The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


I enjo your posts, you raise some good points.

Mainstream Science may not have studied the phenomena with any real vigor, but others have! There have been plenty of independant groups who have gathered material outside of mainstream science, have they not? NICAP and MUFON have or did have members with scientific credentials.

Have any of those organisations publically stated that the ETH explains any of the UFO phenomena they have encountered?

Further more, I would be interested in your thoughts on the plethora of mainstream science, technology and resources commited to searching the universe for life. The resources commited to searching the galaxy, and not just our atmosphere, that has yeilded no results in way of finding extra-terrestrial life and how this relates to the ETH as a way of explaining UFO in our atmosphere.

Surely the UFO phenomena would not simply be confinded to our atmosphere if the ETH was indeed the cause of the phenomena.
I hope you see what I mean.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


You may desire to consider the UFO phenomenon getting along quite fine and swimmingly without any requirement for aliens, ala per my post directly before yours.

People, however, like aliens.
Aliens have a face.
You can hug an alien.
You can have crystal power transcendental meditative telepathic imaginary conversations with Aliens.
Aliens can be secret evil-doers in cahoots with those dastardly self entitled rich folk.
Aliens can answer for all sorts of mysteries and unknowns.

Naturally occurring phenomenon?
Ah, that's a hard sell.
The vast majority of folk would rather have a face to blame, hope for, and even pray to as opposed to some randomized naturally occurring mysterious high-order physics.
Monster movies sell better than natural disaster movies, and the same trend applies to UFOs.

In the collective conscience, for instance, UFO = Aliens.
Thing is, such aint necessarily so.

There's nothing wrong with wanting an explanation to have a face, but, when it comes to critical thinking on this subject, or any 'unknown', it's tantamount of highest importance to exercise a rigorous prejudice regarding observation.
What is, and what only seems?
From there, you can play "One of these things is not like the other", until something fits with adequately thorough confidence minus all speculation.

Currently , nothing does that, so, dissatisfied with having zero answer, those prone to superstition or the sentimental requirement for everything having a face on it similar to early developmental toys and children's cartoons, we get ETH, or Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

The really amusing and hilarious thing about ETH too is that it replaces "Unknown Phenomenon" with an equally vague, equally unquantifiable value of "Aliens".
Does that sound like science?

"Hey kids; inside this box is something you know nothing about and probably wouldn't understand. In a moment, we're going to replace that mysterious something with something else you've never heard of, seen, experienced, or know anything about."
Right.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Look, your logical fallacy 'identifications' reads like a comedy of errors. It's obvious to anyone who's actually formally studied logic that you never have. Please do yourself a favor and stop.


I'll grant you that it is a comedy of errors... yours.

What is obvious is that you have no wish to engage in intellectually honest discourse. Ironic that in a thread dedicated to proving the "logical trickery" [whatever the Hell that is] of the evil skeptics, the only evidence presented consists of logical fallacies.
edit on 19-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

Just speaking in terms of UFOs, I notice you always defer to some imaginary future state of science (psychology, physics, atmospheric science, etc.), in the following sense: "Well, one day we could find a scientific explanation that explains these away as natural phenomena, that doesn't involve having to posit any 'intelligent control'".

But there is no evidence to support such a belief, and it's essentially wishful thinking. Take psychology for example. How would it be possible - without fundamentally redefining the entire subject of psychology - for a psychological principle to explain how multiple witnesses see something that leaves physical trace evidence? You'd have to conveniently create the most absurd psychological phenomenon, involving nothing short of supernatural, super-human powers, that enables the subconscious collective imaginations of a group of humans to instantaneously materialize enormous physical objects, and then have them fly around while getting tracked on radar. If you find that more plausible than the non-superhuman-mental-powers version of that story, well then I think we'll just have to disagree.

And I know you're prone to such explanations. I recall from another thread that your best explanation for certain UFOs was their actually being flying wormholes. And just to let you know, as 'cute' an idea as wormholes are, science has zero observational evidence for the existence of wormholes, let alone flying wormholes within our own atmosphere with blinking lights that somehow reflect radar. In other words, you'd prefer a theory with zero observational basis to a theory with more than plenty of observational evidence (involving the physical existence of these craft). By your own stated standards of evidence, you're being irrational.

