The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 

I have taken the time to clarify my views and answer some of your questions but don't see the same in return from you. So I will try again.



Do you think the topic of UFOs has been objectively and competently studied by mainstream science?

I think everyone agrees that the answer is no.


Reasonably objective data is not an issue -- I refer you, again, to the multiple-witness radar-visual cases -- and scientists routinely quantify data that has a subjective component, so ... what's the problem with a scientific study of UFOs again?

I think the problem here is that it is "subjective" data. What branch of science would be the best choice to study something that is subjective? I don't think it has been clearly shown in the multiple witness cases that there are actually multiple witnesses. There may be multiple witnesses to an "event" but it seems to be only one witness who "sees" the details. The assumption is that the "details" are the true nature of the event. I have looked at least 3 good cases where this seems to be the case. Which branch of science would be best suited to study such cases?


And you can pretend that such multiple-witness radar-visual cases don't exist, if it suits your psychological needs, but that doesn't make them go away. Cases where ball lightning, hallucination, psychological contamination, inversion layers, radar clutter, 'ghosts', etc., can be ruled out

Again. If you are calling on main stream science to study this, who has ruled out these things? Perhaps main stream science is not interested since they might disagree that these things are ruled out. Perhaps a psychologist would see that these are truly NOT multiple witness accounts but are more within the scope of normal psychology. It would seem that if this were the case, it would not be to your liking.


Or, one can recognize that there are many reports of nuts and bolts craft which are seen by multiple witnesses, which are caught on radar, which appear to act and react intelligently, and which clearly outperform anything humans can manufacture ... and one can then either accept that some percentage of those reports may be true, OR completely dismiss them all as the result of some kind of, what, synchronous mass hallucination, which affects even our best sensor systems, I guess?

I think much of this "summary" is misleading and simply untrue. Some aspects of what you are saying may be true for individual cases but not as a "whole" as you are implying here. Your argument that skeptics would unreasonably suggest that this all due to "some kind of synchronous mass hallucination", is clearly a straw man and leads me to believe this whole statement is an illusion at best.



If there were 10 similar cases, would that be evidence?

100?

1,000?

How many are needed before we say "okay, there's some evidence, even if not proof"???

Do you know how many strong cases there are? It's subjective. But "many" captures the idea. So what are the odds that there's not a thing to even a single one of them? This is where some course work in statistics might come in handy.


This is where you accused me of taking your quote out of context an twisting your words around.


So there's no excuse for not knowing what was being discussed.

Actually, I think there is.


So get this straight: what we're comparing is whether the 'knowns' are statistically different from the 'unknowns'. Are they just 'knowns' waiting for some leg-work, in other words


"the odds that there's not a thing to even a single one of them" from the many good cases is NOT the same as comparing "whether the 'knowns' are statistically different from the 'unknowns'." By "unknowns", are you referring to those many good cases? And by "knowns" are you referring the cases that have been explained. Is that correct?

So can you clarify this? Because these seem like two separate math problems.


So, back to the top .... I've asked you one question. It's a tough one, and I suppose I don't really expect a reply from you. I've noticed you tend to disappear when these kinds of things come up.




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


So it's all plasma balls, is this what you are saying? That there hasn't been any cases of actual unidentified craft (of whatever origin, even human). Even when there are clear cases of aircraft or devices/drones, despite the many misidentifications of lots of other cases? That would be quite bad and wrong to think.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Harte
 


So it's all plasma balls, is this what you are saying? That there hasn't been any cases of actual unidentified craft (of whatever origin, even human). Even when there are clear cases of aircraft or devices/drones, despite the many misidentifications of lots of other cases? That would be quite bad and wrong to think.


Some that have already proven themselves challenged would seem to be blind, as well; blind from previous words making statement that plasma balls merely offer greater than or equal to explanation in comparison to ETH as example that there are much better possible and probable explanations available without aliens.

Plasma balls may indeed answer for some reported observations.

No one single explanation likely holds definitive complete answer for all cases surviving beyond the common complete fallacy.

Just because a better explanation than ETH is offered as example that ETH isn't the singular holy grail so many simpletons want it be, doesn't automatically make Plasma Balls the sole and only answer for everything.

