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: 12
4
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Aha! I'm starting to see what's gone wrong here. Let's switch to the other thread and I have some things to say about the fallacies.

As far as this thread is concerned:

The OP says "skeptic claims there is no evidence don't hold water."

Okay.

If someone really says "there is NO evidence," I agree that they're wrong. There is evidence.

However, if someone says "there isn't sufficient evidence to convince me," that's not a fallacy, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it.

Furthermore, according to the page you linked, when someone claims that something exists, the burden of proof is on them. The opponent can say "your evidence does not meet the burden of proof," and that's not a fallacy either.

What must be established is, what is a reasonable amount, type, and quality of evidence for extraterrestrials visiting Earth to meet the burden of proof? And realistically, we here on ATS probably don't get to answer that question and have our answer be generally accepted.




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


To be honest, and blunt... The only reason I am not skeptical about the whole UFO thing is because I've seen them myself. The so-called 'implants' are just so much trash. The photographs, and videos are just a big pile of hoaxes, blurry pictures, and shakey cam videos. I haven't seen anything yet that would convince me that there is something out there if I had not seen things first hand.

It certainly doesn't help matters that the new age charlatans are getting into the act, and that there are people willing to perpetrate hoaxes for the lulz. All they do is muddy the waters of what otherwise would be a serious question, and have just turned the whole thing into a circus of weirdness.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

The relationship of invariable concomitance here is causal. We know that mind causes cetain behaviour, and we also know that planet causes life. Thus this is why we establish invariable concomitance.


But we don't know that. All we know is that life exists on Earth. We don't know the planet is the cause.



They are all generalizations of of the form if P then Q. Thus all are logically equivalent.


No they are analagous. Once you have empirical evidence that planets cause life, at that point they become equivalent.



I think you are confusing logic is with the modern scientific method. You're argument is not whether they are logically equivalent but whether they have equal validity in terms of evidence.


And I think you are basing your logic on a false predicate, or at least one that has yet to be established.




But my argument is not evidence, but from logic based on observables. It is true that I have no conclusive evidence of life on other planets, but it is also true that there no such thing as conclusive scientific evidence. You demonstrate this yourself with your example of gathering evidence for other minds by observing a high frequeny of behaviours. However, it may turn out later that all your evidence was wrong and you were mistaking turing-compliant AI for other minds. So irrespective of how much evidence you have to support something it never prove your conclusion. Therefore the modern empirical scientific method is inherently flawed. The only valid method we have is scientific logic, making inferences from observables.


You'd better phone CERN and tell them the LHC is waste of time in that case




I have stated there is no mystery about UFO's because they can be explained by the ETH logicaly. There is no belief involved.

1. There is a physical craft exhibiting behaviour which falsifies human science and technology


The reported evidence is disputed.



2. It does not belong to humans


This is an unknown.



3. Therefore it belongs to non-humans.


Could be




I think we are. I think you are inclined my way, only that you want more evidence.


This is true. I agree the ETH is probably the best working hypothesis. Where we part is in your assumption of the certainty of life on other planets. I think your stance has softened slightly from 100% certain so thank you for bending a little
I think you are right though that there is a very strong likelihood that such life does exist and I also agree that certain UFO cases suggest it is visiting (living on?) Earth. I don't accept your argument from inference although the good news is that if we ever do find evidence of life arising on other planets, I think you would have a logically watertight case.

Until that time you shouldn't be so hard on people who want to explore other explanations.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
However, if someone says "there isn't sufficient evidence to convince me," that's not a fallacy, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it


I agree. However (isn't there always a 'however'
) If someone says "there isn't sufficient evidence to convince me" yet ignores what evidence is there, fails to examine most of it, and dismisses it based on fallacies, then that is highly unreasonable and their original statement could well be fallacious. Why? Because their claim is that there is not sufficient evidence, and THAT'S supposedly why they don't accept the ETH. They claim skepticism based on insufficient evidence. But if they have not examined the evidence thoroughly, then how do they know "there is not sufficient evidence"? They don't. It's a cover for laziness and a closed mind. This is why a skeptic does examine the evidence thoroughly - as Indigo said, the root of the word is 'enquirer'. Because only having done so can one legitimately conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

But we don't know that. All we know is that life exists on Earth. We don't know the planet is the cause.


