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.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The fallacy begins when one does not accept any data that falsifies the null hypothesis, with demands like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Originally posted by RiotComing
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 LogicalResponse
Like I've always said, there's nothing wrong with believing that UFOs are alien craft. I have no real scruples with belief.
To deny someone belief would be little different than, say, religious intolerance and things of that nature. People should be free to believe whatever it is they want (as long as it doesn't interfere with the human rights of others, anyway.)
To say that UFOs are some kind of alien vehicle would be the farthest thing from a fact that I can think of. What's more is that various ideas about conspiracies, shady operations, and questionable "evidence" is often stacked on top of eachother in an effort to substantiate these assumptions. Why is that, exactly? If there was such an abundance of evidence why would all of these overcomplicated schemes and plots be necessary to reinforce ET claims?
For starters, I would love to have a case that couldn't be reasonably be debunked by a common scientific explanation. And that's just the beginning...
Science is a system of inferences, nobody has seen an atom, but the inference that atoms exist is made from evidence. The inference there is gravity on Jupiter is made from evidence. So it depends if you accept scientific logic or not, if you don't, you have a right to because inference is not a proven means of knowledge. But if you accept it, and then dismiss other valid inferences using scientific logic, then there is a problem of inconsistency.
After decades of seeing hundreds of blurry photographs, conflicting accounts, embarrassingly evidence like faked alien autopsy videos, along with categorizations of alien races and even categorizing of those asking questions - for me, at least, a fairly clear picture is formed.
I would very much like to have it demonstrated there is an alien intelligence interfacing with us. Arguments of probability and dot connecting the thousands of collected anecdotal pieces of evidence haven't done the trick for me, so far.
Show me - please.