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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
My brain tends to work on things when I'm not paying attention, and then all of a sudden .. Wham! The solution or theory or idea or question hits me.

Apparently it's been stewing on this nagging feeling I've had that there's something wrong with this picture, and finally today it hit me.

We don't build a hypothesis for something we don't know anything about by determining what it is not.

In other words, if we discover a new animal, we don't figure out what it is by going through endless lists of what it is not, we look at what it is similar to. For example, a new critter with eight legs, two fangs, and black fuzzy hair will quickly be determined to be some type of spider and then the exact "family" will be narrowed down by comparison to similar spiders.

For the ET hypothesis, it seems to generally start out with:

It's not a bird.
It's not a weather balloon.
It's not a plane or helicopter.
It's not a flare or chinese lantern.
It's not Venus or a star or a satellite....

and on we go, eliminating possibilities until someone says "there aren't any other possibilities left! It must be an alien spacecraft!"

On the one hand we have the saying that "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." So if we have determined that all of the "standard" or "normal" explanations are impossible, then the improbable - it's an alien spaceship - is what's left?

The problem is that we have no comparison for what an alien spaceship - or an alien - should be like except from FICTION - movies and books and so forth - which are basically someone's imagination. We have no guideline, blueprint, comparison, nothing. They don't even have to be carbon-based, much less humanoid. There could be crystalline life for all we know.

So here's my question: How are we making that leap from "it's not this or that or the other" to "it must be an alien spaceship" when we have nothing remotely similar to an alien spaceship to compare it to and make such an assessment?

It's as if someone from Hawaii who has never seen or heard of a snake (theoretical analogy here, yes I know that people in Hawaii know what snakes are) finds one and says "Well, it's not a lizard or a frog or a bird or an insect so .. it must be a snake!"
Where would they get that idea if they have no idea what a snake is? And, even in this case, they know what reptiles are and have something at least somewhat similar to compare this animal to and conclude that it is a reptile without legs. In the case of ETs, we have absolutely nothing to compare to or extrapolate from (except fiction).

In science and zoology, we don't define things by what they are NOT, we define them by what they are similar to. So, how are we making this leap?




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
For the ET hypothesis, it seems to generally start out with:

It's not a bird.
It's not a weather balloon.
It's not a plane or helicopter.
It's not a flare or chinese lantern.
It's not Venus or a star or a satellite....

and on we go, eliminating possibilities until someone says "there aren't any other possibilities left! It must be an alien spacecraft!"

On the one hand we have the saying that "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." So if we have determined that all of the "standard" or "normal" explanations are impossible, then the improbable - it's an alien spaceship - is what's left?

So here's my question: How are we making that leap from "it's not this or that or the other" to "it must be an alien spaceship" when we have nothing remotely similar to an alien spaceship to compare it to and make such an assessment?

In the case of ETs, we have absolutely nothing to compare to or extrapolate from (except fiction).

In science and zoology, we don't define things by what they are NOT, we define them by what they are similar to. So, how are we making this leap?


I think you answer your own question really. Because we don't have common knowledge of ET civilizations it is considered reasonable to reach that conclusion based on having first eliminated those things we do know of. Once we have done that, we have an X which is not reasonably explained by anything we already have experience of. So we must explain it by resorting to those things we can conceive of but have no common experience of. So why is the ET explanation the most logical at that point?



The problem is that we have no comparison for what an alien spaceship - or an alien - should be like except from FICTION - movies and books and so forth - which are basically someone's imagination. We have no guideline, blueprint, comparison, nothing...In the case of ETs, we have absolutely nothing to compare to or extrapolate from (except fiction).


We do. We have us. We know intelligent life exists on this planet. Therefore we know planets can harbour intelligent life. We know we have developed technology with which we can leave our planet. Therefore we know that intelligent life on other planets could develop technology to leave their planets. It is no great leap to realize that older civilizations will have developed greater technological abilities than younger ones. Reason tells us that some of the civilizations out there will be older and fully capable of reaching us.

Once we have eliminated those things we commonly know of as reasonable explanations, the ETH becomes the next most logical. It's not the only possible explanation, but it is the most logical and the one which requires the fewest 'leaps'.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


So you're saying (rephrase to make sure I'm understanding you correctly) that by pure logic, if we have eliminated all other possibilities, ETH is the most logical of the improbabilities because we can base the ETH on the example of ourselves as a sentient race which has been able to leave their planet (if not their solar system)?

