The Skeptic FAQ

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by TheFlash
I will point out again that no one has answered the questions I asked.

Perhaps because they recognize the rhetorical trap you are trying to set in order to derail the conversation.

I know you will take offense to that charge, though it is true. You cannot argue facts so you want to change the conversation to character.

Originally posted by TheFlash
One might call it hypocrisy.

And so what? Hypocrisy does not equate to being incorrect. You are focusing on the character of the debater and not the substance of the argument. It does not matter if they are closed-mind, a hypocrite, or what other irrational beliefs they may hold; it does not make them automatically wrong.

edit on 22-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

No it is not character: it is methodology, if it can be called methodology at all. The pertinent point is that it is applied inconsistently based on the personal, biased, unscientific desires of the arguer. It illustrates that belief on behalf of those who use such hypocritical tactics has nothing at all to do with facts. Your argument is extremely ironic.

reply to post by StarblazerUK

But the distance and current knowledge of science and space/time travel make it seem much less likely that anything would have progressed beyond the point of just solar system travel.

OK i was reading through this thread when i found this comment and i had to comment.

OK for starters you are basing this assumption on human tech, scientists believe the big bang that created the universe occurred 13.75 billion years ago and the human race appeared around 200.000 years ago giving other races if they do exist ( lets just say for arguments sake) a possible 13 billion years of time to advance there tech over the human race( we are still very young).

so my question now is do you still believe another race couldn't have created any tech to leave there solar system?

Originally posted by jclmavg
What Flash does seem to be saying is that if a person is inconsistent in applying the criteria by which he accepts or dismisses a particular phenomenon this tells us something about the rational process involved. It might mean we may need to ignore this person's opinion because the inconsistencies involved spell out bias.

And we come to the crux of it.

You and Flash are looking for excuses to "ignore a person's opinion" (your words), not based on facts or the substance of their argument but based on other irrelevant subjects. You do not want to debate facts or substance, you want to debate anything else. It does not matter what the facts are, according to you.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Science as an abstract entity and activity should and does not care about the personal beliefs of people involved.

Then why are you trying to make it about personal beliefs?

Originally posted by jclmavg
Being inconsistent IMO relates directly to the substance and quality of someone's argument.

Their inconsistency on other subjects do not change the facts when debating UFOs. Why are you trying to debate that facts are malleable based on other irrelevant beliefs?

Let me ask you? If you believe in God, should we ignore what you have to say about UFOs? If you are "inherently biased" towards the belief that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials, should we ignore what you have to say about UFOs? Or should we concentrate on the substance of your argument? Because right now, you are arguing we should ignore you.

Originally posted by TheFlash
No it is not character: it is methodology, if it can be called methodology at all. The pertinent point is that it is applied inconsistently based on the personal, biased, unscientific desires of the arguer. It illustrates that belief on behalf of those who use such hypocritical tactics has nothing at all to do with facts. Your argument is extremely ironic.

Does hypocrisy change facts? If someone has an opinion about one topic, does it change the facts about another? If someone has an unscientific view of one subject, does it change the science of other?

Answer, it doesn't. And you cannot argue with any logic or coherence that it does. You are just looking for excuses to dismiss and ignore facts you do not like.

Here is what you are saying: "It does not matter what facts or evidence one has, if that person believes in God we can ignore those facts and evidence". Is that wrong?

He is not going to get it jclmavg. Yet another clear example of Selective Perception.

Originally posted by jclmavg
I found better ways to spend my time today. Does that bother you?

No at all, because it shows you are full of complete bull-crap. You cannot be bothered to expand on what the logical fallacies in the OP are, but want to instead tell us why you can ignore facts and evidence.

Originally posted by TheFlash
He is not going to get it jclmavg. Yet another clear example of Selective Perception.

Then please explain how hypocrisy changes facts. Enlighten us.

Tell us why it is okay to ignore and dismiss evidence based not on the strength of the evidence but the subject's personal opinions.

There is nothing "selective" in what I am debating. I am debating you must examine all evidence, no matter the personal beliefs of the subject. You and jclmavg are the ones arguing that you may selectively accept and dismiss evidence.

So please, tell us how I am being "selective" and you are not.

"only a fool would argue with a fool!"
— Eric Jerome Dickey (Dying for Revenge)

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by jclmavg
I found better ways to spend my time today. Does that bother you?

No at all, because it shows you are full of complete bull-crap. You cannot be bothered to expand on what the logical fallacies in the OP are, but want to instead tell us why you can ignore facts and evidence.