UFOs are a complex, randomized, non-uniform, phenomenon.
Only a moron would champion a single explanation as the only possible explanation.

Possible also does not mean probable. There's a difference.

How many times does it have to be said?
UFOs are an unknown phenomenon.

A few possible and probable explanations do not suddenly 'solve' unknown.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Possibilities are welcome, including lightning bolts for some cases. I was refering to those who think one is the explanation for all, or who think that there always has to be something explainable, it cannot be unexplainable. I can agree that most of the cases have to be dismissed with something explainable.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Possibilities are welcome, including lightning bolts for some cases. I was refering to those who think one is the explanation for all,


You mean like these guys?


Originally posted by Brighter

By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon.



Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

There's more than enough even in the official documents to show that your hypotheses are very weak candidates in the race to explain the entirety of the phenomenon.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ImpactoR
 



I was refering to those who think one is the explanation for all, or who think that there always has to be something explainable,


I suggest that we join forces and hunt down these people and show them they are wrong.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
You mean like these guys? [Referring to me and to Brighter]


Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I suggest that we join forces and hunt down these people and show them they are wrong.


It's just so incredibly disingenuous of you, draknoir2, to quote out of context like you did, especially when I've clearly stated my position. Several times.

And before you all "hunt down" me or any other members, you should probably make an effort to understand and avoid mischaracterizing their positions.

Briefly, and in the context of the language of mine that was quoted, here it is: I absolutely DO think that the entirety of the UFO phenomenon can be explained, and of the most interesting types of cases being discussed -- nuts and bolt radar-visual cases -- the ETH (or EDH, or some other hypothesis equally astonishing ... i.e., accounting for the intelligence that's seemingly present) is clearly the most plausible explanation. That does not mean that I think every UFO case has the same explanation. Would even the dullest of the dull think such a thing?

Did one of you actually believe, after reading my posts, that I thought one explanation fir the entire phenomenon? Or was that just one more example of the "logical trickery" the thread is attempting to address?)

Several of you 'skeptics' in this thread, though you won't admit it upon direct questioning, obviously feel that each UFO report has a mundane, Earthly explanation. The nuts and bolt radar-visual cases, dating back to the late 40's, suggest otherwise.

Is my position and what I was responding to a little clearer now?

This thread (like the JAL thread) has gotten a little ridiculous. Within the last few pages here, we've got Druscilla referring to a few participants as "challenged", "blind", "simpletons", and "morons". And now here's someone suggesting that your merry little band of pseudo skeptics get together and "hunt down" those who disagree with you. Wow. Even though not meant literally, these kinds of things are in poor taste and only drag down entire threads, and members, by inviting increasingly vitriolic responses. I've seen posts deleted and members given warnings or penalties for lesser transgressions than the above. Read the pinned / sticky thread entitled "Enough! Manners in the Alien/UFO Forum ... "

It's not my job to bring these things up, but it is something many of us probably need to think about....

And now I'll go respond to a UFO question or two.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
(Duplicate post. Sorry.)
edit on 23-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Several of you 'skeptics' in this thread, though you won't admit it upon direct questioning, obviously feel that each UFO report has a mundane, Earthly explanation. The nuts and bolt radar-visual cases, dating back to the late 40's, suggest otherwise.

Is my position and what I was responding to a little clearer now?



It was a straw man before and it's a straw man now, so no. No clearer. Equally clear.


Here's a clue: it just might be that your "skeptics" won't say what you want them to under direct questioning because it would be a misrepresentation of their position. Must be frustrating not being able to cut and paste direct quotes to support false assertions like the one above. Disingenuous indeed.
edit on 23-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Honestly. You need to lighten up a bit. If you took what I said as anywhere near serious, I really don't know what to tell you. Maybe a new hobby? For the record, I'm not hunting anyone down. It was a joke because i don't think people that he was talking about actually exist.

The JAL thread is just fine. The facts are there for everyone to examine. That is what is fantastic about that case. There are some really well thought out "theories". Maybe spend some time time reading them. Maybe draw your own chart showing where they are wrong.
edit on 23-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


And for the record, mr. Strumpets, you are the one who fired first. This is the kind of language that sets the tone for how a thread goes.

So, back to the top .... I've asked you one question. It's a tough one, and I suppose I don't really expect a reply from you. I've noticed you tend to disappear when these kinds of things come up.

