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: 20
23
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


I note you have only just joined ATS, have only posted within the last few hours - and, curiously enough, only in this rather 'special interest' thread - and you targeted me in your second post at ATS and in every post since. Do I know you by another username?

I answered your question. There is nothing more to say on that matter. I'm satisfied that impartial readers can understand what I said and also see exactly what you are doing. Certainly if the question you raised is of any interest to them they will be able to answer it for themselves, as you could, within seconds of doing as I suggested - clicking the links in my signature and previous post or making a brief internet search. You are on ignore, so no further responses will be forthcoming.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]




posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
In a null shell: I have basically destroyed every argument against ETH


I disagree. You have proven wrong the absolute fallacies which would make ETH an impossibility. That gets you no closer to the ETH itself.

Forcing everyone to admit that it is possible for UFOs to be ETs does not prove that they are, nor even make it a probability.

If your wildest dreams come true and everyone on ATS stops using these common fallacies, they will just learn to say something more logically acceptable and nothing will really change. No one's beliefs or opinions will be changed, no one will have learned anything more than not to use certain words when debating in this forum if they don't want to get into a big long logical argument with you or someone like you.

You can't MAKE people believe if they don't want to.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Forcing everyone to admit that it is possible for UFOs to be ETs does not prove that they are, nor even make it a probability.


Nope, again you misunderstood. I am not arguing from possibility, but logic. If you accept logic then ET is entailed. If you reject logic, well then you're illogical



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I'm sorry I just don't see it that way. I don't see where your logic has gotten you any further than "it is possible" in any of your rebuttals. And "it is possible" does not evolve into "it is a fact" (or even a valid hypothesis) without a lot of additional premises which you have not provided.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


You missed the boat again. Logic means entailment, it does not mean possibility. I have arrived at logical conclusions using empirical premises and that conclusion is entailed by them. So at least within logic it is certiain.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
If I missed the boat, can you send a skiff for me?

At least I am learning things from this discussion; thanks for helping me stave off Alzheimer's.


I had to look up entailment but it wasn't very enlightening.

It took me back to:


Example 1. Let the set A of sentences include 'All horses are animals' and 'All stallions are horses', and the set B of sentences include 'All stallions are animals'. Then A\models B, i.e. A entails B, holds.
(from Wikipedia article "entailment").

What are your A's and B's then, because I don't see where you've entailed anything beyond it is possible for ET to exist and possible for ET to get to Earth etc?



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


As somebody pointed out earlier you cannot use formal logic in a real life debate, else would be commiting the fallacy of psychologism; trying to generalise mathematical entities to real life. So the logic I am using is scientific logic which can be used in real life. It is based on observing relationships of invariable concomitance and setting up a generalization e.g. if smoke then fire

This is how it would be represented in formal logic

1. All smoke has fire
2. I see smoke
3. Therefore there is fire

While the translation to formal logic works in this case, it does not work with with all cases and there are some major problems. The rule "All smoke has fire" is a universal and can be proven wrong with a counter example "a smoke bomb does not have fire" In all formal logic the premise never translate to real life, it is just a mathematical entity. In scientific logic you are using observation of an observable to setup relationships of invariable concomitance and generalise from that. So you say

1. There is fire on the mountain
2. Because I see a certain kind of smoke on the mountain
3. I know where this certain kind of smoke is seen from previous observation there is fire, such as when burning wood
4. I see that smoke on the mountain
5. Therefore there is fire on the mountain

This is based on an inductive observation but a deductive argument structure. There is entailment between the observables and the conclusion. In this argument everytime you see a particular kind of smoke, you infer there is fire. The fire is a logical conclusion.

If particular kind of smoke then fire

This is the foundation of scientific logic or case-based reasoning or non-monontic reasoning as it is called. A similar argument would be

1. There is gravity in this object
2. Because it has mass
3. I know from previous observation that all mass produces gravity
4. There is mass here
5. Therefore it has gravity

Now the same kind of scientific logic applied to the planets argument.

1. There is life on that planet
2. Because it is a planet
3. I know from previous observation that life grows on planets
4. There is a planet
5. Therefore it has life.

This argument can be qualified with an earth-like planet, but as I said earlier on I am cautious of such a qualification because earth is not in a static condition and it certainly wasn't at the start, when it was very hot and volcanic, but life still happened very quickly. It has happened in every condition dry, wet, hot, cold, oxygen, non oxygen. So there is no reason to believe that every planet will not have some potential for life even microorganisms.

