UFO skeptics don't use reason

reply to post by Matrix Rising


This isn't a murder case, it's a scientific investigation. We didn't say "Well, the earth looks flat, and those sailors said they saw the edge of the world and they'd be the guys to ask, so I guess it's flat!" and left it at that, we explored the possibilities and eventually garnered enough proof that indeed the world was a sphere. At some point in science, you need proof.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


No kiddo... courts go through corrobrative witness testimony. IF IT GETS TO JURY, then they decide based off character of person in question, history of person in question, evidence AGAINST person in question and evidence FOR person in question. NOT he said she said Bullocks. If some random bloke on the street said they saw you doing drugs to the police, and they were following your PRESENTED guidelines, you are going to prison. If they follow actual research and legal protocal they question you , and get a statement from you etc, then determine whether or not you are likely to be a drug user. they dont arrest because someone says.

THATS illogical. LOGICAL is to experiment and try to recreate what the people say they saw in the skies. if its something that is easily done THEN you determine whether or not this experimental phenominon can even occur in given region, THEN you go from there. if you are trying to report a UFO as swamp gas in Fort Collins Colorado, you are a fool as colorado does NOT have swamp gas. OR a base that flies over this given area so you would have to find SOMETHING to explain a remote possibility. THEN if it is close, or similar to what people saw, that is MOST LIKELY the case. BUT if something is off, say, chinese lanters floating in patterns with no wind then making shapes.. sorry. thats not indicative of chinese lanterns. THAT is how research (a small portion of) is conducted. Not just talking to said person who eats colourful mushrooms and says he saw santa in bloody december, or the old guy whose eyes are bad that saw a light flashing (and didnt realise there was a storm)_ or the family of nut jobs that send a balloon that looks like a saucer and hides their kid in a garage. Care to go on?

reply to post by EsSeeEye


It doesn't have to be a murder case to weigh things within reason. Humans do it all the time because in most cases absolute evidence is not available.

A mother has to weigh the evidence within reason when she comes home and finds the vase broken and she here's the story as to what happened from the kids.

Police officers have to weigh the evidence within reason when they come to the scene of a crash because they were not present when the accident occured.

There's two places where skeptics want to throw reason and logic out of the window in favor of absolutes. That's ufology and the paranormal.

With these things it's either 100% certain or 100% uncertain and all possibilities are equal.

That's just illogical and humans always weigh the evidence and the possibilities within reason.

reply to post by Unity_99


I agree with most of what you said. This is a touchy subject with strong feelings on both sides. Your way of dealing with the idea of skeptics I can agree with. Some make very good cases against the evidence presented. Some well they just do not want to believe anything no matter what is shown to them. On the other hand some believers can see a jet or bird (I mean you can really tell thats what it is) but they only see UFO.

I was just trying to point out to the op that you can not force people to believe what you want them to. (well maybe you can how would I know I was brainwashed heh ). I really do not want to argue with the op they just need to go about the presenting of evidence differently and accept that people are going to knock it down and that is O.k. If the evidence is good enough it will stand on its on. At some point there will be evidence that even the die hard skeptics can not just brush aside or ignore but accepting everything without question is just well nuts.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The whole premise of UFO skepticism is to abandon reason. This is because they want to get the evidence in the arena of,"it could be anything."

Well, "reason" has its roots in Latin, the original term meaning: to calculate (from ratio). So to reason something you are calculating it...

Stating "it could be anything" is less reasonable than stating what it is not, as throwing out a suggestion of what it could be is not more logical than just stating it is a UFO as "UFO" means "Unidentified Flying Object".

See with,"it could be anything" you throw reason out the window. Reason says, what's most likely and what's less likely. Reason doesn't ask for 100% certainty but UFO skeptics do.

I think stating that it is a "flying saucer from another world" is unreasonable, too, as we do not know that. Saying something is a UFO is logical if it is flying and you have no idea what it is.

Too often we have to have closure so we apply labels to suit our own comfort zone and that is not scientific either.

Reason says you should weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely. This is what happens everyday in court. The jurors are not eye witnesses but they make a decision based on the evidence and this is why the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

But considering that the majority of the world's citizens have not met alien life, nor have physical evidence of alien life, have never gone to an alien planet (I mean, what if they are intra-terrestrial?) you cannot say it is most-likely beings from another planet.

But you can say "UFO" and leave it at that, and if skeptics were smart they would say that, too. Nothing wrong with "unidentified" because that is what it is until someone says: Yep, that was my saucer up there. I own it.

Again, there's zero evidence on the skeptics side. See the skeptic would have to show why it's less likely when it comes to every video, picture, radar report, eyewitness account, mass sighting, trace evidence, abduction case and more.

