The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

www.bluebookarchive.org...



Uhm... actually, you need to read more carefully.

You took the bait, but we'll get back to that and your blatant disregard for facts.

Once again ........~3,000 sighting reports. You can't. And unfortunately, if you read only a few pages from your link, we find that constructing and testing a standardized UFO Report form, or "Observer's Data Sheet", was one of their primary initial goals. data about the new reporting channels they'd set up.

Wrong.

"The clipping service has been initiated and approximately 350 clippings have been received. The Life article is responsible for 90 per cent of the clippings [but later, of course, a smaller %], with the remainder being a few new sightings reported concurrently from several sources."

O.k.
Unfortunately, you think this is all there is. Thats was the bait.
Here is the hook. Last paragraph.
www.bluebookarchive.org...

Now I can't say that, of those ~3,000 reports, not one consisted only of newspaper clippings. But I can say with confidence, as could anyone who reads the Report, that news clippings alone did not comprise any significant portion of the sighting reports.

Are you sure? You don't really sound sure.
Here is what the report says. Keep in mind, you site 3000 reports, you think 350 were recieved.
www.bluebookarchive.org...

Newspaper accounts of SIGHTINGS furnished by the clipping service are being retrieved at approximately a constant rate; howerver the LIFE articles is now responsible for only HALF of the clippings. Originally the clipping were copied at Battelle and then transmitted to the sponsor.

Now looks like 700 with the rate of SIGHTINGS, flowing in at a constant rate.

That sick feeling in your stomach right now, don't fight it. Its just the truth sinking in!

Looks significant now.
Next page and paragraph reads.
www.bluebookarchive.org...
The available files will be coded and punchcards will be prepared. When cards for the sighting reprots for one year are completed preliminary statistical studies will begin

Thats the very next paragraph after the detail on the collection of newspaper clippings, newspaper clippings that now number 700 and are flowing in at a constant rate. So they are still collecting reports and have future plans for them.

Yet you would have us believe its for another reason?
Hmm.

Keep pretending that things such as SR14 don't exist. They do. And it seems that the best you can offer are mischaracterizations of the methods and findings within, or your own broad assumptions and conclusions, which, to an alarming degree, can be (and have been) shown to be simply in error.

Did I say SR14 with all its newspaper clippings didn't exist?

-- "I think that one could argue that those numerous cases could be explained if given greater time, resources and as much data and knowledge as possible." (Special Report 14 refutes this directly and unambiguously.)

This was a personal statement relating to your questions in another post. I don't really care what SR14 states connsidering I am in 2013 and that was decades ago. That should be obvious so the fact I am not in agreement with it would seem logical.

-- "I actually looked at what they used as 'evidence'. Evidence that was made up of NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS OF UFO REPORTS." (Refuted by the Report itself, and even the link YOU provided.)

Did they use newspaper clippings. Yes, even you agree.
The report does not refute it uses newspaper clippings of sightings.

--"The ETH is not viable as an explanation simply because you cannot show that ET's actually exist" ... or, in general form: "How do you even label something as evidence of X without the very existence of X as a known?"

How do you uses the ETH to explain something unknown when you are using the characteristic that the phenomena is unknown to suggest the ETH is the explanation.
Explain away almight lord of logic.

This is all very disappointing.

It is. I am so sick of being right it has become boring.

reply to post by Brighter


Stop blubbering and answer the question.


You have not shown Y, nor identified x.

Let me repeat that again, You have not identified x yet.

So how does x equal evidence for Y.

Or, How does Y cause x, orther than in your imagination.

Please explain.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Sorry, you have lost credibility with me completely.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


It says more than that.

If you had any Idea about the topic you would understand that my reference was to the poster who used SETI as an analogy to make his point.
Which he did poorly.

Fermi's paradox relates directly to the SETI comment.

Not only does it argue that given the vastness of space, abundance of planets, stars etc. One would have expected to have found EVIDENCE of life.

This is not simply that we should have been visited or colonized but that we would see signs related to the progression of an intelligent species, radio or other signals, space probs or satelittes etc. I think Fermi or others called it the "great silence" of the universe.

This is it basically.
The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

Of course some will site a small percentage of SR14 statistical data, gathered from newspaper clippings amongst other sources , as evidence of ET.

reply to post by atlasastro

UFO researchers note that the Fermi Paradox arose within the context of a wave of UFO reports, yet Fermi, Teller, York and Konopinski apparently dismissed the possibility that flying saucers might be extraterrestrial – despite contemporary US Air Force investigations that judged a small portion of UFO reports as inexplicable by contemporary technology.

It would appear that Fermi did not agree with the ETH whatsoever "despite contemporary US Air Force investigations". I imagine this refers to the current documents being discussed. I find it interesting that someone would use the Fermi paradox to support ETH as an explaination for a set of documents when Fermi himself did not even consider ETH As plausible regarding those same documents.

