SCEPCOP ~ Debunking pseudo-sceptics.

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:



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




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]

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

"More levity?" Pun intended?

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

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?




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.

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:



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?



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

[edit on 23-10-2009 by nightmare_david]

[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.

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




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

...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.

And another ad hominem by Oberg. Why you haven't changed one bit compared to years ago when you were still active on Usenet.

Coming from you Jim,I find that somewhat ironic.


Heres another interesting statement:

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.





Could you post any examples of my inconsistency?

Cheers.

great stuff karl.... thanks mate

you should also post it on um....

reply to post by mcrom901

---

Mcrom,cheers matey.

This chap makes some interesting points:

The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic By Brian Zeiler

Interesting reading about UFO 'debunker' Phillip Klass:




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

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

Why the need to label someone a pseudo-sceptic? Why not just offer proof that nobody can debunk?

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?

YouTube Link

Cheers.

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?