How do we logically conclude that another race can do something we can't, i. e. leave our solar system?

How do we conclude that alien life will be "like us" in developing technology? Can we set ourselves up as a reasonable example based on a sample of only one? Why do we think that aliens, if they exist, might not have gone in a totally different direction instead of developing technology as we have?

Secondly, since several of the posters in this and other threads have admitted our lack of scientific knowledge, stating that our knowledge is not complete in many areas including physics, how do we know that we have, in fact, eliminated all other possibilities? How can we say that there might not be knowledge we don't have yet which would lead to a probable explanation for these anomalies without the ETH?



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Malcram
 


So you're saying (rephrase to make sure I'm understanding you correctly) that by pure logic, if we have eliminated all other possibilities, ETH is the most logical of the improbabilities because we can base the ETH on the example of ourselves as a sentient race which has been able to leave their planet (if not their solar system)?


Yes, although I wouldn't call it an "improbability" just unconventional at present. Convention is ever changing.


How do we logically conclude that another race can do something we can't, i. e. leave our solar system?


Because it's only a small matter of degree. We can leave our planet and we can send technology beyond our solar system. Yet, a little more than 100 years ago we were still primarily using horses as transport and heavily reliant on steam power. It's not only logical, it's highly likely, that many older ET civilizations are capable of traveling much, much greater distances than we are.



How do we conclude that alien life will be "like us" in developing technology? Can we set ourselves up as a reasonable example based on a sample of only one? Why do we think that aliens, if they exist, might not have gone in a totally different direction instead of developing technology as we have?


IMO, you are falling into the trap plato often referred to here and dealing in absolutes. I'm not saying all alien life will be like us in developing technology, or that some alien life will not have "gone in totally different direction". The point is that it is logical, and likely, that some ET life will have developed such tech and some will have gone in a similar direction to us. "Some" is all it takes. We are the proof that this is probable (although we're not the only evidence for this).


Secondly, since several of the posters in this and other threads have admitted our lack of scientific knowledge, stating that our knowledge is not complete in many areas including physics, how do we know that we have, in fact, eliminated all other possibilities? How can we say that there might not be knowledge we don't have yet which would lead to a probable explanation for these anomalies without the ETH?


Well, I specifically said that the ETH was not the only possible explanation, so we have not eliminated all other possibilities. But in terms of logic and likelihood, when conventional terrestrial explanations are eliminated, the ETH becomes the most logical and likely, based on what we already know. Then we see if the evidence we have for the phenomenon accords with he ETH explanation. And it does, very well.

That is not to say that there are not some phenomenon which both the conventional and the ETH do not explain. Some UFO's are probably conventional. Some UFO's are probably ET. Some UFO's are probably....other.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Incredibly well argued Malcram


Heike is just miffed that her favourie hypothesis cryptoterrestrial or extradimensional is not considered in a logical explanation.

Anyway to add to what Malcram said, but I cannot add much, because he said it all so eloquently.

Your argument on us not leaving the solar system, so therefore we shouldn't think aliens can do it either. Actually, we are due very soon to leave the solar system(at least in civilian space sector) and go to Alpha Centauri. Anyway, out scientific limitations cannot apply to ET. Simply because ET 's science is unobservable, so we have no idea just how advanced it is and what it has discovered. I said earlier to generalise our science to ET would be like generalising 18th century science to 21st century science. This is not a valid generalization.

As argued in many other threads earlier we simply cannot have a valid obection either to ET existing or ET visiting us. Therefore ETH has always been a part of our explanatory framework. Unfortunately, until time travel, extradimensional or cryptoterrestrial joins our explanatory framework, it will remain as a possibility only and on the fringes. Sorry about your pet hypothesis. Incidentally, I remember the supposed UFO experience you had, which actually had nothing at all to do with UFO's. Curious.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Thank you for answering my questions. More to chew on ...

In response to your last statement, I'm not sure I agree that the evidence fits the ETH. Or at least, some of it doesn't. As I've said before, some UFOs display puzzling characteristics (such as changing shape, size, and apparent density, merging together and splitting apart, appearing and disappearing suddenly, etc.) that we wouldn't "logically" expect from physical craft being piloted by physical beings which operate under the same laws of physics we do.

