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.

 

Why "sceptic" claims there is no evidence don't hold water

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There is nothing faulty about my logic. If it is faulty demonstrate it, don't just assert it.


The fault in your logic lies in your assumption that life on other planets is 100% certain because life exists on earth and there are 'trillions of planets'. Probability is not the same as certainty. However likely life on other planets might be, it could still turn out that life only exists on one planet. Unlikely things happen all the time.



I have never said all UFO''s are ET, what I've said that UFO's can be explained using the ETH. The other possiblities cannot form a part of our explanatory framework because there is no reason to believe they are true. Until you do produce significant evidence for these alternative hypothesis, they will remain on the fringe.


Likewise we have no significant evidence that life exists on other planets only statistical analysis of probabilities.



I am assuming you're a believer or at least more inclined that way. Then you should realise that if we keep UFO in the mystery category, we will never be able to bring UFO's out in the open. The only way to do this is to explain it with the best explanation, which is the ETH. If you start mixing ETH with everysingle fringe hypothesis it will never be taken seriously and will always remain a topic of ridicule. The UFO's can be explained; they are ETV's(extratesstrial vehicles) and from now on I am going to call them that.

UFO's are not a mystery for me. I have reasoned them out and I know what they are now. I hope you follow soon.


But they are a mystery. I too am convinced of their reality and think they are piloted craft and that those pilots may be from other planets. But I also accept I could be wrong. I may be missing some huge chunk of information. I don't know how you can be so certain unless you are privy to information I don't have. Even if they are extraterrestrial the mystery doesn't go away, it just opens up even more questions.





How does the ETH explain human 'aliens'?


It doesn't need too. As ET refers to a vast collection of intelligent species in the universe, some who which will be humanoid, or even virtually identical with humans some which may not be.


That is a massive leap. Even convergent evolution on our own planet never produces virtually identical species and that is even with a common ancestor. I can believe humanoid aliens developing on another planet but not human aliens indistinguishable from us in every important respect. Human's on board UFOs suggests to me they are related to us in some way.

Edit to answer my own question
If ET has been here a while they could have grown human bodies for themselves, the better to integrate and communicate with us. Of course, for that to be the case there would have to be some evidence of aliens taking samples of human genetic material and running a breeding program


[edit on 2/4/2009 by MarrsAttax]




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Sorry, Indigo, but you don't get to judge your own debate. That's not how it works.

In order to judge the results of a debate, we must consider the relevance to the topic.
Your topic was "Why "sceptic" claims there is no evidence don't hold water."

My topic was:

"The evidence is insufficient to validate the ETH" and concurrently "skeptics don't claim there is no evidence."

Now, where in either of those topics do you see anything about me needing to prove any other hypothesis? Me too either.

The only point I needed to make, started out to make, ever, is that there is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH. And I have done that, over and over.

I have shown that in every other remotely similar scientific discipline, physical evidence is required before the hypothesis of something's existence is accepted.
I have yet to have time to look at your claimed physical evidence, but since I haven't seen it on the news or heard about it anywhere else, I'm inclined to think it's not the physical evidence I'm asking for. I have also shown you that having physical evidence for the existence of something IS possible when you claimed it was not; there is quite satisfactory physical evidence for the existence of the giant squid.
Nor have I moved the goalposts; I started out with an explanation of why physical evidence is what is required to validate a hypothesis and that is still where we are, me requesting physical evidence to validate the ETH.

Side trips to sky fish came about only because you tried to box me in, force me to choose one of your predetermined choices, and I refused/refuted the box in two ways:

First I pointed out that the boundaries of the box are inaccurate because you had not provided adequate evidence that the UFO was a physical craft, and secondly I pointed out that the contents of the box are incomplete because I can think of other things that aren't in the box.

If the skyfish is a fail, the only thing that changes is that I'm supposedly back to the five things YOU put in the box. It doesn't matter anyway, because I still refuse to accept the box, and the box in and of itself was a side trip.

It has nothing to do with there being sufficient (physical) evidence to validate the ETH.

We did kind of abandon the "skeptics don't say there is no evidence" part, but it wasn't the main argument anyway. Personally, I have never seen anyone say there is NO evidence. I asked you for just one example of that and you never provided it, so that's where that rests.




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
UFO's are not a mystery for me. I have reasoned them out and I know what they are now. I hope you follow soon.


