The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 22
11
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
So back to the beginning of the circle. Of the "many" good cases, what are the odds of just one of them being ...I don't know ....alien? Or even intelligently controlled thingies?

Based on basic math which is also basic logic, what is the answer? If the answer is "I don't know", how would you go about finding out?

You have to find your aliens first! End. Capooey. End of story, end-o-mendo.

You can only use what you know to explain what is unknown. The rest is imagination. That's the default until proven otherwise. Nothing physical = nothing physical. Hyper dimensional is identical to hallucination.




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Question.

Show me the data that shows Extraterrestrials existing.

It is a simple equation really.

I look forward to more of your excremental dribblings.



Here's an even simpler question:

Show me where in this thread I said that the ETH is the best explanation for the UFO phenomenon.

(This is really odd, as the post that you're supposed to be responding to clearly asked you to provide evidence for the very position that you're attributing to me, yet your only response totally evades that and instead revolves around the same 'equation' and some new and exciting talk of 'dribblings').

Just to preempt your response - you can't provide any evidence that I said such a thing.

This is because you made it up...to create a straw man argument...because you're desperate. You're just intentionally (unintentionally?) misinterpreting my position, just as you conveniently saddled me with your own definition of 'conclusion'.


Originally posted by atlasastro

Question.

Show me the data that shows Extraterrestrials existing.



As soon as you show me the data that shows one of your imaginary future explanations to exist.

Oh wait, you can't, because it's imaginary.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

I think you underestimate what the human mind is capable of.

www.zipworld.com.au...

I think this is a good article and is evidence for what I describe. I don't think it explains every case and my "mechanics" might be wrong.

Now if we start applying this kind of thing using the SR14 methodology, do those unknowns start melting away?



I'm very well aware of Jim Oberg's 'explanations', and also how frail and futile many of them are. He cherry picks examples that he predicts will be explainable in terms of rocket re-entry or similar phenomena. Basically, most of his articles are non-sequiturs. He makes a series of suggestions, then claims a conclusion that doesn't follow. He's not much different that Phil Klass in terms of quality of thought.


Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

The JAL1628 sighting did not hold up too well under scrutiny. That was a multiple witness case with radar returns of a giant mothership that turned out to be a cloud an some ambiguous lights that are in the same direction as a light source.



No, it still holds up, as the cloud hypothesis has major flaws in it. For instance - how did this cloud (or any cloud for that matter) follow a 747 for at least 160 miles?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Um, what? Logic is math. Binary code? Ones and zeros? True or false? Computers?
If, then? A logical statement is either true or false. That's how computers work.

I sucked so bad at algebra, my counselor told me take logic as my math.

What EXACTLY do you think logic is?

Education level? Just need google.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.math.psu.edu...



Logic has to do with principles of inference, but math has to do with an examination of quantity. When you do math, you're utilizing logic. This is most obvious when you're performing a geometrical proof.

Mathematics is thought to be reducible to set theory and logic.

And the concept of an 'equation' is a mathematical one, not a logical one.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



What is the difference between Mathematics and Logic?

Yahoo answers:

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters 100%

mathematics is one big field of study relating numbers, ideas and relationships ... and one branch of it is logic (as a field of study) .

of course it would be clear that math is logical and ordered in every aspect.

mathematics encompasses natural sciences, engineering (which is actually just an application of math), economics, even art and so much more. it would be hard to place the boundary on math.
4 years ago Report Abuse




Steff 0% 0 Votes
math is derived from logic, but math is dealing more with equations and numbers, logic is figuring out complicated situations, like pattern so on and so forth.

Boolean algebra



And the concept of an 'equation' is a mathematical one, not a logical one.

I am pretty sure I use logical equations from time to time.

Algebraic Logic

edit on 1-3-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


You can bring both of theses topics up with those people directly.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
1. Why must a hypothesis of pure speculation be the "default", for now or ever? Because "magic" might explain the strangest reports (which might have conventional, albeit yet unknown explanations)?


You're playing games. And you're making yourself look inept.

You're excellent at creative quote concatenation and false summarizing, so I'm sure you'll have no trouble showing me where I said "magic" is any part of any explanation. It's unfortunate that you can't distinguish "would to usappear to be magic" from "is magic".

Why would I answer any question from you when so many contain such blatant, purposeful mischaracterizations of my opinion? You're only a step away from the loathsome "Do you still beat your wife?" tactic.



