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

reply to post by Indigo_Child


What you actually state in this thread is this:

Perception, inference, analogy and testimony are the only means to collect knowledge/data - and they may not be needed at all!

This is wrong because the above would collect data only - and in no way shape or form collect knowledge.

Another mechanism would need to be used to translate data to information.

Another mechanism would need to be used to translate information to knowledge.

As soon as you stated the above I disagreed. I stated that I did not believe that this was the system that was responsible for my knowledge.

It is also important to add here that I did indeed offer other possibilities responsible for knowledge.

It may be the case that perception, inference, analogy and testimony are not part of the process of knowledge.

You threw in the mix the differences between different definitions of knowledge and this was totally irrelevant.

At no point in my original refusal of your initial claim, the claim that perception, inference, analogy and testimony were the only way to collect knowledge, di I refer to the differing definitions of knowledge. I was referring directly to your definition. So all your throwing around different defintions later actually contributed nothing to the thread and was probably a ruse to hide behind.

I do not believe your claim. It is as simple as that - regardless of your defintion of knowledge.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by skibtz]

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.

Hey. This sounds cool!

I thought we were having difficulties sharing toilets on the ISS yet in actual fact we are more Star Trek than I thought!

Is there a link for this please as it definitely sounds worthy of a follow-up

[edit on 1/4/2009 by skibtz]

Originally posted by skibtz
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 should serve as a parable for this discussion as a whole. Things that may seem logical in principle are not always correct in practice.

Please, in this very logical thread, let us keep our facts straight, Malcram. I was not the one who accused someone of being "miffed," alluded to their "pet" theory, or attempted to discredit their personal sighting. In short, it was not I who first brought emotion back to this thread.

Indigo, you say "emotional" as though it is a bad thing, and yet emotions are part of the human factor that has been responsible for many successes and discoveries. We are not computers or robots, and human instinct, intuition, determination, belief, and emotion are an integral part of all that we do.

However, if it is pure logic, reason, and science you want, so be it.

I am quite certain that, if you could feed all of the available UFO data, evidence, and investigation results into a supercomputer and ask for a conclusion, the computer would say "Insufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion." That is pure logic.

A significant majority of UFO evidence is eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness testimony has little scientific validity.

In the legal system, during a trial, eyewitness testimony is generally considered valid dependent upon the perceived reliability of the witness and supporting evidence. Why? Because a conclusion must be arrived at. Justice and a person's future are at stake, and we must have an answer.

I can easily demonstrate that eyewitness testimony is not considered as valid evidence in the scientific arena; science has different standards for "evidence" than the court system does - the goals are different.

There is expert eyewitness testimony to the continued existence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Is it sufficient for the scientific community to agree that the bird is not extinct? No.
There was eyewitness testimony to the existence of the giant squid. Was it sufficient? No. Its existence was not considered to be confirmed until a specimen was procured.
There is a considerable body of evidence, but primarily eyewitness testimony, for the existence of Sasquatch. Is it sufficient? No. Science demands evidence which can be analyzed and tested.

Please, do not now enter the old plea of "we don't have to believe in Bigfoot in order to believe in UFOs." That is not what I am suggesting. I am using (crypto)zoology as an example of the standards required for scientific evidence. And no, cryptozoology is NOT pseudoscience. Cryptozoology is the study of hidden or unknown animals, and is as much science as zoology itself. The more controversial and sensational aspects of cryptozoology - such as Sasquatch and Nessie - are often used in an attempt to discredit it, but the facts are that the coelacanth, the giant squid, the golden-mantled tree kangaroo, the pink dolphin of Lake Calcasieu, and the okapi were once unknown animals, and therefore cryptids. Zoology, biology, and cryptozoology have the same scientific standards for evidence - and eyewitness testimony is not sufficient.

Now for the question of dark matter, parallel universes, and other scientific theories of things which no one has ever seen. Firstly, these theories and hypotheses are the result of measured and documented observations of controlled experiments which can be duplicated. There is no comparison between a hypothesis which is extrapolated from the results of controlled experiments (which can be independently duplicated and verified) and the completely uncontrollable phenomenon of UFOs.

Scientific definitions: (from here)

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations

Facts are indisputable observations. Theories and hypotheses are supported by facts, experiments, and testing.

Eyewitness testimony is not indisputable. Eyewitness accounts are not facts. A theory can not be accepted based on eyewitness testimony. Every day people experience things which are real to them but are not objectively real. Scientists know that our human senses are fallible and can not be trusted to provide scientific evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is valid in court, but not in science.

The same logical argument can be gone through for videos, photos, and trace evidence. A photograph or video of an unknown animal does not prove its existence - a specimen is required.

As a scientific hypothesis, ETH is one of several which adequately explain UFOs.