I love how people set themselves up as being an authority on something but can't explain the basic fundamentals of what the are the supposed experts on. They dance around direct questions and try maintain the illusion they are an authority on a subject Rather than say "I don't know". It's fraud. It's trickery. However, they are easy to spot and easy to trap. They over value their cards. In the poker world, they are called "fish". This would have been a profitable game. Too bad,

Originally posted by atlasastro

You have not shown Y, nor identified x.

Let me repeat that again, You have not identified x yet.

So how does x equal evidence for Y.

Or, How does Y cause x, orther than in your imagination.

Please explain.

"You have not identified x"

Well, there are a number of things wrong with this statement, and even a cursory analysis reveals that it contains a pretty fundamental conceptual error. TeaAndStrumpets has already explained this, but I'll explain it to you again.

"You have not identified x" wrongfully assumes that, just because a group of objects have not been placed conceptually under a highly specific rubric, that they haven't been identified to a sufficient degree to enable us to draw some basic conclusions as to their nature. But a certain group of objects have been identified to a sufficient degree to allow us to draw some basic conclusions.

In particular, the eliminative categories in Blue Book (all categories except for "Unknown") were chosen specifically in order to filter out any sightings that might not represent aerial objects under intelligent control. Any objects left over - placed under the rubric of "Unknown" - represent a category of objects that lack all features that would exclude them from being aerial objects under intelligent control. So such a category has been identified, identified to a sufficient degree that we can safely say many of them likely represent intelligently controlled craft.

But you seem to think that, because we haven't identified them as something highly specific (ETs, inter-dimensionals, time-travelers), that we can't draw any conclusions from the data. But we can. TeaAndStrumpets has already pointed this out. We can safely place a number of these object under the general rubric of 'intelligently controlled'. But according to your logic, we can't identify whether or not this is a human until we determine whether or not they own a 3rd generation 32GB pink iPod mini. Or in present terms, that we can't determine whether or not something is under intelligent control until we determine what or who is controlling them. This is just poor reasoning.

"You have not shown Y"

I think you're trying to say that Y hasn't been proved.

There are a couple of things wrong with this.

If by Y you mean something highly specific such as 'these craft are controlled by ETs', or 'these craft are controlled by inter-dimensionals', then you're right. Nothing of the sort has been shown. But nothing that specific is being claimed. But if by Y you mean something more general, such as 'these craft are intelligently controlled', then I think that this has a mountain of evidence to support it, which brings me to the next point.

If by 'shown' you mean 'proved', as in 'follows with logical necessity due to logical form', then I think you're misapplying this concept. We're not doing abstract Euclidean proofs, nor deriving arguments in symbolic logic. But if by 'shown' you mean 'provided sufficient evidence for', then I would say that there is sufficient evidence for Y (where Y is understood as 'these craft are under intelligent control').

OK I made it to page 11 and wanted to post this before dosing off.

I have never seen so many logical fallacy’s in one thread before I just can’t tell if they are intentional or if the posters creating them do not realize that is what they are doing. As one person put it the believers are the ones who are discrediting the UFO community not the skeptics and that is plain to see in this thread by page 5.

Mathematically I believe life exists in other places in the universe but till this day I have not seen any evidence that proves there has been visitation by ETs to our galaxy. All the talk about secret bases that no one knows about but some are sure about is just weird. I like facts and tangible evidence eye witness accounts are worthless to me.

Anyway I will read the rest of the thread tomorrow I hope the believers come up with something that doesn’t involve being a fallacy. Wow just wow.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by atlasastro
Answer the question!

How do you label any percentage of the UFO phenomena as evidence for ETH, when you cannot even prove ET exist!

Answer the question.

Well, it would have been considered a circular question even in 1948, and is more so now that we're aware of much, much more. But it looks like several others are just as hung up on the precise identity of whatever may be behind some UFOs, so perhaps the problems should be laid out there, bare.

I'll ignore the purely logical flaws which exist in that kind of circular thinking regardless of the topic, and instead focus on the ET issue. If a person doesn't already see the huge hole in there, even in the general case, then I probably can't help.)

Our current science predicts the existence of advanced extraterrestrials, and is even now proposing that we search our own solar system for them or their artifacts. We don't need absolute "proof" of extraterrestrial existence before saying that there's some evidence tending to support the idea that they're here. That reality can be accommodated, scientifically. It's even expected, many are now saying. (Fermi said this!) And THAT is the difference between the ETH and the other "strange" hypotheses; it's no longer so strange....

Your analogy about needing to know that backwards time travel exists before we can say there's evidence for it is closer to correct, IMO. Even our cutting edge science, so far as I know, does not predict that time travel into the past is a tenable hypothesis. ET, however, fits perfectly well into what we know. Better than any other of the "strange" hypotheses. So by default, by Occam's Razor, it becomes our working hypothesis....

But of course we just can't be sure what's behind it all. I don't think anyone here has argued otherwise.

If you're concerned about that particular (ET) hypothesis, then we can speak in more general terms, as in "are there any 'Earth shattering' explanations behind some UFOs?".

