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.

 

For the Skeptics who say "where's your evidence?"

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I am new here as of yesterday, been a lurker for a few weeks now and ET's have always been a subject close to my heart, I am a believer and always have been so as this is my first post then i will start of with a simple analogy...

Imagine two people, A and B, getting into an argument, which is witnessed by several people. A goes home, gets his gun. He drives to the home of B, where B's neighbours see him arrive. They hear a gun shot, see A put something, the size of a man, in the boot of his car and drive off. Other witnesses see A throw something, the size of a man, in the river, along with his gun.

It is obvious that A is guilty of murder. Yet if we would apply the strictest definitions of 'scientific proof,' and accept 'quantifiable proof' only, - as is the case in, e.g., some natural sciences, - the conclusion could be:

there is no body
there is no murder weapon
there is no proof that there even was a murder: all we know is that B is missing.
It is important to not fall into this trap of requiring quantifiable scientific proof. If we take a more pragmatic approach, there is plenty of evidence that would stand in court.

It is also important to realize that in order to prove that extraterrestrials are here, we don't have to prove, e.g., that all UFOs are extraterrestrial ships. It is enough that we can prove at least one case of extraterrestrial presence to justify speaking in terms of 'the extraterrestrial presence.'




posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DARREN1976
 


First of all, welcome to ATS.



It is obvious that A is guilty of murder.

To me it's not obvious, it's just highly probable.

If I was on a jury I could not consider person A as guilty with just those evidences, that is why I do not consider reports about unidentified objects (or, even less, lights in the sky) as enough to prove that there are extraterrestrial beings and that those beings visit the Earth.

But you are right, we do not have to prove that all UFOs are extraterrestrial ships, one ET would be enough to prove their existence, so I am still waiting for that one ET to appear.


Edit: Just to add that I do not consider myself one of those that say "where is your evidence", but one of those that look for it or, at most, say "where is the evidence".

[edit on 26/4/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DARREN1976
 


"It is also important to realize that in order to prove that extraterrestrials are here, we don't have to prove, e.g., that all UFOs are extraterrestrial ships. It is enough that we can prove at least one case of extraterrestrial presence to justify speaking in terms of 'the extraterrestrial presence.'"

When would you be proving that one case? So far, not credible scientific evidence. "A lot of us agree" is not credible scientific evidence.

If you want to play the science game, here's what you do:

1. Submit your hypothesis to proper testing. Testimonials, intuitions, personal experience, and "other ways of knowing" don't count.
2. See if you can falsify the hypothesis.
3. Try to rule out alternative explanations and confounding factors.
4. Report your findings in journal articles submitted to peer review.
5. Allow the scientific community to critique the published evidence and engage in dialogue and debate.
6. Withhold judgment until your results can be replicated elsewhere.
7. Respect the consensus of the majority of the scientific community as to whether your hypothesis is probably
true or false (always allowing for revision based on further evidence).
8. Be willing to follow the evidence and admit you are wrong if that's what the evidence says.

If you want to play the science game, here are some of the things you don't do:

1. Accuse the entire scientific community of being wrong (unless you have compelling evidence, in which case you should argue for it in the scientific journals and
at professional meetings, not in the media).
2. Design poor-quality experiments that are almost guaranteed to show your hypothesis is true whether it really is or not. Use science to show that your treatment works, not to ask if it works.
3. Keep using arguments that have been thoroughly discredited. (The intelligent design folks are still claiming the eye could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex; homeopaths are still claiming homeopathy cured more patients than conventional medicine during nineteenth-century epidemics).
4. Write books for the general public to promote your thesis—as if public opinion could influence science!
5. Form an activist organization to promote your beliefs.
6. Step outside the scientific paradigm and appeal to intuition and belief.
7. Mention the persecution of Galileo and compare yourself to him.
8. Invent a conspiracy theory
(Big Pharma is suppressing the truth!).
9. Claim to be a lone genius who knows more than all scientists put together.
10. Offer a treatment to the public after only the most preliminary studies have been conducted.
11. Set up a Web site to sell products that are not backed by good evidence.
12. Refuse to admit when your hypothesis is proven wrong.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by DARREN1976
 


First of all, welcome to ATS.



It is obvious that A is guilty of murder.

To me it's not obvious, it's just highly probable.

If I was on a jury I could not consider person A as guilty with just those evidences, that is why I do not consider reports about unidentified objects (or, even less, lights in the sky) as enough to prove that there are extraterrestrial beings and that those beings visit the Earth.

