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: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Heike, calm down. Let's try and divest this debate of emotions, and just treat it as a competition between ideas(theories/hypothesis) and not a competition between people.

Look at the topic title. "Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common Fallacies" An 'ism' is not a person, correct? What is being deconstructed here is a set of ideas, prejudices, nobody in particular is being attacked. Arguments which are demonstrably fallacious are being exposed, not people. Now, if some people are going to respond and defend fallacious arguments, then obviously they will be seen to be identifying with pseudoskepticism and thus will become subject to our scrutiny. The thread is still not about attacking people.

So lets drop this attitude that this is some kind of crusade. It's not my crusade, Platoallegories crusade or your crusade. It's a debate on certain fallacious arguments.


Now I do not mean to intrude on your debate and I am not going to take sides to show my neutrality. Some points on points raised in your debate:

Platoallegory is not saying that all UFO's are ET. He is saying that some UFO's cannot be explained without ETH. This variety is the metallic, mothership physical craft gravity-defying physics variety. I am sure Platoallegry will agree with me that most reported UFO sightings are just as you describe, misidentified phenomenon. The ones that are unexplainable as he describes, does not the mean the ones that could not be explained at the time, but ones that cannot be explained after vigorous research and hypothesis testing. The only hypothesis that remains is ETH, which is the only hypothesis that is consistent with these genuinely unexplained cases.

Platoallegry is right that the ETH is a hypothesis that has been built to explain these phenomenon out of the overwhelming amounts of evidence collected by researchers over decades. However, in my view, ETH was always a valid hypothesis, because it has always been a part of our world and our history. As argued earlier, there is no reason to believe that ET does not exist, ET's existence was never in question. It's always been a part of our explanatory framework.

But extradimensions hasn't always been a part of our explanatory framework, in fact it is a recent addition with advances in theoretical physics. Extra dimensions and parallel dimensions were not self-evident to us. Even today they are not self-evident, they are just theoretical concepts. This is why this explanation, even if true, cannot form a part of our explanatory framework.

I request again that we do not treat this thread as a war between persons. I know you are mature and educated enough to heed my request


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
I said the UFO's validate the ET hypothesis.


No. You claimed that LogicalResponse's admission that "UFOs are real" validates the ET hypothesis. It does not. You took it out of context to make it mean what you wanted it to mean instead of what he meant.

He meant very simply that yes, reports of objects which could not be identified by the witness at the time of the sighting do exist. That's all, and it does not validate ETH.


Why would you pick extra-dimensional over extra-terrestrial?

Because of my own personal experience and my "pet" hypothesis. Apparently you didn't bother to read either one.

My choice is based on experience. Have you had a chat with an ET so that you can say the same? No? Then you and I are not using the same "reasons."

And this is all I have to say to you unless you accept my challenge to a REAL debate in which other people, not you, get to decide who "wins."

Arguments with you don't fail, they die of exhaustion.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by Heike]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


You are correct in what you have said. However, Plato (deliberately or mistakenly, I don't know) misconstrued what Logicalresponse said in order to construct this argument.

This is my one and only simple point.

Saying that UFOs are real does not acknowledge the existence of inexplicable cases and in no way validates the ETH.

People keep trying to drag me off to other places instead of answering what I'm saying. Here it is again in case you missed it:

Logicalresponse's posting "Are UFOs real? You bet!" did not validate the ETH. Plato had to misconstrue what he was saying in order to claim that he did.

And th-th-th-th that's all, Folks.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Again, you don't understand what validate means.

You ASSUMED I meant that ALL UFO's validate the ET hyopothesis.

That's because you are in the realm of absolutes.

If you would have read the post, I then said that some of these UFO's are described as metallic crafts and motherships that move like they are controlled by intelligence.

We can use the UFO reports to buil a hypothesis, therefore UFO's validate the ET hypothesis.

I explained this in my post, but you thought you saw an absolute. If you want to debate absolutes, then read the post from pseudoskeptics because you will not find them in mine no matter how hard you try. You will just end up in an illogical black hole.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


I think Platosallegory explained that he was not insinuating that Logicalresponse said that ET UFO's are real, but his admission that UFO's were real, would lead to ETH in the end.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this line of reasoning. But this is what I interpreted his post to mean as well.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Actually that it was believed that the soundbarrier could not be broken is a myth as well. It is also quite easy to break it, just crack a whip. The tricky part is getting a human into it. But that was also well understood as just that centuries ago: tricky, not impossible. Also nobody who was in europe and educated in the 15th century believed the earth was flat. etc etc...

The thing is while calling everything a fallacy you commit several yourself and state things as facts wich are obviously not true:

planets have a 100% chance of life? Mercury? Venus? Jupiter (not the moons)? Saturn? Uranus? Neptune?

the distances in space are astronomical? (I think thats why we call it astronomy)

positivism is dead and there are only a few positivists left? (argument from authority)



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by Heike
 


I think Platosallegory explained that he was not insinuating that Logicalresponse said that ET UFO's are real, but his admission that UFO's were real, would lead to ETH in the end.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this line of reasoning. But this is what I interpreted his post to mean as well.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]


Exactly,

Where do they think we get the empirical evidence to build the ET hypothesis?