As a theory, ETH fails for lack of evidence, and although it can not be proven, it is partially disproven every time a UFO is identified as a normal object or a military project.

What are UFOs? There is insufficient evidence to arrive at a scientific, logical theory, and scientifically speaking there is little or no evidence to support the ET hypothesis.

That is logic and science, and only your human emotional desires, wants, and beliefs are leading you to a different result.

(Edit to correct external tags.)


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Heike]

Without adding to the intellectual mud in this thread, I just dont see how any rational person could flippantly "skip" a more probable explanation (unknown human/terran craft/tech) for a far more improbable/unverifiable explantion (unknown ET craft/tech) to explain any UFO cases.

Like has been said before, to quantifiably erase any and all possibility of these phenomena being human instead of ET visitation a person would have to have explicit full knowledge of what exists on Earth to claim this with any veracity (cant be done). Saying this doesnt invalidate the ETH but it makes it much more improbable.

This type of thinking comes across as a person who wants to negate without cause a higher potential/probable explanation simply for the purposes of adding a sense of weight to a pet hypothesis. It smacks of personal belief, not adding knowledge for a general consensus.

I simply leave UFOs at what they are, unknowns. Until I see one of these "unknowns" sitting on a runway or aircraft carrier with people boarding them, I dont know what they are. Until some "official" name or purpose is given them that is agreed upon by the vast majority of people on the planet, they remain unidentified no matter how much stinking life is in the universe.

Yeah, I have my own hypotheses but hypotheses are like opinions and opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one, one is not any better than the other. They all do the same thing, allow us to find a way to personally organize the fantastical and the unimaginable into some semblance of coherant thought so we can appear to know what we are talking about when confronted by like/unlike minded people on a internet forum.

I wish I could scan me arse and post it here without bringing down the wrath of moderation because this thread needs some lightness to it....it stinks of indignation and self righteousness.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Lost_Mind]

Indigo, you say "emotional" as though it is a bad thing, and yet emotions are part of the human factor that has been responsible for many successes and discoveries. We are not computers or robots, and human instinct, intuition, determination, belief, and emotion are an integral part of all that we do.

Pointless rheotric. I never said anything against emotions, but I woud rather they're kept locked away in a logical discussion. Vulcan standards applly

I am quite certain that, if you could feed all of the available UFO data, evidence, and investigation results into a supercomputer and ask for a conclusion, the computer would say "Insufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion." That is pure logic.

It depends on what you program the computer with. It could also say, "Unidentified flying object" It could also say "Unknown technology"

In the legal system, during a trial, eyewitness testimony is generally considered valid dependent upon the perceived reliability of the witness and supporting evidence. Why? Because a conclusion must be arrived at. Justice and a person's future are at stake, and we must have an answer.

I can easily demonstrate that eyewitness testimony is not considered as valid evidence in the scientific arena; science has different standards for "evidence" than the court system does - the goals are different.

Actually there is testimony involved in scientific arena as well. Your scientist has to testify that they did the experiment, how they did it and what were their results. Then a peer-group has to testify that they have replicated or not replicated the scientists results. So there is definitely testimony involved.

There is expert eyewitness testimony to the continued existence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Is it sufficient for the scientific community to agree that the bird is not extinct? No.
There was eyewitness testimony to the existence of the giant squid. Was it sufficient? No. Its existence was not considered to be confirmed until a specimen was procured.
There is a considerable body of evidence, but primarily eyewitness testimony, for the existence of Sasquatch. Is it sufficient? No. Science demands evidence which can be analyzed and tested.

Nobody ever said that UFO's should be subject to only a particular scientific methods. There is all kinds of evidence available: eye-witness testimony, physical evidence, EMF evidence, radar evidence, photographic and video evidence, ancedotal evidence et. This evidence has to be analysed.

Testiomonial evidence can be analysed by using both quanitative and qualitative analysis. Quantiative analysis can produce statistics on how many people have seen a UFO of a certain description and the demographics of these people. A qualitative analysis can be used to gauge the credibility of the witnesses.

Evey bit of evidence will demand a different kind of analysis. Physical analysis is just one of many kinds of analysis.

Please, do not now enter the old plea of "we don't have to believe in Bigfoot in order to believe in UFOs." That is not what I am suggesting. I am using (crypto)zoology as an example of the standards required for scientific evidence. And no, cryptozoology is NOT pseudoscience. Cryptozoology is the study of hidden or unknown animals, and is as much science as zoology itself. The more controversial and sensational aspects of cryptozoology - such as Sasquatch and Nessie - are often used in an attempt to discredit it, but the facts are that the coelacanth, the giant squid, the golden-mantled tree kangaroo, the pink dolphin of Lake Calcasieu, and the okapi were once unknown animals, and therefore cryptids. Zoology, biology, and cryptozoology have the same scientific standards for evidence - and eyewitness testimony is not sufficient.

