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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

You can prove ET is visiting Earth right now if you want by using reason logic. Google: "Battle of LA" UFO case from 1941. Read about it, listen to the radio transcript, see the press photographs, review the official explantion. Then use your reasoning.

They have been visiting Earth for thousands of years now, and they have been in contact with worlds governments for decades. The government is keeping this suppressed, you can fight back by using your intelligence.
I don't need anymore proof, proof by reason is enough for me.




That's quite a statement.

I'm feeling somewhat defensive by inference accused of being a pseudoskeptic, disinformation agent, illogical or whatever.

I am not trying to discredit you or anyone, and have no axe to grind or hidden agenda - honestly.

But you have stated, unless I misunderstand, that thousands of historians have essentially chronicled world events incorrectly, and that many many thousands of people who have worked for various governments have been in on a major cover-up of what is the most significant event of mankind - direct contact with another advanced intelligence.

And as you have said "... proof by reason is enough ..."

I have studied Western and Eastern philosophy and logic, and am prepared at any point to be informed that my understanding of anything has been incorrect or lacking. But this is quite a lot to accept in one gulp, so radically conflicting with what has been documented by so many dedicated and knowledgeable scholars and respected political participants and observers.

As pointed out this is not the forum to discuss validation of alien contact, but rather the inherent logic.

All I can say right now, without wanting to invoke a long response, is that I think much more than any single person's interpretation of reason or logic should be necessary to dislodge a significant portion of cumulative human history.


Mike




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

That's quite a statement.


Not really. Indigo is saying that applying logic and reason to the available evidence yields a logical and reasonable conclusion. Hardly radical.



But you have stated, unless I misunderstand, that thousands of historians have essentially chronicled world events incorrectly


I don't think Indigo did state that. However, why should it be so shocking if thousands of historians should have chronicled something incorrectly? This has happened countless times before. You don't think that the chronicling of history can possibly be flawed and periodically needs revised? To imply otherwise would be to invoke a whole host of logical fallacies including: 'the Appeal to Authority', ' to Belief" to 'Common Practice', and to "Tradition' fallacies.

Further, historians frequently disagree with each other and political expediency often shapes the chronicling of our history. Thus there is basis for Voltaire's statement that: "History is the lie commonly agreed upon".

And Indigo's assertion isn't necessarily that historians have chronicled "incorrectly" but (although I can't speak for Indigo) perhaps incompletely. You are surely not implying that our chronicling of history is anything like complete? Also, your statement is based on the false assumption that evidence for ETs and ET contact has not been chronicled.



...and that many many thousands of people who have worked for various governments have been in on a major cover-up of what is the most significant event of mankind - direct contact with another advanced intelligence.


Again, what would make this shocking or unlikely? Government coverups about many things are an established fact. All of the points made above regarding history and historians apply here too, except perhaps tenfold, to those actually working for the government who have signed documents which bind them to secrecy and who happen to know of these realities - a number of whom have come forward in recent years to expose this coverup, I might add. And again, to imply otherwise would be to invoke the same cluster of logical fallacies as mentioned above.



But this is quite a lot to accept in one gulp, so radically conflicting with what has been documented by so many dedicated and knowledgeable scholars and respected political participants and observers. All I can say right now, without wanting to invoke a long response, is that I think much more than any single person's interpretation of reason or logic should be necessary to dislodge a significant portion of cumulative human history.


Now that was one almighty fallacious 'Appeal to Authority", "to Belief", "to Common Practice" and "to Tradition". You might as well have bellowed "The Great Oz has spoken!" LOL. In fact, the 'great Oz' has said nothing of the sort.

And it doesn't 'conflict'. It would only 'conflict' if those you mentioned all uniformly rejected the idea of the ETH and contact with ETs which they absolutely do not! At most, the majority simply don't refer to the subject, while some others do and deny it, while still others do and support and acknowledge it, among them such people as senators, air force pilots and other forces personnel, scientists, historians, members of government and intelligence agencies, astronauts and so on.

The picture you are painting of a monolithic political and academic community which uniformly dismisses the ETH and ET contact and which it would be arrogant to question is both fallacy ridden and demonstrably false.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

That's quite a statement.

I'm feeling somewhat defensive by inference accused of being a pseudoskeptic, disinformation agent, illogical or whatever.


I do not believe I or anyone else has called you a psedoskeptic, disinformation agent or illogical in this thread.



But you have stated, unless I misunderstand, that thousands of historians have essentially chronicled world events incorrectly, and that many many thousands of people who have worked for various governments have been in on a major cover-up of what is the most significant event of mankind - direct contact with another advanced intelligence.


I do not think any point in this thread I accused historians of chronicling events incorrectly, so I am not sure why that would be an issue? As for the later points why the governments would be involved in a major cover up for the most significant event of mankind.

First of all, there is no clear knowledge that every government in the world is involved in the cover up. The only government that get accused of this is the US and UK, because it has many famous UFO/ET encounters and a lot of information on UFO's has been suppessed by these governments(where there is smoke, there if fire)

In any case let us suppose all the worlds governments are involved in this cover-up? Why are they doing this? It's not an important question. It's like the question why is ET here? How can we possibly answer that? I could speculate "Prime directive" or whatever, but it will remain a speculation. All we need to do know is that governments in the world, particularly the US are doing this.

We first need to bring about full disclosure on all the information withheld by the governments before we can answer questions like why ET is here, why is it hiding, what explains its alleged behaviour, such as "abudctions" etc. To try and answer them without any information is just baseless speculation.


I have studied Western and Eastern philosophy and logic, and am prepared at any point to be informed that my understanding of anything has been incorrect or lacking. But this is quite a lot to accept in one gulp, so radically conflicting with what has been documented by so many dedicated and knowledgeable scholars and respected political participants and observers.


This is an appeal to authority fallacy. If you are going to accept the authority of these high level and credible experts, then what about the authority of other high level and credible experts(there are hundreds of them from the NSA, NASA, CIA, DARPA etc) who say that the US government is in contact with ET for past few decades. I said this before, either argument from authority is valid or it is not. Decide.


All I can say right now, without wanting to invoke a long response, is that I think much more than any single person's interpretation of reason or logic should be necessary to dislodge a significant portion of cumulative human history.


Logic is not interpretive. It is a system. You should know that if you've studied logic. The standard decial mathematical system is a logical system: 1+1 = 2, once you accept the premises and the system, the answers you arrive at are certain. Likewise scientific logic is also a system, once you accept its premises and the system, the answers you arrive at are certain. Such as smoke comes from fire, gravity comes from mass etc. These are certain conclusions within the system of scientific logic.

