Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies

reply to post by TravisT


Give me a break.

There's tons of threads about the evidence within ufology in this folder and if you were so concerned about debating these issues, then you would be debating "Is this the real picture of an alien" or "Are UFO's Time travelers"

There's only a couple of threads about the illogical arguments of skeptics and if they can spread their illogical opinion on every thread in this folder, we should be able to debate those illogical opinions.

It's just some can't debate the issue, so they want the debate shut down.

Again, we can walk and chew gum at the same time and we can debate the evidence and debate the pseudoskeptics logic when they belittle the evidence at the same time.

reply to post by TravisT


I don't see what is invalid about a thread that looks at common pseudoskeptical fallacious arguments. It has already beens stated several times in this thread, this thread is not an attack on skeptics or people. It is an analysis of common fallacious arguments. Is that not what the thread title says, "Common Fallacies" ? Can you have a possible valid objection to that?

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by TravisT

 

Give me a break.

There's tons of threads about the evidence within ufology in this folder and if you were so concerned about debating these issues, then you would be debating "Is this the real picture of an alien" or "Are UFO's Time travelers"

There's only a couple of threads about the illogical arguments of skeptics and if they can spread their illogical opinion on every thread in this folder, we should be able to debate those illogical opinions.

It's just some can't debate the issue, so they want the debate shut down.

Again, we can walk and chew gum at the same time and we can debate the evidence and debate the pseudoskeptics logic when they belittle the evidence at the same time.

I really do love how you used the search button on my last few posts, bravo.....and a little harsh. I don't have to post in every thread, because a lot of the time, members have already pointed out what I wanted to present, and it was debated to death. Why should I clutter up the thread anymore with whats already been said? And just because there are only 2 live threads today, doesn't mean another will be created over the exact same ideas tomorrow. I see new threads like this everyday.

We need a sticky on this subject.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by TravisT]

Oh, good grief.

There is a difference between saying:

"UFOS being real validates the ETH" or "UFO reports validate the ETH"

and saying

"YOU validated the ETH when you said "Are UFOs Real? You bet!"

The first statement merely states that the existence of UFOs validates the ETH, which may be, to some extent, correct.

The second specifically accuses the person you are talking to (in this case LogicalResponse) of having validated the ETH with his statement. He did not.

You can't see that the difference is more than the addition of a few words?

One is just a statement. The other misrepresents what someone else said.

And in case anyone else missed it, that's been my point all along. Platosallegory MISREPRESENTED what LogicalResponse said, and I called him on it. That's it. Could he have just said "Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that, here's what I meant to say:"

the last dozen or so posts wouldn't even have to be here.

But you don't get to lie about what someone else said and then use it to your advantage.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Heike]

reply to post by TravisT


Stick to what subject?

This folder has all kinds of debaes from various subjects.

These debates come and go but that's just like debates about crop circles or debates about UFO's and Presidents.

So, I don't buy the argument that these debates about pseudoskepticism are pointless or not needed. Of course those who follow the logic of the pseudoskeptic will complain because their being exposed as closed minded debunkers.

reply to post by Heike


You have twisted yourself into a pretzel because you didn't understand the context of my initial post.

He also said:

"Assuming that a UFO is some kind of alien vehicle is an absolutely incredible leap of logic."

See Heike, when I respond to a post I read the context as to what was said.

It's not a leap of logic to support the ET hypothesis because as he admitted UFO's are real.

We use UFO's as part of the data pool to build the ET hypothesis, so it's not a leap of logic.

So yes, the mere fact that UFO's are real, VALIDATES the ET hypothesis. Where do you think the data comes from to build the hypothesis?

It comes from eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence and more.

Again, you put yourself in a pretzel because you have been trying to debate absolutes for two threads now.

I think you finally understand that you read it out of context and your trying to reframe it because your searching for that absolute.

It will always end up in the same place.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by platosallegory]

reply to post by platosallegory


I'm not in a pretzel. Although, now that you mention it, I'll think I'll get some.

You're the one who refuses to accept my debate challenge, and you are the one who refuses to address the fact that you misrepresented what someone else said so that you could use the lie to your advantage.

If you're so sure that my debating abilities are so lousy, why not accept the formal challenge - then you'd really have the bragging rights.

But I already know why not. Because in a debate with RULES and JUDGES where you would be required to debate the topic fairly and honestly, you would lose, and you even know it.