One could easily respond to similar proposals of explaining UFOs in terms of ball lightning or the piezoelectric effect. Neither of these phenomena can explain the evidence for UFOs in any reasonable fashion. The most obvious problem is that there is no evidence that either of these natural phenomena could explain the often highly detailed visual descriptions of these objects. What these people are often describing are clearly not examples of ball lightning, or 'earth lights'. Furthermore, there is zero evidence that either 'earth lights' or ball lightning can be tracked on radar, and as far as I know, lightning cannot. And even if it could, I'm sure it wouldn't show up on radar displaying properties consistent with a craft traveling within the speeds that they do. And there is also no evidence that 'earth lights' or ball lightning can be dull in color with a clearly defined outer structure that is indistinguishable from a constructed or manufactured object. To assume so is speculation, pure and simple.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic (impossible?) future psychological phenomenon, or some extremely exotic future discovery in physics (flying wormholes), theories for which we have zero evidence for, isn't the most simple explanation that these are just physical craft, a theory for which there is plenty of evidence?



I seem to have missed this post, but thought I should address it directly.

I've brought up the wormhole thing again, by the way.
I think it's two posts back from this one, and I list it as speculation equal to or greater than in probability than aliens.
Read the papers I've linked in that post.

Oh, but, as described in my previous post, taking Unknown Phenomenon and exchanging it for Aliens which is equally unquantifiable and unknown is oh so much more rigorous a logical approach?

It's sloppy and irresponsible.

Ah, but, you're still stuck in that early developmental stage where everything needs to have a face like all the children's cartoons, no?

The wormhole thing?
I don't present that as a definitive.
I only present that as an example for a more plausible explanation, backed up by quantifiable data sets.
The wormhole thing? Sure, it's Theoretical Physics, and there's yet any real world observational data beyond modeling, but, we have numbers, and solid data as working theory.
Aliens?
We have ZERO on aliens. No data.

And taking something mysterious with very little data, then claiming it's caused by something else with absolutely zero data is logical?

You should really take this show on the comedy circuit.



edit on 19-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Why do you say "almost entirely subjective" instead of "entirely subjective"?

I find that very interesting.

It's not that interesting. I never speak in absolutes. I am using this definition:

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective www.differencebetween.net...




When you speak of UFOs, are you speaking of all reports, or of the truly interesting and seemingly inexplicable 5 to 10%?

Whichever ones you want to discuss. In my view, so far, these really awesome fantastic cases really aren't "all that" when you look at them individually.



Let's ask a basic question: if multiple radars paint an object at a given location, and the object's position and movements match what's described by multiple independent ground and/or air witnesses, is there anything of evidentiary value in there? Or do we let it all just disappear behind the concept of 'subjectivity'?

Subjectivity is subjectivity regardless. If there is such radar data but the key witness describes what he saw as as a "space ship", it doesn't make it a confirmed space ship. What if there were other witnesses, say 2, that were subordinates of the key witness and they confirmed that they saw something but not in the detail that their captain did? Now let's add that these are Japanese folks who have a very strong culture around loyalty to superiors and that sort of thing and may be hesitant to "embarrass" their superior. Lets add that the key witness has reported seeing "mother ships" and "space ships" on a few other occasions and one time even admits that he misidentified it as such.

So are we to ignore all that "other" information and regard it as irrelevant?



It seems like you feel that everything which contains any bit of human involvement is necessarily 'subjective' ... right down to the chemist reading 2ml's vs. 3 in his little laboratory pipette. While there is technically some subjectivity involved in any measurement, in even discussing such an obvious truth we've already strayed from "the point", which involves analyzing the probative value of various types of evidence, after considering factors such as corroboration, reliability, and so on.

Note: were we to exclude all data which contains any substantially subjective components, then much of our science would instantly evaporate. Any graph at all containing error bars becomes immediately useless under your rigid 'subjective' vs. 'objective' standard. That's why it's not the standard to apply -- it unfairly excludes useful evidence.