Skeptics could be less narky about it all, and they could not throw up explanations for things they themselves did not see, but I'm not sure they have to say that it is definitely a UFO. Bill Nye does that it and it ticks me off. Maybe its a flying mongoose wrapped in cellophane.... He could just ask questions and provide a skeptical response in question format, but nooooooo he has to make suggestions which are insulting.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by stanlee
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

No kiddo... courts go through corrobrative witness testimony. IF IT GETS TO JURY, then they decide based off character of person in question, history of person in question, evidence AGAINST person in question and evidence FOR person in question. NOT he said she said Bullocks. If some random bloke on the street said they saw you doing drugs to the police, and they were following your PRESENTED guidelines, you are going to prison. If they follow actual research and legal protocal they question you , and get a statement from you etc, then determine whether or not you are likely to be a drug user. they dont arrest because someone says.

THATS illogical. LOGICAL is to experiment and try to recreate what the people say they saw in the skies. if its something that is easily done THEN you determine whether or not this experimental phenominon can even occur in given region, THEN you go from there. if you are trying to report a UFO as swamp gas in Fort Collins Colorado, you are a fool as colorado does NOT have swamp gas. OR a base that flies over this given area so you would have to find SOMETHING to explain a remote possibility. THEN if it is close, or similar to what people saw, that is MOST LIKELY the case. BUT if something is off, say, chinese lanters floating in patterns with no wind then making shapes.. sorry. thats not indicative of chinese lanterns. THAT is how research (a small portion of) is conducted. Not just talking to said person who eats colourful mushrooms and says he saw santa in bloody december, or the old guy whose eyes are bad that saw a light flashing (and didnt realise there was a storm)_ or the family of nut jobs that send a balloon that looks like a saucer and hides their kid in a garage. Care to go on?

If you would take the time to read many of these cases, they have been looked at and the credibility of the witness has been investigated. It has nothing to do with he said, she said and this just shows you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

Many of these people's lives have been investigated and their credibility tested. We always weigh the evidence and with ufology you have a ton of evidence to be weighed.

Mass sightings, abduction cases, radar reports, eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, picture, video, trace evidence and more.

Many of these things have been looked at and investigated. So there's plenty of evidence to weigh within reason.

The so-called "skeptics" don't need to use reason or any other rhetorical technique. They are not the ones making the claims. It is the claimant who has the burden of proof.

Someone says, "I saw a UFO", or "UFO's are alien spacecraft". These are claims. They require some evidence, if they are to be believed. The evidence needs to be "credible", which means it has to be such that reasonable people would likely accept it. This hasn't been forthcoming.

Most of the evidence I've seen for UFO's has been photographic or video. Unfortunately, it is quite simple to fake pictures. I've seen a photo of Abraham Lincoln whispering into Margaret Thatcher's ear. I've seen a photograph of the Pope with a bottle of Jack Daniels in one hand, Paris Hilton in the other. I've got a photo of my cat, climbing Andromeda Galaxy.

I'm not saying that all UFO photos are fakes. I don't know that. I *am* saying that there is no way for anyone to tell whether any given UFO photo is a fake.

Eyewitness accounts? Well, first of all, people lie. How can you tell whether someone is telling the truth, or lying, or simply is mentally ill and has imagined the whole thing? You really can't. Even psychiatrists can't always tell if someone's mentally ill. Even professionals often cannot tell when someone is lying.

But more important, how many of us actually talk to eyewitnesses? Very few. Most of us read reports that are supposed to be by eyewitnesses, but for all we really know, are complete fabrications by reporters or other authors. The witnesses may not even exist. If they do, they may not have said what they were quoted as saying.

Personally I wouldn't accept evidence of a UFO unless I saw it with my own eyes, or unless one of my friends would tell me they saw it.

And it really doesn't matter. If there are or are not UFO's, they're not doing a whole lot. They're just appearing now and then, confusing people, and disappearing. The vast majority of people never see one, never have a close encounter of any kind. Any alleged alien technology is coming to us, whether or not the public believes in UFO's or accepts aliens.

There's no race of superior aliens, waiting to welcome us into the Galactic Federation. There's no group of beings that is going to bring us peace and prosperity, usher in a new age of wonders. Nor are they going to attack and start to annihilate humanity. Things are going to continue much the way they've done throughout history, maybe a little bit better, maybe a bit worse. There may be some major bumps up or down, as there always have been. But overall, it's going to be business as usual, with or without aliens. Whatever age of prosperity or Armageddon we have, we'll be the ones to create it.

