Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Brighter
No matter how you try and spin it Brighter UFO sightings aren't analogous to bird sightings, kids and teachers aren't analogous to birdwatchers. Also
as yeti said earlier, to scientifically prove the existence of a new species you need more than anectdotal evidence. I agree that in science anecdotal
evidence is important because it's basically the starting point of new discoveries but in UFOlogy it has never gone beyond this stage. UFOs remain
UFOs because there isn't sufficient information to move beyond this description.
I appreciate your involvement in the conversation, but I'm having a difficult time working through a series of connected points with you. A pattern
seems to be arising where you state a rebuttal, then I provide a logical explanation of how it is inadequate, and then you change the subject. I
would kindly ask that if you want to continue to have an intelligent conversation that you please address my actual responses to your rebuttals. I
would also greatly appreciate abstaining from the logical fallacies.
"No matter how you try and spin it Brighter UFO sightings aren't analogous to bird sightings, kids and teachers aren't analogous to birdwatchers."
My last post explains how the analogy does work, and also how your particular rebuttal to it is invalid, as it rests on a misunderstanding of how
arguments by analogy work. Yet in this post, you don't address the details of my counterargument. In fact, you've committed yet another logical
fallacy, that of assuming the consequent - in your statement, you've simply assumed the truth of your conclusion, without providing an argument.
"Also as yeti said earlier, to scientifically prove the existence of a new species you need more than anecdotal evidence."
Yet, as has been abundantly clear from my posts, I have been explaining how there are different kinds of proof. It is superficial and uninformed to
think that the only kind of proof is scientific proof. Scientific proof is only one kind. Other tiers of proof can be supported by, for instance,
anecdotal evidence. This is especially the case when all you are trying to prove is the existence of a class of objects with some broadly defined
properties. UFOs are such a class of objects.
"I agree that in science anecdotal evidence is important because it's basically the starting point of new discoveries but in UFOlogy it has never gone
beyond this stage."
This is also incorrect. Not only is there a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support the existence of a class of objects exhibiting certain
properties, the anecdotal evidence involves cases that involve direct perceptual evidence that is simultaneously corroborated by evidence gleaned from
scientific radar instruments. This is actually why the UFO hypothesis is so interesting - the existence of a class of objects exhibiting tremendous
capabilities is supported by numerous multiple-witness sightings by trained observers that also involve radar corroboration. It also involves many
more cases of multiple-witness sightings made by non-trained observers who report seeing the same class of objects exhibiting those same tremendous
It is difficult to accept on the face of it, which is why it is necessary to look at the data for oneself. The data combined with a non-prejudiced
mindset and some basic critical thinking skills points undeniably to a single conclusion, and that is that UFOs, broadly defined as a set of aerial
craft exhibiting almost unbelievable capabilities, do in fact exist. Actually, even if one does has a prejudiced mindset, by looking at the data and
letting the data dictate the conclusions rather than the other way around, the conclusion will be clear.
"UFOs remain UFOs because there isn't sufficient information to move beyond this description."
Yet there is sufficient information to prove the existence of UFOs understood as a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable
capabilities. There is, in my opinion, not as much information to pin down what UFOs are in any more specific sense (e.g., how they work, who made
them, who is controlling them). But not knowing the specific properties of an object does nothing to discredit their *existence*. So in a sense, the
term UFO is a misnomer and ambiguous: UFOs are identified in one sense (as a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable capabilities), yet
they are unidentified in another sense (it is not clear how they work, who made them, etc.).
edit on 19-7-2012 by Brighter because: (no