The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by flexy123

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.


Not a fact.

Care to explain the statistical methods you employed to arrive at the figures that you quoted above?

You weren't just making those up, were you? Nah, of course you weren't.

You might want to take a gander at karl12's thread here:

Official UFO Unexplained Report Percentages

And if you're going to focus solely on the daily deluge of YouTube videos that people post on here, on what basis do you believe that that is a representative sample of UFO cases in general?
edit on 1-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)


Well, at least he gave you 1%. If were to go solely on claims posted by people here, I would say 99.9999% And yes, I completely pulled that out of my butt. There is a big difference between a number that is compiled from actual data and one that is pooped out for illustrative purposes. I don't think the number was intended as an actual quantative figure. You do make a good point about this site as a representative sample of the general poplulation of UFO cases. So yes, you have to differentiate between the sample populations even when number pooping. ATS UFO posts are not the same as Pilot UFO reports. I would venture to guess that there is very little hoaxing with military reports....perhaps 0.0002% are hoaxes from that sample. Sorry, too much Mexcan last night for dinner.

Now for those "unexplainable" cases, what percent of those are actual Aliens?




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   

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


I've told you many times but maybe I will repeat myself again. Even if one should seek sufficient evidence to says something with certainty, the lack of evidence in you straight site, hands is not a reason to dismiss something, when there is enough evidence to not be excluded

The current evidence of this is enough to not be excluded because there are still many things secret and unknown so claiming it doesn't exist because I don't see an alien knocking on my door is bull# way of thinking when a lot of things are in secret.

I have a secret base underground, I keep a top secret weapon, some guy learns about it but gets shot. Some vague stories around him. The stories go to the internet, no evidence is ever found other than some vague picture. 'SKEPTICS" : it doesn't exist, it's all a lie, I do not see the base, I do not have pictures, I am never invited to that base damn it! It doesn't exist.

That's the logic of Pseudoskeptics and scoffers

Specifically for SETI signal, I never bought that this is an intelligence sent signal, I am just talking of the Logical Fallacy, like one guy said the true skeptic doubts but does not dismiss and claim non-existence with certainty when there's lot's of secrecy and undebunked cases - or else the rest is PSEUDOskepticism



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR

The current evidence of this is enough to not be excluded because there are still many things secret and unknown so claiming it doesn't exist because I don't see an alien knocking on my door is bull# way of thinking when a lot of things are in secret.

I have a secret base underground, I keep a top secret weapon, some guy learns about it but gets shot. Some vague stories around him. The stories go to the internet, no evidence is ever found other than some vague picture. 'SKEPTICS" : it doesn't exist, it's all a lie, I do not see the base, I do not have pictures, I am never invited to that base damn it! It doesn't exist.

That's the logic of Pseudoskeptics and scoffers



I think the point is that no conclusion can be drawn from the current set of evidence. I'm not following the logic behind your argument of "there are secrets" so it can't exist is false. How do you know there are secrets? It would seem that you are implying that these "secrets" are of alien visitation because why else would there be secrets?

So you are saying the evidence we have now is not enough so don't dismiss this because there are secrets that will be revealed that prove it?

I'm not sure where anyone said something doesn't exist because the evidence sucks. Straw man? I think what is being said is there is no evidence that something exists. There is difference in those 2 statements. yes?

and your "secrets" theory seems like an Ad hoc hypothesis (my new irritating word of the day)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by xszawe
 


Ahh yes... another "Evil Skeptics Spoiling Things for us True Believers" thread.

What with their unreasonable demands for evidence to support extraordinary claims - it's logical trickery!!!


SETI has good reason to be cautious about releasing premature declarations of alien contact. They have in the past proven themselves to have acquired signals which at first seemed to be of extraterrestrial origin, but under further scrutiny have proved to be quite terrestrial in nature. Since the whole point of SETI is to detect extraterrestrial intelligence I'm sure few are as eager to make such a discovery as they, but being scientists they seek truth, not belief.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR

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


I've told you many times but maybe I will repeat myself again. Even if one should seek sufficient evidence to says something with certainty, the lack of evidence in you straight site, hands is not a reason to dismiss something, when there is enough evidence to not be excluded

The current evidence of this is enough to not be excluded because there are still many things secret and unknown so claiming it doesn't exist because I don't see an alien knocking on my door is bull# way of thinking when a lot of things are in secret.

