It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Skeptic FAQ

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


well in think its going to be difficult with you lol. your in quite combatative mood on this.

ok maccabee when he studies evidence doesn't do it from a objective position. You just need to look at his "battle of LA" photo analysis to see this. Generally his method involves making 1 assumption then building on it with more assumptions them more then more until he comes to the alien spaceship conclusion. Its really bad becuase if his original assumption is wrong the whole theory is a crock and we have no way of testing his first assumption. Its just a nonsense way of going about anything tbh.

It's striking how his analysis is the same each time and his first assumption in each analysis never takes him in the direction of anything other than spaceship, he nearly always comes to his preferred conclusion (spaceship). Classic symptom of someone whos bought into a belief system
edit on 23-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

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.

Double yawn. You did not use the word, but it comes down to same. You talked about how we "selectively accept and dismiss evidence", which would be a double standard and thus we would be acting inconsistently.


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.
Nowhere did I write - nor did Flash as far as I can tell - that we wish to "dimiss people" based on "opinions you do not like". You either do not understand the argument, or willfully misrepresent it. You are obfuscating.

I do not judge someone who believes in God, certain philosophical beliefs or some other phenomena. What Flash has tried to make clear is that it all comes down to inconsistencies in methodology which might be indicators of bias. So it is the inconsistency in applying scientific methodology and the demand for certain evidentiary thresholds - not the belief held - which raises the red flag.



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.
We don't do gullible juries here in Holland, I'll chalk that up to your ignorance.


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.
The pile of bull-crap is yours. By responding to you I have hardly time left to respond to other threads.

edit on 23-2-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg
well in think its going to be difficult with you lol. your in quite combatative mood on this.
At least you see the humor in it. You should see me in court.



ok maccabee when he studies evidence doesn't do it from a objective position. You just need to look at his "battle of LA" photo analysis to see this. Generally his method involves making 1 assumption then building on it with more assumptions them more then more until he comes to the alien spaceship conclusion. Its really bad becuase if his original assumption is wrong the whole theory is a crock and we have no way of testing his first assumption. Its just a nonsense way of going about anything tbh.
I have not seen or read his battle of LA analysis. Where in the analysis does he argue it is an alien spaceship? That is, after all, what we were discussing. The belief system of UFOs as alien spaceships. A belief system which you said Maccabee fell victim to.


It's striking how his analysis is the same each time and his first assumption in each analysis never takes him in the direction of anything other than spaceship, he nearly always comes to his preferred conclusion (spaceship). Classic symptom of someone whos bought into a belief system
I thought you were going to show me where Maccabee says he believes UFOs are alien spaceships. I don't have the paper. Could you quote the part where Maccabee argues it is an alien spaceship?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Hey jclmavg, we're eagerly awaiting your dissection of EsSeeEye's opening post.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


right ok, i think you know as well as i do he doesnt come out and say "alien spaceship". He plays the game, he plays it so his conclusions are along the lines of - solid craft, so many feet wide, rules out normal explantions, unexplainable. Come on we both know which side offers him up and it isnt the skeptics lol.

He willingly gives his "expert" opinion but his opinion is never a prosaic explantion its always * insert x files music" type opinion. Always built on that famous first assumption which leads to the unexplainable conclusion. Thats the reason you offered his name is it not?



heres his analysis of the battle of LA brumac.8k.com... basically he tries to baffle the reader with absolute claptrap as if hes basing his findings on something tangable when he's not. He Guesses at information he doesnt have, he tries to sight sources which justify his guesses then goes on to to make assumptions like

"Suppose the elevation angle were 30 degrees." yeah suppose all you like bruce as long as it takes us to the spaceship LoL

Its really bad and no amount of pseudo scientific claptrap can hide the fact he's guessing. And he doesnt guess in the prosaic direction ever. If any of his guesses are wrong which they may well be that whole analysis means nothing and we cant test his guesses which makes Bruce utterly pointless.
edit on 23-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
Hey jclmavg, we're eagerly awaiting your dissection of EsSeeEye's opening post.
Who is "we"? You and the owl in your pocket?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Excellent thread.And some excellent points. star and flag



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
right ok, i think you know as well as i do he doesnt come out and say "alien spaceship".
I think that makes my point. And perhaps Maccabee thinks it was an experimental craft? So how does this support a belief system in alien spacehips? Perhaps Maccabee merely thinks that the extraterrestrial connection is a reasonable but yet unproven working hypothesis for some sightings? In that case, it wouldn't be a "belief system" now would it?