BTW, Your manners are absolutely horrendous! The worst you can get me on is a dumb joke here and there.
edit on 23-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
(Duplicate post. Sorry.)
edit on 23-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)
aren't they all?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I have taken the time to clarify my views and answer some of your questions but don't see the same in return from you. So I will try again.
I've seen you mostly ignoring my strongest points. I see that again just a few lines from here, regarding "subjective" data.


I think everyone agrees that the answer is no. (To this question: "Do you think the topic of UFOs has been objectively and competently studied by mainstream science?"]
I wish everyone agreed. Would Tyson, Shermer and other 'skeptics' take their anti-UFO stance without the supposed science (Condon's conclusions) on their side? Doubtful.

BTW, was it you who said it's "odd" that I cite the Condon Report so often? (Sorry if not.) Consider this: Condon's summary is 'the science' which delegitimized the UFO topic in the mainstream. (Who doubts that?) So I can think of few things more appropriate to cite than it. Especially when what's cited undermines the same, tired skeptical arguments.

Also, what's more odd: citing the old (but still most applicable) science like I do, or citing nothing at all, which I see from most 'skeptics' here? Re-read the thread to confirm my characterization.


I think the problem here is that it is "subjective" data. What branch of science would be the best choice to study something that is subjective?
You misunderstand science then. Every branch of science deals with uncertain and "subjective" data. You've not demonstrated understanding of this crucial point. It's a big barrier. Thus the circles.

If you think the physical sciences are immune from your "subjectivity", then read more about the history of astronomy. And to see how uncertainty and subjectivity can be dealt with WRT UFOs, see Blue Book Special Report 14.

Do you know how the Condon / Colorado scientists planned to deal with exactly the "subjectivity" problem you mention? (Now THAT is an interesting discussion.)


I don't think it has been clearly shown in the multiple witness cases that there are actually multiple witnesses.
I'm speechless. That's just denial, plain and simple.


There may be multiple witnesses to an "event" but it seems to be only one witness who "sees" the details. The assumption is that the "details" are the true nature of the event. I have looked at least 3 good cases where this seems to be the case.
Which?


Which branch of science would be best suited to study such cases?
It's true that some on both sides cherry pick. But no assumption (about the most detailed reports being the "best", so true) is needed in order to demonstrate the extremely strange nature of some sighted and recorded objects.

Though not a true nuts and bolts type, the Minot B-52 case demonstrates this. There were 4 or 5 groups of witnesses, geographically separated, including a B-52 crew, and the objects were picked up on both air and ground radar. I forget the sequence, but there's simply no doubt that simultaneity exists. Does one witness saying he saw distinct edges just erase the entire event, or demote it from the multiple witness category? Nah....


Again. If you are calling on main stream science to study this, who has ruled out [ball lightning, weather, etc.]? Perhaps main stream science is not interested since they might disagree that these things are ruled out. Perhaps a psychologist would see that these are truly NOT multiple witness accounts..... It would seem that if this were the case, it would not be to your liking.
It's not the case. Various private polls of scientists reveals that they're much more interested than the absurd UFO 'taboo' allows them to reveal. I've already cited these studies. Care to address? And see Drs. Wendt & Duvall's "Sovereignty and the UFO".


I think much of this "summary" is misleading.... Some aspects of what you are saying may be true for individual cases but not as a "whole" as you are implying here. Your argument that skeptics would unreasonably suggest that this all due to "some kind of synchronous mass hallucination", is clearly a straw man and leads me to believe this whole statement is an illusion at best.
You create your own strawman here. Was I not referring specifically to the Minot B-52 case just mentioned? I believe so. Any skeptic who thinks the entirety of the UFO phenomenon can be explained by human psychology, misperception, hoaxes and unknown natural phenomena is implicitly recognizing some kind of "mass hallucination" theory, no? Because what else could possibly explain such a case when those mundanes are ruled out to a substantial degree of certainty?


By "unknowns", are you referring to those many good cases? And by "knowns" are you referring the cases that have been explained?
No. Not every official unknown is among the "many good cases", nor is that statement's converse true.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
It was a straw man before and it's a straw man now, so no. No clearer. Equally clear.

