Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

reply to post by MarkJS

the proposal does not censor them, it just channels them to an appropriate place for each thread

So, skeptics get to ride in the back of the bus?

reply to post by Zarniwoop

Sorry... I just added the following to my previous post after your post:

and we should be able to read those.... i.e. both sides of the coin. It's just that the posts of the opposing sides would be organized better.

I hope that - that answers your question.

reply to post by MarkJS

May I ask why you feel it's necessary to organize and separate points of view and opinions?

I'm asking because I truly believe that, besides curiosity, exposure to different opinions and ideas is what fuels the engine of discovery, irrespective of the field of study.

So in my view your plan would actually be detrimental to the efforts of eventually finding out the truth. Assuming that is your motivation and priority as well. And that we could even find "the truth," of course

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Quaesitor

 

No, I don't think unidentified = Alien, I just think it can equal Alien and in some cases there isn't any other conclusion that can be drawn based on the available evidence.

Again, I'm just seeking the truth, not just to placate my belief system. I can accept that some evidence and witnesses are so strong, that they experienced extraterrestrial visitation.

The skeptic will not entertain this as a possibility. They have to have an explanation that conforms to their belief system or it will have to remain unidentified ad infinitum.

Again, if you start with the priori that there has to be an explanation that fits what you already believe, then how are you searching for the truth?

I would like for you to point out even 1 case where the "only" explanation is Alien. Please just 1.

I tend to disagree that ATSers are 'doing more work than anyone else', most of them are not, I admit it few people and just few of them are really doing that work.

As for skepticism, I see lots of you FAIL at being objective either because you believe the nonsense or deny without being certain. This is something I've always strived to, being objective. You see when Rendlesham Forest one of the most and undenied cases of UFO, tell me that a UFO may have come there, with some similarity of Alchemist Symbols, I suddenly turned one of the most certain cases of alien related incident to e actually non-alien and some of the things to have been even lies.

In all the things that I started doubting I do not exclude that some alien visitaion even in the 20th century once-twice-three times as one person on an interview (not a known person) who has been knowing those who dealt with such visitation said. WHY? Because the UFO documents declassified by CIA and UK showed us that this has been kept in secret. And since having radio telescopes, radars and high technology used by the militarty and such make IMPOSSIBLE TO NOT KNOW what some of these UFOs are, we know that there is more hidden from public.

Because if they don't know - how is that possible to not know if the UFOs are man made? And if they are not man-made? Thus, don't hurry to exclude aliens.

And aliens as in not visiting EVERY DAY ON EVERY YOUTUBE video, but as rare as the cases talked by this person, where there has been a visitation arranged with military THREE TIMES (in the 50s in the 80s and in err 90s),., I dont remember the person...Do I trust all said? No, but I cannot exclude

So, a dose of skepticism especially to things you see on the internet is healthy, what is not healthy is dismissing something you know nothing about and not taking into account what is hidden from public.

Also unhealthy: Satan Counterfeits, Aliens are Demons, Aliens From Hell, All are interdimensional, not thinking life outside this Earth exists in 3D not 4D or 5D or 7D... Religion, ACTING LIKE SKEPTIC TO DEFEND RELIGIOUS BELIEFs... and many others

reply to post by Quaesitor
Please read my thread about the proposed idea. If you don't have time to read all 2+ pages... then just check out the first post.... it's at: link
Thank You...

reply to post by Zarniwoop

I hope that - that answers your question.

Yep. Thanks.

Although, I am a proponent of having all posts in the same thread all the time. I hate to stereotype, but "Skeptics" can learn from "Believers" and "Believers" can learn from "Skeptics".

Missing one critical post could change the world...maybe not in a major way, but you know what I mean

reply to post by Quaesitor


More nonsense. You said:

The "we" I alluded to is in the sense of our civilization's knowledge, otherwise known as science.

This is more absolute rubbish. What is the sense of our civilizations knowledge? Where can I go and read this monolithic tome about the sum of knowledge in our civilization?

You do know that there's disagreements in science and these disagreements are debated all the time?

Again, in many instances people weigh the available evidence and come to a conclusion based on probabilities not absolute truth.

Skeptics become irrational when confronted with conclusions that don't match their belief system. We reach conclusions based on the available evidence in all walks of life and yes even science.

Only skeptics speak in absolutes when talking about these things. They're so insecure in there skepticism they can't accept that others have reached a different conclusion then they have based on the available EVIDENCE.

There's scientist who believe Hawking Radiation exist although none has been verified.

There's scientist who believe we live in a holographic universe although this hasn't been verified.

There's scientist who believe M-Theory is correct although it hasn't been verified.

There's scientist who think we live in a parallel universe although one hasn't been verified.

There's scientist who think the universe is a quantum computer, even though this hasn't been verified.

At the end of the day, your nonsense about science being some absolute truth when it comes to our civilization, is just kooky talk.