I've sometimes asked (even myself) whether or not time travel might be as good an explanation for the phenomenon as ETs. Because of some witness descriptions, and the way the evidence has an annoying tendency to "vanish," and the fact that we already know for sure that human beings exist, time travel might just be a little higher on the plausibility ladder than aliens.

That being said, we don't have any good proof that time travel is even possible, much less being used by our distant decendants.

So if I don't have good enough proof for UFOs being time ships, and that explanations ranks higher than ETs, then I can't say what these things are one way or another. Some unknown that might be a little more plausible than some other unknown isn't good proof. Because it's not positive proof. It's just a default position.

The real winner in this case, without their being positive proof available, is "unknown." And that "unknown" argument is a tough one to beat. Positive proof requires real, testable evidence that can be reviewed and agreed upon by experts. It would be nice if we had some of that lying around. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on what you think the result would be), we don't have any.

It doesn't bother me. I'm not in any huge hurry. Not enough to just settle for a sort of reasonable explanation backed up by questionable circumstantial evidence, anyway. I'm cool. Chillin'. No hurry, no worry.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Hmm. I woulda sworn I saw two links in your post referring to his posts. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It's still kind of a low blow to accuse him of editing before he's even done it, and it still was an attempt to manipulate readers' opinion of him.

Posts can only be edited for a certain amount of time after being posted - I think it's 2 hours but I could be wrong - so your "concerns" weren't too valid in any case.

So maybe you only shot one toe.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am afraid the logic in my example is one way there, SC.


You missed the point by an incredible measure.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If if see a UFO which is showing non-human technology, I can't explain it as being terrestrial, so I conclude that it is ET.


No, you cannot explain it as being human. That is all you can explain. You have no idea of the origins.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
we would not be creating official expolitics departments.


Alien civilizations are hypothetical; they are not real. While we do have no reason to assume they are not out there, that assumption is not evidence, no matter how much you want to pretend and posture.

An exopolitics department? Please, tell us more.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

The fault in your logic lies in your assumption that life on other planets is 100% certain because life exists on earth and there are 'trillions of planets'. Probability is not the same as certainty. However likely life on other planets might be, it could still turn out that life only exists on one planet. Unlikely things happen all the time.


I accept your criticism about there not being certainty. But I want to ask you can you say anything is 100% certain? Is science 100% certain? Are you certain that others have minds? If you are a true skeptic, like the great Hume, you will say "No" But nonetheless, even the great Hume had to accept certain assumptions. It is impossible to be an absolute skeptic, every skeptic has to accept certain assumptions.

I am not 100% certain that ET exists, but I am also not 100% certain that anybody else exists. There is always a possibility that all of this is a dream. However, if I adopt a solpisit approach to life, I would live a very impractical life. So you can see the demand for certainty is futile. Nothing is certain. So does this mean that because nothing is certain, everything has equal validity. No. We have to use rational scientific logic to determine what is valid what is invalid and using rational logic means working with observables and making generalizations. I observe that I have a mind and I observe that I have certain distinct behaviour from inanimate matter, I then generalise that there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between mind and certain behaviour. I therefore infer from this rule that all things that exhibit certain behaviour are independent minds. Likewise, I observe that there is life on this planet(and can form in a diversity of conditions) and then I can establish that there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between life and planet. I therefore infer from this rule that wherever there is a planet, there is life. The inference is logically equivalent to the inference of other minds:

B: Behaviour
M: Mind
L: Life
P: Planet

If B then M is logically equivalent to If P then L

Now I am aware of the qualification of earth-like planet but I am cautious of such a qualification, because life can evolve in all kinds of conditions: hot, cold, dry, wet. In any case because we have no reason to believe that aren't other minds, likewise we have no reason to believe that aren't other planets with life. Thus we accept that ET exists.

The probability argument also shows that the odds of ET existing are staggering, and if we think the odds of something is staggering, we accept it. If I said the odds of you winning the lottery are 99%, all you need to do is get a ticket, you would not think, "But there is a 1% chance I won't" and not get a ticket.

Therefore as certainity is practically impossible we have to accept ET exists lest we be logically inconsistent.



Likewise we have no significant evidence that life exists on other planets only statistical analysis of probabilities.


But we have virtually nothing for the alternative hypothesis. Time travel, underwater and underground civilisations are still fantasy; other dimensions are still theoretical concepts; secret-government technology is still unfalsifiable.