I have not been debating absolutes nor using absolutes. "always, never, 100%, proof" those are absolutes. And who do we see using those words? Not me.

reply to post by Heike


Nope, I laid out exactly what I said. You just don't understand what the word validate means in the context of my post.

I have been doing all of this debating with you because you didn't understand the word validate.

Do I have to start making 2 post. One that responds to someones post and another that explains to Heike the context of the post?

reply to post by platosallegory


Okay, the drama is over. Sorry folks. I've taken it to u2u and if he chooses not to answer that's his problem.

It is obvious that he will not admit what he did no matter what I say so continuing this is pointless.

For the record, in case he later in another thread tries to say that I left this thread because "my argument failed." I'm leaving because there's no point in taking this further. Even when I take his own quote and shove it under his nose, he won't admit what he did. There's nothing more I can say that will make any difference. But for the record, Polo boy, you're the one who had to resort to lying, and you are the one who won't accept a challenge to a fair, structured debate.

reply to post by Heike


What did I do?

I took the quote and explained it.

You were debating a claim that I never said. I have admitted over and over again that I said it and I stand by what I said.

Where do think the evidence comes from to build the ET hypothesis? So it's not a leap of logic to support this hypothsis as was said because UFO's are real. I also said without UFO's the hypothesis may not exist and I might not support it.

Because without the description of UFO's being motherships or metallic spacrafts that can't be caught by pilots, then some of the data would be missing that supports the hypothesis.

It's really simple.

Originally posted by platosallegory

"Assuming that a UFO is some kind of alien vehicle is an absolutely incredible leap of logic."

See Heike, when I respond to a post I read the context as to what was said.

It's not a leap of logic to support the ET hypothesis because as he admitted UFO's are real.

We use UFO's as part of the data pool to build the ET hypothesis, so it's not a leap of logic.

Yes it is, because you like to assume that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials. Of course UFOs are real, they are objects that can't be identified, although, most people use the term to relate to "little green men", when in fact, there has been no hard evidence to support that theory.

So yes, the mere fact that UFO's are real, VALIDATES the ET hypothesis. Where do you think the data comes from to build the hypothesis?

It comes from eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence and more.

No, it comes from assumption that these witnesses think these objects that were spotted happened to be of ET origin. This doesn't confirm anything, as to no proof being laid out to who is the pilot(if any) of these unidentified objects. What most people do is make a leap of faith that it is ET, when it could be human pilots, or it could just be debris in the air/space.

I think you finally understand that you read it out of context and your trying to reframe it because your searching for that absolute.

Go figure.....





[edit on 26-3-2009 by TravisT]

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by platosallegory

"Assuming that a UFO is some kind of alien vehicle is an absolutely incredible leap of logic."

See Heike, when I respond to a post I read the context as to what was said.

It's not a leap of logic to support the ET hypothesis because as he admitted UFO's are real.

We use UFO's as part of the data pool to build the ET hypothesis, so it's not a leap of logic.

Yes it is, because you like to assume that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials. Of course UFOs are real, they are objects that can't be identified, although, most people use the term to relate to "little green men", when in fact, there has been no hard evidence to support that theory.

So yes, the mere fact that UFO's are real, VALIDATES the ET hypothesis. Where do you think the data comes from to build the hypothesis?

It comes from eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence and more.

No, it comes from assumption that these witnesses think these objects that were spotted happened to be of ET origin. This doesn't confirm anything, as to no proof being laid out to who is the pilot(if any) of these unidentified objects. What most people do is make a leap of faith that it is ET, when it could be human pilots, or it could just be debris in the air/space.

I think you finally understand that you read it out of context and your trying to reframe it because your searching for that absolute.

Go figure.....





[edit on 26-3-2009 by TravisT]

Again, here comes someone else who lives in the realms of absolutes.

Nobody claimed to be providing proof as to who was piloting these things.

You are debating a claim that was never made.

We are saying there's evidence to support the ET hypothesis that extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings may be piloting these things that people see.

Again, I'm a freethinker that's searching for the truth and I don't ASSUME that these things "have to be" something else. I include all of these explanations and then I weigh them within reason.

I don't assume these things are a "leap" of logic because that would be illogical in a universe where we don''t know what constitutes 96% of the universe.

We don't know wether this is a parallel universe, a simulation or if we are holograms, so why should I just assume that this explanation is not the most likely explanation when I weigh the evidence within reason?