Originally posted by draknoir2
And you JUST stated that not all hypotheses are equally likely, citing the little man in the black hole analogy... then you turn around and say that something that has not been proven to exist at all is the "default" over conventional explanations because they do not account for ALL of the data, after vehemently denying that you sought a singular hypothesis "to explain the entirety of the phenomenon"? A little contradictory, isn't it?


You seriously need to work on logical thinking.
Do "conventional explanations" explain the entire phenomenon? Whatever your answer, it's clear that I don't think they do. (Did you miss that?) So any hypothesis I speak of has to do with the cases where, to me, your "conventional explanations" clearly fail. And there are many such cases. Still with me?

Once we're within that apparently non-conventional portion of cases -- zoom into that small % where conventional explanations have basically been ruled out -- please tell me why it's so hard for you to understand that there could be multiple explanations behind that residue? Some might even ultimately be explained conventionally.

If we're going to attempt to explain these non-conventional cases, we need a way to test them. So there must be a working hypothesis. It need not be true. It very well may not be. But we do need something to act as the basis for all the investigating and testing we'll do.

Of the non-conventional explanations that we can imagine -- and there may very well be many at play which we can't begin to imagine -- the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is the one that fits most comfortably into what we currently know. It requires us to make fewer and less extreme assumptions than the EDH, IDH, time travel or other theories out there seem to.

Apparently Brighter and I disagree on this, but I'm not sure. I simply don't see how we apply the principles of science to something "unknown" unless we first assume it's something particular ... or maybe "pretend it's something particular" better describes the idea. Without a working hypothesis -- and yes, of course there must be assumptions within it -- we have no rudder, nothing to suggest which kinds of particulars we want to or should be focusing on.

This working hypothesis -- whatever idea forces the least extension by us -- simply provides a way of organizing our thoughts and approach. There is no need that it be the answer, or one of the answers, or the most likely answer. That doesn't matter. We've gained knowledge either way. And we keep going down the list....

Now atlas, is there anything in there that you're unclear on?

You can argue that there are NO seemingly inexplicable unknowns, and that's fine. I won't change your mind on that. But then you're not even out of the gate, not in the race I've been speaking of. Before replying, if you reply, remember that the ideas I just expressed are what we apply once we've decided that it IS likely that a non-conventional explanation is involved.

How will you possibly misrepresent this?!?!

Please do not again state the obvious, that the mundane is the default assumption, i.e., that we must first rule out every conventional explanation? Have you met many serious people who disagree with that?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



If we're going to attempt to explain these non-conventional cases, we need a way to test them. So there must be a working hypothesis. It need not be true. It very well may not be. But we do need something to act as the basis for all the investigating and testing we'll do.


I vote for all pilots to have a constant monitoring of their spinal fluid to rule out endogenous dmt hallucinations.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



Do "conventional explanations" explain the entire phenomenon? Whatever your answer, it's clear that I don't think they do

I think you are really hung up on this point. Some of the events are so dynamically complex that it is virtually impossible to explain them conventionally. So if i think something might be a hallucination of sorts, you just chalk that up to swamp gas. Yet, you don't dont have an understanding of what that is and everything that would support my hypothesis is chalked up to swamp gas. So who is the debunker?

For YOU, the only hypothesis is ETH because conventional explanations can't be proved. So your requirement for an exact explaination can't be met. It's unreasonable. So your insistence on ETH is due to a requirement thats impossible to meet.

Force fit explanations. That's what you call them. Correct? Well, that's what we have unless we can go back in time and investigate.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

This working hypothesis -- whatever idea forces the least extension by us -- simply provides a way of organizing our thoughts and approach.


Whatever idea forces the least extension, or would that be the least assumptions?


Now atlas, is there anything in there that you're unclear on?

I am pretty clear that I don't assume Et exists, I don't assume that ET's I don't assume exists have created the technology to travel space.
And Last of all, the ET's I don't assume exist that I don't assume have the technology to travel space, I don't assume they are visiting earth.

So yeah. I think it is pretty clear how far I am willing to "extend" myself in order to have a hypothesis hold.

I think SR14 was pretty clear on it too.


Before replying, if you reply, remember that the ideas I just expressed are what we apply once we've decided that it IS likely that a non-conventional explanation is involved.

My non-conventional explanations also apply then.
Its God.
Its the Devil trying to trick people into thinking God Doesn't exist.
Is Angels.
Its Demons.
Its Spirits

If you question my hypothesis, I will simply refer to the Eyewitness or personal testimony of the existence of above.