Anyway, I'm off to bed, 1:30 am here, thanks for the target practice y'all.

edit on 23-2-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


so why did you offer his name in regards to the ETH?
it wasn't an appeal to authority was it?


If I take the ETH seriously, like dr. James McDonald did, or dr. Bernard Haisch more recently, or perhaps even dr. Bruce Maccabee. Then I don't mind being surrounded by "stupid naive people".


i'm willing to discuss the subject but not if your going to be as disingenuous as this.
edit on 23-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Enough with the snide comments and rude remarks about each other.

Stick to the topic at hand and it isn't each other.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Perhaps Maccabee merely thinks that the extraterrestrial connection is a reasonable but yet unproven working hypothesis for some sightings?


A working hypothesis is by definition unproven, also you can't base a working hypothesis purely on speculation.


Anyway, I'm off to bed, 1:30 am here, thanks for the target practice y'all.


No thank you



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Nowhere did I write - nor did Flash as far as I can tell - that we wish to "dimiss people" based on "opinions you do not like".


Oh, but you did...


Originally posted by jclmavg
It might mean we may need to ignore this person's opinion because the inconsistencies involved spell out bias.


Your words; you will ignore evidence based not on the strength of the evidence but what you feel are "inconsistencies" regarding other, unrelated subjects or a perceived bias.



Originally posted by jclmavg
So it is the inconsistency in applying scientific methodology and the demand for certain evidentiary thresholds - not the belief held - which raises the red flag.


And gives you cause to ignore someone if you cannot debate the substance of their argument or evidence.

What you fail to understand, purposefully, is that inconsistency or hypocrisy do not equate to being wrong.


Originally posted by jclmavg
We don't do gullible juries here in Holland, I'll chalk that up to your ignorance.


Pardon me for not being familiar with the legal system in Holland. ('
')

And I am sure when selecting a jury (do you select juries in Holland? Do I care?), lawyers pick the most intelligent jurors, not those they can best manipulate.


Originally posted by jclmavgBy responding to you I have hardly time left to respond to other threads


Funny you selected mine to respond to and not telling us the logical fallacies in the OP.
edit on 23-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

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.


Great. So you're an expert then. Look through ATS some more. I'm sure just about every case that was ever worth mentioning and the plenty that weren't are in here.



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.


Hey man, whatever your definition of a skeptic is I could care less. I have my reasons for being skeptical. And I owe it all to ATS for forcing me to see things differently.


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.


So why should we be so convinced then?


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


Not implying anything. Most ufos are mfos. That's my point. But the small percentage that can't be identified does not mean they're aliens. If they were, then they'd cease to be unidentified now wouldn't they?


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.


I'm all for being appeased by the evidence if it were solid. My argument is that it is not. I've been interested in this topic for many years too. I've gone from believing that they are here to being skeptical of that. Why? Because the evidence, which is all we have, is not convincing enough for me. Why should that be considered irrational by you?

What is it that makes you so sure that they are here? And you better not say the tether incident



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.


Invent your own rules of what proof is then. I really don't care. What has your research turned up? Please post it if is so convincing.

Fact is, science is already trying to find them. Perhaps you've heard of the Kepler mission. So if you mean that sort of scientific methodology then yes I do care.


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?


Is Africa not connected to the modern world in anyway? You make it sound like that philosophical riddle- " if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it...."



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.


Because I am skeptical of alien visitations my views are now fallacious? When the heck did skeptics suddenly become the kooks?

Again, if the evidence were strong enough I'd believe again. But it's not. I'm not here to be skeptical for the sake of it.

But we should be beyond evidence by now. And the fact remains that in this ever growing technological world where pictures and videos are so easily doctored to look real and people are just out to make a quick buck or capture their moment of fame on the internet with their outrageous ufo stories, you researchers have an increasingly tougher challenge trying to prove aliens are here.


It's just that this "no proof" angle leads you to unreasonable assumptions and a nonscientific position.


Is it really that unreasonable to assume that aliens haven't been to earth yet?

I'm sorry but you're confused. What science are you talking about?You're position is the non-scientific one, not mine.

Science is based on the provable and factual my friend. How do alien visitations fit in that paradigm?
edit on 24-2-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
the skeptics do some of the best debunking in here, but they also close some doors with a closed mind..