I directed you to the Battle of LA UFO case. Let's use logic on the official explanations, they were "It was imagination" "It was a weather balloon" the principle we will be using is the rule of non-contradiction.

Hypothesis: It was a weather balloon
Hypothesis: It was imagination

Witness Testimony: People saw a huge craft, some say 100m, some say a bit smaller hovering above LA. It was luminious, glowing orange, it stayed in the sky for about 30 min. It was seen by tens of thousands of people. Others, perhaps depending on their vantage point saw several crafts, but this could be attributed to the flares, fighter planes approaching the object and bursts of shells visible in the searchlights.

According to mass witness testimony it was not a weather balloon and it was not imagination. A real object, of significant size was seen hovering above LA by tens of thousands of people. It was intercepted, it was surrounded by search lights, it was shot at.

Photographic evidence: A LA times photograph was taken, which has been verified to be authentic from the original LA times microfilm, which clearly shows a large luminous object surrounded by search lights, with what appears to be planes around it and possibly shells.

According to the photographic evidence it is not a weather baloon or imagination. It's a real physical craft, it's huge, and it is taking hit after hit from artillery and fighter planes.

The first explanation by officials was an all-out lie, that it was just imagination, counterd by the army itself who says they fought with it, and the second explanation it was a weather balloon is impossible, considering it was fired at directly with some 1500 rounds of ammunition and intercepted. The mystery of what this object is was never solved, no investigation was done. It was just left as if it never ever happened.

Watch this youtube clip:



If one uses their reasoning it is clear a UFO was spotted over LA in 1941 and it is clear the UFO was attacked by the army. It is clear tens of thousands of people saw it. It is clear it was covered-up. Proof by reason.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
An across the board reply to both Indigo-Child and Malcram. No disrespect intended,
but I don't necessarily accept arguments even when they are embedded in classical logic terminology and constructs. It is too tempting to reduce offered choices to a binary level of either true or untrue. I’m not sure or even I don’t know have their place sometimes. There can be unseen missteps in reaching conclusions and other possibilities available such as none of the options presented, or unthought-of different ones.

In discussing this I feel sort of like I'm playing poker with people who have benignly stacked the deck.

There are things that so far remain unexplained despite attempts to reconcile them with accepted working models.

Example. In Portugal on October 13, 1917, somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people witnessed a prolonged and unusual sighting in the sky. Many claim to have seen the sun zigzagging and casting multi-coloured lights.

This happened not long after 3 shepherd children had been jailed for claiming they had been visited by the Virgin Mary. They said they were told there would be a miracle on that very day demonstrating the veracity of their claim.

Airplanes and balloons were yet to become a component of worldwide mass culture. The notion of alien visitations was still confined to popular fiction in the urban world.

Paralleling this with the February 1942 sighting in Los Angeles, no one today has put forward a fully accepted comprehensive explanation of what happened and what people saw. I'm sure in the vast clergical literature many have convincingly demonstrated, using classical logic arguments, that God, the Virgin Mary, or Christ, unquestionably caused the event. Tens of thousands of unrelated people cannot have consistently seen the same unusual thing. This had to be a miracle, the work of the Christian deity.
But Christian miracles are not part of my personal active vocabulary. I’m not a straightforward atheist, but I believe there is a strong power of suggestion component to this matter.

How does this relates to ETs and UFOs? Well, I can’t help but note that despite centuries of mass sightings, detailed credible testimony, tangible artifacts, the existence of the Holy Trinity remains elusive and reliant on faith. The indisputable existence of the Christian deities and interaction with humans works for those who require a coherent story for what they don’t understand and is otherwise inexplicable.

I don’t have answers to the questions posed, but try to keep an open-mind. As with the recently revealed world of quantum physics, I think there may be different sets of rules and variables we don’t comprehend when we try to explain certain phenomena.

But I am dismissive of what I consider overly simple solutionss to complex data that appeal to one’s preformed worldview and expectations. That the US and UK governments are in contact with outworldy intelligences and keeping it a secret is simultaneously appealing to one’s sense of wonder, distrust of authority and frustrated indignation.

I’m fully aware that immoral people deceive and maintain important secrets, particularly in the world of politics and commerce. But I think the final answers will prove not to not supernatural magic or conspiratorial deceptions in either of the realms touched on here.


Mike



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

An across the board reply to both Indigo-Child and Malcram. No disrespect intended,
but I don't necessarily accept arguments even when they are embedded in classical logic terminology and constructs. It is too tempting to reduce offered choices to a binary level of either true or untrue. I’m not sure or even I don’t know have their place sometimes. There can be unseen missteps in reaching conclusions and other possibilities available such as none of the options presented, or unthought-of different ones.


One has to use classical binary logic "either x or y" because we live in a binary world. This is an elephant, this is not an elephant; this is fire and this is water, this is alive and this is dead. Actually, once we go into quantum logic, we realise that what is an elephant is not an elephant is a superpositioned possibility. However, we do not live in a quantum world, we live in a binary world and thus if we are to give an account of our binary world we must use binary logic. Indeed we are using it all the time, so are you, "This is Adam", "This is not Adam" or am I to understand you see "Adam" as "Adam" and "Not Adam" at the same time?



There are things that so far remain unexplained despite attempts to reconcile them with accepted working models.

Example. In Portugal on October 13, 1917, somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people witnessed a prolonged and unusual sighting in the sky. Many claim to have seen the sun zigzagging and casting multi-coloured lights.


You're setting up a slippery slope fallacy here. More:


Paralleling this with the February 1942 sighting in Los Angeles, no one today has put forward a fully accepted comprehensive explanation of what happened and what people saw. I'm sure in the vast clergical literature many have convincingly demonstrated, using classical logic arguments, that God, the Virgin Mary, or Christ, unquestionably caused the event. Tens of thousands of unrelated people cannot have consistently seen the same unusual thing. This had to be a miracle, the work of the Christian deity.
But Christian miracles are not part of my personal active vocabulary. I’m not a straightforward atheist, but I believe there is a strong power of suggestion component to this matter.


This is an individual case, it has nothing to do with the Battle of LA case.
It is interesting, and I think it needs to be investigated. I cannot pass any judgement on it until I have all the data available at hand on it.

You are putting a supernatural/paranormal/religious slant on this case, but there is nothing remotely supernatural/paranormal and religious about the LA case. There are no claims of Virgin Mary or Jesus or act of god. Tens of thousands saw a physical craft, it was captured on film, it was surrounded by search lights, it was being attacked by fighter planes and artillary. It even lead to the death and injury of civilians.

