pedantic and Indigo Child is indicating that for someone to be reasonably skeptical, thorough investigation of the evidence in order to establish if a skeptical stance is actually justified.
Earlier my definition of pseudoskeptic was challenged, but here you have just re-stated it for me. You are very clearly saying that anyone who does not accept the ET hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic and a closed minded debunker.
Originally posted by Heike
Really? So no one should say they don't believe in ghosts until they've "adequately" investigated ghost sightings and evidence?
No one should say they don't believe in Santa Claus until after they've gone to the North Pole to make sure he isn't there?
No one should refuse to believe in the "Mongolian Death Worm" until they've gone to Mongolia and investigated its existence?
And certainly no one should say they don't believe in Nessie unless they've investigated all the evidence. Right?
You've just taken away the basic right of anyone and everyone to say "I doubt that" or "I don't believe in that" unless they have first conducted a "thorough examination of the evidence."
Who's being unreasonable?
Originally posted by Heike
My point was, you and I and everyone else disbelieve in all sorts of things that we've never once investigated for ourselves, but someone we trust told us "that's not real" and we accepted it.
So your claim that anyone who chooses to doubt the ETI hypothesis must first conduct a thorough investigation of all the UFO and ET evidence before they can have that opinion is unreasonable.
/ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skep-tik] Show IPA
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.
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.
No, it isn't. It is the job of the person who has a claim to prove it.
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%.
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.
You can? Have any other planets contacted you and claimed that they, too, have life? If not, the analogy fails.
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.
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?
They are? Please provide your reasoning for this statement.
How did you conclude that they are not within the observable universe?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."?
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.
Here are a few examples, direct quotes of yours from the other thread, where you did it to me:
The problem is, you have hardly presented any "common fallacious pseudoskeptical arguments." In fact, several of the ones you listed as "common" I've never seen anyone use.
P.S. I AM NOT A GUY. If you're so good with observation and logic and inference, one would think you might have noticed by now the picture of me as a little GIRL that is my current avatar.
Originally posted by Malcram
..this debate is between pseudo-skeptics and skeptical people who happen to accept the ET hypothesis. He didn't say that people who didn't accept the ETH were all pseudo-skeptics.
"Of course it is possible that UFO's really do contain aliens as many people believe, and the government is hushing it up."
Stephen Hawking (world renowned astrophysicist) on C Span Television. Guest lecturer at the second Millennium Evening at the White House on March 6, 1998.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
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.
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.
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.
In our observable universe life on planets is a known phenomneon
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"
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.
Probability is not a valid argument. It is improbable that somebody wins the lottery, but it happens.
Something can only be disproven if it is already proven. No scientific theories are proven, or claim to be proven.
It's pretty obvious really: They are from other planets and more advanced.
We have observation of their culture, history, religion and science. They are unobservable.
a philosophical definition of a universe that is beyond our observation.
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.
You alluded to 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?
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.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It appears your criteria for determining what is an attack on you is if somebody disagrees with you or points out gaps in your reasoning. OK.
I apologise, in your avatar I couldn't quite tell....
So all of us here on ATS who have the audacity to not be convinced of the ETH are either pseudoskeptics or professional skeptics, depending on whether or not we've "adequately" investigated the evidence? I wasn't aware that any of us needed to be "professional" skeptics in order to post our opinions on ATS.
In fact, I'd much rather be amicably discussing the merits of various possible origins of ETs as be here defending my basic right to have my own opinions about ETs even if they're different from yours.
No. Let me simplify this for you a bit more.
Physical evidence exists for theory A.
Similar physical evidence exists for theory B.
IF you expect me to agree that theory A is true because of the physical evidence, then I have every reason to expect that you should agree that theory B is true based on similar evidence, whether they are related or not.
Theory A= ETH Theory B = Non-human hominid