Why Do People Believe in UFOs?: A Discovery News Trash Piece

reply to post by Moduli


I submit you read:
Critical Thinking and the UFO Hypothesis I: Confusing the Issues

Critical Thinking and the UFO Hypothesis II: Ignoring the Evidence

as supplied in Brighter's signature before going off on an emotionally invested retort such as you've done.

You're embarrassing yourself, through you probably don't know it.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Moduli

 

I submit you read:
Critical Thinking and the UFO Hypothesis I: Confusing the Issues

Critical Thinking and the UFO Hypothesis II: Ignoring the Evidence

as supplied in Brighter's signature before going off on an emotionally invested retort such as you've done.

You're embarrassing yourself, through you probably don't know it.

I submit you read:
Actual textbooks on scientific methodology, formal logic, and statistics.

by the dudes own figures, he ought to be asking "why do people deny the existence of ufos?". its the rarest category of thought on the subject. why do people believe? for me its not really up to my conscious mind that im making a voluntary choice to believe they exist. i look at the evidence. then my brain kinda evaluates it for truth and it either is or isn't believable.

this article is so blatantly and heavy-handedly anti-ufo i would think the majority of readers would recognize it as propaganda. a piss-poor generic debunking reinforced with snide ridicule. only the sleepiest of dumbasses will be influenced by this.

.

Here's an interesting question: How many cases of simultaneous air and ground radar sightings in conjunction with air and ground visual confirmations have there been of leprechauns and faeries? How about of witches?

The same as the number of alien spacecraft.

Another perfect example of poor critical thinking and confusing the issues. I believe you need to read the links in my signature.

Random speculation and "I don't know therefore aliens" is not scientific thinking. You would not know actual science if the fate of Humanity depended on it.

Yet again, the same exact error. See my comments above.

I'd also be interested in knowing which books in the UFO literature that you've read.

I would be interested in knowing what actual math and science textbooks anyone here has read. I'm going to guess the answer is zero, unless you count crackpot pop-science and mysticism books as "science" of course.

Show me some actual scientific evidence. Claims from people who "don't have a reason" to lie and crappy photos are not scientific proof, and you would not find any scientist in any field using that as proof for anything ever.

Show me actual scientific evidence! Do a legitimate statistical analysis. Fourier analyze spectra carefully taken through filters to determine material composition of a "UFO" and show it's abnormal.

Use actual science to triangulate the actual position of a "UFO"; this is easy, you can even do it stereoscopically. If the ancient Greeks 3000 years ago could calculate how far away the Moon and Sun were using that technique, you can do it for something in the atmosphere! Do this vs. time and study the kinematics.

Spectroscopically analyze RF or IR or UV or Gamma ray or any other emissions and show me it's abnormal. Measure the blackbody spectrum from a UFO.

Do anything! Just one actual scientific measurement. I was capable of doing any of these properly in high school, they aren't hard. Things like this are the bare minimum you need to do to actual science. To do good science you need to go far beyond these kinds of things.
...

Interesting. You haven't read any books in the UFO literature? In other words, you've done zero research, yet have arrived at a conclusion regarding the phenomenon. This strongly suggests, again, that you are operating under unproven assumptions regarding the existence of UFOs. In other words, a belief, and not a justified belief, but a belief passively absorbed from the prevailing pool of cultural biases regarding what exists and what doesn't.

And your requirement of mathematical or laboratory analysis for the existence of UFOs betrays some elementary misunderstandings. First, it suggests that you simply haven't familiarized yourself with the enormous amount of evidence for the existence of UFOs, which actually does require that you do some reading (sadly, watching youtube videos and television documentaries is not sufficient). Second, it betrays a deep lack of understanding regarding what is and is not necessary for justifying a belief in the mere existence of a class of entities. Lastly, it again betrays a deep confusion of the basic issues. No one is suggesting what UFOs are made of or how they operate. What we are justified in believing, however, is that they exist, as a class of aerial craft exhibiting extraordinary flight characteristics. And the enormous amount of observational data over the past 70+ years justifies a belief in their existence.

Again, please read through the threads in my signature. I've addressed many of your errors there.

The problem is not that the evidence and observational data are not there - many scientists have concluded, after actually having studied the phenomenon, that the phenomenon is real. The problem lies in the fact that most people aren't trained in clear thinking regarding novel subjects, so they default to the prevailing belief and hold onto it for dear life, without even bothering to engage in anything even resembling an educated, objective survey of the relevant literature.