I am sure the clergy could have used classical logic to justify it as an act of god, but it would not have been valid in scientific logic. You cannot make the inference from observation of "a zigzaging light in the sky" to be "an act of god" because there is no entailment between the premises and the conclusions. If you cannot explain it, it will just remain unknown.

In the case of some UFO cases, there is enough to data to explain it. Your observations shows you there is a physical craft, often travelling at hypersonic speeds and performing abrupt turns. All you can know so far is that there is an unknown physical craft with an unknown propulsion system and unknown physics. If we can patantly demonstrate it does not belong to us, it follows its belongs to somebody else. This is how we can make the valid inference: This UFO belongs to ET.

The logic is impeccable and completely based on observables. There is no quantity multplication, no suppositions and invalid conclusions.


How does this relates to ETs and UFOs? Well, I can’t help but note that despite centuries of mass sightings, detailed credible testimony, tangible artifacts, the existence of the Holy Trinity remains elusive and reliant on faith. The indisputable existence of the Christian deities and interaction with humans works for those who require a coherent story for what they don’t understand and is otherwise inexplicable.


Again a slippery slope. Seeing a physical craft in the sky is not the same as a religious experience.



But I am dismissive of what I consider overly simple solutionss to complex data that appeal to one’s preformed worldview and expectations. That the US and UK governments are in contact with outworldy intelligences and keeping it a secret is simultaneously appealing to one’s sense of wonder, distrust of authority and frustrated indignation.


There are no appeals being made. There is clear evidence the US and UK government are covering up ET and UFO phenomneon. The fact that much of this information has been classified for decades, and only recently some cases have being declassified clearly shows a cover-up has taken place.

The fact that officials have actually lied on ET and UFO many times, in the LA case, in the Roswell case etc is clear evidence of cover-up.

Finally, the fact there are whistle blowers coming out of NSA, NASA, DARPA, CIA are publically saying there is a cover up, gives us further reason to believe there is a cover up.

Personally, it is plain as day light there is a coverup, only I don't understand how people can remain fooled by a cover-up in such plain sight. The government takes us for fools do you know that?

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I am bumping this thread because there are some critics who claim that they have refuted these arguments, and which is patently false in this thread, as most critics did not engage them in the first place and instead engaged in constant strawmen and emotional accusations, which are contradicted by the thread title itself and the first paragraph of the OP


I would be glad to see someone even try to refute my arguments. I personally think the logic is impeccable, this is not a position of arrogance, I simply am confident in my logic. As my background is Logic and Philosophy anyway
But I will be the first to admit errors in my logic(I have earlier admitted some examples were flawed, so I'm arguing honestly) if someone can indeed show that my arguments are errornous.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am bumping this thread because there are some critics who claim that they have refuted these arguments, and which is patently false in this thread, as most critics did not engage them in the first place.


Indeed. And I have noticed much the same thing with repeated false claims of having "debunked" evidence when, in many cases, nothing of the sort has actually happened. These are spurious pseudo-skeptic 'fishermen's tales'.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

I am bumping this thread because there are some critics who claim that they have refuted these arguments, and which is patently false in this thread, as most critics did not engage them in the first place and instead engaged in constant strawmen and emotional accusations, which are contradicted by the thread title itself and the first paragraph of the OP


I would be glad to see someone even try to refute my arguments. I personally think the logic is impeccable, this is not a position of arrogance, I simply am confident in my logic. As my background is Logic and Philosophy anyway
But I will be the first to admit errors in my logic(I have earlier admitted some examples were flawed, so I'm arguing honestly) if someone can indeed show that my arguments are errornous.



When you set up your own court, make yourself judge and jury, decide what evidence is admissable, and proceed to arbitrate as to what is logical and what is not, and then invite people plead their cases - you don't get many takers.

I don't buy into every one of your customized constructs and set of assumptions - all of which you consider to be inarguably objective universal truths. Some might.

You're very well read and knowledgeable, Indigo-Child. But there is a common erroneous belief that the retention of information and the ability to articulate arguments automatically infers deeper understanding on any chosen subject.

I think you often don't listen to what people say as much as look for openings to demonstrate you higher insights.

This is not meant as a personal criticism so much as trying to point out something I try to get past, myself.

Thanks for listening.


Mike



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


When you set up your own court, make yourself judge and jury, decide what evidence is admissable, and proceed to arbitrate as to what is logical and what is not, and then invite people plead their cases - you don't get many takers.


Or, to 'create a thread' as it is otherwise called here at ATS...


And I don't know that what you said is true even if it were applicable to this thread, which it's not IMO, I think your assessment is considerably 'overcooked'. People continue to post their UFO photos video's and experiences every day, despite what you describe above being exactly the climate in which they have to do it. So if they do not have such delicate sensibilities I see no reason why anyone else would have - unless it was as an excuse for having singularly failed to refute the arguments presented. The people who present the type of arguments that this thread challenges are no shrinking violets but a bunch of ATS 'bruisers' usually quite happy to mix it up in the threads and meet a challenge - if they can.

All I see in your post Mike is another invalid complaint, much like the earlier ones regarding discussions of pseudo-skepticism supposedly being an "attack" on skeptics. Just like those posts, the focus is anywhere but on the issue being debated. Despite saying this was "not a personal criticism", your posts was full of personal criticisms and - surprise, surprise - no refutation of the arguments. Maybe we can just stick to the issue rather than whining and moralizing?


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Well if I'm guilty of "whining and moralizing" as you have said Malcram, instead of dealing with the issue at hand, I guess that puts me in a position where anything I say will be taken as more of the same.

I work very hard and enjoy reading and sometimes contributing to various debates on ATS. Maybe it's attention deficit disorder, failing memory, or just lack of attentiveness - I sometimes lose the drift of a long running and increasing long thread. I cannot always spare the time to read through pages and pages of often wordy postings to refresh my memory.

My probably skewed memory of this thread is something Indigo-Child has recently stated explicitly and implicitly ongoing. Boiling it down it comes out as "Aliens are among us, contacted and working with the US and UK governments. They are covering it up. This is documented and backed up by high ranking military personnel, scientists, etc."

To this I respond saying "Whoa, can we back up a minute here. I don't necessarily agree to what has been presented as automatically unquestionable facts here."

I am probably guilty of moving the discussion away from the now dimmed in my mind original posting. I tend to go with the immediate flow of arguments rather than move back to basics. So I readily admit fault if this is how what I say is taken.