Originally posted by platosallegory
Again, here comes someone else who lives in the realms of absolutes.

Then stop using the word "validate", because you can't be certain of anything without confirmation as to what is at hand. There is no authoritative basis, when everything is worked up on assumption. You need absolutes when trying to validate any hypothesis, or there would be no definition to anything.

Nobody claimed to be providing proof as to who was piloting these things.

You are debating a claim that was never made.

No, I was merely responding to your confusion over that quote. UFOs are very real, yes. But, as to the origin around them is unclear. Therefore, the subject holds no validity, due to the fact that there is no sound basis at to what is actually being seen. The only thing that is collaborated with, is assumption, which yes, can start a hypothesis, but in no way can close/form a definition, which is what you need for something to be valid/confirmed.

We are saying there's evidence to support the ET hypothesis that extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings may be piloting these things that people see.

No, thats assumption. There is absolutely no evidence to support anything, unless you call "hear-say" evidence. In order to validate any hypothesis, you need controlled experiments, which you don't have here. You need proof, testing, or some absolutes in order to validate any hypothesis. Without that, you're just working on assumption. You are working on assumption, which is the start of a hypothesis.

Again, I'm a freethinker that's searching for the truth and I don't ASSUME that these things "have to be" something else. I include all of these explanations and then I weigh them within reason.

You just contradicted yourself. In order to come to any hypothesis, you have to make assumptions in order to come to logical tests.

I don't assume these things are a "leap" of logic because that would be illogical in a universe where we don''t know what constitutes 96% of the universe.

Hehe, and without validity, that 4% wouldn't be there to begin with.

We don't know wether this is a parallel universe, a simulation or if we are holograms, so why should I just assume that this explanation is not the most likely explanation when I weigh the evidence within reason?

You shouldn't. It doesn't hurt to think outside the box, and wonder "what if", and again, is a great start for a hypothesis, but in no way does it show any validity. What Heike said was correct, but you keep drawing things out, and making things even more unclear as to your actual point. Just be blunt, it doesn't hurt all the time, bro.


If you want to validate a hypothesis, you need controlled experiment. In other words, you need to be absolutely sure what you are experimenting on, and not working off of assumptions. Why did it take that long to explain?

[edit on 26-3-2009 by TravisT]

Travis t

Then stop using the word "validate", because you can't be certain of anything without confirmation as to what is at hand. There is no authoritative basis, when everything is worked up on assumption. You need absolutes when trying to validate any hypothesis, or there would be no definition to anything.

I see exactly what's going on here. You don't know what your talking about because you havn't read the thread that I originally posted or the thread that I was responding to.

The person said you are making a leap of logic in supporting the ET hypothesis.

I said, no we the fact the UFO's exists validates the ET hypothesis.

I truly wish you guys would read what people said then you wouldn't be making these silly arguments that nobody claimed.

val·i·date (vl-dt)
tr.v. val·i·dat·ed, val·i·dat·ing, val·i·dates
1. To declare or make legally valid.
2. To mark with an indication of official sanction.
3. To establish the soundness of; corroborate.

So, the ET hypothesis is not a leap of logic because UFO's validate the hypothesis. This is where some of the data is gathered to form the hypothesis.

You don't know what your talking about because your trying to debate in a vacuum. You don't know the context of the initial debate.

I never said it validates that ET hypothesis is correct. I said it validates that the ET hypothesis is not a leap of logic.

Wow, do people know what simple definitions mean? Do you know what context means in a dbate?

If you responding in a vacuum, your argument will just look silly.

No, I was merely responding to your confusion over that quote. UFOs are very real, yes. But, as to the origin around them is unclear. Therefore, the subject holds no validity, due to the fact that there is no sound basis at to what is actually being seen. The only thing that is collaborated with, is assumption, which yes, can start a hypothesis, but in no way can close/form a definition, which is what you need for something to be valid/confirmed.

Again, you show that you have no idea what you are talking about and that's because you came in at the end of a conversation and you don't know the context of the debate.

You just supported me, you said UFO's are very real but the origin around them is unclear.

DUH!!

This is what those who support the ET hypothsis has been saying all along but that doesn't mean you can't weigh the evidence within reason.

Of course the hypothesis is valid as you said in the end of your post. You said:

"The only thing that is collaborated with, is assumption, which yes, can start a hypothesis, but in no way can close/form a definition, which is what you need for something to be valid/confirmed."

You guys get more illogical with each post.

