Originally posted by Brighter
If I could make a suggestion, I'd recommend taking a course in symbolic logic or critical thinking at the college level, if that's possible. Please don't take this as condescending, but it's very difficult to have a clear conversation with you, although it seems like you could have some interesting things to say. You just need to be able to express your ideas more clearly, and to be able to assess someone else's views and pick up on some finer points with more accuracy.
No, I don't find your suggestion condescending at all and have no reason to. I know the perception that people have towards believers of the UFO phenomenon. So, I fully expect this type of response and understand the assertions that you feel the need to try and make. No offense taken.
Please tell me where I said that I thought there was evidence of alien involvement.
My comments were related to UFOs, and not aliens.
After re-reading my post, partially saying: "After decades and possibly centuries of sightings, not one ounce of evidence has shown us it's a real phenomenon...........". I see the confusion of UFOs and alien involvement. I just took it for granted it was implied because of our discussion back and forth has been about Hynek's hypothesis of alien involvement with UFOs, not UFO themselves. If you look back over my posts, I haven't been questioning the phenomenon of people sighting UFOs. Just the hypothesis of alien involvement.
Most "skeptics" have enormous difficulty thinking clearly and distinguishing between the two issues, which would be ironic for anyone pretending to agree with Hynek's differentiation between the two.
It's understandable why you would think so and need to make the point of it. As I stated above, the issue I've had from the beginning wasn't to sightings of UFOs, but, what's piloting "them". Obviously two issues.
As to your quotes by Tyson, Hawking and Sagan, did you read the original post of this thread? (I'm asking this in earnest.) What makes you think that training in science and mathematics are skills directly relevant to assessments in a separate field? Would you be happy with hiring your personal tax professional to offer you marital advice? Again, you're making the precise kind of erroneous assumption that was pointed out in the original post of this very thread.
Again, if you read my posts in this thread, you'll understand one of the main points is, by the way of being a scientist, Hynek supporting a hypothesis doesn't make that hypothesis any more of a plausible hypothesis. I think that speaks for itself and I don't need to interpret that into how I feel about supporting of a belief by a scientist or anyone. My quoting of those scientists were to your reply of: "And it seems you yourself don't have much of any evidence to support that value judgment. In fact, there are very accomplished scientists that would disagree with you."
edit on 11-12-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)