We all just need to be honest about what types of evidence hold weight, and how much. And that analysis just isn't a simple one. It's why books must be read, and the topic's history understood ....


Who said anything about excluding subjective data? Lets call it what it is and treat it like that.
Oh wait, you are giving an example of "logical trickery" since I never said anything resembling the above quote.
Well played.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Ah, you're so completely adorable when you try so hard.




Can you offer any conventional explanation for, say, the Minot B-52 case, that does not completely and embarrassingly crumble under scrutiny? You'd have to ignore an awful lot to even put one out there....


It's not a conventional explanation, but, I can give just as speculative, if not more grounded probability based on known science than having to include aliens:
Unidirectional, naturally occurring Einstein-Rosen bridge interfaces would -
1. Offer solid radar returns
2. Present a 'metallic-looking' appearance due the unidirectional interface being output only
3. Appear toroid, saucer or lens-shaped, spheroid, or any other number of mathematically sound geometries.


All of the above are also true of plasma balls, which occur naturally and do not require any wormhole:


Buoyant plasma hypothesis
The declassified Project Condign report concludes that buoyant charged plasma formations similar to ball lightning are formed by novel physical, electrical, and magnetic phenomena, and that these charged plasmas are capable of being transported at enormous speeds under the influence and balance of electrical charges in the atmosphere. These plasmas appear to originate due to more than one set of weather and electrically charged conditions, the scientific rationale for which is incomplete or not fully understood. One suggestion is that meteors breaking up in the atmosphere and forming charged plasmas as opposed to burning completely or impacting as meteorites could explain some instances of the phenomena, in addition to other unknown atmospheric events.[71]

Wiki

Harte



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Little understood, but very real and reproducible.



edit on 19-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Thank you for that.


We've another even more plausible example than my own highly speculative suggestion, more quantifiable than aliens without any requirement for aliens.

Edit post de facto: Star for you, and star for everyone else I've agreed with on every post from page 1 onward (since I've been sporadically negligent in fulfilling this standard of social support).


edit on 19-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by atlasastro
 


You may desire to consider the UFO phenomenon getting along quite fine and swimmingly without any requirement for aliens, ala per my post directly before yours.

People, however, like aliens.
Aliens have a face.
You can hug an alien.
You can have crystal power transcendental meditative telepathic imaginary conversations with Aliens.
Aliens can be secret evil-doers in cahoots with those dastardly self entitled rich folk.
Aliens can answer for all sorts of mysteries and unknowns.

I agree, I have actually been studying the transition happening to traditional religious beliefs which are slowly being updated with a new middle man that fits comfortably between the dominance of science and technology and more abstract beliefs in "gods" or entities etc.
Aliens fit nicely into a niche that is accepted culturally as a scientific possibility whilst taking on chrarcteristic/responsibilities of the more abstract and unknowable "gods" etc, in fact it is happening across a myriad of supernatural beliefs. It s actually really fascinating to ponder.


Naturally occurring phenomenon?
Ah, that's a hard sell.
The vast majority of folk would rather have a face to blame, hope for, and even pray to as opposed to some randomized naturally occurring mysterious high-order physics.
Monster movies sell better than natural disaster movies, and the same trend applies to UFOs.
I understand. Crop circles have been attributed to natural phenomena(BLT's famous plasma vortices) yet many people still prefer E.T as an explanation. It is interesting given that the studies are often sited as sincere scientific studies and evidence that the phenomena can not be attributed to manmade causes(which is then used to infer aliens) whilst the conclusion of natural phenomena is ignored.

I could see why some people would dismiss natural causes. This is not uncommon really, if you look at any belief in supernatural topics. Mental illness used to be interpreted as demonic possession or punishment from god etc., until natural causes were found.



The really amusing and hilarious thing about ETH too is that it replaces "Unknown Phenomenon" with an equally vague, equally unquantifiable value of "Aliens".
Does that sound like science?
No it does not sound like science.
Which is why I am interested in hearing why there seems to be no consistency between the incidence rate and reporting of UFO claims outside of our atmosphere were there is a heck of a lot of mainstream science looking, and the incidence of UFO in our atmosphere.