Also, we don't need to know the origin of extraterrestrials to come to the conclusion that they exist based on the available evidence.

We don't know the origin of Gravity, yet we know it exists.

We don't know the origin of dark energy, yet many scientist believe it exist.

WE DON'T KNOW THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET BUT WE BELIEVE IT EXISTS.

So, the only reason you speak in these absolute terms is because we're talking about extraterrestrials. It's either all or nothing. We can't weigh the available evidence, we can only speak in silly absolutes when dealing with so called skeptics.

reply to post by Zarniwoop
Yep... I'm not sure what the best way is to implement this... possibly just by changing the opposing view font color of the post. That would probably suffice (for the non colorblind) and serve as a flag for those who are sympathetic to the OP to just keep moving.

reply to post by neoholographic


Just one question (for now, at least): what's your definition of sceptic?

reply to post by neoholographic

I find it intriguing you use adjectives like "kooky" and "irrational" to describe my position when my position is that I'm interested in scientifically verifiable evidence to reach a conclusion on what might be behind the mystery of UFOs.

Instead of justifying your position by mentioning this so called evidence that you claim proves UFOs are alien in origin, you decided to resort to ad hominem attacks to defend your position and respond to my posts. It's telling of how intellectually weak your position is.

But more important to me it also tells me I am wasting my time communicating with you. Consider this my last response to you.

I haven't laughed this hard because of a thread in a while...

Making a thread complaining about those nasty skeptics that "mock" your beliefs, and then just spending the rest of the thread bashing what other people think and say, because they don't fit your view of the world, is just priceless...

Really, it's hilarious...

reply to post by MarkJS


Your "two-tiered" system is based on the premise that there would only be two opinions about a claim.

That's part of the either-or thinking that I see others here accusing "skeptics" of using.

For the UFO example of this thread: Regarding a particular claim if I were to say "There may be something paranormal going on here but I don't think this is evidence of the ETH" would I have to check your box? Sounds ridiculous to me.

reply to post by Quaesitor


Your position is "irrational" and "kooky" because it's based on your assumption that I took some sort of "leap of faith" to reach my conclusion.

You then try to claim science is this panacea of truth. Science is about theories, debate and coming to conclusions based on the available evidence.

If a scientist accepts Hawking Radiation, are they making a leap of faith?

If a scientist believes we exist in a parallel universe, are they making a leap of faith?

If scientist believe that there's 11 dimensions, are they making a leap of faith?

No, there just coming to a conclusion based on the available evidence. It's not an absolute conclusion but it's one based on the available evidence. Only so called skeptics live in this world of absolutes when it comes to areas like extraterrestrials or Psi.

Originally posted by neoholographic
. Only so called skeptics live in this world of absolutes

You don't see the contradiction in a statement like that?

Why should we give any weight to what you are saying? You are the other side of the coin, if not the same. People come from all walks of life, have different point of views on certain matters. Learn to see the bigger picture instead of just one pixel. You are contradicting your own post. Evolve.

Originally posted by DelMarvel
reply to post by MarkJS

 

Your "two-tiered" system is based on the premise that there would only be two opinions about a claim.

That's part of the either-or thinking that I see others here accusing "skeptics" of using.

For the UFO example of this thread: Regarding a particular claim if I were to say "There may be something paranormal going on here but I don't think this is evidence of the ETH" would I have to check your box? Sounds ridiculous to me.

Thank you for your thoughts, and your response. The idea is to protect the development of thoughts conducive to the OP in a thread. The ideas is to foster development and sharing of experiences in a non-threatening environment.

But you're right... there are only two opinions about OPs... either for or against.

If your post, for example, challenges the OP somehow- by demanding more evidence, more pics, more logic... etc... to support his OP... and thereby backing him/her into a corner... then it's considered opposing the OP, and should be flagged as such. The person who posted the OP can respond, but those responses would be also flagged appropriately... i.e. not contributing to the progress of the thread...but being a distraction. Readers, if sympathetic would then optionally skip all the posts that are flagged as such, to continue the development of the OP, as it were, unhindered and unthreatened.

Originally posted by headorheart
Some skepticism is good. Or else every weather balloon would be ET and every bug on a camera would be a ghost.

I agree with you though that their are who just blow off reliable eye witness accounts because it is not what they believe.

noi that's just being logical and reasonable.. being skeptical is intentionaly trying to disprove something because of your innate tendency to be biased against believing something in the first place.

Originally posted by prevenge
noi that's just being logical and reasonable.. being skeptical is intentionaly trying to disprove something because of your innate tendency to be biased against believing something in the first place.

That's not what skepticism means.

Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. ...

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. ...

Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

Originally posted by MarkJS

But you're right... there are only two opinions about OPs... either for or against.

You missed my point entirely. There are all sorts of opinions one could have about a post.

What would be the point of posting on a site like this if you only wanted to read responses that completely agreed with you?

And what is "threatening" about someone disagreeing with (for example) one's UFO theory?