But they are a mystery. I too am convinced of their reality and think they are piloted craft and that those pilots may be from other planets. But I also accept I could be wrong. I may be missing some huge chunk of information. I don't know how you can be so certain unless you are privy to information I don't have. Even if they are extraterrestrial the mystery doesn't go away, it just opens up even more questions.


ET is a mystery that is true. We know next to nothing about them.
However UFO's are noT mysteries, because they can be explained with the ETH. The next step is to demand disclosure of ET and all the knowledge and technology the government has obtained from ET. It will open up a new chapter in civilisation and this should not be delayed. The more we delay it the more power our leaders will get. In any case I already think they are too powerful, and if we don't do anything about it, the near future is going to bring nothing but bad news.


That is a massive leap. Even convergent evolution on our own planet never produces virtually identical species and that is even with a common ancestor. I can believe humanoid aliens developing on another planet but not human aliens indistinguishable from us in every important respect. Human's on board UFOs suggests to me they are related to us in some way.

Edit to answer my own question
If ET has been here a while they could have grown human bodies for themselves, the better to integrate and communicate with us. Of course, for that to be the case there would have to be some evidence of aliens taking samples of human genetic material and running a breeding program


While it is indeed true that no species is identical, it is also true that many featurs are common : 2 eyes, 2 legs, 2 arms, head, torso, brain, lungs, genitals, stomach, teeth, skin, ears. This suggests to my evolution is not as random as modern science tells us, and there is some kind of deterministic principle and archetypal forms. Therefore it is not a stretch to say that there could be human like aliens or that human aliens are very common.

Are you familiar with the Sanskrit theory of evolution? According to that theory we evolve through 840 million lower life forms before we reach human form, which is the final stage. It also says on all planets there are humans. So perhaps humans are common after all.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Heike, I have to disagree with you. Pseudoskeptics do exist. We have a prime example of one right before us. Child is the pseudoskeptic.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
My friend, there is no mystery, we are in contact with ET and all the worlds governments know about it. You will be the last to know because you can only know things if an authority tells you or if you witness yourself. Those of us who can think independently and logically already know. And we also know what is going on.


According to the signature line of his cohort, Malcram...


They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics."

It is undeniable Child's above quote is ad-hominem and emotion-inflaming. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we have our pseudoskeptic.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

I've sometimes asked (even myself) whether or not time travel might be as good an explanation for the phenomenon as ETs. Because of some witness descriptions, and the way the evidence has an annoying tendency to "vanish," and the fact that we already know for sure that human beings exist, time travel might just be a little higher on the plausibility ladder than aliens.


There is no relationship between a craft "vanishing" and "time travel" The craft could have just become invisible and this is scientifically possible if you refract light. This is the simplest explanation. The next best explanation is teleportation, and this is also scientifically feasible.


That being said, we don't have any good proof that time travel is even possible, much less being used by our distant decendants.


That is exactly my point. It requires an quantity multiplication to introduce time travel.


The real winner in this case, without their being positive proof available, is "unknown." And that "unknown" argument is a tough one to beat. Positive proof requires real, testable evidence that can be reviewed and agreed upon by experts. It would be nice if we had some of that lying around. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on what you think the result would be), we don't have any.

It doesn't bother me. I'm not in any huge hurry. Not enough to just settle for a sort of reasonable explanation backed up by questionable circumstantial evidence, anyway. I'm cool. Chillin'. No hurry, no worry.


To say it is unknown is not an explanation, it is simply a description. Technically, everything is unknown: light, gravity, electricity, evolution, time, mind, atoms. But them being unknown does not help us. I could just throw my hands down and say, "Nope, unknown, won't bother explaining it" if the first scientist did that, we would not have any science or technology. For practical purposes we need to explain things so we can advance. UFO's are no different once we can explain it as best as we can we will advance.

Here is what will happen if we leave UFO in mystery domain. We will not open ourselves up to a vast and infinite universe of possiblities, contact with other civilisations, cultural exchanges that will only enrichen our own lives. This contact will open up solutions to all our problems. Moreover, those who are in contact with ET will get a huge advantage over us and we are then vulnerable to their explitation. This is why UFO must be taken out of the domain of mystery and idle speculation. We must demand disclosure.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

The only point I needed to make, started out to make, ever, is that there is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH. And I have done that, over and over.