I have a secret base underground, I keep a top secret weapon, some guy learns about it but gets shot. Some vague stories around him. The stories go to the internet, no evidence is ever found other than some vague picture. 'SKEPTICS" : it doesn't exist, it's all a lie, I do not see the base, I do not have pictures, I am never invited to that base damn it! It doesn't exist.

That's the logic of Pseudoskeptics and scoffers

Specifically for SETI signal, I never bought that this is an intelligence sent signal, I am just talking of the Logical Fallacy, like one guy said the true skeptic doubts but does not dismiss and claim non-existence with certainty when there's lot's of secrecy and undebunked cases - or else the rest is PSEUDOskepticism


Ah, well, if THAT's the case, there's this guy, a DOCTOR at that, so he must be reputable, named Steven Greer, and if you give him enough money he'll take you out to witness invisible UFO landings where you can meet invisible aliens.

Uh-huh.

Feel free to believe in something you can't verify.
It's entirely your prerogative.
Have at it. Enjoy.
Start a religion about it if you want to.
Don't let me stand in your way.

Some of us, however, require a substantial bit more than faith, hope, belief, and dreamy desire.

It's not the skeptics that have turned UFOlogy into a circus sideshow.
It's the very adherents of the belief in visitation, and all the willing con artists more than happy to suck up the gullible free money from the gawking mouth breathers that hold so much stock in it.

Skeptics need do absolutely nothing to sully the UFO phenomenon. The very believers that take stock in it and the greasy parasites they attract, do that quite wonderfully themselves.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
reply to post by xszawe
 


Ahh yes... another "Evil Skeptics Spoiling Things for us True Believers" thread.

What with their unreasonable demands for evidence to support extraordinary claims - it's logical trickery!!!
That is funny. What exactly is "logical trickery" anyway?

Is that this? Formal_fallacy

"Fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments."[1] Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotional, intellectual, or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments is one way to reduce the likelihood of such occurrences.


So where is the trickery? The OP's straw man argument? Generalizing that they are pseudo sceptics? Not coming to conclusions before "the secrets" are revealed?

or am I the one that is engaged in a logical trickery extravaganza?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


No, this shows your wrong thinking again. Just because I do not remain close minded by what may be hidden ( i dont know, I jsut think even alien visitation is possibly hidden), does not mean I believe some charlatans.

And that answers yor question, ZetaReticluan, how do I know there is something hidden. Well duh, documents classified declassified about UFOs, people being told to shut up, these are not made up things. And of course, the accounts of people, weird historical things having striking similarities with what would be today's objects etc etc

And another fallacy of your logic is to think that just because someone says - I do not know, there may be even alien visitation hidden - does not mean 'I am a believer, i believe every bogus story

Im really sorry for you if you cant make the difference, thats ignorance, close mindness and scoffing, P.S I am not sure aliens is the hidden thing, i think it's possible'



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Druscilla
 


And that answers yor question, ZetaReticluan, how do I know there is something hidden. Well duh, documents classified declassified about UFOs, people being told to shut up, these are not made up things. And of course, the accounts of people, weird historical things having striking similarities with what would be today's objects etc etc
I have looked at a lot of those things that you described....and well, I was pretty much "taken in" by those stories and documentaries that talked about such things as fact. As I looked at each thing, from the sceptical side the stories began to crumble one by one. There a couple of "stories" that I hold onto but the way I procede now-a-days is to ask questions. I'm not sure about which items exactly that you refer to in your list but the things I looked at seemed ligit at first,but turned out not to be. Lots of stories circulate the inner webs that are based on half truths or are just plain fabrications. They are circulated and repeated so much that they become a factual reality to some. Its like a whole reality based on stories retold over and over. Myths on steroids.



And another fallacy of your logic is to think that just because someone says - I do not know, there may be even alien visitation hidden - does not mean 'I am a believer, i believe every bogus story

I think this is at me. I'm not sure I said that you believe every bogus story. I NEVER speak in absolutes...at least I try not to. I understand that you don't believe in every bogus story. Does that mean you believe in some, all or just the average amount of bogus stories?


Im really sorry for you if you cant make the difference, thats ignorance, close mindness and scoffing, P.S I am not sure aliens is the hidden thing, i think it's possible'
The difference between what exactly? I believe what I said was that you implied there are secrets being kept about space aliens and asked if that is what you meant.
Here is my exact quote so as not to fall victum to logical trickery.