I respect you guys (and gals?) and I like to think my entering into a heavy duty discussion with you is some indication I am prepared not only to read what you say but also be persuaded that I have been working with incorrect assumption and incomplete knowledge.

I have not at my disposal immediately the resources to quote from book and articles, connect to links online, or synthesize decades of formal and informal research.

So I encapsulate my overall impressions, trying to convey that I consider there to be equally valid interpretations of the available information. And as you see I tend to react critically to what I feel is unfair dismissals of what I try to offer.

Anyway, I'm getting long-winded and a mite defensive now. Sorry if there is a mistaken view of my intent here and for ruffling feathers.

I think we're all seeking answers, but our approaches and what we considered firmly established vary significantly.

Thanks again for listening.


Mike



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I accept your challenge because I'm tired of watching how you are treating other people. Refutation by pure logic, reason, and scientific principles, here we go!


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.


Incorrect. Please see logical explanation in your other thread. Evidence for the existence of ET is insufficient, and the evidence for ET coming here is even more insufficient.


Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.


Mere possibility is not enough to make a case - EITHER WAY. There is no case for or against ET here.


The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.


Thousands of books written by other people tell you that other people have minds. Either you exist alone in the universe, in which case none of this matters because you're arguing with a figment of your imagination, or other people have minds. There is no empirical evidence for ET as there is for the existence of other minds. Invalid analogy.


ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.


As in, a hypothesis is an educated guess? Yes. However, it is no more or less valid than several other hypotheses, and there are no test results, facts (facts being INDISPUTABLE observations), experiments, or physical evidence to support it.


Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.


In fact, skeptics do not say it is imposisble for ET to travel here. They say it is unlikely based on their understanding of the time and effort to do so.
They are making a reasoned judgment based on what one intelligent species (humans) would likely do if intelligent life were suddenly discovered on a planet many light years from Earth. They are inferring from the same single sample you used above to determine that intelligent life exists.


This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven.


Correct. A theory can not be proven, only disproven. The theory stands until it is disproven. This theory has not been disproven, therefore it stands.
You may not logically claim that anyone who cites an accepted theory is being unreasonable or illogical.


The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.


Excellent work proving an argument that you invented invalid. Skeptics say it is unlikely, unreasonable, or improbable that ET would travel to Earth, not that it is impossible.



Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.


Again this person is inferring the behavior of intelligent species based on the example of the one intelligent species known to exist. Since it is the only example of an intelligent species known, it is not illogical nor unreasonable to infer the likely behavior of other intelligent species based on the behavior of humans. Again, this is the same logic you used above to "prove" that intelligent life exists on planets.


Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.


Same one again. This person is able to infer what another intelligent lifeform likely would or wouldn't do based on the one and only known example of intelligent life - humans.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
I accept your challenge because I'm tired of watching how you are treating other people. Refutation by pure logic, reason, and scientific principles, here we go!


Much appreciated that you chose to bite, but can you do it properly. I could not tell head or tails in your refutation. You quoted the argument, not the rebuttal in all but one.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.



Incorrect. Please see logical explanation in your other thread. Evidence for the existence of ET is insufficient, and the evidence for ET coming here is even more insufficient.


You said it was insufficient, you did not say that it was non-existent. See the difference? Read my rebuttal again, "There is significant evidence, it is the job of the skeptic to investigate the evidence and come to a judgement" So your judgement is "insufficient" but that does not negate that the evidence does not exist.


Mere possibility is not enough to make a case - EITHER WAY. There is no case for or against ET here.


You are restating what I just said. The existence of ET is not esbalished on possibility, but a valid inference from the observable of life on planet.


Thousands of books written by other people tell you that other people have minds. Either you exist alone in the universe, in which case none of this matters because you're arguing with a figment of your imagination, or other people have minds. There is no empirical evidence for ET as there is for the existence of other minds. Invalid analogy.


There is no empirical evidence for "other minds" Thousands of books, walking talking people is insufficient to prove that other minds exist. So if you are going to demand empirical evidence for ET's, you must demand the same for "other minds" If not, just as you're making a generalization for "other minds" from your own mind, likewise I can make the generalization for ET from life on Earth. If you object, you are being logically inconsistent. I'd like to see you get out of that one




As in, a hypothesis is an educated guess? Yes. However, it is no more or less valid than several other hypotheses, and there are no test results, facts (facts being INDISPUTABLE observations), experiments, or physical evidence to support it.


I am using the word hypothesis because it is what is commonly used here to refer to the ET explanation. I think the word hypothesis is wrong now, in actualtity it is the ETE: Extraterrestrial Explanation, which is arived at through a valid inference.


In fact, skeptics do not say it is imposisble for ET to travel here. They say it is unlikely based on their understanding of the time and effort to do so.
They are making a reasoned judgment based on what one intelligent species (humans) would likely do if intelligent life were suddenly discovered on a planet many light years from Earth. They are inferring from the same single sample you used above to determine that intelligent life exists.


Actually in my argument it is "impossible", not "improbable or unlikely" and this is actually a common argument skeptics use. Some skeptics also use "improbable/unlikely" but it's not much of an argument, because just just because something is unlikely it does not mean cannot happen; being struck by lightening is unlikely, but it happens.



You may not logically claim that anyone who cites an accepted theory is being unreasonable or illogical.


So you're not really refuting me here, you're agreeing with me



Excellent work proving an argument that you invented invalid. Skeptics say it is unlikely, unreasonable, or improbable that ET would travel to Earth, not that it is impossible.


Your using absolute logic again, you really do that a lot don't you. Not all skeptics argue that ET getting here is unlikely/improbable, some actually say it is impossible. It is a common argument. That is the argument that I am demonstrating to be invalid. Do you agree ot disagree? This is not much of a refutation.



Again this person is inferring the behavior of intelligent species based on the example of the one intelligent species known to exist. Since it is the only example of an intelligent species known, it is not illogical nor unreasonable to infer the likely behavior of other intelligent species based on the behavior of humans. Again, this is the same logic you used above to "prove" that intelligent life exists on planets.


If you quoted the rebuttal you would have seen that I said that observation shows us that even in human cultures we find disparate and strange behaviour, such as cultures where parents are killed by their children to send them to heaven, which to me personally is much stranger than the alleged behaviour of ET. I also said that the behaviour of ET abducting humans and doing scientific tests on them, is not at all inconsistent with the behaviour of humans abducting animals and doing scientific tests on them.

Again you are using absolutist logic, as if human behaviour is some monolithic and uniform entity.


Same one again. This person is able to infer what another intelligent lifeform likely would or wouldn't do based on the one and only known example of intelligent life - humans.