Silly me. Here I am, being a lawyer by day and also owning a night club, and I get all pooh-poohed because Wingedbull feels I should necessarily respond at his demand. Grow up. Perhaps I'll respond later this week when I am less busy with making money, but it sure won't be to please you.

Originally posted by WingedBull
You and jclmavg are the ones arguing that you may selectively accept and dismiss evidence.

Err let me get this straight. You are saying I and Flash are arguing that it is okay to be inconsistent?

Even though both of us argued extensively that being inconsistent and selective when it comes to evidentiary standards and methodology is intellectually dishonest?

reply to post by jclmavg


how about you stop gloating about things we dont care about and tell us the evidence for ET visitation. After that you can tell us why no respected scientific or astronomical organisation subscribes to the belief we are being visited by ET. Not one. In the whole world. Because theyre all stupid and dont own nightclubs?

All your post proves is that otherwise intelligent people can be sucked into a belief system just like stupid nieve people can.

However, if I were wrong and there were a mass cover-up by people who are so powerful that they could silence the literally thousands upon thousands of people that would have to be knowledgeable of the truth, then what could we do? We’d be at their whim.

This is always the standard skeptic response when discussing physical evidence.

Yet, I ask you this... Let's say you find a piece of a top secret stealth fighter, and tried to go public with it. Don't you think you'd be visited by government folks who would confiscate the material, and try to ensure your cooperation? If you sent it to a lab for testing, don't you think the testers would be visited?

The secret would be kept the way all secrets are kept...compartmentalization. Most people only know the part they are involved in...only a few are privy to the big picture. All evidence is carefully secured, just as a stealth technician would be unable to simple put a screw in his pocket. (I know something about this due to my father's line of work and the procedures he had to go through to ensure no classified material was taken home...even by accident). If someone did go public, they'd be ridiculed and character assassinated ensuring nobody would take them seriously.

It doesn't require a massive network, only quick response if and when a piece of potential physical evidence pops up, whether real or not (they can't afford to take chances).

OP- kudos on a solid post.

After seeing all the evidence that makes up this thing we call "UFOology" I am convinced that none of it is of any tangible substance. There is not enough to determine that aliens have ever been here.

UFO's? Sure. They're just unidentified. Although most UFO's are really just MFO's... mis-identified

"The best stuff" seems to come by way of stories with no proof. "But what about all the astronauts, pilots, and such who claim aliens to be real?" What about it? Have we seen anything real from these people? Videos? Pics?

Nope.

Just stories told to them by others. Government insiders with reports of weird things. Or perhaps they were witnesses to something they couldn't readily explain.

"It's aliens! They must be here!".

No. They are not. There is no proof. None.

When the real UFO event happens, we will all know it. Believe that.

It's not going to come from some youtube video that we debate about for 200 pages here on ATS.

No. True disclosure will come from the skies and it will be a life altering event on the level of what 9/11 was...hopefully not as deadly though. How do we all know that 9/11 happened? There's tangible proof.

FACT: There is no tangible hard evidence of alien contact. There just isn't. And if governments are really covering up aliens crafts and beings, then we can rejoice because at some point there will be others... SO where are they?

Proof, and only proof, will end this debate. Not evidence. Like some questionable youtube video of fuzzy lights that we don't realize are just planes.

Proof. And when it arrives from the skies in god knows what form. YOU will know. And when YOU know, so will the entire planet. It will be that big of a life changing event and it will be that glaringly obvious.

Do you see?

My 2 cents.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by jclmavg


do you subscribe to the belief that we are being visted by ET in spaceships?


wait scratch that you basically answered in your last statement. People like Maccabbe are more examples of otherwise intelligent people being drawn into a belief system just like stupid nieve poeple can, same as ed mitchell. Belief systems transcend intelligence.

Lot of scientific experiments have been done on this. I can tell you more if your interested.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
After seeing all the evidence

I doubt even I have seen "all the evidence" and I've been reading/seeing on and off for like 20 years on the subject.

this thing we call "UFOology"

Red flag nr 1, here comes the self-proclaimed rationalist who cracks a joke about "UFOology". Yawn. Yes, this is what passes for "skepticism" these days.

There is not enough to determine that aliens have ever been here.

Did you see the people who claimed there was proof? I sure didn't, at least the more serious researchers don't claim there's proof.

Although most UFO's are really just MFO's... mis-identified

Red flag nr 2. The implied suggestion is that because most UFOs are misidentifications, hoaxes, etc. the remainder probably is too.