You indeed have asserted the same point over and over again, and I have refuted it over and over again. Until you do not respond to those refuations we cannot make any further progress.


I have shown that in every other remotely similar scientific discipline, physical evidence is required before the hypothesis of something's existence is accepted.
I have yet to have time to look at your claimed physical evidence, but since I haven't seen it on the news or heard about it anywhere else I'm inclined to think it's not the physical evidence I'm asking for.


I must say considering you claimed to have switched to pure logic and science earlier on, you have spectacularly fallen from that position. Do you honestly think the argument, "I've not seen it on the news, therefore it is not valid" is a valid argument? I'm speechless.


I started out with an explanation of why physical evidence is what is required to validate a hypothesis and that is still where we are, me requesting physical evidence to validate the ETH.


You ended up contradicting your argument. You accepted in the end all you wanted was testimony of physical evidence. I then provided it to you and then you shifted the goal post.


First I pointed out that the boundaries of the box are inaccurate because you had not provided adequate evidence that the UFO was a physical craft, and secondly I pointed out that the contents of the box are incomplete because I can think of other things that aren't in the box.

If the skyfish is a fail, the only thing that changes is that I'm supposedly back to the five things YOU put in the box. It doesn't matter anyway, because I still refuse to accept the box, and the box in and of itself was a side trip.


The only way you can reject the box is by rejecting the evidence. In the many cases I linked to you a clear physical craft has been seen and detected, which is very much like any aircraft, except it uses unknown science and technology.

If you are not going to accept the evidence, then you have no right to pass any judgement on it. I argued about this in my Pseudoskepticism thread, instead of accepting the evidence, the pseudoskeptic will add, detract from the evidence until it fits their explanation. On the other hand, the genuine skeptic will test various hypothesis to explain the available evidence and come up with the explanation which is the most consistent with the available evidence.

I remember how badly you reacted earlier when you thought I was discrediting your Green UFO encounter, but you are now very hypocritically discrediting established UFO cases just because you know that if you accept the evidence you will be forced into accepting the ETH by my box.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Malcram
 


Hmm. I woulda sworn I saw two links in your post referring to his posts. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It's still kind of a low blow to accuse him of editing before he's even done it, and it still was an attempt to manipulate readers' opinion of him.

Posts can only be edited for a certain amount of time after being posted - I think it's 2 hours but I could be wrong - so your "concerns" weren't too valid in any case.

So maybe you only shot one toe.


Thanks for that half hearted "apology" for a false accusation repeated twice and also for the slew of new ones.

To definitively answer your "Hmm, I woulda sworn I saw links" insinuation, go HERE, find my post, fourth from the bottom, and note that there is no 'edited' tag below the text, something which it is impossible to remove completely if you edit a post. If I'd edited, you could see it.

And I did not "accuse" him nor was it a "low blow" or an attempt to "manipulate" as you assert. If he had originally intended - which he did - to post a link to the point where he dismissed the analogy rather than where he tried to defend his point within it, and I believed he had posted to the wrong link, then of course he would change the link to the correct post! Not to be underhand, but to do what he had originally intended. I was saying that these links showed he was defending the point within the analogy, using the analogy, and I wanted that to be observed before the link was changed to the post he intended to show which showed him dismissing the analogy, as I thought it was a different post at the time.

And for the record, Saviours post can still be edited - even now. I know this because one of my posts, which came before his, still has the "edit" button above it. So he could and can change it.

So perhaps you'd be good enough to take back these new accusations seeing as not one of them can be substantiated.

You are being unfair Heike, and I hadn't expect this from you, seeing as you have bemoaned such treatment of yourself.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Okay, then I misunderstood you. I interpreted it as an accusation that he would edit his post to be dishonest. I was sorely disappointed by that interpretation because of my basic respect for you. I was wrong, and I do apologize.

And I was admitting that I must have been scanning and somehow visually attached the two links to your post instead of his, not insinuating that you edited the post. I know you didn't. I dunno. The posts have been coming rather fast and furious in these two threads, and part of the time I've been trying to keep up my end of the running debates, I've also been at work trying to get some work done.

I'm too darn old to be doing all this multitasking!!



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Thanks Heike. Perhaps the "reply to Savior" automatic link and the "pseudo skepticism" link in my post was what fooled the eye. Understandable.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Heike, I have to disagree with you. Pseudoskeptics do exist. We have a prime example of one right before us. Child is the pseudoskeptic.