And again a similar use of absolutist logic. There is no such thing as a monolithic and uniform behaviour of humans. You really need to stop speaking in absolutes all the time.

All skeptics are not the same
All humans are not the same
All UFO's are not the same
All ET's are not the samw

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Much appreciated that you chose to bite, but can you do it properly. I could not tell head or tails in your refutation. You quoted the argument, not the rebuttal in all but one.


That is because your arguments are absolutist, and also imaginary. I have never seen anyone say "it is impossible for ET to get to Earth." They say it is unreasonable, unlikely, improbable, illogical .. but impossible? No. No one knows what is impossible or what isn't. If you define the argument as "it is impossible for ET to get here," then of course it is knocked down as easily as a child's tower of building blocks. How about taking REAL arguments from skeptics and refuting those?


So your judgement is "insufficient" but that does not negate that the evidence does not exist.


Huh? The evidence is insufficient to support the Extraterrestrial hypothesis. It doesn't need to be non-existent in order to be inadequate support for your hypothesis. I have read - no, devoured - all of the evidence I could get my hands on since I was 8 years old. Many thousands of other people, including professional scientists have analyzed the evidence and found it wanting. Now you say that anyone who claims there is not enough (or good enough) evidence is a pseudoskeptic. No.

Some people choose to personally believe in the ETH based on the evidence, perhaps due to a personal experience or the experience of someone they trust. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that everyone should accept the ETH. It is, in fact, the believers who are taking a small jump of faith in order to find sufficient evidence to support the ETH.


There is no empirical evidence for "other minds" Thousands of books, walking talking people is insufficient to prove that other minds exist.


Yes, there is evidence. I say that I have a mind. Other people have written in books that they have minds. You observe other people acting as if they have a mind. If these observations by you are not real, then nothing is real. If they are real, then other people have minds.

Anyway, the existence of ET is not the issue or the question. There could be thousands of ET species out there, but their existence does not provide any evidence for, or necessarily lead to, them visiting Earth.


Extraterrestrial Explanation, which is arived at through a valid inference.


Explanation? I haven't found that in any of my references on scientific or logical terminology. Please define it or provide a source.


Actually in my argument it is "impossible", not "improbable or unlikely"


Of course it is. Since nothing can be scientifically proven, only disproven, no one can conclusively say that anything is impossible. Therefore you've set up a "pseudoskeptical" argument which is ridiculously easy to knock down.


and this is actually a common argument skeptics use


Really? If it is, then you should be able to find me a few examples. I haven't seen anyone use it.


Some skeptics also use "improbable/unlikely" but it's not much of an argument,


Of course. Let's not discuss the objections that people really use, because they aren't easy enough to refute. I understand perfectly.



So you're not really refuting me here, you're agreeing with me


No. ETH is not an accepted theory. The Theory of Relativity is. Someone who points to the Theory of Relativity and suggests that it makes ET travel to Earth unlikely is not being illogical nor unreasonable.


Do you agree ot disagree? This is not much of a refutation.


Oh, please. It is not reasonable to state that anything is impossible. Impossible is one of those absolutist terms you are always complaining about. You could say a cow jumping over the moon is impossible and I will disagree. It might be extremely improbable, but the impossibility of it can not be proven.


There is no such thing as a monolithic and uniform behaviour of humans.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. I never said there was. Let me make it a little more simple for you.

You say that you can infer life on other planets because you observe that life exists on this planet. So, a person can also infer the probable behavior of life on other planets based on the observations that person has made about life on this planet. It may be incorrect, but it is not illogical, unreasonable, or "pseudoskeptical."

Human beings understand the world based on observation, prediction, and comparison of their predictions with new observations. This can be called a hypothesis or theory. I have observed that a person is pleased when given a piece of chocolate. I will theorize that another person will be pleased if I give them a piece of chocolate. I give the chocolate and observe that the person is pleased. For now, my hypothesis is working for me. Eventually I may run across someone who is allergic to chocolate who will disprove my hypothesis, but in the meantime it's working just fine and there is no basis for accusing me of being illogical or unreasonable.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Sigh,

Heike I tire of your constant fallacies and speaking in absolutes.


That is because your arguments are absolutist, and also imaginary. I have never seen anyone say "it is impossible for ET to get to Earth." They say it is unreasonable, unlikely, improbable, illogical .. but impossible? No. No one knows what is impossible or what isn't. If you define the argument as "it is impossible for ET to get here," then of course it is knocked down as easily as a child's tower of building blocks. How about taking REAL arguments from skeptics and refuting those?


They are not my arguments, they are common fallacious arguments I come across all the time. You are saying that nobody makes these arguments? OK, then what is this, my imagination?


No thing goes faster than light

Nothing can travel faster than light. Despite a recent raft of reports in the media, this statement is as true now as it ever was.


physicsworld.com...

An article acknowledging the view that interstellar travel is impossible:


Pessimistically, we shouldn't bother because interstellar travel is impossible due to sheer distance. These distances are measured in light-years and since light travels at the speed of 300,000 kilometers per second, one light year is almost 10 trillion kilometers. For many it is almost impossible to comprehend the enormity of such distances.


www.scienceray.com...


The common argument against ET is that they cannot get here because of the astronomical distances in space. It would take a probe travelling at 10% of the speed light 40 years to travel to our nearest star alpha centuari at 4+ light years, and most stars are thousands, if not millions of light years away. This is why it is argued that by some skeptics that it would be impossible for ET to get here and they wouldn't even try.

It is a pseudoskeptical argument, which is why I can shoot it down easily. You are actually denying that nobody makes this argument.

The variant of this, "it is improbable or highly unlikely" is an even easier argument to shoot down. What is improbable or highly unlikely does not that it won't happen. So nothing is holding ET back from visiting Earth.

Therefore my conclusion that there cannot be a valid objection to ET visiting Earth is valid either way.





So your judgement is "insufficient" but that does not negate that the evidence does not exist.


Huh? The evidence is insufficient to support the Extraterrestrial hypothesis. It doesn't need to be non-existent in order to be inadequate support for your hypothesis.

The original argument was, "There is no evidence" and that was the argument that was being refuted. Are you going to pretend now that no skeptic makes that argument?


Yes, there is evidence. I say that I have a mind. Other people have written in books that they have minds. You observe other people acting as if they have a mind. If these observations by you are not real, then nothing is real. If they are real, then other people have minds.


That is insufficient evidence
The observation of other people who behave like you, is not proof that they have a mind. They could be robots, holograms or your imagination.


