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.

 

Imagine A UFO Skeptic

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1artyAll of the professions or individuals you put forward in the OP would be required to either use critical thinking to save lives or use an accurate memory which stands up to scrutiny (blah blah blah)
(My blahs - grizzle2)

Again, you're missing the point. Spelling things out quickly becomes tiresome. The idea was to look at the overall attitude of skeptics, and the arguments they apply to UFO witness cases, and apply them to everyday things. It quickly becomes like a form of language called E-Prime. In E-Prime, all forms of "isness" are removed.
Instead of saying "He is drunk", one would say "He appears drunk, but he may be exhibiting this behavior because he is on prescribed medication, or has had a head injury, or blah blah blah blah."
While this is a great way to illustrate how people may be mistaken, and is frequently used to illustrate how people come up with wrong belief systems or demonstrate the limitations of language, it's use in real life would quickly become problematic, as you can imagine.
My point is that a special set of criteria along the lines of E-Prime is used by skeptics when confronted with witnesses of paranormal events which would not be viable in any other area of life. Skeptics typically argue that any other explanation is more likely than the one the actual witness proposes.




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by atlasastro
 


That's just silly. I'm merely theorizing (correctly, I think) what would happen if the known criteria and methods of skeptics of the UFO phenomenon were applied to more everyday things.


So your are applying a skeptical view on the criteria and methods of skeptics. Making you a skeptic of skeptics.

Not to mention you are applying a false dichotomy by relating everyday things or positions and events that are not ordinary or everyday events (UFO sitings etc).

Many people use false dichotomies in order to force opponants in extreme positions. Your OP is a perfect example of this.

I stand by my first reply.
The OP is an
Epic Fail.
Epic.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TripleSalCalmany do blindly attach themselves to some rather ridiculous theories.


Like what? How many Urantia members here, raise your hands!



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastroSo your are applying a skeptical view on the criteria and methods of skeptics. Making you a skeptic of skeptics.

Not to mention you are applying a false dichotomy by relating everyday things or positions and events that are not ordinary or everyday events (UFO sitings etc).

Many people use false dichotomies in order to force opponants in extreme positions. Your OP is a perfect example of this.


Yes, I am a skeptic of skeptics, but the way you're using that language device tends to obfuscate rather than enlighten. As the poster of the video has admitted to, and most people who define themselves as skeptics would agree with, skeptics characterize witnesses to paranormal events as irrational, and either the victims of or perpetrators of hoaxes or misunderstandings. And we must leave it to mainstream scientists to define reality. Skeptics, as a readily definable group, have one set of standards for one type of experiences and another set of standards for another type.
I'm glad you mentioned false dichotomy, again, with regard to this situation, you've turned things on their heads as to the end goal of truth-seeking.
I define skeptics by the actions and words for which they are well-known, both on and off line. If anyone promotes a false dichotomy, it is the skeptics themselves.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


Very nice answer Grizzle!

There practicalities of being a 'full-time skeptic' do make it problematic for having a healthy social life or for achieving things at all.

In order to minimize the 'amount of skepticism' we have in our everyday lives we bring in systems like quality control, quality assurance, substantiated evidence, repeatable science and accepted laws or nature. Whilst all of these types of understanding can be altered, it requires as much evidence and debate as to why they should change and to what (ergo peer reviewed journals etc.).

A true skeptic cannot truly exist within society as they would be unsure of their own existence and therefor are useless as anything other than being a concept. Therefor we are 'skeptical' of things and base our choices upon what we feel to be the better choice at any given moment with the evidence and knowledge available to us.

Whenever something of a 'paranormal' nature is brought up, be it a UFO, a ghost, mediums, cryptozoology or otherwise it goes so far beyond the commonly observed universe which has been cataloged to such a fine degree by our best minds that a healthy dose of 'cynicism' is allowed even prior to skepticism.

When all the supposed 'sightings' of these paranormal accounts are investigated they are either always proven to be misidentified or indeed hoaxes. So I'd say that whilst skepticism is indeed important and essential to the study of the unknown it's the cynicism that is rightly poured into the events, prior to investigation, which may be the annoying thing here.