Here's a clue: it just might be that your "skeptics" won't say what you want them to under direct questioning because it would be a misrepresentation of their position. Must be frustrating not being able to cut and paste direct quotes to support false assertions like the one above. Disingenuous indeed.
edit on 23-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


Yes, I'm sure that's it. Your position is so complex, refined and intellectually intricate that it can't really be put into words the rest of us can understand?

Your replies to me have mostly been short, incomplete and misleading. Take another look. That makes it more likely, I'd say, that you just don't want to be subject to the same level of scrutiny you apply to others.

I do acknowledge your point though. So how about we cut the crap then? No word games, no quoting out of context. You seem to spend a lot of time here, so you must have an opinion on UFOs. But I've not seen it laid out bare, in one place.

I'll number these questions, for the sake of organization and discussion, but feel free to offer something more open-ended....

1) Do you believe science has objectively studied the phenomenon?

2) Do you believe all UFO reports ultimately have a mundane explanation? (That Earthly explanations always exist, but are just are not found due to lack of time, resources, data. knowledge and so on?)

3) If you believe that all UFO reports do not necessarily have a mundane explanation, then, given the information that we have now, what hypotheses do you think best explain the remaining, residual unknowns? (A cascade of working hypotheses. And that's plural, so there's no need for your one-size-does-NOT-fit-all objection. Everyone knows there are likely multiple explanations.)

4) Do you believe the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is viable? Extra-dimensional? (Or more generally, do you suspect any other intelligence is involved?)

5) If you think the ETH is not viable, why not? (Since that's the only one that fits sufficiently well into our current physics, I'll refrain from asking the same about the EDH, etc.)

Again, if you'd prefer to just offer your opinions in a more open-ended manner, fine with me. However... if you want to be perceived as more than a minor, tricky annoyance, you do need to put your own views out there.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Yes, I'm sure that's it. Your position is so complex, refined and intellectually intricate that it can't really be put into words the rest of us can understand?


Do you do anything BUT the straw man routine?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Do you do anything BUT the straw man routine?


Geeze.... So tiring.

Do you plan to answer any of the questions I've asked you? Even offer your conclusions in free form?

Are you afraid of the scrutiny?

Above you avoided my questions by saying "it just might be that your "skeptics" won't say what you want them to under direct questioning because it would be a misrepresentation of their position."

Even if true (and it's not), that couldn't possibly apply here, correct? Because I clearly said "feel free to offer something more open-ended", and then near the end, "Again, if you'd prefer to just offer your opinions in a more open-ended manner, fine with me."

I'd respect you more if you actually answered the questions -- they're pretty standard -- but, for the 3rd time, sure, offer your UFO views in a more general manner or format if you want.

There's no straw man for miles and miles, and you have the opportunity to offer your views however you'd like. This ensures that your position won't be misrepresented, either by another person, leading questions, or any inherent 'constraints' of the direct-questioning format.

I can't imagine how you'd justify not laying your views out there now.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
I can't imagine how you'd justify not laying your views out there now.
I'm not so sure they'd be that interesting, why expect a fair appraisal? Any idiot can call himself a skeptic, and it is fairly obvious that the label suffers abuse from a-intellectual deniers. It's why the late Truzzi left CSICOP, pseudo skepticism is real. You see this all over the internet, people with no academic credentials/degrees spout off about how they're all into science and skepticism, yet don't have a clue at all. It's more of a feel good club than anything else.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

I think everyone agrees that the answer is no. (To this question: "Do you think the topic of UFOs has been objectively and competently studied by mainstream science?"]wish everyone agreed. Would Tyson, Shermer and other 'skeptics' take their anti-UFO stance without the supposed science (Condon's conclusions) on their side? Doubtful.

I was referring to the folks participating in this conversation.


BTW, was it you who said it's "odd" that I cite the Condon Report so often? (Sorry if not.) Consider this: Condon's summary is 'the science' which delegitimized the UFO topic in the mainstream. (Who doubts that?) So I can think of few things more appropriate to cite than it. Especially when what's cited undermines the same, tired skeptical arguments.

no, I didn't say that. But I do find it anoying. I'm not sure why you would constantly bring up something that I do not know about. I admit that I haven't read it. So how am I supposed to comment on it? It was on my reading list but now I think I would rather watch paint dry. I still might read it but now I'm a little put off.