Of course it is. Since nothing can be scientifically proven, only disproven, no one can conclusively say that anything is impossible. Therefore you've set up a "pseudoskeptical" argument which is ridiculously easy to knock down.


That the whole point of a pseudoskeptical argument. It is easy to debunk.
I am always hearing people say "this is possible, this is impossible."


No. ETH is not an accepted theory. The Theory of Relativity is. Someone who points to the Theory of Relativity and suggests that it makes ET travel to Earth unlikely is not being illogical nor unreasonable.


It makes no difference if it accepted or not accepted. Antigravity is not accepted, but that doesn't make it invalid.

Anyway, the reason I introduced ETE as opposed to ETH, because ETE is not a hypothesis, but a predicate, logically arrived at through valid inference.



Yeah, yeah, yeah. I never said there was. Let me make it a little more simple for you.

You say that you can infer life on other planets because you observe that life exists on this planet. So, a person can also infer the probable behavior of life on other planets based on the observations that person has made about life on this planet. It may be incorrect, but it is not illogical, unreasonable, or "pseudoskeptical."


Nope, because like I just said there is no uniform human behaviour. The original argument was an argument from incredulity, "ET would not travel light years just to abduct humans, make cropcircles and fly around our skies" but just because something seems unbelievable, does not mean it is not possible. So it is an invalid argument.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Sigh,

Heike I tire of your constant fallacies and speaking in absolutes.


I tire of you labeling my points as fallacies and accusing me of using absolutes and contradicting myself because you have not been successful at refuting my points.


They are not my arguments, they are common fallacious arguments I come across all the time. You are saying that nobody makes these arguments? OK, then what is this, my imagination?


I am saying that you misquote and misrepresent these arguments to make them ridiculous, just as you did with my arguments from Plato's thread, and then refute those instead of the actual argument. Hey .. wait a sec.. you have a term for that, don't you? I say that you are creating Straw Man Fallacies to discredit the skeptical objections to the ETH and then claiming that they are "pseudoskepticism" and you have refuted them.

Did I get the hang of that high falutin' terminology, or what?




It is a pseudoskeptical argument, which is why I can shoot it down easily. You are actually denying that nobody makes this argument.


Ok, so you're saying that these physicists and astronomers who say that interstellar travel is impossible are all pseudoskeptics?


What is improbable or highly unlikely does not that it won't happen. So nothing is holding ET back from visiting Earth.


So the point is .. what? Whether or not it is possible for ETs to visit Earth does not change the fact that many reasonable, logical people find it to be unlikely, and for good reasons.


Therefore my conclusion that there cannot be a valid objection to ET visiting Earth is valid either way.


Well, you may think that, but I happen to think that, taking everything into consideration, it is rather unlikely, and I think that is a perfectly valid objection to the ETH.


The original argument was, "There is no evidence" and that was the argument that was being refuted. Are you going to pretend now that no skeptic makes that argument?


Your STRAW MAN was "there is NO evidence." The real argument is that either the quantity, quality, or type of evidence is not sufficient to validate ETH, and you have not refuted that.


That is insufficient evidence
The observation of other people who behave like you, is not proof that they have a mind. They could be robots, holograms or your imagination.


If I am a robot, a hologram, or a figment of your imagination, then this debate is pointless because it is not real. The only possibility which makes this debate anything other than pointless is that I have a mind and you have a mind. We both continue to debate knowing that, so we must both know that we have a mind and believe that the other has a mind. Evidence. There is no such evidence for life on other planets.


That the whole point of a pseudoskeptical argument. It is easy to debunk.
I am always hearing people say "this is possible, this is impossible."


Well, that would be because the common "vernacular" usage of impossible means either "I can't do it" or "I don't believe that anyone can do it." That common "slang" usage of the terms has little to do with a logical, scientific debate.


It makes no difference if it accepted or not accepted. Antigravity is not accepted, but that doesn't make it invalid.


You claim is that anyone who objects to the ETH because of a belief in theories such as the theory of relativity is being illogical, unreasonable, or "pseudoskeptical."

My counter claim is that a person who uses a theory which is generally accepted to be valid to counter a hypothesis which is NOT generally accepted as valid, is being quite reasonable and logical.


Nope, because like I just said there is no uniform human behaviour. The original argument was an argument from incredulity, "ET would not travel light years just to abduct humans, make cropcircles and fly around our skies" but just because something seems unbelievable, does not mean it is not possible. So it is an invalid argument.


There you go with your absolutist logic again. I am not debating whether or not it is POSSIBLE. Your claim is that a person who objects to the ETH based on their assumption that the observed behavior of UFOs and "aliens" is illogical or unreasonable or is being "pseudoskeptical."

My claim is that a person who extrapolates what reasonable and logical behavior would be for an ET based on their own observations of human behavior, and their own behavior, is inferring from the only example of the behavior of intelligent life that they have, and is therefore acting logically and reasonably. This is quite similar to your assertion that we can infer and assume life on other planets because we can observe life on this planet. If you can state that there is life on other planets because of the single case that there is life on this planet, then it is just as reasonable to say that intelligent life on other planets would have logic and motivations similar to the single case of intelligent life on this planet. Either or both may, of course, be incorrect, but that doesn't make them unreasonable.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Heike,

I am not going to play these quote wars with you, as I’ve noticed how you use quote wars to equivocate on all points.

Let’s be honest you have not refuted a single one of my argument. You are refuting strawmans, and at least three people, Plato, Malcram and myself have pulled you up on your incredible knack for building strawmans. Unfortunately, while I certainly admire your skill in building strawmans and equivocating on arguments, it is not valid in a debate.
So please debate properly and honestly or do not debate at all.

You said to me that nobody uses the argument, “interstellar travel is impossible” because the argument is ridiculous. Then I showed you that actually this argument is indeed used:

Now you are saying:


Ok, so you're saying that these physicists and astronomers who say that interstellar travel is impossible are all pseudoskeptics? “


Shifting the goal post fallacy. If originally you said the argument is ridiculous, then now you have to accept that physicists and astronomers who say that interstellar travel is impossible are being ridiculous. Please be consistent or don’t debate with me.

You say that just because ET visiting is possible, does not change the fact many scientists, astronomers and physicists think it is unlikely.

This is both a straw man fallacy and an appeal to authority fallacy. As I was never arguing about what authorities think, but instead was arguing that there is no valid objection to ET visiting. You have accepted my argument by saying “Just because its possible, .....” but that is all I was arguing that it is possible. The next part is a straight out appeal to authority fallacy, “Well scientists think it is unlikely” that does not make ET visiting invalid.

