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
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
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?