So then we must either "multiply quantities" by deciding that the different types of UFOs have different explanations, assume technology which is either so different from ours or so much more advanced that it seems more like magic, or consider that ETH doesn't account for some fairly common characteristics of UFOs.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Heike is just miffed that her favourie hypothesis cryptoterrestrial or extradimensional is not considered in a logical explanation.


Excuse me? I am not miffed. I am courteously and politely asking questions. Malcram has responded in kind; I'm slightly disappointed that you weren't able to.


I said earlier to generalise our science to ET would be like generalising 18th century science to 21st century science. This is not a valid generalization.


How can you arrive at this conclusion? Why have ETs necessarily been around longer than we have? Why is it any more or less logical that they are about the same "age" as we are, or even younger?


Sorry about your pet hypothesis. Incidentally, I remember the supposed UFO experience you had, which actually had nothing at all to do with UFO's. Curious.


Say WHAT? It was a classic rotating metallic flying double saucer except for the fact that it shone a green light down through the house, and it even sounded metallic when a bullet ricocheted off of it. How does that have "nothing at all to do with UFOs"??


In accordance with SO's "CTs need to have a spine" policy, I can't really take issue with you being patronizing and/or condescending. However, your claim that my UFO experience had nothing to do with UFOs requires justification, or else I request that you retract your statement. You have no right to dismiss my personal experience just because we disagree about the ETH.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

How can you arrive at this conclusion? Why have ETs necessarily been around longer than we have? Why is it any more or less logical that they are about the same "age" as we are, or even younger?


You are using an absolutist logic again. There will be some ET which are older than us and some ET which are younger us, just like some people are younger than others and some are older than others.


Say WHAT? It was a classic rotating metallic flying double saucer except for the fact that it shone a green light down through the house, and it even sounded metallic when a bullet ricocheted off of it. How does that have "nothing at all to do with UFOs"??


In accordance with SO's "CTs need to have a spine" policy, I can't really take issue with you being patronizing and/or condescending. However, your claim that my UFO experience had nothing to do with UFOs requires justification, or else I request that you retract your statement. You have no right to dismiss my personal experience just because we disagree about the ETH


I am referring to your encounter with the cookie-eating crytazoid extradimensional entity which you shared in a previous discussion with me on the subject of UFO and ET. So I am sure it is understandable why I would think this was the experience you were referring too. It sounds like that that experience was another experience and you also had a UFO experience, correct?

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


That was by way of explaining why I consider the reality of other dimensions and/or portals more likely than you do, since I can find no other explanation for that particular event. I never claimed that it had anything to do with UFOs, just with my willingness to believe in other dimensions or something similar.

I have mentioned my own UFO sighting several times, and it is easily found in my profile since I haven't authored many threads. The Green Light UFO

You know what I really don't understand?
I'm not a debunker. Not once have I accused a UFO of being Venus, swamp gas, a balloon, or a lantern. I am not a "skeptic," although I think it possible that some UFO sightings are human black ops. In fact, the only real disagreement between us is that you think ETH is the best, most likely explanation for UFOs and I think it is one among several theories which are equally probable. On such a minor difference (compared to those who think all UFO witnesses are crazy or that ETH isn't even a valid theory), you have developed a negative attitude towards me that I find quite amazing. I had heard that the scientific mind accepts and values questions, challenges and opportunities to explain and support its theories; apparently I heard wrong.

What I object to is not even the fact that you think ETH is a better, more probable, or more logical theory. I object to the fact that you can't seem to accept that not everyone thinks like you do or sees things the same as you, and you find it necessary to label and stereotype anyone who disagrees with your "pet theory." There are plenty of reasonable, open-minded, intelligent people who have done the research and examined the evidence and still don't think ETH is "da bomb," and most ETH believers don't find it necessary to consign them all to the ranks of the ignorant, dumb, "pseudoskeptical," or other derogatory labels. It is possible to disagree without deciding who is right or wrong. In this case we will not know who is right or wrong until the UFO mystery is solved, and even then we might both be right, or both be wrong!



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Malcram
 


In response to your last statement, I'm not sure I agree that the evidence fits the ETH. Or at least, some of it doesn't...


Hi Heike. This was already covered in the last paragraph of my posts above, where I said:



That is not to say that there are not some phenomenon which both the conventional and the ETH do not explain. Some UFO's are probably conventional. Some UFO's are probably ET. Some UFO's are probably....other.


