The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

i thought this was a good read about how skeptics work
just sharing for atsers to read

www.nicap.org...

For instance, if SETI receives an anomalous repeating signal with intelligent content such as a
mathematical constant, and rules out all known causes of terrestrial and deep-space interference,
do they need a chunk of the alien radio dish or a dead alien to attribute it to alien origin? It would
be just as easy to apply UFO-skeptic logic and insist that the signal is nothing more than
anomalous until we obtain physical proof of aliens; after all, why ascribe a radio signal to alien
origin before we have physical proof of the existence of aliens? After all, we cannot rule out
malfunction, fraud, or human error with 100% certainty, so the simplest explanation is an
undetected flaw, not an alien message. Right

click link for the full article

reply to post by xszawe


"For scientists, it would open a whole new confounding problem domain, and it
would make them look incompetent in the public's eyes for missing out on this fact for 50 years."

No sheet.

reply to post by xszawe


I think your confusing a skeptic of UFOs with someone who doesn't believe in ET life ... they are different

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by xszawe

 

I think your confusing a skeptic of UFOs with someone who doesn't believe in ET life ... they are different

im not confusing anything
all i said was it is a good read
you know what we say when you assume

reply to post by xszawe


I stopped reading at the first sentence

www.nicap.org...
Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation because of
the implications it raises and because of the questions it begs.

That is just wrong, skeptics are skeptical about the "evidence" of alien visitation because there is no hard evidence. It has nothing to do with the implications or the question it begs. It is the same as me saying that gullible people believe in every UFO story because of the implications it raises and the questions it begs .

Don't call them skeptics. They aren't really skeptics, they are believers who can't fit data into their narrow world-view. True skeptics have symmetrical doubt, they don't deny. Call them pseudo-skeptics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by RandyBragg
reply to post by xszawe

 

I stopped reading at the first sentence

www.nicap.org...
Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation because of
the implications it raises and because of the questions it begs.

That is just wrong, skeptics are skeptical about the "evidence" of alien visitation because there is no hard evidence. It has nothing to do with the implications or the question it begs. It is the same as me saying that gullible people believe in every UFO story because of the implications it raises and the questions it begs .

skeptism is the believers biggest tool
im glad you saw that
its a pity greers cult dont see it the same way

Originally posted by xszawe
For instance, if SETI receives an anomalous repeating signal with intelligent content such as a
mathematical constant, and rules out all known causes of terrestrial and deep-space interference,
do they need a chunk of the alien radio dish or a dead alien to attribute it to alien origin?

We'll knock that straw man down when we get to it, okay? That is, we have yet to receive an anomalous repeating and clearly artificial signal coming from deep space that can't be explained as natural. Let's get one of those before we go complaining about what skeptics will do.

I imagine a skeptic (or any reasonably intelligent person who doesn't want to be punked) would want to know WHO exactly says it's a signal with intelligent content and HOW that was determined, and WHO ruled out all known causes of terrestrial and deep-space interference and HOW they did it. And it would also help a lot if more than one person or group said so. Peer review, and all that dumb, boring stuff, you know.

I mostly agree with this article, it eloquently explains the problems with the scientific community regarding UFO's, but it could apply to other 'supernatural' phenomena just as well.

My only problem with it is a small one, and it's the assumption(barring the testimony of abductees) of the extraterrestrial hypothesis - that it is in fact extraterrestrials and not some type of interdimensional creatures that are visting us, or you know, something else that would truly fit the 'unknown unknown' category.

But in the end, all these real or hypothetical entities, whatever you want to call them, they would surely be just as alien to us no matter if they happened to come from some other reality or another plane of existance so the shock factor and the potential changes coming from us either collectively acknowledging the reality of their existance or perhaps even establishing contact could be truly monumental.

Great article.

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


I can't blame the scientific community though. They obviously would be rather scared of advanced sentient life for many reasons, and just trying to grasp the technology and ingenuity of such craft. As we all know if the media actually wanted to say e.t's exist, that it would cause a lot technological/spiritual fears. Not only that could you imagine how many loons would try to advantage over such a belief for whatever their intention?

However most scientists will agree on the theory of other life is out there, although they would be highly skeptical to the question is there other sentient beings, and how advanced of species they are. Drakes equation was good enough proof for me about other, even though it only good for estimates.

People do fake UFO sightings with CGI and reflections, so it's no wonder people on ATS are skeptical when people post something about UFOs.

Originally posted by xszawe
i thought this was a good read about how skeptics work
just sharing for atsers to read

www.nicap.org...

edit on 31-1-2013 by xszawe because: (no reason given)

For instance, if SETI receives an anomalous repeating signal with intelligent content such as a
mathematical constant, and rules out all known causes of terrestrial and deep-space interference,
do they need a chunk of the alien radio dish or a dead alien to attribute it to alien origin? It would
be just as easy to apply UFO-skeptic logic and insist that the signal is nothing more than
anomalous until we obtain physical proof of aliens; after all, why ascribe a radio signal to alien
origin before we have physical proof of the existence of aliens? After all, we cannot rule out
malfunction, fraud, or human error with 100% certainty, so the simplest explanation is an
undetected flaw, not an alien message. Right

edit on 31-1-2013 by xszawe because: (no reason given)

click link for the full article

edit on 31-1-2013 by xszawe because: (no reason given)

Show us your hypothetical signal from outer space.
Do you have one of these signals you describe?
No?