I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with you equating the existence of advanced incognito terestrial underground civilisations which fly ufos. A pink dolphin and an en entire technological civilisation hiding underground are as different as chalk and cheese.

Now for the question of dark matter, parallel universes, and other scientific theories of things which no one has ever seen. Firstly, these theories and hypotheses are the result of measured and documented observations of controlled experiments which can be duplicated. There is no comparison between a hypothesis which is extrapolated from the results of controlled experiments (which can be independently duplicated and verified) and the completely uncontrollable phenomenon of UFOs.

The existence of dark matter and parallel universes are purely theoretical.

What you just recounted to me is not science but scientific dogma - pseudoscience even. A theory or hypothesis is not ever proven, no matter how many experiments you do to duplicate results. The experiment makes no difference because it cannot prove a hypothesis. A hypothesis is "hypothetical" it is made up.

Facts are indisputable observations. Theories and hypotheses are supported by facts, experiments, and testing.

Right, but like I said no matter how much you support a theory or hypothesis you do not prove it. You can do infinite experiments and get infinite dupliations, but it's still not proven. So the amount of testing or experiments doesn't make an iota of a difference.

Eyewitness testimony is not indisputable. Eyewitness accounts are not facts. A theory can not be accepted based on eyewitness testimony. Every day people experience things which are real to them but are not objectively real. Scientists know that our human senses are fallible and can not be trusted to provide scientific evidence.

You contradict yourself in the end. If human senses are fallible, then in the end it is a human who interprets the data, that means science is falliable too.

Theres your absolutist logic again, "eyewitness testimony is not indisputable", who said it was?

As a scientific hypothesis, ETH is one of several which adequately explain UFOs.

As a theory, ETH fails for lack of evidence, and although it can not be proven, it is partially disproven every time a UFO is identified as a normal object or a military project.

That argument is absurd. ETH is not disprove, even partially everytime a UFO is identified, because ETH only applies to genuine unexplained UFO's, not ones that can be explained.

You have already conceded to me in the past that there genuinely unexplained UFO's.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I never said anything against emotions,

Yes, you did:
originally posted by Indigo_Child

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.

So there is definitely testimony involved.

Yes. However, eyetwitness testimony consisting of "yes, I saw it and it didn't look like ....." is not acceptable as scientific evidence.

There is all kinds of evidence available: eye-witness testimony, physical evidence, EMF evidence, radar evidence, photographic and video evidence, ancedotal evidence et. This evidence has to be analysed.

The evidence has been analyzed, and found lacking. What phsyical evidence? In other posts you have said that the request for phsyical evidence is unreasonable, and now you say there is physical evidence. Which is it, and where is it?

I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with you equating the existence of advanced incognito terestrial underground civilisations which fly ufos.

I have not done so. The "Hollow Earth" hypothesis does exist, but it isn't one of my favorites.

A pink dolphin and an en entire technological civilisation hiding underground are as different as chalk and cheese.

Of course. How did this comparison come about? I merely pointed out that the pink dolphin is a valid, scientific discovery of cryptozoology. How did underground civilizations get into it?

The existence of dark matter and parallel universes are purely theoretical.

Yes, they are. Which is why it always puzzles me when you and your allies use their postulated theoretical existence as some kind of reason why we should believe in the ETH.

What you just recounted to me is not science but scientific dogma - pseudoscience even. A theory or hypothesis is not ever proven, no matter how many experiments you do to duplicate results. The experiment makes no difference because it cannot prove a hypothesis. A hypothesis is "hypothetical" it is made up.

No, that's exactly what I said. A hypothesis or theory can not be proven, only disproven. However, the evidence obtained by repeatedly performing experiments and getting the same result is the evidence which supports a hypothesis or theory and brings it closer to acceptance. I did not recount any dogma or pseudoscience.

Right, but like I said no matter how much you support a theory or hypothesis you do not prove it. You can do infinite experiments and get infinite dupliations, but it's still not proven. So the amount of testing or experiments doesn't make an iota of a difference.

Certainly it does.

if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

(same source)

The accumulation of evidence is what is used to support a hypothesis. How does one accumulate this evidence, if not by testing, experiments, and data from observations?

You contradict yourself in the end. If human senses are fallible, then in the end it is a human who interprets the data, that means science is falliable too.

Of course science is fallible. You have stated this yourself in your posts about how new information disproves old theories and then new theories must be created. That has no bearing on the fact that unsupported eyewitness testimony is not good scientific evidence.

Theres your absolutist logic again, "eyewitness testimony is not indisputable", who said it was?

You have continually stated that eyewitness testimony must be accepted as evidence for the ETH. I have been explaining to you why eyewitness testimony is not valid scientific evidence. Do I need to quote your statements about this, or can you find them yourself?