Actually we do, because life grows out from this planets chemicals. Our entire body is made out the planets chemicals. This is an empirical fact, I am bit surpised you would deny this.


You'd better phone CERN and tell them the LHC is waste of time in that case


It turned out it was


Anyway my point being the empirical method is a flawed method in learning about how the physical world work. The rational method is better and rationally one could arrive all the same conclusions that the empirical method can and go beyond it.

This is why I admire Sanskrit physics they were able to conclude all kinds of things without doing a single experiment: they knew about atoms and subatomic paricles, they knew about the wave theory of sound, they knew about gravity, inertia and classical mechanics, they knew about photons, they knew about elasticity and viscosity, they about kinetic energy, states of matter and plasma, they knew about cognitive science. Am amazing amount of knowledge for not doing a single experiment.

Even beyond then was Sanskrit metaphysics which used a pure rational method. They knew about quantum energy, they knew about fundamental forces, they knew about observer paradox, they knew about virtual particles, they knew about expanding and contracting universes. They know about parallel universes. They knew about time dilation. They know about quantum field theory. Again not a single experiment. Just pure rational logic.

Scientific empiricism is a kind of one step at a time method: the trees for the forest. You observe something, you form a model to explain it, you test it. It works. Then you observe something else, you reject the previous and form another based on the knowledge of the former. You test it. It works. Then you observe something else. This is why it is flawed because you stuck in a cycle of observation, hypothesis, experiment and falsification. You can never know anything with this method.

Scientific rationalism is a holistic method: the forest for the trees. You observe something, you draw an inference and then follow a causal chain of logic. Rather than relying on any new observations, you rely completely on pure logic. This method is not easy, it requires tremendous logical power and this is why it is not popular. It is becoming more popular today in theoretical physics which has more or less abandoned the experiment.
An example of scientfic rationalism is Einstein's thought experiments on traveling on a beam of light.

The Sanskrit scientists knew the best way to do science was through pure logic and not experiment. Modern science would agree, our best and most advanced scientific theories were arrived at through pure logic. There is a causal chain to every phenomenon you observe if you regress back you will arrive at certainty and completeness.


1. There is a physical craft exhibiting behaviour which falsifies human science and technology


The reported evidence is disputed.

Everything is disputed. What matters is whether those disputes are valid or not and in the cases of say the 1976 Iranian UFO chase the disputes are clearly invalid. This is clearly a physical craft with unknown physics.




2. It does not belong to humans


This is an unknown.


There are only 5 possibilities as discussed earlier as to the occupants or source:

1. Secret government technology
2. Secret terrestrial civilisation
3. Time travellers
4. Extradimensional
5. ET

The only one that requires the least mutiplications is 5. The rest are as much in need of evidence as the UFO itself. They are all possibilities, some pure science-fiction. ET is not science-fiction, but widely considered an almost certain scientific fact. And as argued earlier there is no reason to believe they don't exist making ETH a valid hypothesis.

There is no logical evidence for secret terrestrial civilisations. If they are secret government technology, then why spend billions on obsolete science and technology. Time travel is science fiction. Extradimensional beings are theoretical concepts.



Until that time you shouldn't be so hard on people who want to explore other explanations.


Im not hard on them. We can use our imagination to explore all kinds of possibilities, including, "Do other minds exist" but this has to remain in the domain of speculaton. In the rational domain these explanations have no place and by getting they mixed up with the rational world it will serve only to obfuscate the UFO issue. To prevent that we must only admit rational explanations and ETH is one of those.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Let's set all the scientific and high logic stuff aside for just a few minutes - can we do that?