Many people who have gone through a basic education even with some success, at the same time lack the full spectrum of characteristics requisite for exceptional intelligence, which are the same characteristics necessary to research and think critically about novel subjects. My own university education lasted almost a decade, and I encountered many bright people, but most of them were simply able to 'get by' by simply memorizing formulas or canned responses to arguments. And when confronted with a novel argument, it was as though their critical faculty would simply shut down in an almost bizarre display ineptitude. It was like watching an android malfunction.

reply to post by pluginkid


Some people are so narrow minded that they can believe in god but not even consider that there are other possibilities of how our existence got on this planet and possibly other planets in other solar systems as well. I live in Las Vegas, NV and have been here for 25 years. I tend to look up at the stars a lot on a hot summer night and I am well aware of what a airplane, helicopter, and space debris look like at knight, but I can without a doubt say that there are some strange things happening in the sky and I only say this because I've seen some weird lights doing things that I've never seen anywhere else ever. I've seen lights dim to where you could almost not see anymore then change course and shoot accross the sky at speeds faster than a shooting star. If this is our technology then we should fear nothing for our military is bad ass. If this is not our technology but still technology of this planet then we are screwed. But if this is in fact technology of another species from space we better start believing and developing some kind of defense or were screwed if they decide they want this planet.. I sometimes wish Ive never seen the things I have in the sky for now I have more questions than before. Afraid? No.. Curious as hell.....

Originally posted by Druscilla
...We can't say these incidents are aliens. We haven't seen any aliens....
We, however, do indeed have some odd incidents and occurrances in the sky.
We call them UFOs....
People like to think they're alien piloted aircraft, but, we have zero real evidence for such....
These UFOs could very well be aliens, but, we don't have any evidence to really support this do we?
... Sure, there's the rare instance that could very well be a ture positive, but, "unexplained" still doesn't mean visitors from another planet.

All in all, people do indeed like to believe in something fantastic, even in spite of and contrary to all logical and sensible evidence to the contrary.

What a mess. This post of Druscilla's is logically inconsistent (edited down to show how so), and to me sounds an awful lot like something I've seen all too often in UFO threads: a denier trying hard to avoid criticism by seeming to admit to UFO unknowns and to the ET possibility, all while barely concealing his or her true disdain for the topic and borderline contempt for those who might call themselves witnesses. That very attitude is evident in this user's other posts (and it would be pretty easy to compile a list of quotes evincing such), and is given away here by this:

All in all, people do indeed like to believe in something fantastic, even in spite of and contrary to all logical and sensible evidence to the contrary.

Let's analyze. How can a person admit that we "do indeed have some odd incidents", admit that "the UFOs could very well be aliens", and then label a so-called 'belief' in the ET-UFO possibility something "fantastic, even in spite of and contrary to all sensible evidence"? Does that make sense? No. Would not only a few strong True UFO cases invalidate the charge that such 'beliefs' are "fantastic"? Of course they would... even if the remaining 99.9% of all sightings could be shown to be misidentifications or hoaxes. And there are (at a minimum) several dozen very strong True UFO cases. Cases which, no, we must admit, are not proof of aliens... but, given the basically undeniable characteristics of this small percentage of UFOs (physical, nuts and bolts objects, seemingly intelligent, which easily outmaneuver our finest aircraft), who could possibly offer a reasonable alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis that is not at least as "fantastic" and world-altering as it is?

Anyone who says there is "no evidence" for extraterrestrial-based UFOs, as Druscilla has above -- ("we have zero real evidence for such"; "we don't have any evidence to really support this") -- is in severe denial, and has almost definitely not read the primary UFO materials. And this lapse should be pointed out. Consistently. Because there is reasonably strong evidence suggestive of the extraterrestrial explanation, where that is actually the least implausible of all alternatives. To not rebut this charge of "no evidence", every time it's made, is to help pave the pathway to ridicule of so-called 'belief' in UFOs.

That's why I come down hard on the Druscilla-type "skeptics." I'm surely not endearing myself to anyone with such aggressive posts, but keep in mind, again, that it's the above type of attitude -- the "no evidence" charge, followed by thinly-veiled (or not) ridicule -- which perpetuates the very attitude that allows articles like this one, in Discovery Science(!), to even be printed and taken seriously.

If we want "science" articles like the one that's the subject of this thread to lack any legitimacy at all, then turn the ridicule around and hit these kinds of skeptics (the deniers) with what they hate most: real data. Because there's plenty of evidence in the most credible UFO science -- Special Report 14, the Colorado Study, Hynek's and McDonald's files -- to actually justify the ridicule of the other side, that of extreme denial. To shut up the deniers dressed n skeptic clothing, simply ask (for example) if they feel the Condon Report was objective and unbiased science... and then watch 'em scatter, since there's no reasonable answer a skeptic can give to such a question. Yes or no or anything in between can be used equally to make some very forceful points.