And please, lets not blight the thread with another diverting emotion fuelled vendetta. Let just stick to debating the issues.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There is a difference between knowing and knowledge itself. How knowledge happens is a cognitive matter and is discussed in in other parts of Indian logic and in the psychology schools, such as Yoga.


Can you explain what the difference is between knowing and knowledge?

And do not waste time with the old 'how' knowledge works bit. I have explained already that is not what I am referring to.

To make it easy for you here is where I stand:

Where I quoted you in my previous post you were referring to 'knowing' - I equate knowing to knowledge. Not how knowledge works - that is another topic altogether.

I am also referring to the exact same context of 'knowledge' that you refer to in this quote:


I see, so you don't use perception to form knowledge of the world? You never make inferences? You never use analogy? You never use testimony?

How do you get any kind of knowledge then?



It's not just the case that it is an unknown craft. It is the case that it an unknown technology which negates our own laws of physics.


Incorrect my friend. It negates 'our' own 'known' laws of physics.

Our = the general population - not the whole

Known = that which is what we are 'allowed' to know

Allowed = that which is released by our governments

You need to understand that governments have their own scientists/departments and have done for decades, if not centuries.

Surely you are not arrogant enough to think that you have access to all there is to know. That would be incredible and where your whole argument would fall down.

You can only make a judgement on the the knowledge you yourself possess or have access to or have been allowed to have access to by our governments and that is fine. Just don't apply your answer to the rest of us.


Therefore it belongs to somebody with a different laws of physics.[sic]


Now do you see how flawed your logic is?


Sure, you can speculate that it experimental top-secret technology, but speculation does not establish anything, it is only an argument from possibility. In scientific logic we can only work with the observable universe.


So when you are speculating about ETH that is acceptable, when an opposing mind to yours speculates otherwise it goes out of the window?

Hmmm.


UFO's are the evidence that ET is visiting us.


Erm...deny ignorance right?

UFOs are evidence that there is something we do not understand because we do not have enough data to tranlsate to information that would allow us certain knowledge of what we are witnessing.

You are guessing it is ET.

I am stating with certain knowledge that I do not know what UFOs are.


In addition alien abduction cases are evidence as well. I do not treat this like a mystery, a mystery is only something one can't explain, but I can explain UFO's.


You can't explain UFOs any more than I can explain the meaning of life.

It's all a guessing game.

Educated guess? Maybe. But a guess nevertheless.


Nope, because ET is just a generalization from the particular of life on Earth. It is consistent with scientific logic which generalises from particular observables.



Nope still there is no quantity multplication. In fact there would be a quantity multiplcation if we insisted that Man's science is the same as ET's science. We cannot apply the limits of our observable science to ET's unobservable science. It would like be like 18th century scientists applying their science's limits on 21st century science.


Can you give me a very basic example of what you believe to be quantity multiplying please?

You see, I read this post you made and was drawing on the exact same principle:


Right, it is possible, but anything is possible. I am often criticsed for why I think the ETH is the only hypothesis to explain genuine UFO's, when it could be they are extradimensional or time-travellers or what not. It is because I am not multiplying quantities unnecessarily, before we can even admit the category of extradimensional beings and time-travellers we must first establish that there are other dimensional beings and time-travel exists. Else, we can use arguments from possibility to come up with any kind of possibility.


You see, I thought that adding ET in the mix, then adding the travelling aspect and we can now add a notive aspect would be utilising the exact same argument you put forward in the quote above.

One of problems is that you think it is common knowledge that ETs exists.

It is not.

Another problem is that you think it is common knowledge that ETs are visiting us.

It is not.

Another problem is that you have twisted and turned in this thread, and others, so much that you end up reworking all you have presiously said to the extent where everyone else is wrong because we, and not you, keep misunderstanding and lack the knowledge that would allow us to put forward an argument that counters that of yours.

The fact is that I do not need to be intelligent to know you are guessing. I just know you are. I am humble enough to admit that I do not know what UFOs are and I am certainly not arrogant enough to claim as fact that they are terrestrial either.

And how can you seriously claim to 'know' everything as there are no mysteries!

That being the case, what is the meaning of life?

If there is a division between sceptics and believers it is because individuals on either side are arrogant, condescending and ignorant.