UFO is defined as an Unidentified flying object
It doesn't necessarily mean it's of extra-terrestrial origin. Likewise if I see an object in the sky which I can't identify, I'll call it a UFO even though it might just be a normal airplane.

reply to post by A Fortiori


This one quote supports my claim perfectly.

I think stating that it is a "flying saucer from another world" is unreasonable, too, as we do not know that. Saying something is a UFO is logical if it is flying and you have no idea what it is.

If you think extraterrestrials are an unreasonable explanation then what are you debating for?

This is a closed minded skeptic who has made up their mind before the evidence is presented.

So before you see or hear the evidence you have already reached the conclusion that extraterrestrials are an "unreasonable explanation."

This is not free thinking, this is closed minded skepticism. I think most skeptics agree with you that extraterrestrials are an unreasonable explanation. This is why the skeptic doesn't want to weigh these things within reason because they don't have a reasonable explanation for these things.

This truly makes the skeptics position look weak and very closed minded.

reply to post by chiron613


Another post from a closed minded skeptic who somehow can divine the future when we only know what 4% of the universe is made of. We don't know if the universe is holographic or are we embedded in a multiverse, yet you can speak in absolutes about the future.

The burden of proof is on those who are denying that the eyewitness didn't see what they said they saw.

If you say it's a weather balloon, then the burden of proof is on you to show a weather balloon can do the things the eyewitness described.

If you say an eyewitness is lying or making things up about an abduction case, then the burden of proof is on you to show the eyewitness is a liar or he's known to make things up.

The burden of proof is on you.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Matrix Rising]

Ok the last post I am going to make on this thread.

You do know what U.F.O. stands for right?

It means it could be anything. It means you do not know what it is. You can debate what it is but nobody knows. This whole thing is going nowhere.

It is unidentified. that is it. I do not care what evidence is presented you do not know what the object is I do not know and nobody knows that is the definition. U.F.O. Unidentified Flying Object. I can claim it to be anything I want and so can you. That does not make it said thing no matter how much you want it to be. I am still unclear why skeptics are illogical as others have said you study the evidence and make a determination of the best possible solution and that is the best you can do. If someone comes to a different solution than you it does not make them illogical.

Again I or anyone can disagree with you it is allowed.

Originally posted by chiron613
The so-called "skeptics" don't need to use reason or any other rhetorical technique. They are not the ones making the claims. It is the claimant who has the burden of proof.

Woah, now! This is where I have some difficulty. Why should anyone have to prove that it is an "unidentified flying object"? Or do you mean they have to prove it is a craft from another planet?

I also do not like this idea that people must "prove" anything and everything that comes out of their mouth just for the convenience of others.

There is this idea of humanity that I would like to believe in and that involves trusting my neighbor and this thing called: the "benefit of the doubt". If someone says that they saw a UFO then I believe they saw something unless they are a known liar. They have to do something to make me believe they are not telling me the truth, otherwise that is scientific hypocrisy. To call someone who is not a known liar, a liar is also conjecture, and therefore subject to proof.

Prove the person claiming the experience to be a liar.

Now, that does not mean that I believe that the UFO is an alien spacecraft.

Someone says, "I saw a UFO", or "UFO's are alien spacecraft". These are claims. They require some evidence, if they are to be believed. The evidence needs to be "credible", which means it has to be such that reasonable people would likely accept it. This hasn't been forthcoming.

I've heard military pilots talk about them and it is quite believable to me because a) they saw them while flying, and b) they would know the probability of it being a "spook" project.

I've also heard people talk about their abductions, some on these boards and something about it feels just...dreamlike.

I think I am a reasonable person, and as a reasonable person I weigh when the abductions took place (mostly at night) and think: they could have been dreaming. Heck! I woke up with needle marks on one arm, took a picture of it, and left it at being a weird psychosomatic experience--not an abduction.

I think I am a reasonable person and when military pilots talk about UFOs I tend to sit up and listen because their experience, their evaluations, their up close looks all make me lean towards there may be something to it.

Most of the evidence I've seen for UFO's has been photographic or video. Unfortunately, it is quite simple to fake pictures.

Eyewitness accounts? Well, first of all, people lie.

But that doesn't mean someone is lying.

How can you tell whether someone is telling the truth, or lying, or simply is mentally ill and has imagined the whole thing? You really can't. Even psychiatrists can't always tell if someone's mentally ill. Even professionals often cannot tell when someone is lying.

If being a "skeptic" means that I have to treat everyone like a liar until they prove they are not then I'd rather be gullible. I just don't want to live like that.

Cheers to you, though.

Note: There is a difference between "skeptical" and "cynical" and I think it starts with attitude.


