Imagine A UFO Skeptic

Over the shoulder of:

* An air traffic controller

* A radiologist

* A baseball umpire

* A witness to a hit and run accident

Et cetera

Applying their usual tactics.

Think it could cause some major problems?

reply to post by grizzle2


Please elaborate.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Think it could cause some major problems?

None that I can see. They certainly wouldn't cause as many problems as somebody looking over the shoulders of the same folks who thinks that the solution to everything can be explained by some hypothetical entities from another planet.

Originally posted by grizzle2

Applying their usual tactics.

You mean making an informed decision based on the information at hand?

Originally posted by grizzle2
Over the shoulder of:

* An air traffic controller

* A radiologist

* A baseball umpire

* A witness to a hit and run accident

Et cetera

Applying their usual tactics.

Think it could cause some major problems?

Ultimate fail...because we the skeptics would have all the information we would need to come to rational logical decision. Unlike believers...who read a story on the net...that contains no other evidence/information...but it's about UFO's so it must be true..

I wish there was a skeptic observing when the idiot hit my vehicle while I was in the store.

I'd see a problem.

"Oh air traffic control, you see a light on the screen? Chinese lantern."

When will skeptics try to actually get scientific proof, or factual proof for that matter, before just writing something off? I have not been convinced by a single skeptic here once. Not that I believe every video is real, but they just write it off like they know more than everyone else in the world, including the news stations that seem to show all of these "hoaxes."

Seriously, just because you don't believe that ET's are real, doesn't mean that UFO's don't exist. Maybe instead of denying everything your "research" could be put to better use actually finding out what something is by proving it, not sweeping it away.

Well, if the Radiologist claimed something stupid like: blasting me with x-rays will give me super-powers... Yeah, I would want a skeptic over his shoulder...

Originally posted by TripleSalCal
I'd see a problem.

"Oh air traffic control, you see a light on the screen? Chinese lantern."

Ah. Someone gets the point. It would, in each case, be an endless grasping for any answer, the making of any argument, however ridiculous, and at length, against the person's ability to tell what they were seeing. Each of these people would likely, in time, be arrested for assault.

Lost Science by Gerry Vassilatos

"...If human experience is invalid, then who decided whether or not
instrumental examinations of Nature were more valid? More valid
compared to what or whom? Whose 'faulty' consciousness decided this
ridiculous contradiction? These continually emerging inconsistencies
are the embarrassing 'warning signs' to quantitative method...."

air traffic controller "That's just blips. Could be anything. Could be equipment malfunction. You could be hallucinating!" (Kerplooey!)

radiologist "That's just a fuzzy photographic defect. Could be defective film, or the x-ray machine could be defective. You actually want to cut into someone on the basis of flimsy photographic evidence?"

baseball umpire "You couldn't possibly have seen that! You know how fast baseballs go?"

witness to a hit and run accident (and so on)

Originally posted by coder22
reply to post by grizzle2

 

Please elaborate.

Let's apply the typical UFO skeptic's arguments in other situations which require human beings to asses the information of their senses. All such human activity would shut down.

Originally posted by TripleSalCal
I'd see a problem.

"Oh air traffic control, you see a light on the screen? Chinese lantern."

When will skeptics try to actually get scientific proof, or factual proof for that matter, before just writing something off? I have not been convinced by a single skeptic here once.

Perhaps because you are closed-minded. The above fictional quote, as well as the statement about what you assume skeptics think about aliens, is evidence enough.

Originally posted by grizzle2
air traffic controller "That's just blips. Could be anything. Could be equipment malfunction. You could be hallucinating!"

Except that the skeptic would already have all the information necessary to know what the blip is.

Originally posted by grizzle2
radiologist "That's just a fuzzy photographic defect. Could be defective film, or the x-ray machine could be defective. You actually want to cut into someone on the basis of flimsy photographic evidence?"

Except that an x-ray is not flimsy photographic evidence and every skeptic would already know that. And doctors, being skeptics by definition, would not make such assumptions you claim.

Originally posted by grizzle2
baseball umpire "You couldn't possibly have seen that! You know how fast baseballs go?"

More skeptics are needed in sports; perhaps then there wouldn't be so many bad calls.

Originally posted by grizzle2
witness to a hit and run accident (and so on)

At a hit and run accident, I'd want a skeptic instead of someone who is just going to make assumptions.

This thread is not about what skeptics think but rather your own prejudices about skeptics.

Open-mindedness...



Though I doubt you will actually consider anything in the video. Instead, you will continue to argue how much skeptics suck. But even if skeptics are as terrible as you believe, it doesn't make alien visitation any more (or less) real.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Over the shoulder of:

* An air traffic controller

* A radiologist

* A baseball umpire

* A witness to a hit and run accident

Et cetera

Applying their usual tactics.

Think it could cause some major problems?

You're perception of sceptics is unbelievably closed minded and this kind of thread is like a disease here at A.T.S.

Sort your head out.

^^^^



Irony at it's finest!

reply to post by TripleSalCal


Who ever filled your head with such non-sense? Why do you believe skeptic equals to a non-believer in ETs or the reality of the UFO phenomenon? I suggest you go over a dictionary or someting and check what the definition behind the word is, then go around and start pointing fingers like that. I guess you failed to be impressed by a skeptic on this site, probably because you were already conditioned into thinking there are bad guys out there who are trying to cover up the truth confusing you with their facts and conclusions, so you wouldn't trust anyone easily. Yet, you didn't mention failing to be impressed by a believer, don't you think that's rather selective because it fits your needs?


OP, as for your question. I'd choose the skeptic. I wouldn't, however, choose an idiot who is idiotic enough to not believe in ET life in the Universe, so by your standarts, I've just contradicted myself. Could it be, that this paradox is caused by your TV set, rather than my antenna?

Originally posted by TripleSalCal
...When will skeptics try to actually get scientific proof, or factual proof for that matter, before just writing something off? ...

Well, One cannot prove a negative. Kinda like asking me to prove there isn't a god. I can't. I believe there is a god, but can't prove that either.

I can't prove somebody DIDN'T see something they claim to have seen. Doesn't mean they really saw it though.

Your statement could just as easily have been, "When will UFO believers try to actually get scientific proof, or factual proof for that matter, before believing that the lights they saw were actual extra-terrestrials?"

Actually, for the sake of airline passengers, if the air traffic controller said:
"look at those two dots on the screen heading towards each other -- those could be alien craft!",

I would hope the skeptic over his shoulder would remind the controller of the mundane explanation:
"They are probably just planes"

in time enough to prevent a collision.

Originally posted by WingedBullExcept that the skeptic would already have all the information necessary to know what the blip is.

Yes, a presumption of infallibility, I have found that to be a quality of various skeptics.
They rely on various known logical fallacies, from dismissing things out of hand, to ad hominem attacks, to appeals to authority. And, yes, they do spend most of their time "proving negatives", trying to, though they run behind the idea that you can't when they get into trouble.
They don't say "maybe", they KNOW.

"YOU'RE A G**-D***** LIAR!" - UFO skeptic Philip Klass, yelling at an abductee on television