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

Originally posted by TravisT

Yes, with new discovery, I would agree. Although, I can't see why aliens are the likelihood, when no proof has been given. The Alien conclusion just happens to be the popular theory, although, it could be far from the truth.

I'd say the basis for a 'likelihood" would be a certain level of "evidence" rather than "proof". IMO, sufficient "evidence" establishes a "likelihood" whereas "proof" establishes a "fact". And there is a great deal of evidence available, thus many people feel that the evidence supports the idea that ET's are the "likelihood". Others feel this evidence already constitutes more than basis for a 'likelihood' and actually constitutes proof. And still others...well you get the picture LOL. Obviously it's a personal thing.

And do you really consider the ETH to be the "popular theory"? Maybe as entertainment. I still see the ETH as being the 'underdog' in society. I see the ETH as being pushed well beyond the normal requirements of evidence for a theory, because it is such a paradigm shattering conclusion. People are happy to play with the idea but still swallow hard and bead with sweat at the thought of it actually being established to be true. LOL. For many the repercussions of the ETH being true are so vast as to be unimaginable. Thus, for many, the idea of ETH actually being true is simply unthinkable.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
Maybe as entertainment. I still see the ETH as being the 'underdog' in society. I see the ETH as being pushed well beyond the normal requirements of evidence for a theory, because it is such a paradigm shattering conclusion.

Polls show that most people in the United States do think that extraterrestrial may drive the phenomenon and that the US government is responsible for the a UFO cover-up in some fashion. Perhaps you are right, and this is due to some entertainment factor. However, I have seen nothing to assume it is the case. And I do not think you are giving much credit to the same people who lived with the thread of nuclear-annihilation-at-any-moment for several decades.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I understand what you are saying. Maybe there is a difference between facing annihilation at the hand of our fellowman - which, horrific as it is, is pretty common for us earthlings, lets face it - and being struck with the sudden cold hard fact of the universe being intelligently populated by strange beings some of whom have an interest in us, who outmatch us, and whose intentions and motivations are not clear. The unknown can trigger our deepest most primal fears. Sure, we flirt with it in entertainment. But facing the reality? That's something else entirely.

I see mankind's present attitude to life on earth as being a bit like someone suspended in their bed from a rope over the grand canyon - only they don't know it. It's dark, they are asleep and they feel comfortable. Then the sun rises and they finally become aware of their predicament as a tiny, vulnerable, insignificant thing, hanging in space, with evident danger all around them. Of course this was the case long before they realized it. But the recognition of it is...shocking to say the least. I can understand people being resistant to that kind of realization. I even identify with it to a certain degree.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by fleabit
I think the eyewitness cases where there are many reliable witnesses is very valid.

If 30 people watch a guy walk over and shoot someone, would that be enough evidence to put them away? Almost certainly.

So if 30 people see something in the sky that they do not consider to be normal does this mean that it is extraterrestrial in nature?

Definitely not.

It means 30 people saw something that they did not fully understand.

There must be tens of thousands of witness reports of UFOs - is this the definitive evidence that extraterrestrials exist?

Not for me.

reply to post by skibtz


Nor for me, but that is only one strand of evidence among many.

Also, you have to consider if what they reported seeing was a simply a light or an object, it's size, it's speed, how it maneuvered etc. These details can lead to the likelihood in some cases that what was observed was a craft, intelligently controlled, and of a size and/or capability that would render the idea of it being man-made unlikely in the extreme if not impossible.

So it's all about what exactly was observed.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
Also, you have to consider if what they reported seeing was a simply a light or an object, it's size, it's speed, how it maneuvered etc. These details can lead to the likelihood in some cases that what was observed was a craft, intelligently controlled, and of a size and/or capability that would render the idea of it being man-made unlikely in the extreme if not impossible.

The object could quite definitely be technology that has been created by our governments.

Just because we do not know that our governments have this technology does not make it extraterrestrial. For me that is.

Witnessing an event as you describe above may be enough to convince some people. Again, that is cool. It depends where each individual wants to place the bar of belief.

I personally believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe because, statistically, it is far more difficult for me to believe otherwise.

However, when it comes to believing whether we have actually been visited?

Honestly, I just don't know and I have seen nothing yet that tells me that we have. Not for definite anyway.

What would it take for me to believe?

Mass sightings, landings and introductions.

Witness accounts, photos and videos will not do it for me. They are all open to fraud.