You then say that my argument “No evidence” is a strawman. No, a strawman is fallacy which misrepresents an argument of an opponent you are arguing with. The original argument was a restatement of a common fallacy which appears in arguments on UFO/ET, “there is no evidence” and that is what was being refuted.

You have unilaterally decided to misrepresent the original argument and replace it with another to defend it. Shifting the goal post fallacy again.
You are not refuting my arguments at all, you are refuting arguments you would like to refute. Sorry, but that is invalid. If you would like to argue for something else you need to introduce that argument separately. I did say in the OP that if there are other arguments please inform me about them and I will deal with them as well.

You then say that if others don’t have a mind, this this debate is pointless, because it based on the implicit assumption that there is another mind present. Well that is exactly the problem, it is based on an “assumption” and assumption which is arrived at through the generalization that mind has an invariable relationship of concomitance with certain behaviours, and this ‘other’ is exhibiting this behaviour, therefore they have mind. So you are using one particular instance of mind(your own) and generalising it to others that show similar behaviour. Thus you are doing exactly the same thing that I am doing: life on earth to life on other planets.

If B(behaviour) then M(mind)
If P(planet) then L(life)

They are logically equivalent.

This was my original rebuttal that if you object to my generalization of life on other planets from life on earth you are then being logically inconsistent for generalising other minds from your mind.

You then talk about acceptance and claim that if one accepts a theory which is accepted over a theory which is not accepted they are being more logical and reasonable.

False. Another appeal to authority fallacy. As argued earlier, antigravity is not an accepted theory, but yet there are many reasonable and logical people who accept it. Acceptance and rejection has nothing to do with the validity of a theory.

You then go onto setup a straw man on the argument on ET behaviour. You claim that just as I am establishing the existence of ET from life on earth, that likewise I can establish that ET behaviour should be similar to human behaviour. This is a strawman because the original argument was about incredulity - it is unbelievable that ET would come here abduct humans, make crop circles, fly in our skies. I rebut them by saying that just because something is unbelievable, does not mean it does not happen.

Secondly, to define what is human behaviour is not possible. That is because observation shows us human behaviour differs from culture to culture, sub-culture to sub-culture. Some humans live like savages in the wild, and some humans live in monasteries; some humans bully other humans; some humans are compassionate and chariable. So even if we generalise from human behaviour to ET, the fact that human behaviour is more or less unlimited, means ET behaviours would be also more or less unlimited. So there is nothing that can delimit what behaviour ET is capable of .



Strawman fallacy; shifting the post fallacy; appeal to authority fallacy; equivocation fallacy. Please stop with the fallacies, it's getting progressively more ridiculous debating with you. Respond to only my rebutals if you want to refute them, and not to something else you want to refute.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


First you say that the statement "UFOs can't be ETs because it is impossible for them to get here" is a fallacy.

When I argue that skeptical people (here on ATS) are not saying that it is impossible for ET to get here, you link to scientific articles claiming that interstellar travel is impossible.

So either you are claiming that the scientists who wrote the articles you linked to are wrong, or you are claiming that it is not reasonable to use those articles to support an objection to the ETH. Which is it?

In any case, your scientific articles have nothing to do with your original claim that "pseudoskeptics" on ATS are saying that it is impossible for ETs to get here, which I still have not seen any evidence for.

 


Your "pseudoskeptic" argument "There is no evidence" IS a Straw Man, because that is not what skeptical people - including me for the purpose of this debate - are saying. Our argument is that there is not enough evidence, or there isn't the necessary type of evidence, or the quality of the evidence is not good enough. I have not seen anyone say "there is NO evidence." You misrepresent the claim of inadequate or insufficient evidence to be NO evidence in order to refute it, and that is building a straw man.

 


Simple question: Do all theories and hypotheses have equal validity to you?

If yes, we're done. There's no point debating with you because that is so illogical I can't begin to address it. However, if you answer yes you are contradicting yourself because you are the one who claims that the ETH is more valid than other explanations for UFOs.

If no, then please explain what, in your opinion, makes one theory or hypothesis more valid than another.

 


If your arguments are invalid, then your refutations are invalid. I am proving your refutations invalid by proving that your arguments are invalid. Refuting straw man fallacies does not refute the actual original argument you built the straw man from.

For example, when I previously argued that the standards of evidence for ETH should be the same as for (crypto)zoology, you misrepresented my argument as "If we accept the ETH we must also accept the existence of Bigfoot." You built a straw man and refuted it, you did not address my real argument - that the standards of evidence should be the same for UFOology as for other "ology"'s.

If you can't handle my chosen method of invalidating your refutations, then say so, but stop accusing me of doing what you are doing, and stop setting up artificial requirements for how I must approach your points in order to debate with you. If the arguments you stated are not anyone's real arguments, then you have accomplished exactly nothing by refuting them.

You continue to claim that I do not know how to debate and do not debate "properly." I have evidence to refute your claim; I am an established fighter with several ATS wins. Once the ongoing tournament is over or I have been eliminated from it, I will challenge you to a formal, structured debate with rules on this topic and we will see who doesn't know how to debate.

I also request that you stop accusing me of being dishonest. Since we have switched to "pure logic" at your request, I have been nothing but honest and consistent. In both threads I have the same positions and have not wavered. (You should know that in any logical debate, one argues the assigned or adopted position and one's personal opinions do not enter into it. I have more than once been required to argue for a position I disagreed with. My previously stated personal opinions have nothing to do with this debate, and setting them aside in order to debate you is not dishonest, it is standard practice.)

My arguments are:
1. There is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH.
2. Therefore, pseudoskepticism is not required in order to object to the ETH.
3. The arguments which you claim in your OP are "common pseudoskeptical arguments" are in fact straw men built from skeptical arguments which you can not refute as easily as you claim.

The essence of our "bone of contention" is this:

You claim that, due to overwhelming evidence for the ETH, there are no valid objections to it, and therefore anyone who objects to the ETH as being the most valid explanation for UFOS is either a pseudoskeptic or a bogus skeptic or a closed-minded debunker.

I claim that there is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH, and therefore it is possible for people to sincerely, honestly, and genuinely have logical and reasonable objections to the ETH or to believe that some other hypothesis is equally valid to explain UFOs.

As soon as you can accept that it is not necessary for someone to be a pseudoskeptic, bogus skeptic, or debunker in order to question the superior validity of the ETH as an explanation for unexplained UFOs, the sooner we can stop having this discussion which is obviously making you uncomfortable.

