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.

 

Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by learnatic
 


I have said time and again that being a skeptic is fine but using skepticism to mask your closed minded belief systems isn't fine.

It's those people who call themselves skeptics but that's not enough. They have to limit the conclusions you can reach based on the available evidence. They can't accept someone reaching a different conclusion than them.
edit on 25-8-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Quaesitor
 

In that case consider my problem to be one with the "popular nomenclature" as you put it, and not with your personal point of view if the popular nomenclature doesn't adequately represent it. In fact that's how my earlier post started....


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have a big problem with that statement.

In fact I'm a big advocate of changing the term "UFO" to "UAP" or "Unidentified aerial phenomena".
The popular nomenclature was the very first thing I mentioned when I explained the problem.


Originally posted by neoholographic
What is extraordinary evidence? Why isn't the evidence enough? Is there some scientific measure of extraordinary evidence?

Who decides what's an extraordinary claim?
That is explained well here:

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Regardless, we're still waiting to see what your logical path towards conclusion consists of.

Once again, I demonstrated an example on page 3.

Please demonstrate to us the logical path you take when examining any related case pertinent to this phenomenon as it relates to how you get from Unidentified Object, to Aliens.

We're still quite keen to see how this logical process works.

Ignoring the question doesn't help your case when you claim that you don't just arbitrarily jump to a conclusion, thus indicating to us you have a logical process that leads to a definitive conclusion of "Aliens".

If you have a process of examination that leads to such a conclusion, you should thus be quite able to demonstrate this process in a 1, 2, 3, 4 type example.
Please show us how you arrive at an "Aliens" conclusion based on available data for any UFO sighting X.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The website you linked to is nonsense. It's one persons opinion. The reason why some so called skeptics can't accept this is because it's their closed minded belief system.

Psychic ability may be an extraordinary claim to the person writing the article but it's not to me.

Saying Extraterrestrials exist may be an extraordinary claim to the person writing the article but it's not to me.

A few weeks ago I was debating the topic" Do we live in a Simulation." Not once did anyone say this was an extraordinary claim and that we need extraordinary evidence. It's sad that closed minded believers try to use skepticism to mask their closed minded opinions.

Why can't skeptics accept the subjective nature of their opinions? A true skeptic that has separated his personal belief from his/her skepticism can accept that others have reached a different conclusion than they have.

The closed minded believer masquerading as a skeptic has to limit what conclusions you can reach because they're so insecure in their own belief system.

I can accept the subjective nature of my conclusion and I can respect someone who has come to a different conclusion. A closed minded believer masquerading as a skeptic can't accept this because they're fueled by belief not an open mind searching for the truth.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


We're not talking about cake mix instructions or putting together a Christmas toy.

There's not some special process and that just sounds silly. If you have read my post, you would see that I have said "based on the available evidence."

I can give you some links if you want to look over these things but I read what you posted and it doesn't make sense. You were talking about step one, step2 and so on. Like I said this isn't cake mix instructions.

It took a couple of years for me to reach this conclusion and their wasn't any special recipe or process I used to reach this conclusion.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
The website you linked to is nonsense. ....

Saying Extraterrestrials exist may be an extraordinary claim to the person writing the article but it's not to me.
You didn't read the article very carefully. It doesn't say the existence of extraterrestrials is an extraordinary claim.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman


Let's compare that to another belief: some UFOs are the result of extraterrestrial activity.
Why it makes sense to be skeptical about this conclusion:
a) Accumulated evidence is uneven and a lot of it is from unreliable sources. Evidence cannot be reproduced and many important details cannot be confirmed.
b) There are an abundance of alternative explanations many to do with the limitations of human perception or the consequences of human psychology.
c) If it is true then it would change EVERYTHING!
edit on 25-8-2012 by Tearman because: (no reason given)


Well, a) if it's from unreliable sources then it is not considered evidence, and b) there are not an "abundance of alternative explanations" for the good unknowns; if the reasonable alternative explanations have not been ruled out, the reports are not good unknowns and therefore not a part of the problem at hand. And the consequences of proving a certain hypothesis (c) has nothing to do with the truth or untruth of the hypothesis.
edit on 25-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I just glanced at the article and I can tell it was nonsense from reading the first paragraph.