We get it from UFO reports as well as trace evidence, abduction cases, mass sightings and more.

So of course, UFO's validate the ET hypothesis because without any UFO sightings there wouldn't be an ET hypothesis or if there were one I wouldn't support it.

When there's a UFO sighting at a base with nuclear weapons and people describe seeing a craft that looked like it was controlled by intelligence and they couldn't catch it because the way it moved and then everything shuts down, this is evidence that validates the ET hypothesis..

When people say they saw a craft land and humanoid beings got out of the craft, this is evidence that validates the ET hypothesis.

Heike is making the mistake of trying to debate absolutes.

Nobody said it proves the ET hypothesis is correct.

I said, it validates building the hypothesis as I explained in the post.

This is just common sense. The data to build the ET hypothesis does not just appear out of nowhere. UFO reports are part of the data pool that's used to build the hypothesis.

It's just common sense.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


And that's wrong too.

He only meant to say that of course there are UFOs, anything I see in the sky that I can't identify is a "UFO" even if it's just a bird or a plane or .. superman. No, wait, superman is an ET.. can't use that one. Darn!

Anyway, Plato is being dishonest and that's my point. But he will never admit it so I've wasted all this time and made other people mad at me just because I was determined not to let Plato aka Polo boy get away with lying again.

I guess I'll just have to admit to myself that he's too good of a liar and scam artist for me to beat, and give up.

But I'm still noting that he will not accept my challenge to a REAL debate with rules and judges even though he claims I don't know how to debate.

Auf Wiedersehen.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by Heike
 

If you would have read the post, I then said that some of these UFO's are described as metallic crafts and motherships that move like they are controlled by intelligence.


and how can you tell from somethings movement if it is a) controlled b) by intelligence? And by metallic you obviously mean reflective since you only have visual data?

Those are assumptions sir.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by Heike
 

If you would have read the post, I then said that some of these UFO's are described as metallic crafts and motherships that move like they are controlled by intelligence.


and how can you tell from somethings movement if it is a) controlled b) by intelligence? And by metallic you obviously mean reflective since you only have visual data?

Those are assumptions sir.


It's easy,

When a pilot, police officer or someone in the military says it moved like it was controlled by intelligence and they couldn't catch it, I will give their opinion much more weight than the pseudoskeptic that wasn't there when it occured.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Actually that it was believed that the soundbarrier could not be broken is a myth as well. It is also quite easy to break it, just crack a whip. The tricky part is getting a human into it. But that was also well understood as just that centuries ago: tricky, not impossible. Also nobody who was in europe and educated in the 15th century believed the earth was flat. etc etc...


You are going against historical facts then. The fact that it was believed flight was impossible(this has even been corrobrated in this thread), it was believed the earth was flat, it was believed that supersonic travel is not possible. You should read up on the history of science, because I am getting the impression you are doing a post-hoc reading of the past, assuming things like flight being obvious from observations of birds and bees, supersonic craft being obvious from the cracking of a whip. It ws not obvious in the past.


The thing is while calling everything a fallacy you commit several yourself and state things as facts wich are obviously not true:


Ok then lets take a look:


planets have a 100% chance of life? Mercury? Venus? Jupiter (not the moons)? Saturn? Uranus? Neptune?


No I said the probability of the phenomenon of life being on planets is 100%, because there is life on Earth, so that phenomenon is a part of our observable universe. The phenomenon of life happening on a planet is not a probabilistic issue, it is a fact. I did not say that all planets have life.


the distances in space are astronomical? (I think thats why we call it astronomy)


How is that a fallacy?


positivism is dead and there are only a few positivists left? (argument from authority)


Nope, it a description of philosophy of science today. I am not appealing to any authority, simply saying what the world is like. If I said flat-earthers are dead, only a few are about, would that be an argument from authority?
You should look up historical development of science, because you clearly are not familiar with the major scientific movements and paradigm shifts we have gone through, evidenced by you calling the past paradigms of flat earth and flight-impossible "myths"

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


How am i lying when It's obvious?

You didn't read the context of what I said, you just thought you saw an absolute and that's what your trying to debate.

I said validate and the word validate has a definition.

I said UFO's validate the ET hypothesis because the empirical evidence and data pool comes from people who see UFO's and they describe what they saw.

Some UFO reports will describe a light that flashed across the sky.

Others will describe a giant craft that moved slowly across the sky and multiple witnesses saw it.

Obviously, I'm gonna weigh the flashing light across the sky differently than the slow moving craft that was seen by multiple witnesses.

But the end, there both called UFO reports.