On the last bit, I think IF there are aliens they are acting like zoologists. I'm not expecting to be blown away by them, but I am afraid of getting tagged.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

This one quote supports my claim perfectly.

I think stating that it is a "flying saucer from another world" is unreasonable, too, as we do not know that. Saying something is a UFO is logical if it is flying and you have no idea what it is.

If you think extraterrestrials are an unreasonable explanation then what are you debating for?

Because they "might" be a "flying saucer from another world" or they might be a "flying saucer from this world". They might be from the ocean. They might be a military spook program. They might be from the future.

This is a closed minded skeptic who has made up their mind before the evidence is presented.

No, not really. It could be from another world. Since we have no evidence of another world that has inhabitants we can't say that's what it is.

If we know it is not "human", I mean really KNOW it, that doesn't mean it is from another planet. What if it is time travel? What if it is oceanic life?

So before you see or hear the evidence you have already reached the conclusion that extraterrestrials are an "unreasonable explanation."

I've read a lot actually. I have opinions, meaning I think they exist, but I'm not sure what "they" are.

[quoteThis is not free thinking, this is closed minded skepticism.

Oooooh! Can you tell people on the "Randi is an idiot" board that you think I'm a skeptic? Please?

I think most skeptics agree with you that extraterrestrials are an unreasonable explanation. This is why the skeptic doesn't want to weigh these things within reason because they don't have a reasonable explanation for these things.

This truly makes the skeptics position look weak and very closed minded.

Before you get the wrong impression. I don't not believe in extra-terrestrial life. I don't believe the people who see UFOs are liars, either. I just say without evidence then it could be anything--an that includes the future--how do you know they aren't from the future? Or the oceans? Or the earth's core?

Not knowing is the fun part.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


ok. first off. MOST absolute cases ARE ABSOLUTE BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE!
Second. I have read every case you have posted and then some. the thing you are failing to realise is this: WE in the UFOlogy community understand these things above all
1) WE DO NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE
2) OUR CASES ARE HEARSAY
3)85% OF ALL IMAGES AND VIDEOS ARE ATTENTION SEEKERS AND
PRANKSTERS
4) WE DONT MEDITATE IN CROP CIRCLES
5) MATH IS A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE
6) UNTIL THEY WANT TO BE SEEN FACE TO FACE THEY WILL BE ELUSIVE
AND INVISIBLE

Seriously. THese beings (the other than human pilots of UFO's) are clearly more advanced in the ways of mathematics, and physics than we are. CLEALRY this means they are technologically more advanced than we are.
CLEARLY this also means, considering they have NEVER shown any CREDIBLE hostility toward human kind, they have nothing to gain by destroying us.

Originally posted by chiron613
The so-called "skeptics" don't need to use reason or any other rhetorical technique. They are not the ones making the claims. It is the claimant who has the burden of proof.

This is the point where many 'skeptics' actually reveal their pseudo-skepticism. I agree with what you say above. However, it has to be remembered that to say "X is not an E.T. craft" is a claim, and as a claim it requires proof just as the claim that "X is an E.T. craft" requires it. Many so called "skeptics" forget this.

"The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved... Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything... But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence." - On Pseudo-Skepticism

A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi

(Links to the full article quoted above and others like it can be found in my signature)

And actually, your closing comments do stray from legitimate skepticism and you make several negative claims, without proof. When the truth is that you do not know:

There's no race of superior aliens, waiting to welcome us into the Galactic Federation. There's no group of beings that is going to bring us peace and prosperity, usher in a new age of wonders. Nor are they going to attack and start to annihilate humanity...

I think that if "believers" are to receive criticism from "skeptics" then skeptics should be required to at least "practice what they preach" and meet the same criteria for claims they insist of everyone else, or else be rightly identified as pseudo-skeptics. Thankfully, ATS still has a few legitimate skeptics and their presence and input is appreciated. However, they are IMO, greatly outnumbered by the pseudo-skeptics who hide behind the skirts of legitimate skepticism and rely on the ignorance of those who don't know the difference.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Malcram]

It is very unfortunate another one of these "Skeptic-Believer Battle Threads" have popped up again. I am not entirely sure what the OP of this thread, Matrix Rising, or any of the other "battle thread" starters (or non-online skeptic-believer ufological belligerents for that matter) had in mind when deciding to start this thread. I would like to believe it was purely a miscalculated, misguided, and fallacious expression of the overwhelming frustration we all feel right now towards ufology.

We have a very real phenomena that has been going on in our very skies for the last 70 years (possibly much longer), countless cases, many solid cases, but still no proof or unambiguous evidence. What we still have however, is the human aspect of this subject matter deferring the propagation of the very core aspect of our very faltering field of research, which is the acquisition of truth and a solution to the very enigma which we are all arguing about at this very moment.