I'm not following the logic behind your argument of "there are secrets" so it can't exist is false. How do you know there are secrets? It would seem that you are implying that these "secrets" are of alien visitation because why else would there be secrets?

So you are saying the evidence we have now is not enough so don't dismiss this because there are secrets that will be revealed that prove it?


which part of my quote suggests that I am ignorant, closed minded and scoffing? I certainly can be these things from time to time but I just don't see it here.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I NEVER speak in absolutes...at least I try not to.


Didn't try hard enough that time.

:-)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I NEVER speak in absolutes...at least I try not to.


Didn't try hard enough that time.

:-)


Yeah... you must ALWAYS try harder.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
It seems a little fogging of the difference between a "skeptic"...and a "cynic" or "debunker".

I am a skeptic. I personally have never experienced anything paranormal or extraterrestrial. I have not personally saw or touched any evidence that could not be hoaxed or just plain mislabeled or misunderstood. I have read tons of anecdotal evidence over the years, but that is just another persons re-telling of an experience "they" had...an experience that, had I been there, I might or might not have seen or experienced the same thing.

Most skeptics I know would really like to believe there is something "else" out there (be it aliens, ghosts, magic, alternate dimensions, etc), they just have not came across anything that convinced them yet.

I'd love to believe there are aliens visiting us. I'd love to believe that there are lost, super advanced civilizations from our past...I really wish I could believe there was magic and monsters...but I don't because I have never witnessed or experienced anything to convince me there is. Maybe one day I will.

Cynics and debunkers on the other hand will never be convinced no matter what they see or experience.

There is a big difference.
edit on 2/1/2013 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
I NEVER speak in absolutes...at least I try not to.


Didn't try hard enough that time.

:-)
yeah, I absolutely screwed that one up...OK enough of that. back on topic now. "logical trickery" is now a term I will be embracing from here on. As in "What kind of logical trickery is this?" and could be the name of my new band The Logical Tricksters. My fans will either be called "trick heads" or "Log heads" its just in the planning stages now. Anyway, what his thread lacks is actual logic from pseudo believers.

Logical trickery is just a logical fallacy which both sides are sometimes guilty of from time to time. A solid argument is just that, A solid argument. I just don't know of any solid argument for space people flying space ships around the earth. Anyone? .



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
. I just don't know of any solid argument for space people flying space ships around the earth. Anyone? .


It would be too conspicuous for them to use commercial airlines?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
. I just don't know of any solid argument for space people flying space ships around the earth. Anyone? .


It would be too conspicuous for them to use commercial airlines?




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


What is this post star begging? I don't care about stars, where did you even see me mentioning Greer as credible or anyone of his kind.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by Druscilla
 


What is this post star begging? I don't care about stars, where did you even see me mentioning Greer as credible or anyone of his kind.


Maybe she saw it your imaginary scenerio where you imagined how she would reply and then called her on her logic of how you imagined she would reply. Within your imaginary scenerio, she apparently claims that things don't exist because there is no evidence for them existing. I didn't see where anything like that was posted by her.


I have a secret base underground, I keep a top secret weapon, some guy learns about it but gets shot. Some vague stories around him. The stories go to the internet, no evidence is ever found other than some vague picture. 'SKEPTICS" : it doesn't exist, it's all a lie, I do not see the base, I do not have pictures, I am never invited to that base damn it! It doesn't exist.

That's the logic of Pseudoskeptics and scoffers


I guess if you are going to use the straw man, be prepared for it to come back at you. and she got stars for her post and you didn't. life sucks sometimes



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
God made the trees in the garden pleasing to the eye and good for food.
He forbade Adam to eat of one of them. He stated that they would die in the day that they ate it.
The serpent came along and said this one particular tree is good for x,y and z. And that they surely would not die.
It was at this point that Eve saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom.

What just happened?

Desires were raised for x, y and z to be true. From this point, the serpent had them. They then SAW that the tree was....

UFOs fall in the same manner. Movies, tv, books and the Internet are extolling the benefits of alien contact, extolling the spacefaring man of the future, extolling all of the benefits that such contact can bring and highly suggest to God forsaking men that these things have knowledge of our real origins. All of these things raise desires that lead many of us to perceive those lights in the sky TO BE UFOs, even if they are not.