This article is quite an interestng read:

www.astrobio.net...

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


As somebody pointed out earlier you cannot use formal logic in a real life debate

and i have been trying to point that out for ages..

This is a debate.. "opinion" the thread is the problem not the ETH

You see what I have been doing is not to debunk the very premiss of the underlying arguments "that can be based on facts" but the very thread itself that is trying to give a reason for them.. or a premiss when that is based on opinion...

Now i dont neeed to argue about the logic of this thread becuase it does not have any logic to argue over..

But what i am pointing out as i said befor is that You and everyone on here will always dissagree with each other as its "the thead" is based on opinon.

I cam here trying to work out what infact the topic was about

Debunking pseduoskeptics.. I made the case and still do that the topic is infact 2 false statments trying to prove a thruth..

How can one prove an opinion? not the facts? if you was to say proving what a pseudoskeptic is and what arguments they infact use to warren that name then it would make sens! as one is not infact using the name to prove a point "ETH" of the logic behind the argument for and against it..

and my evidence is infact all the dissagreements that are infact not about the thread but the loigc / methord used in a debate that is based on facts when this one is not.. "the thread"

very simple underlying princeiples are being neglected.

No facts to debate.. as you said "no logic" can be used as this is a debate about a debate..

This is my last post on here because i find pointing out the problem of why it is infact you are all arguing pointless now..

this thread will argue into infinity unless EVERYONE agrees with the "opinon"

aint ever gunna happen


oh well i did try heh



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
1. There is life on that planet
2. Because it is a planet
3. I know from previous observation that life grows on planets
4. There is a planet
5. Therefore it has life.


If I were going to do that one, it would go more like this:

1. There could be life on that planet.
2. I know from personal observation that at least one planet has life.
3. I have seen evidence to suggest that some planets do not have life.
4. This is an unknown planet which we have no direct observations of.
5. Therefore there could be life on that planet. Or not.

If every planet had some kind of life, your argument would hold. However, evidence suggests that some planets do not have life. Therefore we can not say that any unknown planet does have life until or unless we have some evidence for life on that planet.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


There is no could be in deductive logic, otherwise there is no entailment between the premise and the conclusion. Your argument above is not a valid argument.

As we have not actually stepped on other planet other than our own, there is no reason to believe that there isn't some form of life on it. There is already evidence that Mars may have some kind of life and there is evidence of alien microbes. As far as I'm concerned deductive logic shows me that plants should have life. That is the function of a planet. If I qualify it and say "Earth like" then it should be definite. As astronomy is showing there are trillions upon trillions of earth like planets and there are billion trillions stars in the visible universe alone. So there is simply no reason to believe there is no ET.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Then I must agree with the earlier statement that formal logic does not apply to real life.

That may be logical, but it isn't reasonable, at least not to me. I do not believe that we can say there is life on planet xyz just because Earth has life. According to current scientific data, there are more planets which don't have life than planets which do.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


The problem I have with this conclusion is that when proponents of the ETH use 'real life' reasoning, and 'common sense' this is rejected as insufficient and they are told "Nope, you need to be coldly scientific and be strictly 'logical'. So they comply. Then they are told 'Yes but your strictly logical approach is not valid because it's not reasonable and doesn't apply to real iife.'

The decks are stacked.

I feel the ETH satisfies the most strictly applied logic, reason and 'real life' common sense.


[edit on 5-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


There are many real life logical reasons for that - you just don't like them.


People don't want to believe that ETs are visiting Earth because it threatens their reality box, or they are afraid to believe it because it causes them to feel insecure or insignificant. People use circular reasoning, fallacies, and demand "extraordinary proof" for things they don't want to accept.

In the history of mankind there has always been the real and the unreal. The unreal are myths, legends, superstitions, and the "supernatural." In the ancient world it was elves who abducted people and caused episodes of missing time - now it is "greys."

No one questions the existence of dogs; they are right here in front of our faces. There are many people who may have never seen a platypus or an okapi in person, but their existence is not questioned either.

Extraterrestrials are not available for examination, and are seen on TV only in fiction. Therefore, from the point of view of many people, they fall into the same general category as ghosts, bigfoot, the jersey devil, vampires, werewolves, and psychic powers. We who have reason to believe that extraterrestrials are around may not like it, but it isn't going to change until either they introduce themselves or the PTB admit they exist.