I am happy to listen to all sides and keep a totally open mind - deny ignorance right?


[edit on 1/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

You know what I really don't understand?
I'm not a debunker. Not once have I accused a UFO of being Venus, swamp gas, a balloon, or a lantern. I am not a "skeptic," although I think it possible that some UFO sightings are human black ops. In fact, the only real disagreement between us is that you think ETH is the best, most likely explanation for UFOs and I think it is one among several theories which are equally probable. On such a minor difference (compared to those who think all UFO witnesses are crazy or that ETH isn't even a valid theory), you have developed a negative attitude towards me that I find quite amazing. I had heard that the scientific mind accepts and values questions, challenges and opportunities to explain and support its theories; apparently I heard wrong.


More emotional accusations. Is it just me, or is it that everytime I have a debate with you it always turns emotional on your side. I do not have a negative attitude towards you. I simply disagree with your insistence that the fringe alternate hypothesis that you put forward are logically equivalent to the ETH. The reason I make this stand, because by conflating ETH with every fringe hypothesis in existence, you are discrediting it.

Again you are using absolutist logic. You accuse me of not consideing any other hypothesis, only the ETH, while you are sensible to consider all. I never said that I only have one hypothesis. If you review our previous discussions I have only said that the ETH hypothesis can be applied to some UFO cases, and not all or even a majority of sightings. In most cases other valid hypothesis applies.


What I object to is not even the fact that you think ETH is a better, more probable, or more logical theory. I object to the fact that you can't seem to accept that not everyone thinks like you do or sees things the same as you, and you find it necessary to label and stereotype anyone who disagrees with your "pet theory." There are plenty of reasonable, open-minded, intelligent people who have done the research and examined the evidence and still don't think ETH is "da bomb," and most ETH believers don't find it necessary to consign them all to the ranks of the ignorant, dumb, "pseudoskeptical," or other derogatory labels. It is possible to disagree without deciding who is right or wrong. In this case we will not know who is right or wrong until the UFO mystery is solved, and even then we might both be right, or both be wrong!


Again a lot of emotional guilt tripping here. I am not telling people how to think, I am not dicating to them. I am simply presenting my position and arguing it in a logical manner. The UFO mystery is not a mystery for me because I can explain it. This is not about what is right and what is wrong, these are again emotional terms, it is about what is valid and what is invalid.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Can you explain what the difference is between knowing and knowledge?


I can't believe we are still having this discussion. I have clarified now multiple times that collecting knowledge and how knowledge actually happens are different matters. In the Indian logic system I am referring to, they are different matters. The latter is cognitive.

This is how the Indian logicians explain how knowledge happens. For an act of knowledge to take place there need to be three things: the knower, the instrument of knowing and the object of knowledge. The knower is the subjective centre or the soul, and it gathers information from the mind, which is the instrument of knowing. They arrive at this inference similar to how Kant arrives at the inference, that there must be a processing entity between subject and object that organsises the data received from the senses and arranges into a comprehensive whole. They go even further than Kant and state the mind is an atomic entity, it capable of only processing one datum of information at a time, and while it appears to be processing many things simultaneously, that is only an illusion similar to a fireband being spun which creates the illusion of a fire-circle(modern example: a television giving the illusion of continious motion) This is where the logical basis for meditation comes from, as the mind is an atomic entity, it follows t the mind can only be concentrated if its focusses on one object.

This is where Yoga takes over: the difference between the subject and object is only owing to mind which meditates between subject and object and constructs reality. So Yoga says that we must cease all the thought-waves in the mind to reach a state of null-mind, so that subject and object duality collapses and one attains true knowledge. To reach this state we must divest every object of any prejudices, preconceived ideas about it and only witness it as it is, this is known as a phenomenalogical reduction. In doing so we witness the object for what it really is, the object begins to reveal its layers to the observer. Yoga then explains the various eptismic levels at which both the subject and object exist. The final stage is omniscient knowing when it is realised that the field of knowledge and the knower of are fundamentally inseparable and one.

The knower of the field is the soul and the field of knowledge is all of empirical reality. This not only includes "objective" but "subjective" as well, as all are phenomena. The knower is transcendent to empirical reality, so it cannot be known by any means of conceptualization. There is only one way of knowing it and that is through the act of meditation.

Anyway this is super off-topic




Incorrect my friend. It negates 'our' own 'known' laws of physics.