That argument is absurd. ETH is not disprove, even partially everytime a UFO is identified, because ETH only applies to genuine unexplained UFO's, not ones that can be explained.

Who defines which UFOs are "genuinely" unexplained? Many people have claimed that the Roswell crash was an ET craft, so they have used the ETH to explain that incident. Now it is said that the Roswell Crash was Project Mogul. If this is true, that disproves the Roswell Crash being an ET craft, and therefore disproves that usage or incidence of the ETH. (Now don't start with a whole bunch of stuff about the Roswell coverup or Mogul - I just used that as an example to show you how a sighting becoming explained can negatively impact the ETH).

Readers, please note that THIS statement was left unchallenged:

As a scientific hypothesis, ETH is one of several which adequately explain UFOs.

As you understand it, but that is not saying much....

Oooh! Personal insult! What happened to pure logic and reason? My old pal Spock wouldn't have said that.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

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

Wait a second. Many former military personnel have spilled the beans, it's just people don't believe them. It would take little short of the President of the United States admitting they were here to convince the public.

Funny thing ... .

On the evening of 3/27 I had this idea pop into my head "from out of the blue":

UFOs + NWO + Disclosure + 2012 = =Alien Contact!

Coincidence?

I don't know, but I started outlining how this might work, and on the 28th, I posted this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, I don't know if there's substance to any of the 'factors' in the equation, but it is EXACTLY what the "Tina" story is all about, isn't it?


jw

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
As you understand it, but that is not saying much....

What on earth wrong with you? Seriously?

Why do you insist on resorting to personal attacks time and time again?

Also, please provide a link/source for the following that you cited as fact in this thread:

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

This is quite possibly the biggest news item to hit ATS today!

reply to post by skibtz


Right, and this is not a personal attack: "That is logic and science, and only your human emotional desires, wants, and beliefs are leading you to a different result. "

Somehow I think you only look at one side.

Regarding the Alpha Centuari comment, that was based on something I read a while ago. I think it turns out that this has gone on the backburner.
Besides I genuinely believe that we are already doing intestellar travel

Originally posted by Heike

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I never said anything against emotions,

Yes, you did:
originally posted by Indigo_Child

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.

Nope, I said nothing against emotions. I said something against emotional accusations and over-emotionalization by yourself in this thread. I never said, "we are a robot, with no intuition or feeling" which is what you accused me off.

Yes. However, eyetwitness testimony consisting of "yes, I saw it and it didn't look like ....." is not acceptable as scientific evidence.

Then you just contradicted what you said earlier that there is absolutely no testimony in the scientific arena. Refuted.

The evidence has been analyzed, and found lacking. What phsyical evidence? In other posts you have said that the request for phsyical evidence is unreasonable, and now you say there is physical evidence. Which is it, and where is it?

Speak for you. Many people, including scientists have investigated this evidence and found it to be compelling, if not for some conclusive. Besides weren't you the one that admitted to me that Battle of LA case was a genuine unexplained UFO?

Of course. How did this comparison come about? I merely pointed out that the pink dolphin is a valid, scientific discovery of cryptozoology. How did underground civilizations get into it?

I think you are backtracking now You brought up the CH as one that is logically equivalent with the ETH, and then gave examples of pink dolphins to support the CH, which had nothing to do with what you were originally arguing UFO's from CH.

In any case glad you agree your example was invalid.

Yes, they are. Which is why it always puzzles me when you and your allies use their postulated theoretical existence as some kind of reason why we should believe in the ETH.

Then you are contradicting what you said earlier, when you said they were the results of contolled experiments. Refuted.

No, that's exactly what I said. A hypothesis or theory can not be proven, only disproven. However, the evidence obtained by repeatedly performing experiments and getting the same result is the evidence which supports a hypothesis or theory and brings it closer to acceptance. I did not recount any dogma or pseudoscience.

It does not bring any closer to acceptance, because as soon as it it closer to getting accepted, it gets falisified. So basically what you said betrayed a lack of knowledge of science.

if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

(same source)

The accumulation of evidence is what is used to support a hypothesis. How does one accumulate this evidence, if not by testing, experiments, and data from observations?

Accepted here only means within a scientific community. It's got nothing to do do with science, more to do with politics. There are some experiments which cannot be repeated such as those in parapsychology, but that does not mean they are invalid, they are just not reliable.

Validity: Pertaining to the truth of something
Reliability: Can it be replicated?

Just because something is unreliable does not make it invalid.

Of course science is fallible. You have stated this yourself in your posts about how new information disproves old theories and then new theories must be created. That has no bearing on the fact that unsupported eyewitness testimony is not good scientific evidence.

You're contradicting yourself again. You were saying that human senses are fallible, which is why we cannot trust witness testimony and then made a case for why science is thus a better. Now you are saying science is fallible as well, so therefore it too cannot be trusted, so it isn't any better. Refuted.