Now were I an air traffic controller I would like someone behind me who trusts that all my training is sound and all my instruments are operational and that the whole team is trained for exception circumstances. If they ask me a question as to why I am doing something I expect it to be a good question, based on observations and critical thinking and I'd hope to answer them with what I found to be a reasonable answer. Further questions, at the appropriate moment would be welcomed by someone like that.

If on the other hand I had someone behind me telling me things which I know are incorrect. Stating that I am being closed minded in my thinking whilst I am pushing these giant planes into landing patterns and always stated that my answers to their questions were brainwashing and that none of the team would know what to do in a crisis situation than I'd have them leave as they are not being worthwhile having around.

Now swap your example of air traffic controller for genuine investigator of paranormal activity and you'll soon see that there are far too many cogs which play no purpose other than to sabotage the system.

After you last answer I am more than happy to discuss this further as, being a touch skeptical myself, I could be wrong with all of this.

-m0r



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I don't see how a person can be sceptical of unidentified flying objects, they certainly exist -it's what they are that is the major question.

There's some extremely interesting air traffic controller testimony here involving unknown objects being confirmed on four separate radar screens - anybody any ideas on this one?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2


Yes, I am a skeptic of skeptics, but the way you're using that language device tends to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

I am obfuscating nothing, it is you who has confused yourself by making the position of being skeptical the issue. Hence your position as a skeptic is then attacked by your very own OP.


As the poster of the video has admitted to,
Appealing to the poster of the video is irrelevant to our discussion, your appeal to this poster's admission as some kind of authority on this issue is amusing.


most people who define themselves as skeptics would agree with, skeptics characterize witnesses to paranormal events as irrational,

This is another fallacious argument as you are appealing to the consequence of beliefs. Your argument fails logic as you are suggesting that if someone identifies themselves as being skeptical then a belief insues that anyone who reports a paranormal event must be irrational.

This is why I totally disagree with you.
I would argue that most Skeptics would argue that the "conclusions" reached by people who witness "paranormal" events seem irrational given the lack of information or knowledge relating to said paranormal events.
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object.
The Object is unidentified.
If I identify that object as a vehicle piloted by aliens based on the fact I have merely seen an object I cannot identify, that would seem irrational given that I cannot identify the flying object or what is indeed piloting that flying object, if it is indeed being piloted at all.

If I said I saw a UFO, and then identified that UFO without any other information but the fact I saw something I cannot Identify, would you call that rational?


and either the victims of or perpetrators of hoaxes or misunderstandings. And we must leave it to mainstream scientists to define reality. Skeptics, as a readily definable group
Once again, you must include yourself in this group as a readily defined skeptic. You are now by the nature of your OP a part of the readily defined group known as skeptics and so your OP should be criticized in the same manner you criticize the behaviour of the readily defined group known as skeptics..


I'm glad you mentioned false dichotomy, again, with regard to this situation, you've turned things on their heads as to the end goal of truth-seeking.

I know I have turned things on there heads. Because you are using false logic, and false dichotomies. The goal of seeking truth will be much easier without the tactics you have used.
No need to thanks me.


I define skeptics by the actions and words for which they are well-known, both on and off line. If anyone promotes a false dichotomy, it is the skeptics themselves.

Please don't move the goal posts now that your OP is redundant.
The irony of you last comment is rather telling though, as you as a skeptic of skeptics have constructed a false dichotomy in order to create an argument.
You are not a skeptic, your are merely philosophically( dare I say religiously) over zealous.
Skepticism can be philosophical or empirical in nature.
In this instance, your are preaching a skeptical philosophy(a personal belief) about those who express or practice empirical skepticism( in that they rely on real EVIDENCE and not beliefs or personal philosophies).

Once you resolve your personal philosophy that seems skeptical about how others reach beliefs relating to the empirical evidence surrounding UFO and other paranormal events, you might actually start making sense.
edit on 16/4/11 by atlasastro because: no reason to give a reason



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I made a little thread about my beliefs and my need to be skeptical:

I don't believe UFOs are extraterrestrial in nature

In short I believe UFOs are not alien in nature and yet I must be skeptical about it - they could be extraterrestrial.

You see; skepticism works in both directions.

I believe they are not alien and yet my skeptical self must hold onto the idea they could be.