If ever there was a hypocritical accusation, this is it. Saviour, even if what you said were true about Indigo, he is not posing as a skeptic - this is an Alien and UFO forum and Indigo believes both - and so cannot be a "pseudo-skeptic".


You once bizarrely claimed that the aim of those who challenged pseudo-skepticism was to somehow cast themselves as the skeptics. Well that is not nearly as difficult a stunt as you are trying to pull now in attempting to cast a fairly ardent believer as a "pseudo-skeptic"!


[edit on 3-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You ended up contradicting your argument. You accepted in the end all you wanted was testimony of physical evidence. I then provided it to you and then you shifted the goal post.


Okay, let's have a look at your physical evidence.

First, the "ET" metal sample provided by Billy Meier. Here is the info on that. Excerpt:


CLAIM: An Analysis Of A Metal Sample Shows Extraordinary Properties

IIG'S FINDINGS: The Analysis Was Fundamentally Flawed And It Is A Physical Impossibility For The Metal To Have The Properties That Are Claimed


Now for the hair sample:
DNA sample from abduction...
Scientists Assess DNA Hair Sample

Result: The hair sample is anomalous, but human. Not extraterrestrial. In fact, the analysis of the hair is more supportive of several other theories than it is of the ETH, since both articles state the hair was human and apparently the owner of the hair is related to four Chinese subjects previously tested.

Your other "physical evidence" link was about a UFO which apparently collided with a police car. I read through it several times and didn't see any reference to any samples recovered, so I don't understand why you included it as "physical evidence."


The only way you can reject the box is by rejecting the evidence.


No. We've been over this before. You admit that our knowledge is limited. Therefore it is not logical to limit what can be inside the box to things which we have knowledge of. What's inside the box could be something that we do not have enough knowledge to conceive of or comprehend. The possibilities for what unexplained UFOs really are are unlimited, not five.


On the other hand, the genuine skeptic will test various hypothesis to explain the available evidence and come up with the explanation which is the most consistent with the available evidence.


Tell me again why I HAVE to have an explanation? Why can't I just say I don't know what it is? Where is this requirement to have an explanation coming from? Does the trial end tomorrow and I missed the memo?


you are now very hypocritically discrediting established UFO cases just because you know that if you accept the evidence you will be forced into accepting the ETH by my box.


I'm not discrediting anything. I am merely saying that you can't limit the possibilities based on human knowledge, since humans do not possess full knowledge of everything which objectively exists.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

I accept your criticism about there not being certainty. But I want to ask you can you say anything is 100% certain? Is science 100% certain? Are you certain that others have minds? If you are a true skeptic, like the great Hume, you will say "No" But nonetheless, even the great Hume had to accept certain assumptions. It is impossible to be an absolute skeptic, every skeptic has to accept certain assumptions.

I am not 100% certain that ET exists, but I am also not 100% certain that anybody else exists. ... I observe that I have a mind and I observe that I have certain distinct behaviour from inanimate matter, I then generalise that there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between mind and certain behaviour. I therefore infer from this rule that all things that exhibit certain behaviour are independent minds. Likewise, I observe that there is life on this planet(and can form in a diversity of conditions) and then I can establish that there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between life and planet. I therefore infer from this rule that wherever there is a planet, there is life. The inference is logically equivalent to the inference of other minds:

B: Behaviour
M: Mind
L: Life
P: Planet

If B then M is logically equivalent to If P then L



I would argue that there is a difference between the two examples. In the first case we interact with other humans everyday. We see them perform behaviours that are entirely consistent with having a mind. We don't just infer they have a mind by reference to ourselves, we also witness the evidence that they do first-hand. With planets we just don't have this kind of observation yet as such the inference they have life, while reasonable, is premature.

Another flaw in your logic I should have pointed out is that you equate the proposition that extraterrestrial life is certain (debatable) with the proposition that that life is intelligent, has built spacecraft and is visiting our planet. You seem to be implying that the two propositions are equally likely e.g 100% or thereabouts but the likelihood of the first has absolutely no bearing on the second.



The probability argument also shows that the odds of ET existing are staggering, and if we think the odds of something is staggering, we accept it. If I said the odds of you winning the lottery are 99%, all you need to do is get a ticket, you would not think, "But there is a 1% chance I won't" and not get a ticket.