You have continually stated that eyewitness testimony must be accepted as evidence for the ETH. I have been explaining to you why eyewitness testimony is not valid scientific evidence. Do I need to quote your statements about this, or can you find them yourself?

Nope, I never said why eye witness testimony should be accepted as evidence for the ETH. I said that witness testimony is a valid form of evidence thats all.

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself again by the way. Did you not just say, "science is fallible" and now suddenly you're talking about why testimony is not valid scientific evidence, as if scientific evidence is infallible.

Who defines which UFOs are "genuinely" unexplained? Many people have claimed that the Roswell crash was an ET craft, so they have used the ETH to explain that incident. Now it is said that the Roswell Crash was Project Mogul. If this is true, that disproves the Roswell Crash being an ET craft, and therefore disproves that usage or incidence of the ETH. (Now don't start with a whole bunch of stuff about the Roswell coverup or Mogul - I just used that as an example to show you how a sighting becoming explained can negatively impact the ETH).

Then your're backtracking again on your own admission that the LA UFO case was genuinely unexplainable. Refuted.


I do not get the impression you understand what you are debating, particuarly science. You keep shifting your position, contradicting yourself, which seems to suggest that you do not actually have a consistent position or argument.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by skibtz


My guess is she's either talking about Project Longshot, or this.

Either way, it's hardly a certainty.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by skibtz

 

Right, and this is not a personal attack: "That is logic and science, and only your human emotional desires, wants, and beliefs are leading you to a different result. "

No, that is not a personal attack. That is a comment that goes back to the original reason for my "taking you on" in the first place. You repeatedly express a desire to use only logic, reason, and scientific standards or methods, have stated that you would like to leave emotions out of it, and object to my getting "emotional."

That comment was an oblique way of pointing out that, if you leave emotion and similar human factors completely out of it, you would not be here defending the ETH, especially as it is not yet defensible by pure logic. You claim to want pure logic but you yourself are not operating on pure logic, you are operating within the same human framework of emotion, instinct, intuition, belief, comfort, and desire that the rest of us do. Or is accusing you of being human now a personal attack?


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Heike]

You're derailing this thread with all this pointless rhetoric, guilt tripping and emotional accusations. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by skibtz

 

My guess is she's either talking about Project Longshot, or this.

Ahh. I thought it was referring to man leaving the solar system - not some more space junk that takes 25+ years to get somewhere

Cool - cheers for clearing that up

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Then you just contradicted what you said earlier that there is absolutely no testimony in the scientific arena. Refuted.

No, that is not what I said. I said that eyewitness testimony is insufficient evidence to scientifically validate the existence of anything. Not refuted.

Please try to stick to what I actually said when refuting me. It would make this much easier.

Speak for you. Many people, including scientists have investigated this evidence and found it to be compelling, if not for some conclusive. Besides weren't you the one that admitted to me that Battle of LA case was a genuine unexplained UFO?

It is a simple question. Why do you avoid answering? What physical evidence? I have never seen any claims of real physical evidence.
What does the Battle of LA case have to do with anything? There certainly is no physical evidence for that case.

I think you are backtracking now

You brought up the CH as one that is logically equivalent with the ETH, and then gave examples of pink dolphins to support the CH, which had nothing to do with what you were originally arguing UFO's from CH.

No, I am not backtracking. I brought up the point that the standards for evidence are the same for all sciences. Then I used the pink dolphin and a couple of other examples to support my representation of cryptozoology as a science. Which only supports my original statement that eyewitness testimony is not sufficient evidence for the scientific community to accept the existence of anything. Am I confusing you by constructing my logic so methodically?

In any case glad you agree your example was invalid.

I did not use it as an example. It is quite valid for what I used it for.

Then you are contradicting what you said earlier, when you said they were the results of contolled experiments. Refuted.

NO. I said:

Now for the question of dark matter, parallel universes, and other scientific theories of things which no one has ever seen. Firstly, these theories and hypotheses are the result of measured and documented observations of controlled experiments which can be duplicated. There is no comparison between a hypothesis which is extrapolated from the results of controlled experiments (which can be independently duplicated and verified) and the completely uncontrollable phenomenon of UFOs.

I said they are the result of measured and documented observations of experiments. Two different things. Can you understand that this time, or do I need to re-word it for you somehow?

It does not bring any closer to acceptance, because as soon as it it closer to getting accepted, it gets falisified. So basically what you said betrayed a lack of knowledge of science.

You are quite wrong. Science has many accepted theories which are supported by a great deal of evidence and have not been falsified. A hypothesis must be supported by evidence to become an accepted theory.

Accepted here only means within a scientific community.

The scientific community is specifically what we are addressing. My point stands.

Just because something is unreliable does not make it invalid.

If something is unreliable, we don't use it. An unreliable hypothesis, or an unreliable theory, would not likely be accepted.