Also, what's more odd: citing the old (but still most applicable) science like I do, or citing nothing at all, which I see from most 'skeptics' here? Re-read the thread to confirm my characterization.

Cite all you want, it means little. It's obvious that you use your "knowledge" of these materials as a way to feel or look superior to the person you are arguing with. Re-read the thread to confirm my characterization. If want to engage in conversation about a topic, it will have to be one I a familiar with, otherwise, your citations are quite meaningless to me. I am certain that I can pull citations out of my butt that you are not familiar with but that would be useless with the only purpose being of an ego boost to myself.

You misunderstand science then. Every branch of science deals with uncertain and "subjective" data. You've not demonstrated understanding of this crucial point. It's a big barrier. Thus the circles.

If you think the physical sciences are immune from your "subjectivity", then read more about the history of astronomy. And to see how uncertainty and subjectivity can be dealt with WRT UFOs, see Blue Book Special Report 14.

I think you are missing the point. Other sciences have quantifiable data that can be verified. I posted my definition but I don't feel like doing that again. The point is, we don't have much to discuss that is tangible when it comes to this topic, hence the circular arguments.




I don't think it has been clearly shown in the multiple witness cases that there are actually multiple witnesses.
I'm speechless. That's just denial, plain and simple.

It's not denial, it's overgeneralization. Lets get that straight.

For the rest of your comments, it's more of the same. But you really didn't address the stats question. Can you?
edit on 23-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
I can't imagine how you'd justify not laying your views out there now.
I'm not so sure they'd be that interesting, why expect a fair appraisal? Any idiot can call himself a skeptic, and it is fairly obvious that the label suffers abuse from a-intellectual deniers. It's why the late Truzzi left CSICOP, pseudo skepticism is real. You see this all over the internet, people with no academic credentials/degrees spout off about how they're all into science and skepticism, yet don't have a clue at all. It's more of a feel good club than anything else.
thats funny because I don't consider myself a skeptic. That's a label that has been assigned to me not one I chose.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Geeze.... So tiring.



Tell me about it.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Do you plan to answer any of the questions I've asked you? Even offer your conclusions in free form?


I've answered your questions in the past without reciprocation, or even acknowledgement, so I see no point in getting into my personal views with YOU... they aren't on-topic anyway. Your fallacious logic, however, is.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Are you afraid of the scrutiny?


I welcome it.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Above you avoided my questions by saying "it just might be that your "skeptics" won't say what you want them to under direct questioning because it would be a misrepresentation of their position."


I had no intention of responding further to your loaded questions. I was simply doing you the courtesy of explaining why, not that you have the capacity to understand the explanation, as you've demonstrated throughout this thread.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Even if true (and it's not), that couldn't possibly apply here, correct? Because I clearly said "feel free to offer something more open-ended", and then near the end, "Again, if you'd prefer to just offer your opinions in a more open-ended manner, fine with me."


I prefer not to offer any opinions on the subject of ET Theory in this particular thread. My comments will be limited to the "logical trickery" used to arrive at such a conclusion or attack those who disagree.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

I'd respect you more if you actually answered the questions -- they're pretty standard -- but, for the 3rd time, sure, offer your UFO views in a more general manner or format if you want.


I do not require your respect, but if you are really that interested in my views feel free to search my posts in other threads. It might give you some idea.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

There's no straw man for miles and miles, and you have the opportunity to offer your views however you'd like. This ensures that your position won't be misrepresented, either by another person, leading questions, or any inherent 'constraints' of the direct-questioning format.


With you it's like a Cracker Jack prize - there's one in every box. I'm happy to cut and paste them for your "scrutiny".


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

I can't imagine how you'd justify not laying your views out there now.


Nunya.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

BTW, was it you who said it's "odd" that I cite the Condon Report so often? (Sorry if not.) Consider this: Condon's summary is 'the science' which delegitimized the UFO topic in the mainstream. (Who doubts that?) So I can think of few things more appropriate to cite than it. Especially when what's cited undermines the same, tired skeptical arguments.


When you do quote me correctly you STILL get it wrong.


No worries... it's getting to the point where I can't tell you from Brighter or Impactor.





top topics
 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join