Just the facts, sir.

P.S. You may enjoy this blog entry of mine.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 




No one questions the existence of dogs


Nonsense! You obviously haven't read my 'Do Dog's Actually Exist?" thread.


Thanks for the link.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Nonsense! You obviously haven't read my 'Do Dogs Actually Exist?" thread.



Oh, was that you? I figured it was some dyslexic agnostic.




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I note you have only just joined ATS, have only posted within the last few hours - and, curiously enough, only in this rather 'special interest' thread - and you targeted me in your second post at ATS and in every post since. Do I know you by another username?


ive looked around and everything here looks like 'special interest'

what makes this thread 'special interest' to you?

why is posting in this one curious?

my apologies if my first posts happen to be to you. i had to start somewhere.

i guess its like being at a party where you dont know anyone

and the first person you attempt to talk to turns out to be some kind of loony

im not saying your a loony heck no but i guess if someone has a social life they might have run into someone like that

just trying to show an example

isnt that what a conversation is?

have you had some time to think about my questions? some times it takes me a while to figure out essay answers too



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


It makes no difference whether people don't like it or not, it doesn't makes any difference to logical truth.

I know things like ETI, atoms, spirits, other universes are unknowns until they are directly perceived, but not everybody knows things through perception alone, some people know things through reason, which is the best way of knowing anything. So your perception shows your sun is moving around the earth, but reason will tell you its the earth moving around the sun. So reason is our best way of knowing about the unknown.

Some say intuition is the best way of knowing, but intuition is just advanced reason but it comes in wholes, rather then following a series of logical steps. I do not let the lack of perception of ETI stop me from knowing their existence. I can use my powers of reason to know about things which are unknown to perception but which are obvious to my reason.

It's all about connecting dots and people who can do it do it are not handicapped by absence of perception.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So your perception shows your sun is moving around the earth, but reason will tell you its the earth moving around the sun.


it is not reason that shows the earth revolves the sun

there is nothing to show a person that the sun does not revolve around the earth

it was evidence like seeing other planets cross the sun that showed different

if thats not true

why doesnt reason tell us the earth revolves around the moon?

the way the moon rises and sets is exactly as the sun does

a person cannot percieve a difference

so how can they reason one does one thing and one does another?

that is not reasoning

that is the reliance on many other persons evidence and say so



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
ok i said i wouldnt post but i will again lol!!

and seens as malcrum and ingdio_child have put me on ignore for asking basic questions i shall post for others



I know things like ETI, atoms, spirits, other universes are unknowns until they are directly perceived, but not everybody knows things through perception alone, some people know things through reason, which is the best way of knowing anything. So your perception shows your sun is moving around the earth, but reason will tell you its the earth moving around the sun. So reason is our best way of knowing about the unknown.


I know my grammer is pretty cack and my spellings.. but i do infact understand the termonlogy of words..

I know things like ETI, atoms, spirits, other universes are unknowns until they are directly perceived

Precived in this stentance is wrong.. should be replaced with proved as we are basing this on evidence "hence thread topic"

but not everybody knows things through perception alone

well ofcourse not.. you basing the evidence on precetopion

: i precive the moon to be made of cheese and have a face..?? get my drift

So your perception shows your sun is moving around the earth

No my preception of the evidence provided makes that argument ilogical as you assume thats what i infact precive correct?

"what i can see" well infact i looked at evidence ? not the sun ; )

asuumption again and using words totaly out of context to make your argument make sens only to you!

but reason will tell you its the earth moving around the sun.

No reason does not tell me anything reason is to not even ask a question but to settle on one sides of an opinion?

The reason for this thread is for you to prove others opinions to be wrong based on facts when they are not...

you see how i used that word?

"reason"

So reason is our best way of knowing about the unknown

nope wrong again.. the only way of knowing about the unknown it to investergate it look at the everdenice conclude a hypothersis and use a methord that would prove it

That is what we do on earth im sorry if you dont like that but its true...

our methord is science...

and that is in direct conflict with the thread at hand.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 



Right, it was evidence or more correctly other observatins which then processed through reason lead us to conclude earth is revolving around the sun. Not perception. This is knowlege through reason.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join