You are otherwise over-generalizing and making things up just to satisfy your own oversimplified belief in a belief as well as your feeling of said belief being superior to the application of sound reasoning and logic.

Give us some unambiguous data. That's all we're asking.
No, not any of this "I know what I saw" nonsense. That's not data. That's a human being making a claim.

reply to post by Druscilla


You have changed your avatar again since i last saw one of your posts. One was a black and white image, some months back, Each more beautiful than the last.. /stops stalking

/Gets back on topic.

When i was in high school, three friends told me they had seen a UFO. I have never had cause to doubt them. There was never any 'showing off' in the way the story was told to me.

Most sceptics would rather there be multiple correlation to such events. Not just one source or group.

I personally have never seen a confirmed UFO. I do not know if we have been visited already, if our governments are hiding things from us (my gut says they are).

Someone once said, if we are the only ones, it's an awful waste of space.

I agree.

www.rogerdarlington.me.uk...

Originally posted by BlueMule

Don't call them skeptics. They aren't really skeptics, they are believers who can't fit data into their narrow world-view. True skeptics have symmetrical doubt, they don't deny. Call them pseudo-skeptics.

en.wikipedia.org...

BlueMule, good call and whilst I'm not sure about the rest of his points I thought Brian Zeiler made a good observation here (just substitute the word skeptic for the word pseudo-skeptic).

The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach.

Cheers.

Originally posted by AdamOver

When i was in high school, three friends told me they had seen a UFO. I have never had cause to doubt them. There was never any 'showing off' in the way the story was told to me.

Most sceptics would rather there be multiple correlation to such events. Not just one source or group.

There is ANY and PLENTY of reasons to be skeptical, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
If we just take this site as one, simple example - almost EVERY day someone is posting a UFO video/story/report.
And almost each and ANY of those "UFO sightings" can normally easily be explained.

It's a an undeniable fact that "people" see UFOs and report what they THINK they see and there is overwhelming chance that those people (regardless of what they claim) are wrong, misinterpreted things, hoaxed or zillions of other reasons. The remaining percentage of "genuine" sightings is incredible, incredible small.

Since the majority of UFO sightings (and even media reports about them) are BELONGING TO THE 99,99% of sightings which are explainable, hoaxes, PR stunts, fakes and what not..it can not be surprising in the slightest that people who are interested in the topic are (or grow to be) EXTREMELY skeptic.

So..when someone like "a friend" (or another ATS user) or my parents or neighbors or whoever claims they saw an UFO (in the classic sense of it being something really extraordinary without an explanation) I have all reason to "doubt" them..respective their interpretation since in 99,99% of all cases it will not be "an UFO" but just something they saw and could not explain, often even something as trivial as a planet, a bright star or plane landing lights. FACT.

Originally posted by xszawe

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by xszawe

 

I think your confusing a skeptic of UFOs with someone who doesn't believe in ET life ... they are different

im not confusing anything
all i said was it is a good read
you know what we say when you assume

YOU are, LOOK at your thread title UFO Skeptic (or sceptic in proper English) I am a UFO sceptic no doubt about that, do I think there is life out there somewhere of course there is that doesn't mean they are close enough or have the ability to visit us and thats EXACTLY gortex's point!!!

Let's just make sure we differentiate between skepticism and cynicism. The skeptical ones are the ones who will believe provided substantial evidence, but the article appears to describe cynicism, people who won't believe no matter what; you can always back pedal just a little bit.
To me I think the problem is what really constitutes "proof?" Is anecdotal evidence enough, do we really have to exhaust every other possible explanation, who's testimony is trustworthy? In every debate regarding anything of this nature, not just UFO claims, the problem is different people want different forms of evidence to prove something.
After all, there is no "International proof organization" to settle what can be used as evidence. Even the words conclusive and undeniable are subjective terms.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by BlueMule
Don't call them skeptics. They aren't really skeptics, they are believers who can't fit data into their narrow world-view. True skeptics have symmetrical doubt, they don't deny. Call them pseudo-skeptics.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 31-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

pseudo-sceptic here. Just want to comment about the symemetrical generalization and irregularity of your statement. Just who are "they" and what "data" do you speak of? What "data" did you compile in order to come to come this seemingly "narrow world-view" reflected in your comment?

Anyone can over generalise. I can too. it doesn't mean squat but it certainly makes me feel smarter by putting them down. here's mine:

There is a load of ambiguous pseudo "data" that they can interprit any way they can imagine. They draw conclusions by loosely associating data and believe anything you tell them if it sounds good. Call them pseudo-true believers


read this from your link:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]

and now read this quoclaimte:

They aren't really skeptics, they are believers who can't fit data into their narrow world-view.

So I ask again. Who are they and what data do you speak of? Are you, in fact, one of them?



extra DIV