I hope this helps a touch with definitions Grizzle.

-m0r
edit on 16/4/2011 by m0r1arty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
...In short I believe UFOs are not alien in nature and yet I must be skeptical about it - they could be extraterrestrial.

You see; skepticism works in both directions.

I believe they are not alien and yet my skeptical self must hold onto the idea they could be...


I totally understand this sentiment, m0r1arty

In my case (which is somewhat similar), my skepticism keeps me in a struggle between what I "want" and what I "see"...

...I "want" alien visitation to be real. I want to find out that there is a galactic civilization out there that the human race could join. However, that's not what I "see" when I take into account the whole of the UFO phenomenon. I see no real good evidence for me to truly believe without a doubt that aliens are visiting the Earth.

So, in a way, my ideas are similar to yours (m0r1arty):
There is not good evidence right now that would make me believe that UFOs are alien in nature; HOWEVER, my logical thinking (which manifests itself as my skepticism) tells me that it is within the realm of possibility that UFOs are alien in nature.

Even though in my mind I don't "know" that alien visitation is happening, my skepticism (and, admittedly, the fact that I "want" alien visitation to be true) will not allow me to positively believe that alien visitation is NOT happening.


edit on 4/16/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TripleSalCal
reply to post by 35Foxtrot
 


I never said prove a negative, I said prove that it is what they claim. I hear all the time "Chinese lanterns." And they will have ZERO proof to back it up besides "Well it acts like one so it must be."

I think a lot of you are misunderstanding. It is good to be a skeptic. It is good to question. That is how humans have advanced to the point we have. Believing everything you are told or see is a recipe for disaster, which is why we must always question.

However, when it comes to UFO skeptics (which is what this thread states), too many are blinded by their own personal beliefs. I did not say everyone, but the same skeptics on this site always say the same thing about videos. And most of them don't question. They just write it off.


No, I get what you're saying. However, I can only answer for myself and that's what my reply reflected. I consider myself a skeptic in all things; not only ufos. Doesn't mean I don't have faith in, or believe in things I cannot physically prove to my satisfaction. Consequently, I would never force my beliefs on others or expect others to share my beliefs. Do I think there are extra-terrestrials somewhere in the universe? Yup. I've even seen unexplained craft in the air back in Kosovo and later in Afghanistan. That said, I'd never claim with any certainty that I can say for sure what they were or were not. The AF wienees were flying a lot of missions over us, so I tend to go with that explanation even though they looked like no aircraft I have ever seen before or since.
I take all claims individually as they come. This thread generalises about skeptics. That's my main issue with it.
All generalizations are wrong; including the one I just wrote...

In addition, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Holding a claim of ufos to the same standards of a mundane explanation like "Chinese lanterns" doesn't sit right with me. I require much more proof from one claiming some lights in the sky are ufos than I do from sOmeone claiming they saw a stealth fighter. "they move like Chinese lanterns, so they must (I'd say "might be" however, but I do see certain skeptics claim "must") be Chinese lanterns," requires less suspension of disbelief than a similar claim regarding ufos. At least to me. So, fairly or unfairly, I require more solid, rational, concrete proof of the latter.
Anyway my finger us getting tired typing on my iPhone... I hope I explained myself better.
Live long and prosper.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1artyWhen all the supposed 'sightings' of these paranormal accounts are investigated they are either always proven to be misidentified or indeed hoaxes.


Just because it's said by skeptics that these things are explained, it doesn't mean they are. Usually they just say "It's Venus" or swamp gas or whatever, and that's that. It's officially, forever, "debunked". Thus relying on appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
I've seen this numerous times in debates between skeptics and witnesses / investigators. If the military, having previously stated that there were no aircraft in the vicinity at that time, later flip-flops and says "Oh, yeah, we forgot, we had aircraft doing an exercise with flares just then and there.", that's good enough for skeptics.
Written out, the premise would go something like "If it could possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be explainable by anything approved by scientific convention, then it is." Roughly the same as dismissing things out of hand, which is not even listed as a logical fallacy because it's too obvious.
edit on 16-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: additional info



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 35Foxtrot
All generalizations are wrong;

In addition, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


We can't get through the day without generalizations. Many generalizations are true most of the time.