Our = the general population - not the whole

Known = that which is what we are 'allowed' to know

Allowed = that which is released by our governments

You need to understand that governments have their own scientists/departments and have done for decades, if not centuries.

Surely you are not arrogant enough to think that you have access to all there is to know. That would be incredible and where your whole argument would fall down.

You can only make a judgement on the the knowledge you yourself possess or have access to or have been allowed to have access to by our governments and that is fine. Just don't apply your answer to the rest of us.


I think it is implied in "our laws of physics" that I meant known laws of physics. In fact I was going to include the word known in the original post, but decided not to. In any case, I have already revealed that I have considered the possibility of top-secret government technology, I have also said "for the record I do believe that many UFO's seen today are top-secret government technology" I think you need to start reading between the lines.

Here is what I am saying: It is possible that UFO's are top-secret government technology, but it is also possible they are not top-secret technology. So nothing is established from your argument from possibility fallacy. Let me add more: It is possible they are from underwater civilisations; it is possible they are from underground civilisations; it is possibe they are time travellers; it is possible they are robots designed by the Illumanti; it is possible they are a Hollywood special effects; it is possible they are holograms.


The kind of UFO's that are seen today were also seen 100 years ago. Indeed it is possible, even then there was top-secret technology

Alas, there are UFO sighitngs going back 200 years, still possible that it is top secret technology, right? Yes of course.

Sorry, but I am rightly calling this out as a fallacy. Now that we are done with the logic, let me tell you what I believe: I believe today many UFO's(especially the triangular ones) belong to the government, but these UFO's have been built from reverse-engineered ET UFO's. The development of anti-gravity technology is about 60 years old, and it will soon enter the mainstream. Then UFO's will be as common as aeroplanes. This does not change the fact that at least some of these UFO's will be ET.



Sure, you can speculate that it experimental top-secret technology, but speculation does not establish anything, it is only an argument from possibility. In scientific logic we can only work with the observable universe.


So when you are speculating about ETH that is acceptable, when an opposing mind to yours speculates otherwise it goes out of the window?

Hmmm.


So you do actually know that I did talk about the possibility of top-secret government technology, but just above you pretend I didn't. I am sensible enough to consider all hypothesis, and also sensible enough to dismiss hypothesis lacking in evidence. An argument from possibility establishes nothing. This is why it is a fallacy.


Erm...deny ignorance right?

UFOs are evidence that there is something we do not understand because we do not have enough data to tranlsate to information that would allow us certain knowledge of what we are witnessing.

You are guessing it is ET.

I am stating with certain knowledge that I do not know what UFOs are.


You have already kind of alluded above that you can only know when the government tells you


I have said before I do not have to depend upon government or physical proof to draw my conclusions. I was given a healthy mind by god, and I am using it to think critically and independently. I can explain UFO's, not just through speculation, but through logic and if my arguments are invalid, they will be demonstrated to be invalid, but that has not happened yet. All I've got are fallacious and emotional accusations such as

"How dare you, it is a mystery I tell you, a mystery!!!!"
"You are forcing us to think like you"

I am not falling for the obvious disinformation strategy of the government which simply capitalises on human ignorance to keep matters it cannot understand in the domain of "mystery" so that those matters do not interfere with the real world. Meanwhile, that same government will behind closed doors be dealing with all those maters. Parapsychology, quantum teleporation, antigravity, ZPE, interstellar travel, ET diplomacy, invisibility, parallel dimensions. You name it, the government is doing it.

I am not a child(though I'm an Indigo Child
) I don't need the government to be my parent, to tell me, "Oh no son it was a weather balloon" Just like children can see through their parents lies when they can think for themselves, likewise I can see through the government lies because I can think for myself.



You can't explain UFOs any more than I can explain the meaning of life.

It's all a guessing game.

Educated guess? Maybe. But a guess nevertheless.


Speak for yourself




One of problems is that you think it is common knowledge that ET exists.

It is not.

Another problem is that you think it is common knowledge that ET is visiting us.

It is not.


Strawmen fallacy. Please quote me where I said that I think, "it is common knowledge ET exists and is visiting us"


Another problem is that you have twisted and turned in this thread, and others, so much that you end up reworking all you have presiously said to the extent where everyone else is wrong because we, and not you, keep misunderstanding the things you say and lack the knowledge that would allow us to put forward an arguement that counters that of yours.