Like you, I can have this as my extension. I don't have to show that any of these exist, like you.
All the above are characterized by intelligence, so I can infer that the "data" supports my working hypothesis.

I'll play your game now.

edit on 1/3/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

You're playing games. And you're making yourself look inept.


I'm not the one refusing to answer a direct question.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
You're excellent at creative quote concatenation and false summarizing, so I'm sure you'll have no trouble showing me where I said "magic" is any part of any explanation. It's unfortunate that you can't distinguish "would to usappear to be magic" from "is magic".


It's unfortunate that the best you can do is request a re-post of a re-quote so that you can deny saying it... again.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Why would I answer any question from you when so many contain such blatant, purposeful mischaracterizations of my opinion? You're only a step away from the loathsome "Do you still beat your wife?" tactic.


You wouldn't. That's the nature of deflection. And since the questions were asked to clarify your directly quoted statements, I can only assume that you prefer them to be unclear. That way you can't be nailed down, but rather refuse to answer on the grounds of "mischaracterization!!!!".


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Of the non-conventional explanations that we can imagine -- and there may very well be many at play which we can't begin to imagine -- the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is the one that fits most comfortably into what we currently know. It requires us to make fewer and less extreme assumptions than the EDH, IDH, time travel or other theories out there seem to.


I realize this is a waste of time, but how can pure speculation be considered the best fit for what is currently known? And you will, of course, refuse to explain your assertion that your hypothesis of pure speculation requires fewer extreme assumptions than any other theory out there... when it consists entirely of assumptions.

Or will you just deny saying what I just quoted, charging me with mischaracterization of the position I just cut and pasted here? That would be the easy way out, eh Tea? Wise to your weaselly ways.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Now atlas, is there anything in there that you're unclear on?


Yes. I refer you to the questions you refused to clarify with an answer.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

You can argue that there are NO seemingly inexplicable unknowns, and that's fine. I won't change your mind on that.


Why not wait until I actually argue that? You don't know my mind... how do you hope to change it? We're not even to the point where you will answer a question, much less engage in honest discussion.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Please do not again state the obvious, that the mundane is the default assumption, i.e., that we must first rule out every conventional explanation? Have you met many serious people who disagree with that?


Other than you, no... but I'm taking you less seriously with every post.


Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

But ETH must be default, for now.



Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

the extra-terrestrial hypothesis is the one that fits most comfortably into what we currently know. It requires us to make fewer and less extreme assumptions than the EDH, IDH, time travel or other theories out there seem to.
edit on 1-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter


As soon as you show me the data that shows one of your imaginary future explanations to exist.

Oh wait, you can't, because it's imaginary.


I actually state in the post that you are refering to that: "with more date and time", I woud argue that an explantion could be reached.
I am not imagining anything, simply answering a question.

Here is the post.
post by atlasastro
 


My reply was to this question from Teabag.


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?)

If we look at the history and incidence of UFO, the vast majority do have mundane explanations. However, there are numerous unexplained incidence that cannot be ignored or dismissed. 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.

It is becoming obvious that you are the trickster here, and not those that are skeptical.

All I am stating that incidences could be explained with more time, resources, and as much data and knowledge as possible.


That way no one has to make assumptions because they are relying on a 50 year old statistic from a report that states this about its method and its data:
www.bluebookarchive.org...
"Keeping in mind that the data used were based primarily on personal impressions and interpretations and not concrete facts. It was recognized that some of the methods of data-treatment or analysis may be found unacceptable, or their validity questioned.
For example in report #14, a tool of statistical analysis, call the Chi Square Test, was used in an effort to show that the Unknowns were merely unrecognized Knowns. The Logic in the results of the Chi Square Test, as applied to the Unknowns(see page 68 of Report #14) may best be restated thus: Granted that it has not been possible to prove statistically that the Unknowns are of the same nature as the Knowns; nevertheless, neither has it been shown that they are actually of a different nature.
As far as the original premise (that the Unknowns are merely unidentified Knowns) is concerned, the test therefore has been inconclusive".

www.bluebookarchive.org...

"This is pointed out on page 76 of Report #14 where it is stated that the Chi Square Test neither confirms nor denies that the Unknowns are primarily unidentified Knowns".

As the report states, the quality of data and the method opens itself up to skepticism.