And of course skeptics will appropriate for themselves the right to define "extraordinary" on a case by case basis. Eyewitness testimony and photos or video are enough to send a man to his death, or countries to war.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1artyI don't believe UFOs are extraterrestrial in nature


For what it's worth, I believe some are, and some aren't, some are military (reverse-engineered from extraterrestrial versions). Some are living organisms. Some may come from civilizations under the ocean, or inside the earth. Some may come from parallel universes. Many materialize and dematerialize.
I do not believe that the US government has had the technology to produce craft that fly at these speeds and maneuver like UFOs do, for all the decades that UFOs have been seen. And then there are the accounts, in remote history, of technologically advanced non-human bipeds.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastroI am obfuscating nothing, it is you who has confused yourself by making the position of being skeptical the issue. Hence your position as a skeptic is then attacked by your very own OP.


Skeptics, as I define them and as they define themselves, are a readily identifiable group comprised of people who believe that scientific convention, what is offered up as scientific fact (at the moment), defines reality. This group then attacks anyone who disagrees with them as mentally ill, mistaken, or the perpetrator or victim of a hoax. My skepticism is not nearly the same thing. I notice the group calling itself "skeptics" has different criteria for different things. In some areas, eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence is good enough for them, in others it is not. My skepticism involves calling them out on such things. Neither of us would equate our points of view with the other. The obvious, ridiculous extension to your argument would be that if I don't wish to be part of the skeptics I am attacking, then I should be quiet, that I can't question them without being one of them.
Maybe your next reply should include something like "Takes one to know one, nya nya nya nya nya!"
edit on 16-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: typo



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by grizzle2
My aunt told me that when she was 10 years old ...


Same author as the critical thinking video too Grizzle.

-m0r
edit on 16/4/2011 by m0r1arty because: (no reason given)


So, what would your alternate explanation be of my aunt's and grandmother's experience, since the examples in the video are not transposable, by many orders of magnitude?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


I wouldn't be so bold as to put one forward.

I would merely state that an anecdote without any possible evidence to support it is exactly that; an anecdote.

-m0r



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by m0r1artyWhen all the supposed 'sightings' of these paranormal accounts are investigated they are either always proven to be misidentified or indeed hoaxes.


Just because it's said by skeptics that these things are explained, it doesn't mean they are. Usually they just say "It's Venus" or swamp gas or whatever, and that's that. It's officially, forever, "debunked". Thus relying on appeal to authority, a logical fallacy...


Yeah, but sometimes it really is just Venus, or sometimes just a photo of a bird. Are you telling me that the "Venus" or "Bird" explanation should never be mentioned, even when it proves to be the right explanation?
edit on 4/16/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
You are not a skeptic, your are merely philosophically( dare I say religiously) over zealous.


Hardly. I've looked at the thousands upon thousands of videos and photographs of UFOs I've had the opportunity to see, and I've listened to or read the eyewitness testimony of thousands, and the testimony of credentialed people in the military and NASA that the government is hiding knowledge of extraterrestrial beings visiting our planet in space ships, and I choose not to dismiss all this out of hand or explain it by way of mental illness, hoaxes, weather phenomena, sightings of Venus, birds, airplanes, etc. How that makes me religiously over-zealous I can't say.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleAre you telling me that the "Venus" or "Bird" explanation should never be mentioned, even when it is clearly the right explanation?


No, just that it's vastly overused. Whenever it might have been one of those or the other stock answers, it's taken as fact.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
No, just that it's vastly overused. Whenever it might have been one of those or the other stock answers, it's taken as fact.


Not, initially, by me or many others.

But given enough runs through the hoops and claims of 'recreate this video if it's a fake' and it being done time and time again then the onus sits with those who make these claims to police themselves.

If taken as a trend I'd say that everyone who believes that there is current existing footage available to the world that shows something which can be proven as ET is mistaken or nuts.

There is plenty of unknown aerial phenomena but I can't say, or even go beyond fantasizing that they are ET in origin.

Shoulder to shoulder and all that, look after your own house prior to attacking another. Skeptics have many ways of showing each other how right or wrong they are.

-m0r



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join