SCEPCOP ~ Debunking pseudo-sceptics.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

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]




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

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:

Skeptical Ed: "Don't be an ...! I've had 6 solid sightings and I've videotaped one. How the hell can I consider pro-UFO testimony false?"


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
There is no sign of any irrefutable evidence connected with claims connected with aliens. Testimony is hearsay.


Skeptical Ed: "That's right. I stand firm on it. I have not seen any aliens and I don't accept testimony that others have when no irrefutable evidence has been provided by those claiming to have done so."
snip
Skeptical Ed: "John Lennon said it best: 'Just give me some truth.'"



[edit on 23-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
The Aliens and UFOs forum needs more levity...



"More levity?" Pun intended?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Historical-Mozart

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
The Aliens and UFOs forum needs more levity...



"More levity?" Pun intended?


Damn! It's so good to see someone laughing here!



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Don't be an ...! I've had 6 solid sightings and I've videotaped one. How the hell can I consider pro-UFO testimony false?


I don't follow. Sometimes you act like a denialist, other times you act like a true believer.

How can you consider a pro-UFO testimony false? How about when it's proven to be fraudulent?



I have not seen any aliens and I don't accept testimony that others have when no irrefutable evidence has been provided by those claiming to have done so.


Tell me, what irrefutable evidence does the footage of one of your alleged solid sightings provide?

It seems to me that you base all your argumentation on personal incredulity - "I haven't seen it, I can't explain it, I don't understand it, therefor it can't be true". Which by the way, as it's becoming typical of you, is another fallacy.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
Tell me, what irrefutable evidence does the footage of one of your alleged solid sightings provide?


You'll never get the answer to that question.

Keep in mind he has photographic and video evidence of it (six solid sightings for those who don't know) as he has said a few times, but has never shown it because he "doesn't know how to upload the stuff".

He has nothing and he's never debunked anything as he also claims. Another thing he never shows evidence of. He just likes talking about it like it's the greatest thing to ever happen in ufology, but never says what/who it was he apparently debunked. Here's proof of that:


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I was skeptical of certain claims being made by a UFO "personality" and my debunking him was successful. But not all skeptics are debunkers, they may just remain critical of unsubstantiated claims.


Notice that he says "ufo personality"? It's someone all of us here would most likely know of. He has also said in another thread that's it's something that would change the minds of believers. Implying that's it's something huge. Now why not say what it is and WHO he told this to? Because he knows very well we could easily look into it and verify it and prove him wrong.

Seen this other comment of his?


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I have not seen any examples of debunking on this forum. I have read many critical posts and replies, including mine. But debunking is another activity that results from skepticism. Debunking starts out by a skeptic smelling something wrong and and finding out why it smells.


Now that's just hilarious. Clear proof that he's never really looked through ATS.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by nightmare_david]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
[sigh] -- I'm gonna have to admit that some of the 'denial' assertions are as nonsensical as those from eager-believers. No names, please. But a lot of the criticism is entirely valid. However, none of us here is responsible for anyone else's nonsense.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Heres an interesting statement about close minded, cynical debunkers by General Lionel Max Chassin,the Commanding General of the French Air Forces.






"Obsessed with the notion of his own omniscience, it enrages him to be confronted by phenomena that do not agree with this conviction. Finding in his limited armoury no explanation that satisfies him, he chooses to doubt rather than himself, and rejects the most obvious facts in order to avoid putting his faith to the test.
The mistaken pride and anthropocentrism that supposedly went out with Copernicus and Galileo make him a peril to science, as history abundantly proves. …
That strange things have been seen is now beyond question, and the “psychological” explanations seem to have misfired. The number of thoughtful, intelligent, educated people in full possession of their faculties who have “seen something” and described it grows every day. Doubting Thomases among astronomers, engineers and officials who used to laugh at “saucers” have seen and repented. To reject out of hand testimony such as theirs becomes more and more presumptuous."