Isn't what we're all intrigued by the idea that some other intelligence is involved? From what I've seen, most people don't much care whether it's the ETH, IDH, time travel or whatever; they want to know if there's other intelligence out there.

However, if science is to work the way it always has, then the ETH must be our leading tentative hypothesis. It requires the least revision of knowledge. And though reality doesn't care how much revising we must undertake, we do, and Occam does, and this is why I've said, and why it's completely proper to say that there is "some evidence" to support the ETH.

What there's actually "some evidence" for, strictly speaking, is some sort of unknown intelligence, and we can't truly be more specific about the "where?" and the "how?". We can't be sure if 'whatever' has traveled in space, time, or both. But we pick the most conservative explanation that still fits: 'beings' and their craft have been seen here, they're not from Earth as we know it, and that's all we cansay, so... they're "extra-terrestrial". Occam's Razor at work. Anything beyond it, like the 'supernatural' (maybe even time travelers, maybe even inter-dimensionals?) is just not needed. Any of those could still very well be an answer, but if we keep in mind that the technology of an advanced civilization would appear to us to be magic, then the ETH can reasonably accommodate even the strangest evidence out there. (AFAIK)

We should be talking about whether there appears to be some other intelligence behind UFOs. Getting hung up on the precise identity seems odd to me... a distraction from the central issue... something akin to "was the plaintiff's head struck 100 times, or 101 times?" It's a heck of a 'revelation' even if expecting and braced for it.

edit on 25-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)

There's just so much wrong here, both logically and factually, that discussion would be fruitless. You even managed to distort and abuse the principle of "Occam's Razor". ET Theory requires the LEAST amount of assumptions? Really?

Yeah, I think I'm done with you.

despite having seen a few ufos myself i wouldn't expect, or want, there to be no skeptical observers to counter the 'fervent believers'. their presence maintains a degree of balance in the discussion of all things air/space borne and unidentified. there is room for all viewpoints, and this includes both the 'there are no ets' side and the 'every light in the sky is a ufo' side. it's for the reader to take what he or she wishes from all viewpoints, and formulate their own conclusions. i say vive la difference!

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


The report you mention categorizes sightings, yes. And exactly the way you describe.

But the "unknowns" are still primarily based on eyewitness descriptions, as your post indicates.

In those days, studies of the variability of what multiple eyewitnesses report hadn't been widely circulated and eyewitness testimony was thought to be more valuable than we consider it today.

Harte

Originally posted by Brighter

Exactly.

atlasastro's posts above contain multiple fabrications and some blatant errors that you've already pointed out. And as his main argument rested on them, there's nothing much left to talk about.

Once again, it's painfully obvious that the pseudoskeptical position is firmly rooted to falsities and blatant logical errors. It's very telling that anyone would identify with such drivel.

It is fairly sad to see that poor logic is actually embraced by men and women purporting to be fair skeptics. The truth is, dumb people come in all shapes and sizes. None of them have any obvious formal training in logic or science. They lack the necessary understanding to come to good judgements. If they did they would side with you on this obvious issue. Instead they get all mushy when they think their friend scores a rhetorical point. It's almost like kindergarten.

Originally posted by Harte
In those days, studies of the variability of what multiple eyewitnesses report hadn't been widely circulated and eyewitness testimony was thought to be more valuable than we consider it today.

Could you support this statement with reasonable facts and evidence?

reply to post by Grimpachi

Mathematically I believe life exists in other places in the universe but till this day I have not seen any evidence that proves there has been visitation by ETs to our galaxy.

So you are evil?

Originally posted by draknoir2

There's just so much wrong here, both logically and factually, that discussion would be fruitless. You even managed to distort and abuse the principle of "Occam's Razor". ET Theory requires the LEAST amount of assumptions? Really?

Yeah, I think I'm done with you.

Before you get all nilly willy about Occam, how about proving you have the intellectual baggage to throw the knife around? Oops, showstopper!

Originally posted by jclmavg
Before you get all nilly willy about Occam, how about proving you have the intellectual baggage to throw the knife around? Oops, showstopper!

Thank you for your content-free post. I will give it all due consideration.

Perhaps someone could indulge me and explain what they mean by "intelligent control?" What specific characteristic would an object have to display in order to be considered under "intelligent control," and how is this differentiated from an object responding to unobserved or unknown natural forces (eg; wind shear, downdrafts, temperature or barometric pressure variations, etc.)?

Originally posted by DJW001
Perhaps someone could indulge me and explain what they mean by "intelligent control?" What specific characteristic would an object have to display in order to be considered under "intelligent control," and how is this differentiated from an object responding to unobserved or unknown natural forces (eg; wind shear, downdrafts, temperature or barometric pressure variations, etc.)?

its like when the wind closes your door but you have no idea how air pressure works. We call that "intelligent control".

Originally posted by jclmavg
It's almost like kindergarten.

"If you don't agree with me you're dumb."


Almost.

reply to post by DJW001


i would say non-ballistic motion; following a path that cannot be explained or reproduced by conventional aircraft.