And by the way, since we started the "pure logic" debates I have been treating you and speaking to you in the same way that you have been treating other people and speaking down to them as if they were stupid or ignorant. How does it feel?

Apparently not too good since you suddenly seem eager to find reasons to stop debating with me. Perhaps, then, you might consider how your attitude makes other people feel, and consider that perhaps that is why you get the types of responses you often get. People are not inclined to be courteous, polite, and friendly when you are busy belittling them and slapping derogatory labels on them.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Sigh, they just don't stop do they. Perhaps you know no other way. I don't want to come across as rude but you clearly do not read peoples arguments properly virtually all the time.

You say that skeptical people do not make any of the those common pseudoskeptical arguments I made and therefore I am misrepresentng them.

Nope, I never said I was trying to refute skeptics in the first place. I opened up this thread with, "I am not villiying skepticism" You got the wrong end of the stick from the very start of this thread, your first response was this thread was against skeptics. It was clarified to you by several people that this was about debunking pseudoskepticism and not skepticism, more than once. However, you still continue up until now, which shows you have a pathological habit of not listening to others and believing whatever you want no how contrary to the facts.



I have not seen anyone say "there is NO evidence." You misrepresent the claim of inadequate or insufficient evidence to be NO evidence in order to refute it, and that is building a straw man.


Right, just like you had not seen any skeptic ever say interstellar travel is impossible. We already know your memory is, shall we say, questionable.


Simple question: Do all theories and hypotheses have equal validity to you?


Nope, a theory is only valid insofar as it can explain the available data.


If your arguments are invalid, then your refutations are invalid. I am proving your refutations invalid by proving that your arguments are invalid. Refuting straw man fallacies does not refute the actual original argument you built the straw man from.


No stawman at all. I am refuting common pseudoskeptical arguments and that is what I announce in my thread title as well, "Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies" Pseudoskeptical arguments are invalid and therefore they are easy to debunk. Even you admit all of the pseudoskeptical arguments are invalid.

As I never set out to debunk skepticism your objections are invalid.

Anyway as it is clear as day light now that you have got it all wrong and also agree that the pseudoskeptical arguments are all invalid, then you agree with me that are pseudokskeptical and thus much to the contrary of refuting me, you have just affirmed me.

From this point I will deal with your arguments as fresh arguments, having nothing to do with the original arguments in the OP.


You continue to claim that I do not know how to debate and do not debate "properly." I have evidence to refute your claim; I am an established fighter with several ATS wins. Once the ongoing tournament is over or I have been eliminated from it, I will challenge you to a formal, structured debate with rules on this topic and we will see who doesn't know how to debate.


You have won debates on an internet forum? OK....


I also request that you stop accusing me of being dishonest. Since we have switched to "pure logic" at your request, I have been nothing but honest and consistent.


So you believe, to be honest I have not seen any evidence of logic, honesty or consistency. An honest debator admits when their argument ihas been refuted or example has been refuted. I have honestly debated with other people on this forum and been humble enough to admit when I've been wrong. Unfortunately, I see none of this in you. In the most recent case you categorically asserted nobody has said interstellar travel is impossible, then I prove you wrong, and rather than admiting you were wrong, you shift the goal. Hardly respectable.



In both threads I have the same positions and have not wavered.


Frankly, I don't even know what your position is anymore. That is how much you have changed your position.



You claim that, due to overwhelming evidence for the ETH, there are no valid objections to it, and therefore anyone who objects to the ETH as being the most valid explanation for UFOS is either a pseudoskeptic or a bogus skeptic or a closed-minded debunker.


Strawman fallacy for the 100th time. Nope, I have said that those who do not accept ETH as the most valid explanation for UFO's are psueoskeptics. I have simply said there can be no valid objection to the ETH for UFOs, what others want to accept is their perogative.


As soon as you can accept that it is not necessary for someone to be a pseudoskeptic, bogus skeptic, or debunker in order to question the superior validity of the ETH as an explanation for unexplained UFOs, the sooner we can stop having this discussion which is obviously making you uncomfortable.


Another strawman. I never said those who question ETH for UFO's are bogus skeptics. A bogus skeptic is one who makes invalid arguments, not someone who disagrees with you.


And by the way, since we started the "pure logic" debates I have been treating you and speaking to you in the same way that you have been treating other people and speaking down to them as if they were stupid or ignorant. How does it feel?


Well, as I am not treating others as being stupid or ignorant, your statement above is just a baseless adhominem fallacy and another unnecessary and rheotrical remark amongst hundreds of others you have stated in this thread. You seem to find it difficult to stay on topic.


Apparently not too good since you suddenly seem eager to find reasons to stop debating with me. Perhaps, then, you might consider how your attitude makes other people feel, and consider that perhaps that is why you get the types of responses you often get. People are not inclined to be courteous, polite, and friendly when you are busy belittling them and slapping derogatory labels on them.


More emotional guilt stripping. More rheotric. Completely unnecessary and pointless just like pretty much everything you've said in this thread. You missed the point right from the word go. This never was a thread against skeptics.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



not as smart as one thinks .. tho granted by your name it would sugest you think otherwise..

Indigo_child

i do not know why you have this name:

is it (1) you have unlocked your dna
(2) your are not the same as every person here on this rock
(3) you have a better understanding of life than me (others)
(4) that you are infact very agrogant
(5) or is it that being you requires alot of attention?

I only ask this due to the way you speak, for one i can say this from reading your many posts and indeed your threads that i have read.

You are not Indigo nore are u special nore are you smarter or correct in any of your statements.

this is not a personal attack, tho im guessing you will see it as that, but more rather a reality check..

why? and i have seen you smile when others say you are infact arogant but then i think, indogo_child is the correct name as you do act like one...

please tell me why pseudoskeptics (you included) make a jot?

as you counter your own argument by infact stating you are and do the same thing as the people you infact wish to argue against?

no logical sens or is it that you wish to seem smarter than you infact ARE

and another thing please tell me why you have that name and for what reason you thing you have unlockd you dna more than others,,

and yes i still do have your thread about being special according to the genes you have unlocked...(with no proof i may add)

very very interesting!! or just arrogant.. btw being arrogant is not a good thing it means YOUR VERY WRONG and bound to fail...

so the next time i call you it please dont smile it just makes you look even more close minded than the people you are infact trying to make a case about (would be me in this case)

becuase i question your reasons and person..

you call people stupid in threads, when maybe just maybe !! you are the one who is not listening "and i will not call you stupid" just aggorant.. better use of words i think.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


Still agreeing to disagree with you



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join