But you are right, we do not have to prove that all UFOs are extraterrestrial ships, one ET would be enough to prove their existence, so I am still waiting for that one ET to appear.


I agree with the OP, some of the skeptics will not even admit thats it is highly probable that ET have been visiting, abducting etc, they have to see that "proof`. I am sure when they even see the proof they still will be in denial and come up with some lame reason why its not proof.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
dont get me wrong, yes definitve proof would be the be all and end all but the humaen animal loves a mystery and curiosity abounds in us, so i would rather not know anything at all than be proven wrong about this and get told we are alone as it would destroy the mystery for me, on the other hand you do get your "crazies" that go completely over the top and make this subject less plausible for average believers eh? There is a line that must be drawn between belief and down right fantasy!



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DARREN1976
 


Concur. It's the difference between astrology and astronomy. Astrologers tell people things based on best guess. Astronomers tell people things based on best evidence.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Oh absolutely! i class myself as a pretty rational guy (so my shrink tells me as well) just because i believe doesnt make me stupid to evidence and fantasy and being able to see the difference between the two is what makes believe i am quite rational. Oh and thanks for the welcome people! your all on my xmas card list this year lol!



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
I agree with the OP, some of the skeptics will not even admit thats it is highly probable that ET have been visiting, abducting etc, they have to see that "proof`. I am sure when they even see the proof they still will be in denial and come up with some lame reason why its not proof.


Couple of thoughts...
One...probable and proven are two different things...just because you connect the dots in a manner based upon your worldview doesn't make it remotely proven.

Second, you are assuming that people who disagree with you will not accept proof when they see it, and you are ridiculing your own guess as to their response.

This is why I'm not about to bet the farm based on your opinion...and franklly, neither should you! Demand better!



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I believe theres life on other planets, do I believe we are being visited? Im not to sure about that. I have never saw any evidence that proves without a doubt that ET's are visiting us.

The pictures, videos, eye witnesses etc etc that I have seen/heard all have had something which has caused an element of doubt in my mind. Footage, pictures in bad condition, to grainy or the camera moving wildly and the like.


If there is anything visiting us Im sure they will make themselves known to us sooner or later.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I think the keyword is always "belief". In itself it implies a leap of faith. IMO once Ufology starts being discussed as a personal belief it becomes the same as discussing religions.

I think this subject invokes a lot of different reactions and sometimes situations where the pot is calling the kettle black. When a piece of evidence is proposed for discussion it is just as common to see those that refuse to accept it and dismiss it in a heartbeat as it is just as common to see those that refuse to even consider other explanations that do not involve the word "alien". We've seen pictures of seagulls identified to the very beak be defended as alien spacecraft with full determination for example.

This to me creates a scenario where one side is trying to prove that it is alien and the other is trying to prove otherwise. In doing so it leads to forgetting what in my opinion is the very basis (or should be) of ufology - struggling to identify an aerial phenomenon that appears to be unidentified. If the research and discussion starts with only two conclusions in mind - alien or balloon - it becomes biased and sterile of any worthy conclusion from the start.

Sentences like "space travel is impossible" seem just as feeble to me as "aircrafts with technology that does not exist on Earth". Both are based on assumptions being presented as undeniable truths. This is especially disappointing when everyone is just looking at a light in the sky.

I don't think any truth or knowledge will ever come from a discussion that merely displays the conflict between skepticism and faith. Just like science should not be an excuse for rigid thought an open mind should not be displayed through blind belief.

I for one prefer to keep an open mind every time I see evidence posted here. And by that I mean I keep my mind open to any proposal that is made towards it's identification.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DARREN1976
I am new here as of yesterday, been a lurker for a few weeks now and ET's have always been a subject close to my heart, I am a believer and always have been so as this is my first post then i will start of with a simple analogy...

Imagine two people, A and B, getting into an argument, which is witnessed by several people. A goes home, gets his gun. He drives to the home of B, where B's neighbours see him arrive. They hear a gun shot, see A put something, the size of a man, in the boot of his car and drive off. Other witnesses see A throw something, the size of a man, in the river, along with his gun.

It is obvious that A is guilty of murder. Yet if we would apply the strictest definitions of 'scientific proof,' and accept 'quantifiable proof' only, - as is the case in, e.g., some natural sciences, - the conclusion could be:

there is no body
there is no murder weapon
there is no proof that there even was a murder: all we know is that B is missing.
It is important to not fall into this trap of requiring quantifiable scientific proof. If we take a more pragmatic approach, there is plenty of evidence that would stand in court.