I see he said Alien Visitation. It's still the same conclusion. I don't see Alien Visitation as an extraordinary claim. The writer of the article is just giving his/her subjective opinion. It doesn't bother me that he sees it as an extraordinary claim, that's his subjective opinion. What bothers me is he wants to define what's an extraordinary claim for me and everyone else.

If someone was to say, a percentage of people turn into a fish when they jump into water, that would be an extraordinary claim. This is because there isn't the mountain of evidence to support this claim like there is for the existence of extraterrestrials or extraterrestrial visitation.

This still wouldn't require extraordinary evidence. There's no such thing. It would just require evidence.

When people say they want extraordinary evidence, they're simply saying there isn't any evidence that they will except because extraordinary evidence doesn't exist.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Druscilla
 


We're not talking about cake mix instructions or putting together a Christmas toy.

There's not some special process and that just sounds silly. If you have read my post, you would see that I have said "based on the available evidence."

I can give you some links if you want to look over these things but I read what you posted and it doesn't make sense. You were talking about step one, step2 and so on. Like I said this isn't cake mix instructions.

It took a couple of years for me to reach this conclusion and their wasn't any special recipe or process I used to reach this conclusion.


In other words, you have no logical process, and reach your conclusions by jumping to whatever conclusion "feels" right to you.

For someone that actually follows a logical process it's a simple matter of:

(In cases where there's pictures or video)
1. Asking the question: Does Object X look/behave/exhibit characteristics similar to any other known object/phenomenon Y?
2. List similar appearing known and identifiable instances of objects/phenomenon Y, and then compare to Object X.
3. If there is an object/phenomenon Y that matches closely to Object X, then X = Y
4. If there is no object/phenomenon Y that matches closely to Object X, then X = 0 where 0 = Unknown.

It's a very simple process of elimination.
Any grade school student can do it: One of these things is not like the other ...


So, instead of dodging the question, would you like to try again?

What is your logical process to reach a conclusion of Aliens?

Further, as asked before, and dodged/ignored by you, when you rank probability for an Alien conclusion, is this probability equal to Demons, Angels, Inter-dimensional Beings, and/or Time Travelers, or do these other explanations which have also been put forward along side the ET Hypothesis rank lesser probability, and why?

Finally, for a conclusion to come to Aliens, Aliens would need be a quantifiable value in your data set.
For Aliens to be a quantifiable value to the data set, you'd certainly have to have prior proof of Aliens to have a quantifiable data set for comparison to draw from.

Do you have proof of Aliens? Is this what you're telling us?




edit on 26-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   


What is your logical process to reach a conclusion of Aliens?


one of the biggest things that makes me consider the aliens possibility and not discount it is the fact that not one government had admitted these objects are theirs.

so they could be secret tech, but then that does not explain why governments scramble jets or chase these things that are in peoples imagination and they seemingly always seem to think they are from another country if they are secret tech, and then other countries seem to think they are the other countries etc etc.

if they are always mundane and explainable why do governments chase them or have chased them? if they are military secret tech why chase them, why do governments always act as if they are from some other countries ie not theirs? why do most countries who have encounters with these objects act like this? treating them as hostile. almost every country treat them as hostile so who's are they? what are they?

it could be secret tech, but another explanation that would explain the way different governments treat these objects in their airspace is they are not of this world.

coming to aliens as the only option maybe to much but it is one of the possibilities that cannot be discounted untill we know what they are.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I want to believe. I really do. But, in the end, unless there is cold hard proof, like a visitor saying " Hey, I am from (insert galaxy here) and we just came by to say hey" then I will value the opinions of Police/Scientists/ whatever as opposed to believing the words of a uneducated ufologist.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Again, you guys keep proving my points. You said:


In other words, you have no logical process, and reach your conclusions by jumping to whatever conclusion "feels" right to you.