Nobody claimed it was confirmed. Again you are trying to debate an absolute that was never claimed. This is because you can't debate what I said.

I said it validates the ET hypothesis, therefore it's not a leap of logic.

I never said it validates the ET's or extra-dimensional beings are the pilots of these ships.

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. I suggest you go back and read the initial post and the post that I was responding to before you continue to make these illogical arguments.

No, thats assumption. There is absolutely no evidence to support anything, unless you call "hear-say" evidence. In order to validate any hypothesis, you need controlled experiments, which you don't have here. You need proof, testing, or some absolutes in order to validate any hypothesis. Without that, you're just working on assumption. You are working on assumption, which is the start of a hypothesis.

There is "absolutely" no evidence? LOL Here comes the absolutes again. You really look bad when your argument hinges on absolutes.

You just wiped out the entire field of theoretical physics with this. It makes no sense.

There are always things that we can't test maybe because of funding or we don't have the technology. That doesn't stop us from coming to conclusions as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

We do it everyday in theoretical physics.

Professors have come to the conclusions based on reason that:

The universe is a hologram
The universe is a quantum computer
The universe is a simulation
We live in parallel universes

I can go on and on and these are Professors from MIT to Oxford. We have never measured or tested a parallel universe. We have never measured or tested if we live in a simulation.

If we were to listen to you we will still be in caves.

We always build theories and hypothesis based on observed phenomena and then we look for ways to test these theories.

Again, you don't understand how science works because in the context of ufology, you want some super duper standard. That's just silly.

This is the way evidence is gathered to build a hypothesis.

The ET hypothesis is validated by UFO's because this is one place the evidence is gathered to build the hypothesis.

Again, I suggest you learn how to read things in context before you try to debate them.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by platosallegory]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by platosallegory]

This thread had gone 5 ways to hell.

You guys are expressing your hopes and dreams, but you are not arguing from logic. I don't care if you guys have more stars than a porn convention, all you're doing is making UFOlogists look silly.

I've already refuted 6 pages of crap in 2 brief posts using simple logic. I guess that makes me a "pseudoskeptic"

This thread shows why these debates are important.

You see, pseudoskeptics act like there skeptics but there really closed minded debunkers.

This is why you see so many of them trying to defend the illogical arguments of the pseudoskeptic because they are pseudoskeptics.

They want to be able to make silly statements without question on every thread. When that logic is questioned they cry about even having the debate.

Sorry, it's not going to work.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by rich23
[So. Your intent is to "bat away ET claims". Your intent is therefore to debunk rather than to consider things neutrally.

What is there to consider? Blurry photographs? Star Wars videos? At the very least, you should actually identify a UFO before putting lipstick on it. Saying that "it's possible that ETs exist, therefore a UFO is an ET mode of transport" is not even logical. In addition, it assumes that UFOs are the only mode of transport for ETs, which is speculation.

All I was doing was pointing out the obvious in your argument: your intention is to debunk rather than consider any possibilities. It's interesting that you then go on to put words in my mouth which I don't think I used, and which, even if I did, are irrelevant to the point I'm arguing here. So far, then, we have an irrelevant and emotional response - basically, a straw man combined with insults. Carry on!

And you beg the question about what evidence is "irrefutable". I'd suggest you might be the simplistic one here.

Personal attack

If you look at your original post, you'll see I was simply quoting you. If I'm guilty of a personal attack, then you certainly are. I'd say I was simply turning your own logic back on you.

Love to see you do that. It's a poorly chosen analogy.

Arguing from ignorance

Not at all. Your statement

It's possible to make a hole to the other side of the Earth by dropping a ping pong ball.

...is so eminently falsifiable I don't really need to drop a ping-pong ball to try it. To argue otherwise is to make yourself look foolish. If that statement had any merit at all it would render the game of ping-pong rather more exciting than it actually is.

The point is that we've been doing "proper" science for only a very short period of time. It's a part of the ETH "narrative" that many of our most recent breakthroughs have only come about due to attempts to back-engineer ET tech, and possibly even from their direct help.

Maybe there's a telegram of an ET explaining transistor radios?

I'll do you the courtesy of treating you like a polite, intelligent person.

There were two points being made. The most general point is that because we've been using the scientific method (which isn't the be-all and end-all, IMO, but has its advantages, to be sure) for a relatively brief period of our documented history, it would be arrogant and unwise to assume that we've cracked it to the extent that our ideas of the universe are accurate and will never require updating.