We have the person who says "I'll believe it when I see it."
We have the person who says "I'll believe it when the President announces that it's real."
And perhaps a person who says "I'll believe it when the majority of scientists say it's real."

You may consider these requirements to be unreasonable, but they don't. The same person probably says the same thing in response to claims of Bigfoot, Nessie and ghosts. Not to say that they are related, just to say that these people have consistent standards for everything anyone asks them to believe.

These people don't want to examine all the evidence and they don't consider it necessary that they personally do it. That's someone else's job - the job of the authority(ies) they choose to trust. They have expressed a clear standard and ask you - the one with the burden of proof - to meet it. They are not "moving the goalposts;" they have set their goalposts at the end of the field and it's not a touchdown until you get across them.

Again, you may judge it to be unreasonable, but a lot of people don't. You can say unreasonable, or you can say high standards, or whatever. But it's not impossible; any of those three things CAN happen. They have not set an impossible standard for proof, they've set a consistent (albeit high) standard for what they will accept as "proof." And there's nothing wrong with that. You have no right to demand that everyone accept that ETs are real based on your assessment of what "sufficient evidence" or "proof" is.

Now please don't go back through this post, yank out a dozen different bits, and label them as some kind of fallacy. Just tell me, why can't a person have a higher (or more specific) standard for proof than you do?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Malcram
 


Heike what you call "scientific and high logic stuff" is simply the correct definition of words. Just as you can't have a God believing "Atheist", you can't have a 'Skeptic" under the conditions I mentioned.

I didn't say, in this case, that I considered anyone's requirements for evidence unreasonable, I said I considered someone falsely claiming to be a "skeptic" when they were not prepared to actually BE a Skeptic and fit the definition, was unreasonable, and I can't believe we've had to have such a long drawn out debate over something as obvious and factual as that.

It's also patently unreasonable to say "There is not sufficient evidence for me" if you haven't bothered checking if there actually is sufficient evidence, because they are making a proclamation on the body of evidence in ignorance, to cover their own laziness or closed-mindedness.

And finally in many cases people have not "set a consistent (albeit high) standard for what they will accept as "proof." at all. Rather, in most cases they will accept all sorts of things on virtually no evidence and then set almost impossible standards for evidence UNIQUELY to the ET/UFO issue. That is the very definition of INconsistent. Again, this is something a skeptic would never do.

"Just tell me, why can't a person have a higher (or more specific) standard for proof than you do?"

I've never said they couldn't. Although I would debate that it was actually "higher".

Anyway, I've said these same things and addressed those same points at least a doxen times. It would be pointless to continue.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


All righty then. I think we have this one boiled down to a good soup.

ATS members: Take Note! You may not legitimately call yourself a skeptic unless you have examined all the evidence. You'll just have to call yourself something else.

Does that take care of it?

It's been a long trip for sure. But wasn't it fun?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Malcram
 


All righty then. I think we have this one boiled down to a good soup.

ATS members: Take Note! You may not legitimately call yourself a skeptic unless you have examined all the evidence. You'll just have to call yourself something else.

Does that take care of it?

It's been a long trip for sure. But wasn't it fun?



LOL No, that misrepresents what I said rather. You are conflating two different statements.

You can of course legitimately be a skeptic if you haven't yet examined all the evidence, as long as you are open to it and are making a conscientious ongoing enquiry into the phenomena you presently hold a skeptical stance on. That's what a skeptic is and what a skeptic does. But if you do none of the above you are not really a "skeptic", you are just, in literal not pejorative terms, ignorant.

And you can't rightly make a truth claim regarding the body of evidence by saying that "there is not sufficient evidence for me", unless you have openmindedly examined all the evidence in order to determine if that is actually the case. Otherwise it's a pre-judgement (pre-judice) and is the very antithesis of what a skeptic is, seeing as a skeptic withholds judgement pending evidence.

It's not complicated or controvertial. It's just the facts, maam. Just the facts.



[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join