The closed minded believer just can't accept that I reached this conclusion based on the available evidence. I must have jumped to whatever conclusion feels right.

You're just so insecure in your own beliefs that I just had to have jumped to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist.

For instance, I have a Professor friend whose convinced Abiogenenis occurred. I disagree with him but I don't have to say he just jumped to conclusions in order to be secure in my conclusion. He didn't go through any sort of 4 step process to reach his conclusion. These things are subjective, not objective. The closed minded believer needs to understand the difference.

Your skeptical opinion is just that, a subjective opinion. You can't dictate what conclusions I reach based on the available evidence.

It's like if you stack cookies on a plate, you will eventually reach a point where the cookies can't be stacked up anymore and they just collapse. There's a point when the evidence becomes so overwhelming that you reach a conclusion based on the available evidence. This point of collapse or point of realization is subjective and there isn't any 4 step objective process that everyone uses to reach this point.

What logical process does a scientist use to come to the conclusion the multiverse exist?

What logical process does a scientist use to come to the conclusion we live in a holographic universe?

These things are subjective to the individual scientist, not some 4 step process. I didn't do anything special. I looked at the same evidence that's available to you.

Your post says more about the insecurity of your position. You just have to believe I just jumped to a conclusion.

Why can't so called skeptics accept that I have reached a conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence?

I weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely to have occurred.

Is it more likely that the eyewitness saw what they said they saw or is it more likely that the skeptics opinion is correct even though they were at home or somewhere else when the event occurred. So I give the skeptics opinion zero weight. It's just an opinion as opposed to the eyewitness account.

Is the person a known liar? Are they known to make things up? Could there be a mundane explanation? Is the existence of extraterrestrials more likely or less likely based on current scientific understanding?

Sometimes skeptics show that the explanation is just flares or weather balloons and I can accept that. What closed minded believers masquerading as skeptics can't accept is that there's cases where these mundane explanations can't explain these things.

Based on eyewitness accounts, pictures, videos, trace evidence and current scientific understanding, I have come to the conclusion that extraterrestrials are more likely to exist and it's less likely that they don't exist.

What's so hard to understand?
edit on 26-8-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


... and you still dodge the questions I asked by making some blanket generalized statement about the whole of the phenomenon with your personal FEELING that there's a higher probability for Aliens than not.
You dodge the specific questions I asked.

On a single case, what process would you follow on a single stand alone case to reach a conclusion of aliens?

Why so defensive?

Maybe you should ask those scientist what logical process they follow? You may learn something.

I've explained a very simple process, but, it would seem even that eludes you?


edit on 26-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
I was channeling through different stations and came across a story about U.F.O.'s. There was a Police Officer describing what they saw and going over what they experienced. Then the skeptics comes on and talks about "wishful thinking" and "vivid imagination."

The skeptic just gave a silly opinion based on his belief against what the Police Officer actually saw and experienced.

If you had these same Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and people who are respected in their community say, I was an eyewitness to Mob crimes and some of them were even abducted by the Mob. Their eyewitness testimony would be given a lot of weight and I doubt you will hear any skeptic challenging their eyewitness testimony with silly opinions.

When it comes to U.F.O.'s these well respected people all of a sudden become blathering idiots with wild imaginations.

So at the end of the day, a skeptics opinion is meaningless when weighed against eyewitness accounts from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more.
edit on 24-8-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)


Ya but THEY RECORDED THAT TWICE, I'm not sure if you were aware of it.... here watch....



and this one...



I KNEW IT, THIS PROVES ALIENS ARE REAL!!! sEE



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


You have to be blinded by your beliefs because you're determined to show I just jumped to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist. You just can't accept that I have reached a different conclusion based on the available evidence.

You're really giving skeptics a bad name along with Phage, eriktheawful, Quaesitor and Arbitrageur.

You said:


On a single case, what process would you follow on a single stand alone case to reach a conclusion of aliens?