General Lionel Max Chassin (1902-1970)
Commanding general of the French Air Forces
and Air Defense Coordinator of NATO Allied Forces


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Heres an interesting statement about close minded,cynical debunkers by General Lionel Max Chassin,the Commanding General of the French Air Forces.


...which shows him to be a pompous egomaniac who explains differences of opinions by declaring that different-thinkers are just intellectually flawed.

Since at least the Renaissance, most serious scientists assumed the universe off the earth was full of life, and as other worlds were measured, they speculated on what kind of people might inhabit them. This idea that leading intellectual thought was dogmatic in claiming humans were alone and at the center of the universe is a convenient myth to make people feel smarter.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
...which shows him to be a pompous egomaniac
And another ad hominem by Oberg. Why you haven't changed one bit compared to years ago when you were still active on Usenet.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
..which shows him to be a pompous egomaniac



Coming from you Jim,I find that somewhat ironic.


Heres another interesting statement:


“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?


There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence.


Of course they do not constitute irrefutable proof. However, to state there is no evidence suggestive of intelligent extraterrestrial life simply belies the facts. Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and extraterrestrial life.However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.”

John B. Alexander,Ph.D.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

As an open-minded skeptic....



Cynical Ed - are you having a laugh?


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
"UFO Disclosure is wishful thinking by believers. We non-believers know that there is nothing to disclose


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
If it wasn't for the gullibles ATS wouldn't exist.





Yes, Karl 12, I'm having a blast! Thanks, in part, to posts such as yours. The Aliens and UFOs forum needs more levity and I as well as others, I'm assuming, appreciate your providing it.



Oh I see, you were being sarcastic and your quotes were taken out of context - it certainly didn't look that way at the time - my mistake.




Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
BOTOH, I also appreciate some of your views. If only you could be consistent.


Could you post any examples of my inconsistency?

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
great stuff karl.... thanks mate


you should also post it on um....



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Mcrom, cheers matey.


This chap also makes an interesting point in this article:



The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach.


The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic By Brian Zeiler
edit on 3-2-2013 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Interesting reading about UFO 'debunker' Phillip Klass:




This is all part of the Klass method of, as Hendry puts it,"using a truncated version of the information available to him and shaping it to his own ends." There is no way of winning an argument with him because, even when presented with documented evidence of the incorrectness of his position, Klass seldom concedes he is wrong. Instead he holds fiercely to a position even when it is demonstrably at variance with the facts.


Phil Klass vs. The "UFO Promoters" By Jerome Clark

The Debunkers vs. the UFO Menace - Part one

The Debunkers vs. the UFO Menace - Part two



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Lol Karl,
You should've just typed "Bump" instead of "replying" to a reply of your own post some 24 days after the fact.

OT,
Just so I can help your not so hidden agenda too bump your own post, I don't find a lot of suedo skeptics on ATS. In fact, I never heard the term till people where asking questions about some claims here. Why can't it be just simply Skeptic of some of the crap we are fed here instead of a whole new name?
Vance



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Why the need to label someone a pseudo-sceptic? Why not just offer proof that nobody can debunk?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by vance
 


Vance,thanks for your reply -if you click through the thread there are quite a few definitions of pseudo-scepticism for you to read.

Once you get a good understanding of the concept then I'd be quite happy to discuss why UFO cynics have got an awful lot of explaining to do when it comes to certain UFO incidents.

I'd also be interested in your opinions on this video - it would be painfully naive to think this kind of stuff doesn't go on but do you think it occurs in relation to discussion of the UFO subject and if not, why not?



Cheers.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I think we have them on the run if they are gathering forces.
Their dis info agents are getting weaker and weaker.
The force is with us.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I think we have them on the run if they are gathering forces.
Their dis info agents are getting weaker and weaker.
The force is with us.

The pseudo-skeptics are gathering forces or the anti-skeptic people?





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join