"Hey kids; inside this box is something you know nothing about and probably wouldn't understand. In a moment, we're going to replace that mysterious something with something else you've never heard of, seen, experienced, or know anything about."
Right.

Its culturally normal to attribute unexplained phenomena to abstract or unknowable entities.

What I think the OP and others fail to grasp is that there is no trickery in questioning or approaching such beliefs with skepticism.
The irony is that it is science and technology that has given us a greater understanding and view of the universe and it is this that has generated the notion that alien life is possible and could or might visit earth.

If one was to study the evolution of material and beliefs regarding Alien/ET's one would find that as our knowledge and view of the universe expands through science, so to does the mythology/origins/nature of Alien/ET's.
It is science that is informing the cultural mythology or beliefs surrounding Aliens/ET.
edit on 19/2/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by draknoir2

I was referring to the UFO cases worth studying - cases such as the Japan Airlines case, and the majority of the cases defined as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force's own


We were having a discussion about the Japan Airlines case in another thread but for some reason that discussion stopped. Someone made some good points about this case there and it shed some light on it for me. I would be interested in your response.

post



Sorry about that, I've been extremely busy.

I just responded.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

The way you are using the term implies a deliberate, irrational rejection of a widely accepted "truth".


It's almost like that but whether it is truth has yet to be revealed. The point is, denying absolutely possible things based on current evidence and that evidence is not even all. In general... i was speaking to Drusdilla and others whom I've been observing enough to see where they are heading, and it;s not jard to figre put - that of complete close-mindness. You know, accepting more things when cases suggest so wouldn't hurt your "scientific!?:" approach.

If that's scientific, I will pass. I gave exampels how a thing that you may not know about and others know about, can exist, no evidence for YOU? Your problem


Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
if I get bored enough and have some time, I might just find the quotes from all the skeptics in this thread where they say things are possible...but I have a robot to work on and you know how much time that takes.


Oh really? why do you talk on behalf of others? Some people I have addressed do no accept such thing as alien visitation so I am addressing to the suitable people for that my criticism, and yet they believe in aliens in the universe which I say is the same level of certaintly even less because at least there are some cases on earth that suggest that possibility, while in space so far even less evidence is found about life existing elsewhere.

Also the people I am taking about and pretty much all are defending the position that aliens have never visited here, and all is made up. So why do you argue with me how I am addressing people that don't visit this forum when the people I am talking about are exactly saying that ALL THE TIME !?!?!?
edit on 19-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


And yet, it wouldn't hurt the BRAIN to make a difference between that new agers you are talking about, believers that everything in the sky that is UFO is alien, and people like me who do not claim something exists or does not without the sufficient evidenfce

But notice - I do not claim either thing, but I do not exclude

do not exclude

NOT EXCLUDE

Because the facts and evidence no matter how much you try to belittle them are enough to not exclude
__________

All you are doing here (all of you who try to show competency and knowledge in something you don't know about) are just unscientific because true science is based on open mindness, possibilities, closing yourself because you don't have the evidence in your hand is pseudoscience,. It's like excluding many things in space that may exist only because they are not discovered yet..

And now you will say: "But we are open minded!! We accept possibilities! None of the people you are talking about are here... Onlyyyy not some cases here to be related with other beings", "only that" , "you don't mind if we make an exception in our open mindness, do you?" -

Lawl! You are ridiculous.
edit on 19-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Originally posted by draknoir2

The way you are using the term implies a deliberate, irrational rejection of a widely accepted "truth".


It's almost like that but whether it is truth has yet to be revealed. The point is, denying absolutely possible things based on current evidence and that evidence is not even all. In general... i was speaking to Drusdilla and others whom I've been observing enough to see where they are heading, and it;s not jard to figre put - that of complete close-mindness. You know, accepting more things when cases suggest so wouldn't hurt your "scientific!?:" approach.


I can barely make heads or tails of this, so I'll narrow the focus.