Therefore as certainity is practically impossible we have to accept ET exists lest we be logically inconsistent.


See point above.



While it is indeed true that no species is identical, it is also true that many featurs are common : 2 eyes, 2 legs, 2 arms, head, torso, brain, lungs, genitals, stomach, teeth, skin, ears. This suggests to my evolution is not as random as modern science tells us, and there is some kind of deterministic principle and archetypal forms.


It suggests to me that the animals that share these features have a common ancestor.

I don't know about archetypal forms, I think you can explain similarities in species with reference to their sharing similar ecological niches and being subject to similar outward pressures. I don't think evolution has a 'plan', I could be wrong. Regardless, like I said, having a similar form is one thing but the odds of a separate species evolving naturally to look just like us must be astronomical. I think this is moot though as I've already outlined a plausible explanation of why humans might appear on UFOs. So I concede that this isn't an argument against the ETH.



Are you familiar with the Sanskrit theory of evolution? According to that theory we evolve through 840 million lower life forms before we reach human form, which is the final stage. It also says on all planets there are humans. So perhaps humans are common after all.


Sounds unlikely. Is there any evidence for it? Seems odd that the final stage just happens to be human
It's the height of hubris to suppose we are the universe's ultimate goal!



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
If ever there was a hypocritical accusation, this is it. Saviour, even if what you said were true about Indigo, he is not posing as a skeptic - this is an Alien and UFO forum and Indigo believes both - and so cannot be a "pseudo-skeptic".


Then by that definition, no one in this forum is a pseudoskeptic, as there is yet to be a person in this forum who denies the existence of both. And it is certainly not hypocritical of me, as I believe in both.

But you miss the point, not surprising. The point being that people such as Child and yourself, accusing others of being pseudoskeptics for nothing more than not towing your line, fit the definition yourselves. Regardless of what you may call yourself, you fit the definition of the pseudoskeptic.

Pseudoskeptics Exposed -- Indigo Child and Malcram.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

I would argue that there is a difference between the two examples. In the first case we interact with other humans everyday. We see them perform behaviours that are entirely consistent with having a mind. We don't just infer they have a mind by reference to ourselves, we also witness the evidence that they do first-hand. With planets we just don't have this kind of observation yet as such the inference they have life, while reasonable, is premature.


The point is there is no logical difference between them as demonstrated the above. They both use generalization rules of the form "If P then Q"

Your argue that we can infer other minds from behaviours, and I argued we can infer other life from planets. Just as mind cannot be arrived with certainty from behaviours likewise life on planets cannot be arrived at with certainty from planet. You only have one example in each case. So if you maintain the generalization of mind from behaviour is valid, then I can argue the generalization from planet to life is valid.

You say that your generalization is based on evidence, but the evidence is inconclusive either way. I could in turn say that my generalization is based on evidence and show ET must exist from ufoevidnce, mythology, alien abductions. So logically this is only going one way. If you accept other minds exist, but you must also accept ET exists.


Another flaw in your logic I should have pointed out is that you equate the proposition that extraterrestrial life is certain (debatable) with the proposition that that life is intelligent, has built spacecraft and is visiting our planet. You seem to be implying that the two propositions are equally likely e.g 100% or thereabouts but the likelihood of the first has absolutely no bearing on the second.


Again a valid generalization because there is intelligent life on this planet, there is no reason to believe that isn't intelligent life on other planets. If we being intelligent life(debatable) can build spacecraft, so can they.

So in the end your entire argument just amounts to a kind of solipicism. There were many early philosophers that made these naive conclusions, but obviously could never maintain logical consistency.


See point above.


It makes no difference. You are arguing for that 1%, when in reality you would go and buy the ticket.



It suggests to me that the animals that share these features have a common ancestor.

I don't know about archetypal forms, I think you can explain similarities in species with reference to their sharing similar ecological niches and being subject to similar outward pressures. I don't think evolution has a 'plan', I could be wrong. Regardless, like I said, having a similar form is one thing but the odds of a separate species evolving naturally to look just like us must be astronomical. I think this is moot though as I've already outlined a plausible explanation of why humans might appear on UFOs. So I concede that this isn't an argument against the ETH.



If you argue that it because all humans and animals have a common ancestor, I could argue that what is common to humans, animals and ET is the phenomenon of life itself. As evolution is not a random process as shown by the evolution of life forms and the repetition of certain designs, there is no reason to believe this would not apply everywhere in the universe where there is life.