You're contradicting yourself again. You were saying that human senses are fallible, which is why we cannot trust witness testimony and then made a case for why science is thus a better. Now you are saying science is fallible as well, so therefore it too cannot be trusted, so it isn't any better. Refuted.

NO. Where exactly are you going? I never said science is better. I said that witness testimony is not valid as scientific evidence because it is - to steal a word from you - unreliable. Observed scientific data which can be independently verified by other observers is not perfect, but it is better. Even in science, this is not a black-white, either-or, binary world. There are shades of gray, and levels of "fallible."

Nope, I never said why eye witness testimony should be accepted as evidence for the ETH. I said that witness testimony is a valid form of evidence thats all.

Oh my! I don't have time right now as I need to leave here, but I will be looking this up. You have said over and over again that we need to accept witness testimony as evidence for the ETH.

Then your're backtracking again on your own admission that the LA UFO case was genuinely unexplainable. Refuted.

No, and no, and NO! Not refuted. One, my opinion of the LA UFO case means nothing. We are discussing logic now, not opinions. Two, what does the Battle of LA case have to do with Roswell? ("nothing" is the correct answer, by the way) Three, I did not say that the LA case supports the ETH, I said I don't have an explanation for it.

I do not get the impression you understand what you are debating, particuarly science. You keep shifting your position, contradicting yourself, which seems to suggest that you do not actually have a consistent position or argument.

Actually, I am being VERY consistent and saying the exact same things over and over again. It is you who keep claiming that I am contradicting myself or backtracking when I am not. This tactic may intimidate or confuse others; it will not work on me.

Please stick to refuting what I actually said, and please stop accusing me of contradicting myself because you (deliberately or otherwise) have misinterpreted what I said.

Edited to add:

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You're derailing this thread with all this pointless rhetoric, guilt tripping and emotional accusations. Please stick to the topic at hand.

I was. Until you told someone else that I was personally attacking you because you couldn't understand an admittedly subtle point.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Heike]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Heike]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by skibtz

I didn't think that was a personal attack by Heike to be honest.

I wouldn't normally have said anything but you seem like a bright person who makes a valuable contribution to ATS - it would be a shame if people remembered you for the wrong reasons.

Besides I genuinely believe that we are already doing intestellar travel

I would but I wouldn't be surprised if we were doing interstellar travel - if you know what I mean

No, that is not what I said. I said that eyewitness testimony is insufficient evidence to scientifically validate the existence of anything. Not refuted.

Did you:

I can easily demonstrate that eyewitness testimony is not considered as valid evidence in the scientific arena; science has different standards for "evidence" than the court system does - the goals are different.

Then later you say there is testimony in science. You are contradicting yourself. Refuted. Again.

Speak for you. Many people, including scientists have investigated this evidence and found it to be compelling, if not for some conclusive. Besides weren't you the one that admitted to me that Battle of LA case was a genuine unexplained UFO?

It is a simple question. Why do you avoid answering? What physical evidence? I have never seen any claims of real physical evidence.
What does the Battle of LA case have to do with anything? There certainly is no physical evidence for that case.

Strawman fallacy. I have not mentioned physical evidence, but evidence, which includes all kinds of evidence.

No, I am not backtracking. I brought up the point that the standards for evidence are the same for all sciences. Then I used the pink dolphin and a couple of other examples to support my representation of cryptozoology as a science. Which only supports my original statement that eyewitness testimony is not sufficient evidence for the scientific community to accept the existence of anything. Am I confusing you by constructing my logic so methodically?

Backtracking and another strawman. We were earlier discussing ETH vs CH, then following that you bring up scientific evidence for cryptozooly to highlight that ETH has no evidence. It's rather clear what you are doing. Anyway as your example was invalid, it did nothing to support your CH for UFO's.

NO. I said:

Now for the question of dark matter, parallel universes, and other scientific theories of things which no one has ever seen. Firstly, these theories and hypotheses are the result of measured and documented observations of controlled experiments which can be duplicated. There is no comparison between a hypothesis which is extrapolated from the results of controlled experiments (which can be independently duplicated and verified) and the completely uncontrollable phenomenon of UFOs.

I said they are the result of measured and documented observations of experiments. Two different things. Can you understand that this time, or do I need to re-word it for you somehow?

Dark matter and parallel dimensions are not the results of measured and documented experiments, but theories used to explain observations. They are purely theoretical, and no scientist has yet claimed they have been empirically demonstrated.

In any case I don't see how that is different from coming up with the ETH to explain UFO's(which have also been measured and documented) You seem to suggest dark matter and parallel dimensions are more valid than ETH, while using the same argument that you using to invalidate ETH

Your arguments are just constant contradictions.

You are quite wrong. Science has many accepted theories which are supported by a great deal of evidence and have not been falsified. A hypothesis must be supported by evidence to become an accepted theory.