I have not waivered from my position at any point in this thread. In reviewing this thread it appears the one who is constantly misunderstanding things is you, how many times did you need clarification on the Indian logic issue? I personally think, and is evinced in this post as well, that you do not actually take the time to read what the other(in this case me) is saying and more often than not, you get it very wrong in the end. A bit of mental effort on your part will go a long way.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I think it is implied in "our laws of physics" that I meant known laws of physics.


You can't simply imply when having these debates. You need to fully clarify exactly what it is you are saying. What happens when you fail to do this is that people misunderstand you while also giving yourself a loophole latter in an argument to wiggle through. Something that I believe you have done several times in this post as demonstrated on your continued revision of what you actually meant by knowledge.

Initally you stated that perception, inference, analogy and testimony were the means to collect knowledge.

Then it changed to the means to collect data and that knowledge was achieved through other (unmention) processes.

And then you start splitting hairs as to which type of knowledge you were referring to, knowing 'that' or knowing 'how'.

The ATS member is a smart breed and they will have already made up their own minds


You seem to have a problem with accepting other people's opinions. Not very enlightened or Indigo Child-like IMO. You need to be more open minded and less confrontational IMO.

You referenced another poster here about emotional posting - well I do not see the bad in that. And it is also very interesting to note that for someone such as yourself who confesses to logic over emotion in this post, you actually had a post removed - was that for being too logical or maybe a little too emotional?

I am not here to win. I am not here to be right. I am not here to flex my mental muscles.

I am here to listen to open minds and deny ignorance.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 





OK, so we have that settled now? Witness testimony is valid as a form of evidence with regard to the UFO phenomenon and must be considered along with the rest of the evidence.


I'll say it again, eye witness testimony is valid but shouldn't be taken as gospel as the events described by the eye witness basically describe how he/she alone saw the event. Another witness may have seen the same event in an entirely different way. Also, the witnesses testimony will change over time! Unfortunately this is a huge problem when it comes to these witnesses who suddenly crawl out of the woodwork and make amazing claims about being in Roswell at the time of the UFO crash, or being in Rendlesham forest at the time of that event.
Also, remember the problem of perception. One witness may see a light crossing the sky as a simple light while another may unintentionally add details which really weren't there and will end up describing a classis flying saucer.
If you're really intent in taking every little detail a witness describes as being gospel you're going to get a tainted view of the real UFO problem. And if you go on to actually investigate UFOs and publish your findings you will inevitably come unstuck and leave yourself open to ridicule. I don't think someone with your passion for this subject would want to end up being the butt of debunking UFO researchers jibes and insults.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


more often than not, you get it very wrong in the end. A bit of mental effort on your part will go a long way.


Just listen to yourself. How do you think you come across when you talk like this?

Do you think you are helping the cause of ufology with this attitude?

Are you helping to enlighten people?

This talk just smacks of arrogance and ignorance IMO.

Shame really as you are probably an alright person in the real world


[edit on 1/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Heike is just miffed that her favourie hypothesis cryptoterrestrial or extradimensional is not considered in a logical explanation.


Cryptoterrestrials are just as logical. You have no logical basis for dismissing it. At all. It is just as logical for all the same reasons you believe extraterrestrials to be logical.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually, we are due very soon to leave the solar system(at least in civilian space sector) and go to Alpha Centauri.


Who is doing this?


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
As argued in many other threads earlier we simply cannot have a valid obection either to ET existing or ET visiting us.


And you are right, in principle. There is no reason to assume that extraterrestrials could not visit us. But no one is arguing against that. However, that is only in principle.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Therefore ETH has always been a part of our explanatory framework. Unfortunately, until time travel, extradimensional or cryptoterrestrial joins our explanatory framework, it will remain as a possibility only and on the fringes.


Cryptoterrestrials are every bit as much of our explanatory framework as extraterrestrials. You present no valid objection to why cryptoterrestrials cannot be part of our explanatory framework.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

You can't simply imply when having these debates. You need to fully clarify exactly what it is you are saying. What happens when you fail to do this is that people misunderstand you while also giving yourself a loophole latter in an argument to wiggle through. Something that I believe you have done several times in this post as demonstrated on your continued revision of what you actually meant by knowledge.

Initally you stated that perception, inference, analogy and testimony were the means to collect knowledge.