Sounds unlikely. Is there any evidence for it? Seems odd that the final stage just happens to be human
It's the height of hubris to suppose we are the universe's ultimate goal!


The unlikely/likely objection is a bad habit of modern thinking. Much like the habit of demanding proof. We have no reason to believe that the universe operates by chance, as far as we know there is a cause and effect logic pervading the entire universe. As we are not aware of that cause and effect logic, we cannot say certainly what is unlikely and what is likely.
The Sanskrit theory of evolution does not say mean human as we understand it, but means an intelligent and humanoid species, so as all species are humanoid there will be similarities and some may even be humans. Again there is not stopping evolution from replicating the same human design elsewhere.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


So after all your pontificating about the evils of labeling people - something the threads you opposed were not doing - you are in fact hypocritically doing that very thing yourself at every opportunity in an attempt to slur other members. In fact, I haven't seen a single accusation you have made - and you make a LOT - that you are not guilty of yourself to an excessive degree.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
You start from the premise that ET life exists. For the sake of argument let say that that is 100% certain.

For ET to be here you have to suppose that that life evolved into a sentient race, then into a highly technical civilisation, then discovered spaceflight, managed to avoid destroying themselves or being destroyed in the process, travelled out into space, discovered the Earth and that their civilisation came into being and endured in the same time frame as our own civilisation i.e they didn't exist millions of years before we evolved nor millions of years afterwards. I'm not arguing that this hasn't occurred but with each step outlined above the initial figure of 100% probability drops.

That is a different scenario from saying I have a mind therefore I infer other people have minds too. I see people all the time. I'm constantly interacting with people. There is no reason to suppose they don't have minds.

For the two to be analogous the Earth would have to be in daily interaction with other planets. Life on those planets could then be inferred by observations made. The current situation with regard to life on other planets is more analogous to someone who has been kept isolated for most of their life but who has recently begun to see the odd person walking past in the far distance. They might hypothesise that these other people have minds but their case would be immeasurably strengthened if they could meet the people and hold a conversation with them.

Your argument that 'If B then M is logically equivalent to If P then L' is merely an assertion on your part. The two are separate statements and you cannot infer from those statements alone that they are equivalent. By giving them equivalence you appear to be saying

If (If B then M) = true
Then
(If P then L) = true

or to put it another way - if other people have minds then UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft which I don't think is a particularly tenable argument.




Again a valid generalization because there is intelligent life on this planet, there is no reason to believe that isn't intelligent life on other planets. If we being intelligent life(debatable) can build spacecraft, so can they.


But we haven't yet built a spacecraft that can carry humans to another star sytem and we don't yet know that such a craft is technically feasible. There may be no reason to believe that there isn't intelligent life on other planets but there is no evidence there is yet. UFOs cannot be considered strong evidence of life on other planets because as yet they haven't been observed on other planets, only this one. Their origins remain unknown.



So in the end your entire argument just amounts to a kind of solipicism. There were many early philosophers that made these naive conclusions, but obviously could never maintain logical consistency.


I don't agree. I am arguing that empirical evidence actually strengthens the belief that other people have minds or that planets have life. It's just I think the evidence that people have minds is greater and more convincing than the evidence that life exists on other planets at this current juncture.


If you argue that it because all humans and animals have a common ancestor, I could argue that what is common to humans, animals and ET is the phenomenon of life itself.


It's not just me that argues that, the science of genetics is predicated on it. If a man and a woman with brown hair have a child with brown hair, it's because the child has inherited its parents' traits.




The unlikely/likely objection is a bad habit of modern thinking. Much like the habit of demanding proof.


Personally, I think demanding proof is a good habit. Such thinking allows me to debate with you via the internet.



We have no reason to believe that the universe operates by chance, as far as we know there is a cause and effect logic pervading the entire universe.


Quantum Mechanics would seem to suggest at the least that the classical deterministic model of the universe cannot explain all it's aspects. As far as we know the universe is governed by probabilities not simple cause and effect.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
So after all your pontificating about the evils of labeling people you are in fact hypocritically doing that very thing yourself...


Again you miss the point.

I will spell it out for you. The point is not that you and Child are pseudoskeptics. The point is that the labels and tactics you have employed against other people can just as easily be applied to you and to demonstrate you are guilty of the exact same behaviors you accuse others of.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join