Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
However, it is also a fact that a lot of testimony has been proven false.
And I would never argue the opposite. And I didn't.
I was merely pointing out, once again, your double standards. You consider the possibility of testimony being false... when it's a, let's call it, "pro-UFO/alien" testimony. Point in case:
Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
There is no sign of any irrefutable evidence connected with claims connected with aliens. Testimony is hearsay.
Testimony is not hearsay only when it's a "pro-UFO/alien" testimony, it's hearsay either way. And yet, you're quick to accept all and any testimony that claims that nothing extraordinary happened or is happening.
I'm not arguing that somehow the "pro-UFO/alien" testimony has more weight, on the contrary - I'm pointing out that both claims, when using the same logic, have exactly the same weight.
If you throw out any conclusion of potential unexplained phenomena because there is only testimony to support it, then you have to throw out any conclusion that claims these events have an ordinary and mundane explanations based on testimony alone.
Personally, I don't advocate throwing out any case, regardless of the hypothesis being presented, until we've examined, unbiasedly the available evidence, circumstances and every aspect of a case, or a group of cases. And I most certainly won't jump to any conclusion in such a premature stage of dealing with whatever this phenomenon is.
Like what a real, worthy of the name, skeptic would do
Irrefutable testimony is what it is otherwise it would not be called irrefutable, only evidence.
Testimony only becomes irrefutable when it's supported by evidence. And the only way to do that is to actually look at the evidence.
[edit on 23-10-2009 by converge]