[edit on 27/3/2009 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz


So, if you saw a UFO that was clearly an intelligently controlled craft, there is no maneuver it could perform or capability it could display - no matter how strange or amazing - that would lead you to think that it could not possibly be man-made?

It could do anything, and you would still assume it was more likely to be man-made rather than the intelligent creation of a more advanced civilization?

Is there no cut off point at which you'd feel compelled to conclude "Damn! No man-made craft could do that!", even allowing for advanced black project craft?

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


My first logical response would be to try and associate it with something that I know.

I know for a fact there are governments with massive budgets and hidden technology.

I do not know for a fact that there are extraterrestrials visting this planet.

Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by Malcram

 

My first logical response would be to try and associate it with something that I know.

I know for a fact there are governments with massive budgets and hidden technology.

I do not know for a fact that there are extraterrestrials visting this planet.

I agree, me too. But that doesn't answer the question I asked.

What if you simply could not associate what you witnessed with man-made "hidden technology", even though it was clearly an intelligently controlled craft, because the nature of this technology and what it was capable of was so mind-boggling and shocking that, frankly, the idea that it was the product of a more advanced alien civilization made infinitely more sense than that a group of humans secretly had tech which was as far from that observed in society's most advanced tech as modern society is from the stone age?

I'm asking at what point this conclusion becomes unavoidable for you?


[edit on 27-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Logic dictates that I attribute any sighting to a man-made origin in the first instance.

I do not know what technology our governments have. For all I know they could have stuff that hyperjumps from A to B. It is more reasonable, in my mind, to make this assumption based on the fact that humans exist and use technology rather than attributing the technology to a race that I do not know exists to the extent that they are visiting our planet.

I know for a fact that mankind exists, designing and building flight technology.

I do not know for a fact that ETs are frequenting our atmosphere.

The conclusion as to the whether extraterrestrials exist and are visting us would be unavoidable when the craft lands and the pilot is revealed as extraterrestrial. However, this does not necessarily make the craft ET as it could be a government craft operated by an ET.

[edit on 27/3/2009 by skibtz]

Jesus H Christ on a bike. Is no one else fed up with the amount of 'sceptic vs believer' threads on this forum? Believe what you want to believe BUT STOP THE FECKING ''VS'' THREADS and instead spend your energy on researching the subject!!!

Thanks for listening.

reply to post by Hawkwind.


Wow. What a show.

Always loved Hawkwind.

Do you have anything to add to the OP?

I think we are actually having a good discussion as to what would it take for us to believe regardless of being a believer or skeptic.

[edit on 27/3/2009 by skibtz]

In the 1960's I saw a UFO that shone a green light through the roof and ceiling of a house. In the 1980's my husband told me that he had personally seen a nonhuman body part in cold storage on a military base.

So .. I'm pretty sure ETs have been here, and probably are here, and the US govt is covering up everything they know and everything they have, and I'm pretty sure that some of our technology burst of recent years has something to do with ET technology.

BUT

There are still plenty of people who've never seen a UFO, or only saw a distant moving light in the sky. And, although I haven't talked to him recently, I'm pretty sure that ex-hubby of mine has only been married to a couple of other women.

So I don't expect other people to believe, and I don't have any issues with people who aren't convinced by the evidence. What difference does it make, anyway? I know what I know and that's what really matters.

I don't really even have a problem with people who don't believe me, since I've heard some "personal experiences" that I didn't buy into.

So what's all the fuss about? I have my opinion, you have yours. Why do the "believers" have to keep getting all riled up about the skeptics and pseudoskeptics and bogus skeptics and debunkers? Why do you care so much whether they believe or not?

The mainstream scientific community's stance has always been to ridicule UFO investigation,

I've been looking into paranormal claims for about 17 years now and I can't seem to find many examples where scientists actively ridicule or intentionally make fun of UFO supporters.

The only viable case that springs to mind is when Stephen Hawking once referred to Ufologists as "cranks and weirdos," which I am taken a back by. But to my knowledge he has never been interested in UFOs or ETI, either.

saying it's too silly to consider studying and there is no evidence.

The majority have never really said it was "silly" per se, just that there was nothing substantial to invest the time, energy or money into. I can understand their position and more or less agree with them.

If we are talking about evidence per the scientific definition, then no, we don't have any.

The thing is - there is evidence.