Note that a well-known skeptic has refused to answer this very question from me twice in this ATS forum, even though asked directly... and it's not because he's dumb, but actually because he's quite smart. He knows that even engaging that topic very quickly puts him in an uncomfortable position. Because if the science which supposedly justifies mainstream ridicule of the UFO topic can be shown to be flimsy (and it can be, quite easily), then what is it exactly that gives these Discovery Science types of articles a leg to stand on?

Rebut this "no evidence" crap, every time. There is no proof of ET involvement, but there IS compelling evidence!

Aww.
It looks like somebody worked really hard to make an argument based off of semantics, especially when they went to such lengths to criticize someone by, OMG, name!!!



It's so cute when people try so hard.

In regard to UFOs, I know for a fact that there is a phenomenon.
In regard to that phenomenon, I lay no claims to knowing what that phenomenon is, or consists of.

I do have a rather expansive knowledge and experience in regard to misidentification and it's overwhelming prevalence as it applies to this phenomenon.
I further subscribe to several concentrations of experience regarding psychology and certain applications of relevance as such applies also to this phenomenon.

Have a cookie. You tried so very hard, but, not hard enough.

Methinks someone has an overly fond kinky fascination with me. Isn't it adorable? I haz a puppy.

reply to post by Moduli

Wow. You sound very uninformed as to the UFO topic. By what logic or 'statistic' is a degree in physics or mathematics shelter from ignorance regarding unrelated topics?

FYI, there are many physicists, engineers, astronomers, etc., who take the phenomenon seriously (some of whom probably post here occasionally). See Peter Sturrock's data on polling the American Astronomical Society, for instance. Those scientists who ridicule and casually dismiss the topic tend to be the ones who've looked into it least, and often just distance themselves from the it (somewhat wisely, perhaps) because of the "lunatic fringe." Of course, that says nothing of the core of the phenomenon. You might enjoy Bernard Haisch's website, ufoskeptic.org..

If you're a scientist, Moduli, I wonder what your thoughts on the Condon Report are? Do you feel Condon's Summary and Conclusion sections accurately reflect the findings by the various project scientists? (If you haven't read it, you probably should before answering... i.e., don't assume you "just know" what the various conclusions must be, based on what you think most mainstream scientists believe.)

My sense -- and I don't mean this sarcastically at all -- is that you probably have some reading to do?

Originally posted by Druscilla
...
In regard to UFOs, I know for a fact that there is a phenomenon.
In regard to that phenomenon, I lay no claims to knowing what that phenomenon is, or consists of....

That sounds so very reasonable... though it doesn't really say much. But if you actually believe that in the way it seems you want people to take it, then how in the world do you justify the ridicule you routinely mete out? (Comparing it all to belief in fairies and unicorns and such... or do you deny that you've done that quite a bit?)

Someone as intelligent and qualified as you keep claiming to be surely recognizes that true belief in a core of mysterious and unexplained UFO sightings would be completely incompatible with such frequent derision. (And I wouldn't need to lay out that logic step-by-step for such a person, I'm sure.)

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


It's quite simple.
The prevalence of deficiencies and pathological conditions related to mental health on this site is amusing.

The majority sum of most accounts and reports made/claimed by members or the way in which they are discussed quite often reveal these conditions, especially over time, whether it's a Schizoaffective, Delusional, Dissociative, Schizotypal, Paranoid, or other Disorder, and/or many others plus compound complications.

Do your own search on Schizotypal Personality Disorder, for instance. Check several sources. Look over the DSM IV.
Keep it in mind as you look over a number of posts on ATS.
Look at some of the others I've named.
There's whole families, complications, and variations of these not readily found in laymen literature.

ATS is quite the zoo. There's typically valid reason I'll bring out the bag of unicorns and fairies. They're often for illustration purposes beyond the actual subject, having nothing at all to do with the phenomenon of UFOs itself, but, the condition inherent in at least a certain subject either being addressed, referred to, or implied indirectly.

Not always when someone is talking about UFOs are they actually talking about UFOs.

I have no liability or professional consideration to be concerned over other than T&C, so, there's entertainment, experimentation, study, but generally just entertainment.
I have no real serious personal interest in the UFO phenomenon, nor really care what it actually is. It's interesting, yes, but, more importantly, the people it attracts may as well be aliens as fascinating as they are to examine.