In fact entire paradigms have been falsified. Classical physics was falsified by GR, GR was falsified by QM, and theoretical physics is trying to falisify QM. As you are not aware of the cutting edge of physics, you have no idea just how many falsifications and how many revisions a current theory goes through. In any case, no matter how much evidence supports a theory, it is never proven. So your argument is moot.

It makes no difference whether a theory is accepted or rejected to the validity of that theory.

The scientific community is specifically what we are addressing. My point stands.

Nope, I don't give a damn what the scientific community thinks. So to appeal to them to support your theory is an appeal to authority fallacy.

If something is unreliable, we don't use it. An unreliable hypothesis, or an unreliable theory, would not likely be accepted.

Strawman fallacy. I said that just because something is unreliable it is not valid, I did not say anything about using an unreliable theory. Your argument that we do not use unreliable theories is naive. We are using unreliable theories all the time such as psychoanalysis in Psychology, qualitative data methodologies in Media and culture studies, such as interviews and focus groups. They are all unreliable, but have a high level of validity. Parapsychology is another field which is is very low in reliability.

NO. Where exactly are you going? I never said science is better. I said that witness testimony is not valid as scientific evidence because it is - to steal a word from you - unreliable. Observed scientific data which can be independently verified by other observers is not perfect, but it is better. Even in science, this is not a black-white, either-or, binary world. There are shades of gray, and levels of "fallible."

Right, and likewise even in testimony there are shades of grey. So in the end testimony is a valid means of evidence, but it requires refining. Just as scientific empiricism is a valid means of evidence, but it requires refining.

No, and no, and NO! Not refuted. One, my opinion of the LA UFO case means nothing. We are discussing logic now, not opinions. Two, what does the Battle of LA case have to do with Roswell? ("nothing" is the correct answer, by the way) Three, I did not say that the LA case supports the ETH, I said I don't have an explanation for it.

You were arguing about what a genuine UFO is, and I pointed out you yourself admitted what a genuine UFO is, the LA case. So your argument seemed a bit pointless really, because your own opinion contradicts it.

I do not get the impression you understand what you are debating, particuarly science. You keep shifting your position, contradicting yourself, which seems to suggest that you do not actually have a consistent position or argument.

Actually, I am being VERY consistent and saying the exact same things over and over again. It is you who keep claiming that I am contradicting myself or backtracking when I am not. This tactic may intimidate or confuse others; it will not work on me.

I still see no evidence of consistency. You seem to be constantly contradicting yourself.

I was. Until you told someone else that I was personally attacking you because you couldn't understand an admittedly subtle point.

That was only after you accused me of attacking you. Anyway you said I attacked you, and I accused you of attacking me. Were even now. Now keep it strictly logical

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Then later you say there is testimony in science. You are contradicting yourself. Refuted. Again.

No, I am not contradicting myself. There is a difference between "eyewitness testimony" (i. e. the person who is accidentally in the right place at the right time to observe something unexpected), and scientific testimony which consists of observing, measuring, and documenting the results of an experiment.

I stand by my original statement and you have not refuted it.

Eyewitness testimony is not considered as sufficient (or valid) evidence to support a hypothesis, especially when it can not be independently verified.

Strawman fallacy. I have not mentioned physical evidence, but evidence, which includes all kinds of evidence.

I am sorry, but labeling my statement with a fancy name and then going on as if that meant anything will not cut it, especially when your statement is inaccurate.

You said:

There is all kinds of evidence available: eye-witness testimony, physical evidence, EMF evidence, radar evidence, photographic and video evidence, ancedotal evidence et. This evidence has to be analysed.

I then asked you specifically what physical evidence there is, and as of yet you have not answered that request. I have never seen any claims of anyone having physical evidence. Do you see now where you mentioned physical evidence?

Backtracking and another strawman. We were earlier discussing ETH vs CH, then following that you bring up scientific evidence for cryptozooly to highlight that ETH has no evidence. It's rather clear what you are doing. Anyway as your example was invalid, it did nothing to support your CH for UFO's.

That is NOT what happened. It will do you no good to misrepresent so blatantly, anyone can go back and read what was actually said. I did not ever "discuss ETH versus CH." I did not bring up evidence for cryptozoology to highlight that ETH has no evidence. Let's go over it one more time, since you're having trouble understanding it.

1. The standards for evidence are similar across different sciences, or "ology"'s.
2. Eyewitness testimony is not sufficient evidence to validate a hypothesis in zoology, cryptozoology, biology, etc.
3. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is not sufficient evidence to validate a hypothesis in UFOolgy.

Do you understand the logical case I was building here, now?


I said:

I said they are the result of measured and documented observations of experiments. Two different things. Can you understand that this time, or do I need to re-word it for you somehow?