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
i do believe. and i know for a fact they are out there. just us being here alone gives the odds an infinite chance that there is life elsewhere. its common sense people. and as far as "evidence" goes..doesnt matter what is caught on camera, what has been said, what the government says..it will never EVER be enough for those who are skeptical theirs always the word "but". believing and knowing are 2 different things obviously. but believing in something is the same as a hypothesis or a blueprint. knowing is a certain fact. as far as evolution is concerned...believing in something is not advancing or evolving. but knowing is. therefore you can further progress....

for those of you who are wondering how i know? lol come on now really? you really think were the only ones here. i feel sorry for the "skeptics" they are very much so real. its just the way it is. its how evolution works.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by HispanicPanic
 


I bet you feel really brave knocking down those straw men, don't you?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


I swear I'm not trying to start an argument or debate. This is just The Disclosure Project shot with the National Press Club with many ex-ranking government officials coming forth with their stories. If you skip pass the good ol' fashion "I saw lights and this and that-" , to the parts with real info, it might just be what your looking for. Who knows. Brilliantly and naturally played out skit if it's fake though ! It's worth a watch if you have 2 spare hours.
(You'll notice its in front of a lot of press when the camera zooms out later in the video, it was kinda up until that moment I HAD thought it was some fictional and acted skit.)

"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out" A.Einstein

www.youtube.com...

edit on 5-5-2011 by ChomeChum because: sentence did not have pass tense and I changed so as reader's were not confused



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


I can tell the only way you would ever believe is if an alien abducted you and gave you an anal probe. Then you would probably believe that it was someone in a costume.
edit on 5-5-2011 by thorazineshuffle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
ugh. i hate having more than one tab open
edit on 5-5-2011 by ChomeChum because: wrong place



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 




I also encourage any and all who are on the “other side of the fence” to do their own version of this thread as a separate topic. I’d be genuinely interested to read an overview of a believer’s frame of thought concerning this topic.


For a skeptic like yourself I strongly recommend the book: Beyond UFOs by Jeffrey Bennett. He is an astro-physicist.

Basically, he concludes his book by pointing out that there are only 3 real solutions to the Fermi Paradox:

1) We are alone. Civilizations are so rare that we are the first to have arisen in the universe.

2) Civilizations are common but so far no one has colonized the galaxy. No one has mastered technology capable of handling the vastness of space. Or they have all come and gone. Perhaps a natural disaster wiped them out. Perhaps they killed off eachother (nuclear war).

3) There is a galactic civilization, but so far we have been unable to discover its existence.

Now let's look at these 3 options. Options #1 seems a bit egotistical to be honest. But that's my opinion. So there is mathematic "probability" (given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and common chemical elements of the galaxy) that since we are here and we are intelligent, that certainly this must have happened somewhere else already. Afterall, the universe is 15 billion years old and our planet is only 4.4 billion.

Option #2 while very believable from our vantage point, it's completely depressing and not really what we want to believe now is it?

So just like that we get to option #3. We have shown that given our first 2 options, one of them has profound philosphical implications. The other, while plausible, we are all rooting against! Now what about option #3?

Think about it. The favored solution to the "where is everybody?" question is that they are here, all around us, but we are not yet capable of discovering their existence. As crazy as that sounds, that best fits all the data from ufology. Whatever the reason we have not found them, if they're real it can only mean one thing: If we can survive our adolescence of our civilization there's a universe of grownups just waiting for us.

Now when I said "best fits all the data from ufology," that is a lot to go through for one post lol.


So for scientifically minded skeptics I recommend starting with-
Beyond UFOs
And I would follow that up with Leslie Kean's book- UFOs: Generals Pilots and Gov't Officials go on the record

Any negative reviews of Leslie's book are unfounded. The point wasn't about new material so much as bringing the best possible cases to light and coming from the angle of non-judgement as to who or what is piloting UFOs. Approaching it more of a safety issue, which the FAA seems to be pretty silent on. So if you are looking for a piece of alien DNA to magically pop out of the book you'll be disappointed. However, the book has very credible witnesses.

If you are interested in why these stories don't get more attention you have only to read a book on psychology to understand why people might be hesitant to bring this kind of topic up in public. But there is more than just embarrasing feelings behind the lack of media coverage. Worthwhile reading into MSM + Gov't connection/conspiracy I would definitely recommend- The Missing Times.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join