Science requires evidence that can withstand thorough scrutiny, extensive analysis and various methods of double-blind testing. Essentially: facts and only facts.

Right now, we've got what basically amounts to nothing: Personal anecdotes, stories, hear-say, debunked photos/videos, hoaxes, unreliable RADAR/flight data, and a myriad of misidentified phenomena by untrained observers. (Obviously this is just a small number of examples.)

What do you consider proof?

Basically anything that can survive scientific rigor and extensive investigation. I don't need anything delivered to my door, a crashed flying saucer, or a living breathing ET either. I just need what meets the absolute 'minimum requirement' of proof.

It doesn't sound so hard to do, but apparently it's a VERY tall order.

Eyewitness accounts definitely aren't proof of anything, as not only can people lie, but more often, they report things honestly but falsely because memory is not reliable.

I agree. Memory, observational bias, lack of knowledge and their emotional disposition.

If a person adheres to a specific paranormal/supernatural belief system, all of these things are then magnified many times over.

However, eyewitness accounts are not the only evidence we've been visited.

Unfortunately, I have never encountered any. That doesn't mean it isn't out there - it just means I haven't run into it yet.

Doctors have removed mysterious implants from people before. Evidence.

This has been debunked some time ago I believe, and I rate somewhere on par with crop circles.

www.cicap.org...

Excluding natural/medical phenomena (such as subdermal calcium deposits, protein deposits, and even ingrown hairs) none of the real viable "implant" samples have been found to possess "materials that are not from this planet." As often the case, most of them "disappear" when their proponents are asked to produce them for independent analysis. The very, very few that have been removed from people's skin and managed to remain for independent analysis bear a very striking resemblance to ordinary slivers of glass or common metal or other unremarkable material lacking any internal structure, componentry, or discernible mechanism.

it's very possible that some of the good, NON-BLURRY pictures are totally real.

There's an equal or greater chance that they're not, as well. Even if some are, how do we prove that it is? And even once verified, we are then only dealing with the possibility of evidence, and not genuine evidence itself.

(continued below)

(from above)

Science just assumes they're fake because of Occam's Razor; that is, the very un-scientific assumption that they must be fake, because people easily could fake them.

Science doesn't assume anything. It observes data.

Occam's Razor is just one facet of critical thinking, and doesn't necessarily even play a role in scientific verification. The process is more or less governed by math more than it is by any sort of "rules of thought." It is about very hard data.

Any investigator who immediately dismisses the case out-of-hand isn't very much of an investigator to me. A scientist can't just say "no way" before even taking a look at what's handed to him for analysis. So, the people you are referring to don't sound very effective or scientific to me at all, either...

Many people dismiss the idea of a UFO cover up because they say, such a huge cover up would cause someone eventually to spill the beans, which they haven't.

To me it seems to be more along the lines of refusing to accept hear-say and second-hand narratives as evidence. And, let's be honest here, that's what most of these so-called "confidential disclosures" really are.

It's one person (sometimes connected with a few like-minded people) telling a very elaborate well-constructed story that may or may not be true. Sometimes, it's important to get others who share the same interest to assist in adding verisimilitude to their claims. It often works to convey believability but has never stood up to verification and fact checking.

Proof just doesn't work that way.

If I wanted to assist in providing a solid case for the existence of ETs visiting earth, I would start by avoiding anything that cannot be proven. This means second-hand stories are the first to go.

Wait a second. Many former military personnel have spilled the beans, it's just people don't believe them.

And how could you blame them?

It would take little short of the President of the United States admitting they were here to convince the public.

Not really. There are a number of ways to prove that UFOs are ET craft without the government's help. Most scientists work independently and are largely open to just about anything that pertains to whatever field they are in.

There are also numerous ways to avoid scientific bias from contaminating or fudging the results of their findings.

Nobody seems to really make much of an effort to prove UFOs are real, or just can't as there is no evidence that they exist. This is why the public and most people of importance really have no interest in them.

We have to have something to be interested in first.

Nice reply.


I still think scientists are biased though. Read Carl Sagan's writings, Philip Plait's writings, you'll see what I mean.

I do think science has faith in the mundane ...

Originally posted by LogicalResponse
Right now, we've got what basically amounts to nothing: Personal anecdotes, stories, hear-say, debunked photos/videos, hoaxes, unreliable RADAR/flight data, and a myriad of misidentified phenomena by untrained observers. (Obviously this is just a small number of examples.)