If you actually read what I wrote in the previous post, you would no I didn't reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on one single case hence the cookie analogy from the previous post.

It's based on the totality of the available evidence, not a single case.

I have been saying this throughout the thread. You can't see it because you're blinded by your pursuit to show that I had to jump to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist instead of excepting the fact that I reached this conclusion based on the available evidence.

< snip >

MOD EDIT
Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.



edit on 26-8-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/26/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
What logical process does a scientist use to come to the conclusion the multiverse exist?

What logical process does a scientist use to come to the conclusion we live in a holographic universe?
These may be ideas like the idea that aliens pilot UFOs. But none of them have conclusive evidence.

Craig Hogan doesn't expect anybody else to believe his hypothesis about a holographic universe until he can support it with evidence:

Hogan’s holometer: Testing the hypothesis of a holographic universe

Now he is building the most precise clock of all time to directly measure whether our reality is an illusion.
Depending on what this clock shows, he may actually collect some evidence that could convince people. So, the logical process is to collect evidence, present it, and try to convince people with it.

Likewise, until there is solid evidence that aliens pilot UFOs, there will be skepticism, and we've been looking for evidence of that for 60 years, without finding any evidence conclusive enough to prevent this very debate.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Again, you're not making sense.

You said:


These may be ideas like the idea that aliens pilot UFOs. But none of them have conclusive evidence.


Who said anything about conclusive evidence? I said based on the available evidence. We reach conclusions as to what's most likely vs. what's less likely in all walks of life including science. This is based on the available evidence not conclusive evidence.

If it was based on conclusive evidence, I wouldn't be talking in the language of probability.

For instance, there's conclusive evidence that Gravity exist.

There's just available evidence that you can look over about Hawking Radiation.

So if you reach the conclusion that Hawking Radiation exists, it will be based on the available evidence.

This isn't the case with Gravity because there's conclusive evidence that Gravity exist.

< snip >
MOD EDIT
Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.


edit on 8/26/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Druscilla
 


You have to be blinded by your beliefs because you're determined to show I just jumped to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist. You just can't accept that I have reached a different conclusion based on the available evidence.

You're really giving skeptics a bad name along with Phage, eriktheawful, Quaesitor and Arbitrageur.

You said:


On a single case, what process would you follow on a single stand alone case to reach a conclusion of aliens?


If you actually read what I wrote in the previous post, you would no I didn't reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on one single case hence the cookie analogy from the previous post.

It's based on the totality of the available evidence, not a single case.

I have been saying this throughout the thread. You can't see it because you're blinded by your pursuit to show that I had to jump to the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist instead of excepting the fact that I reached this conclusion based on the available evidence.

Is that too hard to understand?
edit on 26-8-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)


I understand what you think you are trying to say.
You say that as a whole, you feel that aliens exist.

Okay. Fine.

So, if you have a feeling that aliens exist, through whatever methodology you used that you can't explain, then, if you were presented with a single case with this data in mind, how would you go about reaching a conclusion on a single case with your pre-defined FEELING based on your interpretation of a generalized view of the phenomenon, where a single case may present itself as Alien?

If you can define the existence of Aliens on a generalized scale then certainly you should be able to provide a method for a single case?

How do you determine Alien on a single case? It should certainly be easy if you seem to already be sure that Aliens exist, so, how do you reach the conclusion of Aliens on a single case?

You keep dodging.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I'm not dodging.

I told you that I look at the totality of the available evidence. I would never look at a single case too reach this conclusion.

So I don't go over any steps or process on each case. I look at the totality of the available evidence to reach the conclusion that it's more likely that extraterrestrials exist and it's less likely that they don't exist.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Druscilla
 


a single case?



there is no single case that would on it's own lead to that conclusion and on it's own cannot easily be dismissed.
thats why i believe a lot of skeptics like to single every case out as separate from any others.

the evidence points to the e.t. possibility only when you look and consider ALL the evidence.




top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join