You said:

Dark matter and parallel dimensions are not the results of measured and documented experiments, but theories used to explain observations.

Okay, my words are staring you in the face up there, and you STILL can't get it right?
I did not say they were the results of experiments. I said OBSERVATIONS. I did leave out the "theories used to explain," but I thought that was given, or understood to be implied. My apologies and here it is again re-stated in accordance with your requirements.

Dark matter and parallel universes are hypotheses which have been developed to explain the observed results of measured and documented experiments. There is no valid comparison between the validity of that type of hypothesis and the ETH. Oranges and Apples. Thus it is not reasonable to say that we should accept the ETH because some people accept that dark matter, parallel universes, and other similar hypotheses are valid.

In any case I don't see how that is different from coming up with the ETH to explain UFO's(which have also been measured and documented)

You can't see the difference between constructing a hypothesis to explain the observed result of an experiment which can be conducted many times by different people and produce the same results, and the construction of the ETH to explain UFOs?

The observed results of the experiment can be reproduced at will by re-doing the experiment, whereupon they can be measured and documented multiple times to verify the accuracy of the observations. The observed results can be independently verified by having other people conduct the experiment. UFOs can not be summoned up at will for examination, and can not be independently verified by other people after the fact. We can't call the UFO back for a "do-over" so that other people can see it.

In any case, no matter how much evidence supports a theory, it is never proven. So your argument is moot.

I have stated more than once that I understand that a hypothesis or theory can not be proven, only disproven.

You, however, seem to be saying that any theory or hypothesis has equal validity regardless of the evidence for it or lack thereof. This makes no logical sense. I am simply stating that the validity of a hypothesis is weighed by the quantity and quality of the evidence for that hypothesis. Which takes us back to the top: The evidence is insufficient to validate the ETH.

Nope, I don't give a damn what the scientific community thinks. So to appeal to them to support your theory is an appeal to authority fallacy.

I am not appealing to anyone to support anything. YOU are the one claiming that there is adequate evidence to validate the ETH. Are you basing this claim on only your own personal opinion of the evidence?

Strawman fallacy. I said that just because something is unreliable it is not valid, I did not say anything about using an unreliable theory.

You said that reliability and validity are separate issues. I accepted that. I am of the opinion that unreliability and/or invalidity will both negatively impact a hypothesis or theory. You disagree and claim that reliability is not an issue. Okay. Whatever. However, that does not a "strawman fallacy" make.

Right, and likewise even in testimony there are shades of grey. So in the end testimony is a valid means of evidence, but it requires refining.

Some testimony may be considered evidence in some situations. Eyewitness testimony - the specific type of testimony we've been discussing - is not sufficient evidence to validate a hypothesis in any discipline which can reasonably be compared to UFOology.

You were arguing about what a genuine UFO is, and I pointed out you yourself admitted what a genuine UFO is, the LA case. So your argument seemed a bit pointless really, because your own opinion contradicts it.

No, that is not what happened. I used the Roswell crash as an example - analogy, really, to explain how a UFO being "identified" disproves the ETH if it is one of the cases which has been used to support the ETH. You then came out of left field asking about my opinion of the Battle of LA case, and I explained that my opinion is not part of THIS discussion as we are now using pure logic. Now you are again claiming that I have contradicted myself and made a pointless argument, when actually you have never addressed my original point about how cases being identified poke holes in the ETH if those cases were used in support of the ETH because you sidetracked off on to the LA case which I had not even mentioned.

you do not actually have a consistent position or argument.

Here is the consistency laid out for you.

1. There is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH.
2. Eyewitness testimony is insufficient evidence to validate a hypothesis.

I am making these same two statements, and supporting them, over and over again. The only variations are the examples and analogies I use to support my position.

Do you claim that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, IS sufficient to validate ETH? If so, that is what we are debating. If not, we have nothing to debate because we agree.

[quoteHere is the consistency laid out for you.

1. There is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH.
2. Eyewitness testimony is insufficient evidence to validate a hypothesis.

Alright to save us both from the "You said, I said" nonsense, let's just focus on your actual arguments which you have now defined more clearly:

1) There is overwhelming to evidence to validate the ETH, you yourself admit of certain cases which can only be explained as physical craft with unknown technology.

2) Right, and if you were paying attention in this thread both myself and Malcram and others have said that we consider individual eye witness testimony insufficient ourselves. We have said that eye witness testimony on its own is insufficient, but in conjunction with forms of evidence is valid.

I have talked about the different levels of witness testimony which can be analysed both quantiatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively it can by analysed to categorse sightings into common descriptions and demographics and qualitatiely one can analyse for credibility.

Now I told you there is overwhelming evidence for ETH. Here you go:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...

Physical evidence:

www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...


There are literally hundrds of cases that strongly support ETH. Some cases where both the UFO and its occupants are seen.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]