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 'U' in UFO (Alien or not Alien???) & UFO Congress 2011

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by jclmavg

This is sheer nonsense. Suppose SETI picks up a signal, the scientists conclude it is extraterrestrial. Cripmeister protests to this explanation, because we do not have another signal "confirmed extraterrestrial to compare it to". Notice how Cripmeister has set up his fallacious argument. We need to know about extraterrestrials, their craft, materials, propulsion, society, and what more in advance. He has thus assumed it is necessary to know the results of the discovery beforehand to even make the discovery. Patently absurd logic.


A bad red herring attempt by you, SETI is besides the point and you know it. Can't say I'm surprised though, you being a lawyer



Cripmeister does not appear to understand science. For we would not need "something confirmed extraterrestrial" (translation: Proof) before we can even begin to consider the evidence, before we can put forward a (working) hypothesis, a proposed explanation for a set of observations that may or may not be satisfactory.


You can guess all you want but that's not science.


An argument from ignorance would involve the claim that the ETH is true since it has not been disproven. Nobody has made that argument here, and most certainly not I. Strawmen, a lack of understanding of how science works, what is next?


No strawman argument, saying that something something implies an extraterrestrial connection to a UFO sighting is an argument from ignorance.


Are you saying no conclusions can be drawn, or hypotheses can be put forward? Oh my, you really seem to think you need proof before we can consider any other evidence or propose and test any hypotheses? Cart before horse, eh?


On a scientific level with regards to something extraterrestrial yes. We need the "smoking gun" it's as simple as that.


edit on 23-2-2011 by cripmeister because: spelling




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by jclmavg

This is sheer nonsense. Suppose SETI picks up a signal, the scientists conclude it is extraterrestrial. Cripmeister protests to this explanation, because we do not have another signal "confirmed extraterrestrial to compare it to". Notice how Cripmeister has set up his fallacious argument. We need to know about extraterrestrials, their craft, materials, propulsion, society, and what more in advance. He has thus assumed it is necessary to know the results of the discovery beforehand to even make the discovery. Patently absurd logic.


A bad red herring attempt by you, SETI is besides the point and you know it. Can't say I'm surprised though, you being a lawer
SETI is not besides the point, it illustrates the gaping hole in your argument. But I'm not surprised you can't respond to it other than to emphasize my occupation.



Cripmeister does not appear to understand science. For we would not need "something confirmed extraterrestrial" (translation: Proof) before we can even begin to consider the evidence, before we can put forward a (working) hypothesis, a proposed explanation for a set of observations that may or may not be satisfactory.



You can guess all you want but that's not science.
This just in! Hold the press! Putting forth a proposed explanation for a set of observations without proof - also known as a hypothesis - is not science, or so has Cripmeister decreed. Seriously, where do you get this? This is basic stuff on scientific methodology that gets taught in university. Does not ring a bell? No?

I wrote:

An argument from ignorance would involve the claim that the ETH is true since it has not been disproven. Nobody has made that argument here, and most certainly not I. Strawmen, a lack of understanding of how science works, what is next?

You wrote:

No strawman argument, saying that something something implies an extraterrestrial connection to a UFO sighting is an argument from ignorance.
I strongly suggest you read up on fallacious logic, you can find a source right here at wiki which explains reasonably what an argument from ignorance is. Hint: it is not what you claim it to be. Seriously dude, where are you going with this? No sources? No understanding of the meaning of fallacies?

I wrote:

Are you saying no conclusions can be drawn, or hypotheses can be put forward? Oh my, you really seem to think you need proof before we can consider any other evidence or propose and test any hypotheses? Cart before horse, eh?

You wrote:

On a scientific level with regards to something extraterrestrial yes. We need the "smoking gun" it's as simple as that.
Obviously you pulled this out of your *ss, like everything else. There is no rule in science which says we need a "smoking gun" ("proof") before hypotheses can be put forth. You move the goalpost, all by yourself without any justification or scientific backing. I have already demonstrated how your argument fails on a scientific and logical level when it comes the SETI analogy. You've donned yourself with the mantle of science and rational skepticism, but your confirmation merely solidifies the true, pseudo-skeptic nature.

Do you find yourself cream of the crop in terms of scientific skepticism? Please say yes.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

SETI is not besides the point, it illustrates the gaping hole in your argument. But I'm not surprised you can't respond to it other than to emphasize my occupation.


What is the scientifically agreed upon definition of extraterrestrial space craft? What scientific method is used to evaluate if a UFO might be of extraterrestrial origin?


This just in! Hold the press! Putting forth a proposed explanation for a set of observations without proof - also known as a hypothesis - is not science, or so has Cripmeister decreed. Seriously, where do you get this? This is basic stuff on scientific methodology that gets taught in university. Does not ring a bell? No?


It's not a scientific hypothesis unless it can be tested.


There is no rule in science which says we need a "smoking gun" ("proof") before hypotheses can be put forth.


You can't base a scientific hypothesis purely on speculation.



new topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join