Then it changed to the means to collect data and that knowledge was achieved through other (unmention) processes.


I think in your case, considering the above, it would take infinite clarifications

I have reviewed my previous posts and I have noted two things which have constantly been retold to you:

1) Perception, inference, analogy and testimony are means to collect knowledge/data/information
2) The act of how knowledge happens is a different issue and is treated by other areas of Indian Logic and Indian Philosophy.

Now unless English is not your first language, you have no valid reason to feign ignorance over what was said to you. Besides you have already shown me that you do indeed misread what others(in this case me) tell you. Look at your strawman fallacy above: "You are saying that ET and ET visiting us is common knowledge"

I think you are just not humble enough to admit that you are misunderstanding things.



You seem to have a problem with accepting other people's opinions. Not very enlightened or Indigo Child-like IMO. You need to be more open minded and less confrontational IMO.

You referenced another poster here about emotional posting - well I do not see the bad in that. And it is also very interesting to note that for someone such as yourself who confesses to logic over emotion in this post, you actually had a post removed - was that for being too logical or maybe a little too emotional?


This is just rheortic, you clearly are running out of things to say. I had my post removed for calling somebody who cannot do a search on "Indian logic" lazy. There is nothing emotional there, I am merely calling a spade a spade and "somebody" took it emotionally and reported the post. I have had far worse things said to me in discussions before, and I have not seen their posts removed. I think your general attitude towards me is far more disrespectful than my attitude towards you. I have been open enough to share my knowledge with you, and explain things over and over again despite you not showing the slightest effort of your own, and all you've done is quibble.

Anyway you obviously have nothing else to add, so let's call it a day.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
"somebody" took it emotionally and reported the post. I have had far worse things said to me in discussions before, and I have not seen their posts removed.


Just to set the records straight here - I did not report that post.

You clearly believe that I reported that post and while you may feel that it was logical for you to do so, the fact is you were wrong.

This is quite important to the OP and our discussion as it demonstrates quite clearly how fallible your own logic is.

I expect your response will be to deny that the 'somebody' you refered to was me - aka the loophole. I also expect no apology for the mistake I believe you to have made.

That's ok though as I am just happy that you have experienced, firsthand, how you can be totally wrong about something.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
By the way just to support my points that the Indian logic issue on collecting knowledge vs. how knowledge happens was explained to you and clarified on many occasions. Here are some quotes, each quote is from a preceding post.


I can't believe we are still having this discussion. I have clarified now multiple times that collecting knowledge and how knowledge actually happens are different matters. In the Indian logic system I am referring to, they are different matters. The latter is cognitive.



I have already clarified many times above. Perception, inference, analogy and testimony are valid means of knowing, but they are not evidence in and of themselves, they need to be refined vigorously before you can have valid knowledge.



Again I think you misunderstood what I said. They are two philosophical problems: One is a scientific problem on what is the best method for collecting data and the other is epistemological, how does knowledge occur. The Indian logicians are concerned with the scientific problem on how data is collected. How knowledge happens is treated in another branch of Indian logic, which treats of epistemology. Particularly neo-Indian logic. Epistemology is treated more vigorously in the Yoga schools both Hindu and Buddhist.



Actually it is known, only how knowledge happens is not known. They are two different philosophical problems.

You did not know anything about Indian logic prior to me telling you about it, now you do. You have learned about something called 'Indian logic' through testimony.



It can clearly be seen above that in every post I clarified that how knowledge is collected(scientific problem) and how knowledge happens(epistemic problem) are different issues. I also clarifed the means of knowing does not equal valid knowledge, it is only after vigorous analysis and reasoning of collected data(via the means of knowing) that one can arrive at valid knowledge.

So there is no reason why you should not have understood and nor can you accuse me of being ambiguous or not clarifying for you. You either have misunderstood every single time or you have deliberately quibbled with me to be difficult. Not very respectable.

You also quibbled with me when I said “Indian logicians say…” asking me for chapter numbers, references etc When I asked you to do a search on Indian logic you quibbled with me on that I should be the one supporting my “claims” when I did not make any claims. I was informing you of actual established knowledge, which you could have found out yourself by doing a single search on google for "Indian logic"

You’ve just been very difficult deliberately and I should know better than to debate with you next time, because in the end everything you said in every post was only rhetoric and nothing else.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join