It is also important to realize that in order to prove that extraterrestrials are here, we don't have to prove, e.g., that all UFOs are extraterrestrial ships. It is enough that we can prove at least one case of extraterrestrial presence to justify speaking in terms of 'the extraterrestrial presence.'




I wish more people thought like this.

We would accomplish a lot more as a people then we currently do.

Short, but to the point . Great post.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by DARREN1976
 


"It is also important to realize that in order to prove that extraterrestrials are here, we don't have to prove, e.g., that all UFOs are extraterrestrial ships. It is enough that we can prove at least one case of extraterrestrial presence to justify speaking in terms of 'the extraterrestrial presence.'"

When would you be proving that one case? So far, not credible scientific evidence. "A lot of us agree" is not credible scientific evidence.

If you want to play the science game, here's what you do:

1. Submit your hypothesis to proper testing. Testimonials, intuitions, personal experience, and "other ways of knowing" don't count.
2. See if you can falsify the hypothesis.
3. Try to rule out alternative explanations and confounding factors.
4. Report your findings in journal articles submitted to peer review.
5. Allow the scientific community to critique the published evidence and engage in dialogue and debate.
6. Withhold judgment until your results can be replicated elsewhere.
7. Respect the consensus of the majority of the scientific community as to whether your hypothesis is probably
true or false (always allowing for revision based on further evidence).
8. Be willing to follow the evidence and admit you are wrong if that's what the evidence says.

If you want to play the science game, here are some of the things you don't do:

1. Accuse the entire scientific community of being wrong (unless you have compelling evidence, in which case you should argue for it in the scientific journals and
at professional meetings, not in the media).
2. Design poor-quality experiments that are almost guaranteed to show your hypothesis is true whether it really is or not. Use science to show that your treatment works, not to ask if it works.
3. Keep using arguments that have been thoroughly discredited. (The intelligent design folks are still claiming the eye could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex; homeopaths are still claiming homeopathy cured more patients than conventional medicine during nineteenth-century epidemics).
4. Write books for the general public to promote your thesis—as if public opinion could influence science!
5. Form an activist organization to promote your beliefs.
6. Step outside the scientific paradigm and appeal to intuition and belief.
7. Mention the persecution of Galileo and compare yourself to him.
8. Invent a conspiracy theory
(Big Pharma is suppressing the truth!).
9. Claim to be a lone genius who knows more than all scientists put together.
10. Offer a treatment to the public after only the most preliminary studies have been conducted.
11. Set up a Web site to sell products that are not backed by good evidence.
12. Refuse to admit when your hypothesis is proven wrong.



Since we dont' know all about science, then currently our science is limited.

We can't ask for scientific evidence specifically because our science is not perfect.

Therefor we are asking for evidence that is not perfect and still does not fully prove.

When we as a people learn to realize that is will take spirituality + science to progress any further then we will be in good shape and start actually understanding the universe more.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


"Therefor we are asking for evidence that is not perfect and still does not fully prove. "

"not perfect" is a major understatement. And the available "evidence" falls far short of "not fully prove", rather it doesn't prove.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DARREN1976
 
Welcome to ATS, DARREN1976.
I am widely read on the UFO topic in the context of being very interested in it, whilst not being obsessed by it. I am a skeptic in the sense that I am skeptical of all UFO info (“evidence”) until I have a good look at that info (“evidence”). I believe 99.9% of the material I have looked at can be explained as something normal (i.e. not a UFO / alien craft).
However there are those VERY rare cases that appear not to be able to be satisfactorily explained as something conventional that make me think more about what might be possible out there.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 


yes you are right, most of the evidence i agree is a bit threadbare and just because they are ufo sightings does not mean they are of alien origin but there is that small 5% that still cant be explained and its because of that, that I have faith brother..., oh and thanx again everyone for the welcome, peace out!!



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DARREN1976
Imagine two people, A and B, getting into an argument, which is witnessed by several people. A goes home, gets his gun. He drives to the home of B, where B's neighbours see him arrive. They hear a gun shot, see A put something, the size of a man, in the boot of his car and drive off. Other witnesses see A throw something, the size of a man, in the river, along with his gun.

It is obvious that A is guilty of murder. Yet if we would apply the strictest definitions of 'scientific proof,' and accept 'quantifiable proof' only, - as is the case in, e.g., some natural sciences, - the conclusion could be:

there is no body
there is no murder weapon
there is no proof that there even was a murder: all we know is that B is missing.
It is important to not fall into this trap of requiring quantifiable scientific proof. If we take a more pragmatic approach, there is plenty of evidence that would stand in court.