Yet you and Teabag would have skeptics hold your statistic, and SR14 up as some kind of holy grail.

What a joke.


edit on 2/3/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter



Originally posted by atlasastro

Question.

Show me the data that shows Extraterrestrials existing.



As soon as you show me the data that shows one of your imaginary future explanations to exist.

Oh wait, you can't, because it's imaginary.


I have been trying to slow down my posting here since my posts go virtually unchallenged and I'm sure people are sick of seeing them already. But when I see stuff like this, I can't let it go.

Wouldn't ETH be a future explanation and therefore imaginary? Because its not a current explanation. Future explanations are imaginary just the same. Here's the logical equation:

Future Explanation=imaginary
ETH = future explanation
ETH=imaginary

We can give a probability to future explanations being due to a known explanation since we do have known explanations.

We can not give a probability to ETH as being a future explanation since we know of no cases of actual ET.

So future explanations being due to known explanations is not as imaginary as ETH since we know of known explanations.

I agree that some of those unexplained cases look really cool though!


This is pretty much what you guys are arguing about.





edit on 2-3-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


There is a vast difference between my statement and that of Teabag and Dimmer.

I propose that an explanation can be found if conditions were improved.

They, on the otherhand, are proposing a conclusion that the "unknown" is intelligently controlled and Teabag is stating that the ETH explains this best.

Neither conclusions are supported by the data.

Although they argue it does based on a statistic derived from poor data and on a flawed method.

And they wonder why people are skeptical.




edit on 2/3/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I think I am agreeing with you actually. I think we have the same basic argument where x is unknown and has no known value.

CoffeeAndDoughnuts and Dimdim are trying to force a value on X based entirely on what these cases "seem" like. "Seeming" implies "imagination". the word "appear" implies "illusion".

They "insist" on X being ET and have for all intents and purposes, ruled out any other possible explanation.

In your case you believe X will be knowable based on the fact that the majority are known already and we are learning more.

X is still unknown but you have an actual probability based on what we already know. SR14 supports this. SR14 does not support that X is due to aliens in any way, shape or form.

For the sake of argument, if your position is imagination, so is theirs but even more so.

I think it's reasonable to believe X is a future knowable. I think it is completely unreasonable insist X is aliens based entirely on subjective accounts. I think it's reasonable to believe they "could" be aliens because there are some cool cases as long as that's understood to have no "real" value logically.

What do you think?

My opinion is that some of these cases are just too complex and on top of that, they have been so tainted by misconceptions, poor investigation and mythology that they will always be unknowable.

Almost forgot. These cases do seem really cool
in fact, some are way awesome. Totally awesome.


edit on 2-3-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
My opinion:

I thought this was discussed to death 62 dozen pages ago (slight exaggeration).

Recommendation; Agree on a member or moderator respected by all parties that has not weighed in on this subject, to weigh in on what the value of X most closely relates to, and then PM said member with a request to weigh in.

I'm partial to member/moderator Kadinsky.

My position on the topic is that X = unknown where unknown does not exclude ETH or anything else real or imagined such that there's not sufficiently unambiguous data to justify any catch-all explanation.
Additionally, I'm of conviction that there is no one-single catch-all explanation as there's yet a strong enough data platform to suggest a single explanation where the phenomenon has presented wide variability.

Further, possible does not equate to probable.

My bias leans toward as of yet unknown or misunderstood natural phenomenon being attributable for a majority of the outstanding unknown UFO reports.

This has gone in circles too long.

Pick one, or several judges to stick a fork in this.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


What do I think?

I think Teabag might actually be Stanton Friedman!


Or one of his followers.

I guess it all comes down to SR14 statistical analysis, and significance one puts on it.

Then you need to take a huge leap of faith.

Have you heard of "God of the Gaps".
Now we have "Aliens of the Gaps".

In another phenomena, Crop Circles, the exact same logic is applied as that applied by Teabag and Dimmer.

In the Crop Circle phenomena the claim is that some of the Circles are too complex or intelligent, or too quickly made to be attributed to humans. And that even though most are created by Humans, because skeptics cannot prove every singal one is explained by humans, then some must have been made by Aliens.

That is essentially the same argument here.

It seems to be the default position for believers.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I like my thread and I promise to stop posting once I find a job.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


What do I think?

I think Teabag might actually be Stanton Friedman!


That thought crossed my mind too! But I don't think mr Friedman would need to copy and paste from his own work.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join