Christ Jesus judged nothing by what he SAW. The sons of God SAW the daughters of men to be beautiful....Eve SAW that the fruit was pleasing....

Using our senses to determine the truth of something has all of us over a proverbial barrel. For example, advertising understands this concept so sex is used to sell goods, and it works on those who sexual desires are heightened. These men will perceive the car with the nearly naked woman sprawled across its bonnet as more desirable and better. It will have zero affect on a person who has no sexual desire. The person with no sexual desire will point out to the other one that it is his desires that has made that car appear better and more desirable in his mind, not that it is physically better or more desirable.

Likewise the lights in the sky appear to be extraterrestrial life to those whose desires have been raised for them TO BE extraterrestrial life. It matters not that the truth could be that they are the lying signs and wonders of the prince of the air, for this truth will be rejected for the lie of extraterrestrial life as truth simply becauses our desires want it to be our truth. MAN'S mind can accept a lie as his truth when his desires are raised for it to be true. The speaking images and mass media have raised those desires, and yet man can't accept that someone may very well have used the oldest trick in the book - got them to doubt the truthfulness of God's words and commands and therefore was able to raise their desires so that they would accept the lie of the serpent as their truth.

Skeptics come in a variety of forms and are skeptical for a variety of reasons. We live in a time when "experiences" through our senses are vaulted as "proofs of truth", and if one cannot yet understand why this is, then one really needs to think about how our senses can prove a lie to be truth. And even more importantly, how it can easily be used by crafty individuals, who just happen to own all of the media which our senses take in, day in day out, to get the masses to believe what they need them to believe in. The serpent, like a leopard, cannot chanfe his spots. He was a liar and deceiver from the beginning. What does he do? He lies and deceives, and to this end, all not found in the Lamb's Book of Life, will believe it.

Blessed are those who believe without seeing....



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
It seems a little fogging of the difference between a "skeptic"...and a "cynic" or "debunker".

*snip*

Most skeptics I know would really like to believe there is something "else" out there (be it aliens, ghosts, magic, alternate dimensions, etc), they just have not came across anything that convinced them yet.


What about Skeptics with a component of belief?, myself I look at modern accounts with a skeptics point of view and mode of analysis yet I fully believe in the subjects basic material and ideas and some cases I fully believe are accounts of alien visitation (And some I used to believe in I no longer do due to skeptical reanalysis of the event). I guess a proper skeptic works from the bottom up, while a few (like me) work top down, both using the same means to reach a conclusion. But a skeptic hasn't found the required proof to say its real, where as I (having used a skeptical mindset) haven't found the proof to completely rule out everything in the subject as a lie.

If that makes sense... can i even call myself a Skeptic Believer? or is the notion of skepticism rendered moot with any amount of belief.

Pardon if its off topic, just something I thought about when reading your post.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
I have a secret base underground, I keep a top secret weapon, some guy learns about it but gets shot. Some vague stories around him. The stories go to the internet, no evidence is ever found other than some vague picture. 'SKEPTICS" : it doesn't exist, it's all a lie, I do not see the base, I do not have pictures, I am never invited to that base damn it! It doesn't exist.


Problem is, even if I say ... there isn't enough evidence and no more leads to investigate further, so in my opinion it's either inconclusive or an urban legend ... I will still get the
-swamp-gas-CIA-shill train run through me.

Then there is cases which are about as convincing as a politician swearing an oath on the bible. Writing anything but a thesis sized document with diagrams will get you a 'try harder' response ... despite the fact that the a person's effort in finding a youtube video charted on a line graph would be flat line zero ... We waste so much time investigating these cases.

The article is the usual anti-skeptic fluff ... it doesn't name names, it uses buzz words like 'propagandist' ... and discusses science's alleged campaign to destroy anomalies in nature ... without a single actual example. It's pretty easy to win an argument when you can define the opponent's actions and philosophy in a vaccuum. Might as well have a fight to the death with a balloon.

No offense, but I could have written that essay in one sentence:

Bad logic is bad, okay?

Vague articles like this do nothing but split the community IMO and give people with incorrect beliefs on both sides another reason to hate on each other.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   

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...


Oooo, I like it I like it.

But admit it, some are just plain skeptical on just about anything they can't touch or see.
Meanwhile space is made up supposedly of mostly invisible stuff so..... extra DIV





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join