Thus, any barbs or criticisms you or anyone has regarding my approach to, or stated opinions concerning the UFO phenomenon topic, means nothing to me. While you thought we were playing chess, I've been playing another game entirely.
I've been catching butterflies, and the occasional stray puppy now and then.

I read the article when it came out. I found it intellectually insulting and shallow.

Why does anyone NOT believe in UFOs? That is the real question.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Yes, there's some interesting cases, but, still, for the most part, we as of yet have no real conclusions regarding what unusual cases there are. What they are, we still don't know.

edit on 11-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

You've got that right, Druscilla. We don't know what they are. As a rule, the objects described in the body of "unknown" UFO reports don't fit the pattern of any known phenomenon. They do, however, largely fit into a relatively limited number of patterns of appearance and behavior. That is, certain descriptions crop up over and over again in reports all over the world. It is usually these characteristics that prevent the phenomena described in the unknown category of reports from being identified. The existence of these patterns is rarely acknowledged by people intent on dismissing the subject.

Originally posted by randomname
well, when the blob of light starts moving around the sky, defying the laws of gravity and is videotaped by average people with no incentive to lie, i wouldn't call that predisposition.

It's more fun when the blob of light gets within power line distance, turns on the cabin light, and leaves no DOUBT as to what it is....!

I was on the fence as to UFOs- then promptly fell off into the unbeliever side. Until last year. Then.... welllllllll.... that whole thing with that ship kinda threw me INTO the fence. I could not ask "what the hell is that"- it was painfully obvious what the "hell" it was. It was the equivalent of a flasher walking up to me and opening his raincoat.

My biggest regret was no camera- but then again- we didn't need one- we were out walking the dog! Worst yet, we weren't even looking at the sky when this thing wandered over. I have seen weird stuff- but again... it was in desolate areas... little to no people. So- yes, I have seen crap. But- without pics... I have nothing but what comes out of my mouth and onto a forum page from typing. I regret that part. Even *with* pics- as crappy as they were- I got nothing! See my post "Just out of Curiosity..." on this forum. I mean... whee. My only reason for the pics and vids was to point out that this thing was over a city. I doubt seriously it's an alien craft... but a drone. It just looks WEIRD. No structure, nothing... just.. lights.

Of course... one has video, or pics- this just brings out the "HOAX!" crowd anyways.

Ok so seeing a ball of light in the sky moving around at night that's normal right lol

Because half of the fools who believe in the magical aspects of ET's simply replace religion with Aliens.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Let me give you a hypothetical situation: Let's say an object in the sky flies in, makes a 90 degree turn, comes to a complete stop and takes off at a high rate of speed. In your mind, is it at all possible that what was seen could be an un-maned, remotely controlled, human-made object? Something created by these underground "black project" operations that are brought up by people like yourself. If you do think it's a possibility, explain why the extraterrestrial possibility would be a more plausible explanation?

See, in this scenario, human beings(proven 100% real) are a given, extraterrestrials(not proven 100% real) are not. Therefore, credence for the human being answer, no matter how small of a possibility, should outweigh an extraterrestrial one. Before any assumption can be made of an ET involvement, one has to prove with 100% certainty that ETs are a)real and b)have any connection with our immediate world. Otherwise, a logical ET conclusion or possibility is not on the same level of comparison to a human one.

This is not an opinion, explanation or a realistic possibility. So save your "so you think a man made UFO could......" responses. Purely a hypothetical question for TeaAndStrumpets to get a better understanding of his commitment level to an ET UFO connection .

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


I think the answer would depend on when the hypothetical event occurred. It would make a difference if it happened in 1947 versus 2012. How many hundreds of such drones might we have been using in 1940s and 1950s?

reply to post by Orkojoker

Contrary to conventional wisdom, people of all levels of education like to believe in "weird things," says Michael Shermer

I find it more weird that people would believe we are alone in this massive universe. Once you accept that we probably are not alone then you have to be open to the possibility that some of the other life forms could be a lot more technologically advanced than we are.

And also that there has been enough time for another civilization to travel around a lot of the universe if they have the tech.

I think its possible that the universe could be as small to an highly advanced civilization as the earth is small to humans now.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Good article.

I used to believe in UFOs. When I was 10 years old!

There's not a single shred of real evidence for UFOs or aliens.

then what you consider "real evidence" did not involve much research on your part. the evidence is out there, however, it's not going to be handed to you, or shown on "american idol?...and no, all the evidence IS NOT on you tube.