You don't use reason and you talk in absolutes.

So, UFO's validate the ET hypothesis because they are the data pool where the evidence is gathered to build the hypothesis.

If you debate things out of context, then you are going to be making an argument that was never made.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Not trying to bash the original poster, but seriously, another "I hate skeptic/we need skeptics" thread.

Really? Realllllllly?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
Not trying to bash the original poster, but seriously, another "I hate skeptic/we need skeptics" thread.

Really? Realllllllly?


Come on Travis, at lest read the thread title properly if not the actual posts. Pseudo-skepticism is not skepticism. So this thread has nothing to do with skeptics. Click the links in my signature to read about the vast difference between the two. ATS does need threads discussing pseudo-skepticism, as is shown by the fact that you aren't really aware of the difference and assumed it was about "skeptics". Nobody needs pseudo-skeptics, least of all legitimate skeptics.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by Heike
 

I said UFO's validate the ET hypothesis because the empirical evidence and data pool comes from people who see UFO's and they describe what they saw.


No, that's not what you said. THIS is what you said. And I've just proved that you lie.


Originally posted by platosallegory
As you said in your post:

"Are UFOs real? You bet"

Right there you have validated the ET hypothesis.


 


Here's the rest of what LR said, which clearly, clearly proves what he meant:


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.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by Heike]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
PS you have a message.


Yes, I do have a message. And that message is...I am awesome.

Unless you mean a u2u; then I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't have any u2u's.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


He's explaining what he meant Heike, and as he explained it, he's right. You misunderstood what he said and are trying to hold him to your misunderstanding of his words so you can insist he's wrong, and when he explains what he meant you call him a liar because his explanation used more words than his original comment - of course it did! It has to, because you misunderstood the original comment. I thought you said said "that's all folks" and said more than once that you were going to leave the issue there, or do "YOU LIE!"? See how daft that approach is? Take this silly vendetta to PM's and off the thread, please.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram


Come on Travis, at lest read the thread title if not the actual posts. Pseudo-skepticism is not skepticism. So this thread has nothing to do with skeptics. Click the links in my signature to read about the vast difference between the two. ATS does need threads discussing pseudo-skepticism, as is shown by the fact that you aren't really aware of the difference and assumed it was about "skeptics". Nobody needs pseudo-skeptics, least of all legitimate skeptics.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Malcram]
I have, and the "definition" you guys present, is just the same as having a "we need/don't need skeptics" threads. Its all the same, and its just getting ridiculous how much people try to prove what a true skeptic is, a bad skeptic is, an honest skeptic is, etc etc, instead of actually getting down to the material at hand.

If someone bashes anybody for being a "skeptic" in a UFO thread, then just move on to another post. If they don't want to actually debate/share information with you, on what could potentially be something of importance, then again, just move on. There is no need for these silly threads everyday. I'm in this section to look at Unidentified Flying Objects, and trying to figure out what they are. I'm not here to try and make peace with people who get upset at different viewpoints. If some members are coming off that rude, then thats what the "ignore" button is for. Lets stop cluttering up the UFO-Boards with this stuff.

I swear, we need a "sticky" thread that deals with just Skeptics/Anti-Skeptic viewpoints.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by TravisT]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 


i agree 100% m8, this is 2nd thread on skeptics and how to argue

I think these skeptic killers should quit patting each other on the back

and jump in one of the ongoing debates of ufo existance.

this retread thread is pointless



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Heike
 


He's explaining what he meant Heike, and as he explained it, he's right. You misunderstood what he said and are trying to hold him to your misunderstanding of his words so you can insist he's wrong, and when he explains what he meant you call him a liar because his explanation used more words than his original comment - of course it did! It has to, because you misunderstood the original comment. I thought you said said "that's all folks" and said more than once that you were going to leave the issue there, or do "YOU LIE!"? See how daft that approach is? Take this silly vendetta to PM's and off the thread, please.


Your right, but actually it's worse because Heike just ignored what I said in my initial post.

If you notice Heike is just quoting one part of my post. I said then what I have been saying this whole time:

As you said in your post:


"Are UFOs real? You bet"

Right there you have validated the ET hypothesis.

These people are describing what they see from metallic spacecrafts to humanoid looking beings.

People who support the ET hypothesis do not accept it because they woke up one day and said extra-terrestrial or extr-dimensional beings exist so I will accept the ET hypothesis. On the contrary, people support this hypothesis after examining the evidence where eyewtinesses describe what they saw.


So Heike is flat out lying or he didn't understand what I said in my initial post because he doesn't understand what the word validate means.

I never said that UFO's prove the ET hypothesis, I said they validate the hypothesis because this is where some of the evidence to support the hypothesis is gathered.

This is the explanation I had to add with Heike because he didn't understand the context of my initial post because he didn't understand what validates.

Anyone should be able to tell what I meant if you have a simple grasp of what these words mean.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join