As Korzybski said, "the map is not the territory". This is a statement with implications that go very deep.

The second point is that there are plenty of people out there who have said we've had a certain amount of help from ETs, some of which has given us technology that we use on a daily basis (Kevlar, fibre optics, etc) and some of which is allegedly still under wraps (antigravity, free energy and other exotic technologies). Because I'm open-minded I'm prepared to countenance the possibility, and don't need to attempt clumsy ridicule on the idea.

Whichever, we're only at the beginnings of science. It's foolish to assume that technological progress cannot be made that would render interstellar travel possible.

Again, arguing from ignorance

I don't think you really get the hang of this arguing from ignorance business. There are plenty of occasions when then-current scientific paradigms have been supplanted and the experts of the day have looked rather stupid to their successors. "Heavier-than-air flight is impossible", for example. Or, of course, people argued when steam trains came in that it would be impossible to exceed thirty miles an hour because we wouldn't be able to breathe. Predictions made on the best evidence of the day, and all supplanted.

Exactly, so why is it necessary for UFOs to exist?

I'm beginning to regret my indulgence at treating you like an intelligent and polite poster. Please go back and read my post again until you can understand that's not what I said.

So, ETs exist because the government is lying about it? That's affirming the consequent.

No. Nice try, but that wasn't the argument. I think that ETs exist because I look at the evidence differently from you. My suspicions about what's going on with the disclosure process are based on the presupposition of ETs rather than the other way around.

And here we have a prime piece of evidence to suggest that you're really quite dishonest in the way you go about things.

When the government finally "discloses" its proof of ETs, you'd better take it with a grain of salt, just like how people took Osama bin-Laden.

Absolutely. But just because the government is lying about it and trying to fool us all, perhaps with some sort of staged event, it doesn't mean that the ETH is necessarily invalid.

Contradiction

No. Firstly, I was answering a point you raised.

Secondly, one possible scenario is that, while ETs exist, and some factions may even be helping the USG with technology, the USG uses that technology to create the illusion that ETs are the new enemy. There's no contradiction there.

Please try to read what I write more carefully if you want a polite response to your posts.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by rich23]

Keeping it short, the thing I don't like about psuedoskeptics getting involved in threads, is that they speak the loudest. They're the ones with the most posts. They dominate a thread until it's basically slammed into submission. They hammer and pepper the threads with links to UFO Watchdog, a disinformation website in itself. Many good threads have been ruined by one or two people coming in and acting like some authority on the subject with a mindset to slam the door shut on the discussion. It's pointless to even discuss 'possibilities' with such members as they aren't interested in discussing potentiality, they want to kill all possibility of an ET inception, that's their goal.

And if you begin to provide credible rebuttals, then they resort to ad hominem attacks and accuse you of 'shaming ufology' or label you a drooling doe-eyed fool or words to that effect. For those reasons, I prefer to sit back and lurk these days.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by RiotComing]

Originally posted by platosallegory
There's tons of threads about the evidence within ufology in this folder and if you were so concerned about debating these issues, then you would be debating "Is this the real picture of an alien" or "Are UFO's Time travelers"

This raises the same question about Polomontana and the like. If they are so interested in those issues, why are they not debating them?

But we already know the answer, don't we?

TravisT, Heike, get out while you can. Leave Polomontana and company to their glad-handing.

Originally posted by platosallegory
You see, pseudoskeptics act like there skeptics but there really closed minded debunkers.

Who is the closed-minded...?

Originally posted by platosallegory
The pseudoskeptic vs. the skeptical person who accepts the ET hypothesis.

Enough said.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
This thread had gone 5 ways to hell.

In your opinion. I differ and am far more impressed than I ever expected to be with someone who goes by the moniker "Indigo Child".

You guys are expressing your hopes and dreams, but you are not arguing from logic. I don't care if you guys have more stars than a porn convention, all you're doing is making UFOlogists look silly.

That's not logical, it's not big, and it's not clever. It actually makes you look like you're getting jealous of the number of stars other posters are getting!

I've already refuted 6 pages of crap in 2 brief posts using simple logic. I guess that makes me a "pseudoskeptic"

Well, as I've not been on this thread much, I can't say for sure. But if your "refutations" are the same standard as the logic you used on my previous post (my response to which is above) then I can't say I'd agree, except with your assessment of yourself as a "pseudoskeptic".