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.

 

Which is worse?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
determining a priori that something isn't a ufo or that something is a ufo? oh and please explain why one is worse than the other.
edit on 30-7-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)


 


STARTING A NEW THREAD.....

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites;
*please post one or two paragraphs,
*a link to the entire story,
*AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


 

edit on July 30th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Aren't they one and the same? The answer to either, answers the other.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Had to look up the word, "Priori" to try to understand your question.

Who uses that word?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You can either identify something (non UFO) or not identify something (UFO).



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I would say they are equally violating of logic and reason.

Though then again, if it's unidentified to you, I guess it's a UFO relative to you.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
determining a priori that something isn't a ufo or that something is a ufo? oh and please explain why one is worse than the other.


Prove first that UFOs are controlled by alien beings, then you can line it equally with other realistic earthly possibilities. Otherwise you need to categorize the ET UFO possibility with other of the same type, like controlled by angels, something from another dimension, ghosts or whatever. Once you have 100% proof of one of those answers, then come over to the realistic possibilties.

You can't logically find an answer to a problem, with something that's still needs an answer in itself!



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
they're both the same difference

you cant have one without the other

what the hell is a priori anyway



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
You should use flawless logic and reasoning to determine which one of these two things you are looking at, then you should be left with the truth which could be ufo or identified object.

Of course others could always question that reasoning and new information could come to light, so we should never presume we have the final answer, or that 100 / of people will accept that answer - making it non conclusive. is that what your riddle is about ?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
In the Aliens and UFOs front page you will see *Important Sticky Threads* HERE.
This should be required reading before starting new threads here.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
We are rigel4.........your question is futile.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 

I guess another way of asking what I'm asking is:

some people have pre-determined notions regarding one scenario over the other.

Is it "better" to be a totally closed-minded skeptic or a total nutcase?

or are they pretty much the same thing?

edit on 30-7-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot
I would say they are equally violating of logic and reason.

Though then again, if it's unidentified to you, I guess it's a UFO relative to you.

I'm with lampsalot. You would figure that someone intelligent enough to use "a priori" would be smart enough to know that the answer is: Moot point.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Well a total skeptic has really no interest in this topic, so that person is irrelevant to this discussion.
a nutcase attracts many who may have a legit sighting only because the legit sighting fellow seeks answers so he/she might attach themselves to a nut job and unfortunately this is a mistake.

For example:
Dr. Greer is a nut job, so he tarnishes even the most compelling cases.
You Get me Neil Armstrong and if he ever comes out and flat out says UFO's are true, I'm listening.
I also listen to what Gordon Cooper had to say, Buzz Aldrin, Dr Edgar Mitchell.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by lampsalot
I would say they are equally violating of logic and reason.

Though then again, if it's unidentified to you, I guess it's a UFO relative to you.

I'm with lampsalot. You would figure that someone intelligent enough to use "a priori" would be smart enough to know that the answer is: Moot point.


yeah I guess you're right
never mind



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join