You missed out photos/videos that have resisted debunking and remain unexplained.

You missed out cases where unidentified phenomena have been seen by more than one trained observer from separate locations.

You also missed out cases where the phenomenon has been sighted by trained observers as well as confirmed by reliable ground radar.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your assessment that this amounts to nothing.

There is a flaw in logical argumentation called argumentum ad ignorantiam , or Argument from Ignorance. It is most commonly cited as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or, A cannot be true because there is no evidence for A (~A). In English, this means that you cannot claim that something is not true just because there is no evidence for its truth, or that an alternative explanation B must be true solely because there is no evidence for the truth of A.

This is what scientists who claim there is nothing going on are doing. It's wrong and logically flawed. You can't prove a negative.

(I was a freakin' Philosophy minor, so sorry for the boring logic lesson.)

However...

...it is also the case that it is fallacious to believe that because something hasn't been disproved that it must be true. It can be an open question, and it's still a possibility, but it is not indisputably true. More evidence is needed to draw that conclusion.


Science requires that: 1) exceptional claims require exceptional evidence; 2) results are repeatable; 3) follow accepetd laws of nature; 4), cannot be explained by any other phenomenon or evidence; and 5) be generally accepted by the wider scientific community through peer review journal publication. As noted, Occams Razor and it's "safety and caution rules!" tends to rule the day. This caution and incremental movement forward is actually a good thing in most cases. I don't think you want medical treatment that may be based on incomplete research and speculation. This also means that paranormal and extra-ordinary events such as UFO sightings are almost unprovable. What you have to work with are the cases with no known explanation, yet with no evidence for visitation. It would take something phenomenal and presented by a number of highly respected scientists to gain credibility -- Drs. Hynek and Mack didn't get much love on their own despite their impressive resumes, and Nobel laureate and statesman Jimmy Carter was made a laughingstock back in the 70's.

This is where you guys come in. Research, but to come from a place of skepticism makes both weeding through the hoaxes and explainable phenomenon to get the inexplicable and the "a ha!" easier, and makes any findings more credible. Credibility is key.

That said, there is an unofficial belief in the scientific community that there is life in the universe and intelligent life at that. SETI and the Kepler Project are the result of billions of dollars of investment and serious scientific interest and brainpower. The scientists at SETI keep a bottle of champagne on ice for a signal discovery, Dr. Jill Tater once said at a lecture I attended. They are looking out there. Earth visitation just isn't scientifically provable...yet. But that's where you guys come in.

"But there's no evidence!"

"No, but there's no alternative evidence or explanation for many cases, and until you can definitively explain every single case, to the exclusion of any other explanation, it's still an open question."

Also...

...you only need ONE genuine indisputable case to prove the phenomenon exists. Just one.



-- man i should go get some sleep, eh? too much freakin' coffee. You guys are a fun though I"ve been going through the threads and archives here and having a blast.



[edit on 28-3-2009 by bitch is the new black]

Originally posted by skibtz
reply to post by Malcram

 

Logic dictates that I attribute any sighting to a man-made origin in the first instance.

I agree, that would be my first impulse too. But clearly there comes a point when it becomes illogical to assume that such tech as was described is man made.

Let's look at a different example to illustrate this point; lets say you saw the semi-transparent but clearly defined shape of a man coming toward you, and you could see his features with crystal clarity. The man stoppped a foot away from you, smiled and said "good morning", and then walked right through you causing your body to buzz with an electric like shock. Would "logic dictate" that you just saw a man using secret tech, because, of course, "you know humans exist" and you know humans have "secret tech"? Or would this be extremely strained logic? Would there, in fact, be far more logical explanations than this despite them involving things that you have never experienced before (even if just vivid hallucination) or perhaps had no previous belief in? You get my point?

So too, there comes a point with some anomalous craft sightings that the the idea that they must be "man made" actually becomes illogical and strains credulity to breaking point and when other explanations must be considered as more logical.

You know the saying, Watson, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Heres the problem you want aliens to exist so when something extraordinary happend its your first instinct. This is no different then people that claim its a miracle see its must be god who did it. Truth is we have scientists doing some amazing things one for instance is a personal camouflage device that you happened to mention. metameterials for example will make things seem invisible there is no limit to what can be accomplished so saying we cant possibly do that it must be aliens just doesnt work.