"The best stuff" seems to come by way of stories with no proof. "But what about all the astronauts, pilots, and such who claim aliens to be real?" What about it? Have we seen anything real from these people? Videos? Pics?

Note how the goal posts are moved, the "skeptic" is not appeased with "just" evidence. He demands proof, undeniable proof that the event happened as described! This despite the fact that transient unpredictable events cannot be easily replicated in the lab and circumstances dictate a different methodological approach. Such as a large scale scientific investigation with proper equipment.

No. They are not. There is no proof. None.

See above. The pseudoskeptic immediately demands proof, he does not care about regular scientific methodology where investigations proceed in small steps and where there are no clear-cut rules for what constitutes proof. Even a body of circumstancial evidence - where the individual pieces on its own might not be proof, just evidence - might get researchers to agree that their hypothesis is correct. That would be consensus science. But the pseudoskeptic will have none of it. He wants the saucer, the alien, everything else is rubbish.

When the real UFO event happens, we will all know it. Believe that.

Ah yes, so when a real UFO event happens in Africa, the whole world will know it and we will all believe it. How do you figure that?

Proof, and only proof, will end this debate. Not evidence. Like some questionable youtube video of fuzzy lights that we don't realize are just planes.

Another great example of what I said in a different thread. Pseudoskeptics act like all sightings can be reduced to fuzzy lights in the sky.

My 2 cents.

More like 0.1 cent.

I'm all for people disagreeing on their own well-reasoned points of view or arguments, but the ones you put forth here are for the most part fallacious. It does not matter if the evidence is or is not unconvincing. Obviously you are right in one regard, there is no proof. I will leave aside the question as to whether the evidence to date could be considered strong. It's just that this "no proof" angle leads you to unreasonable assumptions and a nonscientific position.

reply to post by jclmavg


jclmavg, i forgot to say mines is not an appeal to authority its an appeal to the scientific method. I have great examples of this also. So if you want to know more about the scientific experiments on belief systems & the scientific method i'll be more than happy to explain them.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg

 

do you subscribe to the belief that we are being visted by ET in spaceships?

wait scratch that you basically answered in your last statement.

Ah wait, this is getting better all the time. Because I mention Maccabee, I now believe and have come to admit we are being visited by aliens in spaceships?

Do me a favor and a) spell Maccabee's name right, b) explain how Maccabee's position can be reduced to a belief system that we are being visited by ET in spaceships.

You may illustrate part b by quoting Maccabee from one of his publications where he supposedly relates this belief to his audience.

People like Maccabbe are more examples of otherwise intelligent people being drawn into a belief system just like stupid nieve poeple can, same as ed mitchell. Belief systems transcend intelligence.

Surely having a belief system and acting on it would never infect the mind of Yeti101. Yeti101 is the man without emotion, the man who oozes rational thought. A man of science. Right?

Lot of scientific experiments have been done on this. I can tell you more if your interested.

Quite frankly I'm not sure you should bother. What makes you think you can change a system of belief?

Seriously, who made you chief psychologist?

Originally posted by yeti101
jclmavg, i forgot to say mines is not an appeal to authority

You did not even bother to mention an "authority" so you would be correct on that.

its an appeal to the scientific method.

Ah, here comes the scientific method. Is there one scientific method? Are there many? Do you apply it here, and if so, how? Does it apply to natural sciences only? How does it deal with transient phenomena?

And when do you apply the scientific method? After proof has been found? (warning, trick question!)

Originally posted by jclmavg
Err let me get this straight. You are saying I and Flash are arguing that it is okay to be inconsistent?

Nowhere did I use the word inconsistent. What I said is clear; unable to argue evidence or the substance of an argument, you want to find reasons to dismiss the person presenting said argument.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Even though both of us argued extensively that being inconsistent and selective when it comes to evidentiary standards and methodology is intellectually dishonest?

Then you are guilty of that intellectual dishonest, you admitted as much when you said you wished to dismiss people not based on evidence but on opinions you do not like.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Silly me. Here I am, being a lawyer by day...

That certainly explains the tactic you wish to employ. Such tactics may have a place with gullible juries full of the lowest common denominator but are of little value in an intellectual debate.

Originally posted by jclmavg
and also owning a night club, and I get all pooh-poohed because Wingedbull feels I should necessarily respond at his demand. Grow up. Perhaps I'll respond later this week when I am less busy with making money, but it sure won't be to please you.

Yet, for some reason, you have time to argue with me and Yeti and a very lengthy response to Photon, but still refuse to tell us what logical fallacies the OP committed. The pile of bull-crap gets higher.