Well, if its a gun shot, then unless A asked B to stand on some handy plastic sheets before shooting him, then there would be blood traces.
Also gun fire produces a residue which would be on A's clothing, so he would have to remove his clothing as well.
Has to be careful of leaving DNA and/or fingerprints at the crime scene as well
If witnesses saw someone throwing a body into the river, and the weapon, then police divers would recover the weapon, (guns sink) and unless its close to the sea, most likely recover the body as well.

So there would be evidence, unless A has been very careful not to leave any evidence, in which case, if he has done his homework, he'd be out again because the prosecution would not be able to prove the crime.

This though would be a SINGLE crime

Even mass murderers would mess up once and leave evidence at one of their crimes, weapon, discarded shell, blood splatter etc, but in the case of aliens they've managed to visit Earth thousands of times since pre-history, abduct countless people, fly all over the country and manage not to have ONE decent photograph of themselves doing so, and not leave one shred of evidence?

Chances? 0



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Hi Darren and welcome.

To remain On Topic:
For the Skeptics who say "where's your evidence?"

I generally dust off an old fav by William Cowper:

"Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence."

On a more personal level, I have been thinking alot WHY I DO believe Intelligent Life Forms exist. It seems I am not alone with many like minded members on this forum.

I strive not to make boastful claims on this topic or confuse my "belief" with facts or proof. Nor do I speak in absolutes like: Everyone knows.......etc. But the feeling emanates from deep within my gut that I just believe it so.

There are many great fallacy arguments that could be presented to counter Skeptics like belief in GOD, or Religion or Ghosts, but without generalizing I am finding that a skeptic on one topic like UFO's remains skeptical across the board.

I would ask as Skeptic, Are you loved? Please provide proof.

Surely they must believe they are loved if they have a Mother or Father, Sister or Brother, Husband or Wife, Cat or Dog. For me the same deal. Although I cannot prove it, I just know it. And to use your court room analogy.........beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regards...KK


[edit on 27-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


"Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence."

Absence is proof of absence. Absence of evidence is proof that you don't have any evidence. Care to count the number of posts that claim "proof" of one thing or another on this board?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
My personal opinion, is I absolutely do believe that we've been visited by extraterrestrials, due to my own experiences and research I have come to this conclusion...........

However I'm immensely skeptical of every story that seems to pop up everyday on daily ufo blogs, websites, and the sort. It's been years upon years we've been hearing of "disclosure"... today is disclosure, tomorrow is disclosure, in 2 years disclosure, never ever any disclosure, etc..........

Nor do I believe every account of every person who makes extraordinary claims, although there have been a few that convinced me of certain things (personally)... Alot of the time on shows like coasttocoastam you get many of the same old frauds and sensationalists whom - are further delaying the much needed progress in this field. Or you get some new character speaking of his/her abduction experiences, without any proof whatsoever.....

I do believe that there has been some genuine contact/abduction cases, and there is some documentation to support the notion... But most of these people talking on radio shows are just trying to sell their latest publication, an of course to further reinforce their cult following.

This is very unfortunate, because I truly believe that this subject deserves better.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I don't have any problem at all recognizing evidence, and I'm of the opinion that it's a good idea to include as much as possible. That means keeping a lot of stuff some folks like to throw out, like reports of psychic effects, time shifts, weird shaped creatures, Bigfoot, abductions in broad daylight, and overall strangeness -- all of it. This stuff is a problem for a lot of people who want everything to add up to gray aliens in metallic ships.

That being said, I still have no real good theory as to what all the evidence adds up to. I don't see where Point "A" - which is your flying saucer, directly connects to any specific Point "B."

Oh, well, "aliens," you say! Well, how does that add up? Because "nothing made on Earth could ever fly that way?" How do you know? Do you know what every bit of Top Secret technology can do? Besides, exactly what "aliens" are you talking about? I mean, if you know that aliens are responsible for the flying saucer, you should be able to identify them specifically, no? Tell me where they came from, what they're called, something. Not just generic aliens, you know, like on TV.


I've said it before. I think time travelers are a better "explanation" for a lot of UFO activity and strangeness than aliens. And if it could be either one or the other (or both), then we really don't know what the explanation is. In that case, "I don't know," is the best answer.

So at the end of the day, we have a lot of evidence but don't know of what. I like to say it's like finding a smoking gun lying in the street, but no blood, no body, no fingerprints, no bullets, no nothing. Was there a murder? If so, who shot who, or what? It's not that we don't have a clue. We just don't have any clear indication of what it's a clue TO.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by Nohup]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join