It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Adept_Zero
The reason why demanding irrefutable proof holds merit is because it isn't possible to prove a negative. It is a logical fallacy.
If I say I have an invisible faerie in my back yard, how could anyone prove me wrong? It's invisible, so you can't take pictures. In fact, because it is a faerie and nobody has ever verified their existence in order to quantify what faeries can and cannot do, I can give it whatever lame power or ability I want. I could even say it could stop existing and re-appear based on whether or not it wants to be found by people.
Can you see how similar this sounds in regard to the idea of ETs zipping around in technologically superior spaceships? Or the stories of abductees? The people telling the stories can make up whatever they want, and we'd honestly have no way of possibly disproving them. It's the perfect hydra of ignorance - lop one head off, and another one just pops up in its place.
This is why the burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the side making the most incredible or supernatural claim. And this is also why third-person anecdotes, stories and "confessions" are the worst possible substitutions for evidence. The truth is, they aren't even evidence to begin with.
The court of science isn't anything like the court of law. It demands one-hundred percent, verifiable proof. So far, there isn't any.
Are UFOs real? Obviously, they are.
Are they piloted by space-faring alien races? Nope. No proof of it so far.
Are there other intelligent species of life throughout the universe? Most likely, but no proof of that either unfortunately.
I guess this is why folks are labeled as "believers" and not "knowers."
Originally posted by Maarhuis
It seems to me that proof all comes down to the individual.