The human aspect of which I speak is of course our primitive, emotion driven urge to force our own ideologies onto others with opposing viewpoints. The fact of the matter is that in reality the term "skeptic" and "believer" should not exist in a pure scientific inquiry, which is what ufology is supposed to be, but sadly is not right now, and hasn't been for sometime. The biased stereotypes of human labeling need not be applied to any legitimate and serious investigation.

What I fear many fail to understand is that we are letting our very passion for our goal, which is driven by different perspectives and philosophy but still aimed at the same target, defeat our our very aim, causing our field to fail from a cancer within, which is us. While we continue to engage in circular arguments completely irrelevant to the goal of our subject matter we are losing valuable resources, time, and efforts that could be spent elsewhere in productive attempts to progress our field.

Of course these ideological arguments almost always mutate into personal battles, as we are seeing in this very thread and so many others. This is an important fact to understand, because when this happens we elevate the situation from the already bad ideological argument to the much worse personal scoffing and ridicule, which then creates enemies, enemies which due to their own selfish ego to "prove someone right or wrong" will further disrupt the field by doing anything they can to defeat their "enemy", which further destroys our field.

How can we ever hope to be taken seriously when we can not stop bickering amongst ourselves like children or animals? How can we ever hope to find the truth when you have one side publishing literally anything as "proof" of alien life when we don't even know what UFOs are? The other side is not without fault however, this side will attempt to push any mundane explanation they can into anything to make it fit their paradigm of reality, which we all know is limited since humans do not understand hardly anything about our reality.

This must be resolved, and quick. Both ideologies ("sides") must meet in the middle and drop the entire arbitrary "side of the fence" and work towards a common purpose, which is what ufology is all about. This can not be achieved any other way, and if it is not done then we will all be doomed to forever run around in circles, and if that is the case we all might as well forget about ufology, or any science for that matter. We might as well only worry about who's ego is right and who's ideology of an unknown and ambiguous idea is right.

We all understand that the very nature of our subject matter is mysterious and always leaves nothing more than probable conclusions, so the frustration we all fell is expected. However, we will never be able to gather enough meaningful research, evidence, and public support to even have a chance of investigating and proving that one case that does it, that one case that is the summation of all we do, all the work, all the lost time, all the frustration, and all the ridicule.

Maybe the very field of ufology has no solution to be gained, maybe we are chasing a question that has no answer, or can not be answered. I certainly hope not, and as intelligent, curious, and open minded human beings we at least owe it to ourselves to try our best to find a answer. Maybe there is nothing to any of these UFO or alien reports, maybe there is. Maybe we will have to wait until "they" show themselves to us to get our answer. Either way if we are going to waste our time arguing over ideologies, research philosophies, and beliefs, instead of doing actual research to attempt to solve quite possibly the greatest question for all mankind then we might as well all quit right here, right now.

We all should be in this together, there should be no "sides", only one common collective working towards one goal. As the old saying goes "It doesn't matter what you know, it matters what you can prove." I personally, and my one voice has little value, ask that we all stop the egotistical and primitive ideological games and start working on proving something, something that has the potential to forever change our species in ways we can not imagine. I know I will continue to try to do just that.


Best Regards,
Justin



[edit on 10/17/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by chiron613
The so-called "skeptics" don't need to use reason or any other rhetorical technique. They are not the ones making the claims. It is the claimant who has the burden of proof.

They most certainly have a burden of proof whenever they try to rebut a case and spout solutions of their own.

But I'm glad you agree pseudo-skeptics do not need to use reason, for in general they do not.

LFMAO I said that same thing about 3 hrs ago... but fewer words

reply to post by Dracmoor


Yes, there are some cases obviously that are misrepresented as crafts. Others where they are of human origin, and yet again ones that are most definitely ET, and known to those witnessing as there is contact, and the person is an experiencer, or soon to be one.

I'm not sure that even photographing, which can easily be faked, although if you have energy recognition, looking at ufo videos is good practice. People need to experience ufology first hand themselves and should become seekers. If they have the right attitude and hearts that are caring and concerned with unity, humanities well being, all of nature and mother earth, and they seek, they will find. And they really won't worry about what others say.

Until disclosure occurs, real proof will be lacking, though on that moment, they will all unmask. That is the thing we really have to push for. This is more important than most realize, for the earth changes are coming and what is being done to humans by the leaders is a crime beyond description.

reply to post by stanlee


Who you talking too?

You might use the "reply to" function as it makes it clear who you are talking to.

I only ask if it was directed towards me cause you said "fewer words"...