Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There are other truth claims being made which I discussed in the OP - "ET does not exist", "ET cannot visit Earth", "It's unlikely that ET is here" all of these are truth claims.

You claim that a skeptic does not have to investigate evidence, that they can judge evidence even without any investigation.

The predication of life on other planets from life on Earth is thus as valid as the prediction of gravity on Jupiter from gravity on Earth. This is impeccable logic, so be careful how you respond.

That is exactly the point. In your first quote you demands physical evidence of ET(lab reports etc) from scientists. Then in the second quote you say that just because there is scientific evidence, it does not mean it is true. In that case the argument in the initial quote is invalid because of duplicity.

But it sounds like you have a pet theory that is anti-ETH, and are very frustrated that most people do not consider your pet theory. This obviously is very personal for you.

I am going to respond to your post, because though I think your objections are weak and seem to ignore reasons given in the above post,

The claim of an invisible fairy is falsifiable, it's still evidence of something, it's an evidence of either an invisible fairy, a deluded person, a charlatan etc.

If the claimant is also to provide group testimonies, photographs, then it creates more avaible [sic] data for the investigator.

This is a null-hypothesis fallacy. You are are creating an arbitrary condition of what constitutes evidence based on what is consistent with your perspective of the world.

So, while you may disregard all testimonies because you do not consider them evidence, another individual or even body such as a court room would consider it evidence. Therefore such an arbitrary condition creates relativistic definitions of evidence and thus is invalid.

An ET race more advanced than us would have already tried our models in their distant past and have falsified them, and gone through a long series of falsifications from that point on to arrive at their current model

When antecedent causes become known, effects can be manipulated.

Here we are talking about physical evidence, and the high unlikeliness of such evidence being mailed to the door of every skeptic for their personal inspection. The chances are if there is physical evidence of ET/UFO's it will be be presented to the skeptic in the form if a testimonial by a scientist.

So it is an impossible demand that if ET and UFO samples exist, they will be available for public inspection.

In fact the chances are they would be top-secret.

As you are aware, these do indeed exist.

The demand that something should be "peer reviewed" is not appealing to evidence, but a peer group.

Are you familiar with cold-fusion, over-unity devices, antigravity, ZPE? There have been several experriments [sic] done by different scientists in all these areas which have produced a strong amount of validating evidence.

In the end a peer-group acceptance or rejection is just another form of testimony.

Science is a process and cannot be adopted in some zealous or dogmatic belief system that revolves around bias (as is often accused from fringe groups like Ufologists.) But the truly interesting thing about some groups of UFO proponents is that they often display all of these behaviors up to and including rabid fanaticism and rather aggressive attempts to convince others to believe in the same things that they do. Some of the smaller groups even exhibit cult-like behavior.

If that's not indicative of a dogmatic belief-system, I don't know what is.

What?

Not only are you saying aliens exist by this statement you're attributing all kinds of fantastic properties to them. So, are you saying that you have proof that they exist and that the laws of physics do not apply to them?

Remember - The burden of proof is on the proponent.

If it's unobservable how can these conclusions be drawn, then? What leads you to believe that there is an "unobservable universe" in the first place?

What we know of physics is what we know of physics. There is no way to differentiate some obscure concept as an alien civilization having some sort of highly advanced grasp of physics if we have absolutely no evidence of either one. We have what we have extracted from physics, and that's all we have to work with. Your statement suggests that there is more to it than that.

(cont below)

So you are basically suggesting a sort of scientific conspiracy at work. Why that explanation when many other more simple, straightforward answers would just as easily form a solution?

And of course it doesn't have to go to a skeptic. It can go to anyone capable of adequately testing, examining and providing scientific reasons for its validation.

Why would they need to be in order to be properly analyzed?

That's quite a leap.

Why would it be top secret? What evidence can you provide (and I really don't require irrefutable proof in this instance) that this would be the case?

As you are aware, these do indeed exist.

You are saying that scientists have handled alien materials and recorded the results of their findings. I would absolutely love to see some of these, investigate them and share the findings with accredited scientists of their respective fields.

Are you aware of the fact-testing, ethical demands and scrutiny involved with peer-reviewed journals? These are very important.

It is overwhelmingly hard to slip a false-positive through these safeguards if not out rightly impossible.

I've examined the claims associated with these ideas. So far I have found the greater majority of the findings in these fields to be rather dubious.

If a strong amount of validating evidence exists, I would be very interested in reviewing these ideas further. So far, I have found none.

In the end a peer-group acceptance or rejection is just another form of testimony.

Attempting to apply logic to an illogical assumption doesn't grant it anymore believability than it already had.

Originally posted by nerbot
An "Ideal Skeptic" would be someone who never accepts something as an absolute truth and maintains a doubting attitude regardless of evidence.

Originally posted by LogicalResponse
The bottom line is this:

Are UFOs real? You bet. There are plenty cases of unidentified flying objects. But that first word is very important.

Assuming that a UFO is some kind of alien vehicle is an absolutely incredible leap of logic. According to almost all accredited, well-trained and able observers of this phenomena there is absolutely no valid evidence that supports this belief. I personally agree with this assertion as I have not run into any convincing evidence myself.

To me, not having a scientific background, other planets, other dimensions, parallel universes, suboceanic civilizations, etc. all have pretty much the same level of validity (or invalidity). They're all pretty far out to me, but none is noticeably farther out than the others. Aren't scientists currently postulating the existence of parallel universes?

Common sense extrapolation which interprets the actions and motivations of other intelligent beings based on human intelligence (since that is the only intelligence we have to extrapolate from) says they aren't coming from hundreds of light years away just to fart around, make pretty patterns in crops, and confuse the poor humans for a good laugh.

And therein lies the difference. Your purely scientific approach tells you that ETH is the "most likely" hypothesis; my common sense tells me that them being conveniently close, or right here with us, is a more likely hypothesis.

The other thing I think you are not taking into consideration is the nature of humans.

None of my alphabet guys are deliberately out to be "pseudo-skeptics" or debunkers. But if challenged they will sure act like they are, because from their point of view their safety, security, happiness, sanity, and future depend on you being wrong. They may not have consciously thought this all through, but they will use every and any mental weapon or argument to disprove ETH, and if you get close to poking holes in their disbelief they'll become very angry.

It is not, however, really their choice or their fault. They are the way they are because of the circumstances of their life and their experiences, and they really can't help it without having to quite literally destroy who they are and start over.

Arguing with them about it is about like trying to convince a cantankerous, ornery old bull that you're his new best friend. You won't succeed, and if you get too close you'll only provoke an angry attack on yourself. They are best ignored, or politely "fogged" with some statement like "well, you may be right," and left alone.

From this point of view, I find baiting, antagonizing, provoking, or otherwise challenging the person whose fundamental view of life or self depends on the wrongness of the ETH to be morally and ethically reprehensible. The best you can do is anger and upset them, and it serves no useful purpose.