What specific statements have been made denying the "absolutely possible" due to what you term as "complete closed-mindedness"? Exact quotes, please.



edit on 19-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR
closing yourself because you don't have the evidence in your hand is pseudoscience,.


My understanding is that making a claim without evidence in hand is a characteristic of pseudoscience.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

[Re: Einstein-Rosen bridges (aka 'wormholes') and Plasma balls]

...We've another even more plausible example than my own highly speculative suggestion, more quantifiable than aliens without any requirement for aliens.

Edit post de facto: Star for you, and star for everyone else I've agreed with on every post from page 1 onward (since I've been sporadically negligent in fulfilling this standard of social support).




Druscilla, if you think 'wormholes' are a better explanation... , well okay. But you've just conceded an awful lot, perhaps without realizing it. Because you argue on here, all the time, that UFOs are mundane things -- mass psychological in nature, hoaxes, misperceptions -- but now your only remotely tenable hypothesis for a single case I've given you is something that's just as spectacular and earth-shaking as the ETH, but which enjoys a less cozy fit with the data. And most importantly, it's an explanation you'd probably not ridicule, right? There's a big point in there....

Look back over your prior few posts. Do you see just how incredibly hard you're having to work to deny what is obviously the most straight-forward explanation for this phenomenon? I guess that ET being HERE would really shake you as an individual in some fundamental way that you're more in touch with than most people are (like those who think they'd celebrate)?

(FYI, I wouldn't fault you for that, and maybe you can bookmark this in your brain so that you have a better idea of my motivations: I wouldn't celebrate ET's arrival either. I'd prefer that the ETH not describe reality. So you won't see me stretching, intellectually, to accommodate some need for an ET 'savior'. Because I don't think they'd be benevolent, or malevolent, but instead ... and worst of all ... I think they'd be mostly indifferent. Many humans treat dogs exceptionally well; others negligently keep them outside, frozen and malnourished, while still others enslave or eat them. And though we're all hopeful as to the results, at the end of the day we'd have to accept that, if the ETH is true, we don't get pick which type is our master. So this common idea that people need ET in order to replace the religion that's been lost ... don't apply it to me, okay? I want nothing to do with any mainstream religion, and I also don't want my fate subject to the whim of a smarter animal. Get it?)

As to plasma balls, I consider that hypothesis as having been dispensed with, decades ago, back in the Menzel days. Read the exchanges between him, Klass, Hynek and McDonald. Certainly plasma balls can explain some small percentage of incidents, but it falls very much short in others. And once again, any person who has read that old and (to you, it seems) distasteful work would know precisely why plasma balls are really not a viable explanation. If only you'd read! You do realize that the people whose work I keep referring you to were respected scientists, correct? No matter, I suppose.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Except for I am not making a claim existence of ET as a fact based on the evidence, I am claimig simply 'Don't be so sure what it is not' thus I do not try to make claims of something existing without solid evidence, this is the difference between belief and open mindness
edit on 19-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
... Mainstream Science may not have studied the phenomena with any real vigor, but others have! There have been plenty of independant groups who have gathered material outside of mainstream science, have they not? NICAP and MUFON have or did have members with scientific credentials.
But if those independent groups run counter to the mainstream, who will take them seriously? That's the point. The Condon Report defined the mainstream. Actually, Condon's own Summary and Conclusions and Recommendations defined it -- saying there's nothing to UFOs -- and his conclusions don't fit at all well with the hundreds of pages of actual science that follow them. (Released later....)




Originally posted by atlasastro
Have any of those organisations publically stated that the ETH explains any of the UFO phenomena they have encountered?
They've stated at various times either that they believe the ETH is the most plausible answer, or that it can't be ruled out, or that UFOs are simply an unknown on which they take no stance, but only gather information.



Originally posted by atlasastro
Further more, I would be interested in your thoughts on the plethora of mainstream science, technology and resources commited to searching the universe for life. The resources commited to searching the galaxy, and not just our atmosphere, that has yeilded no results in way of finding extra-terrestrial life and how this relates to the ETH as a way of explaining UFO in our atmosphere.
But we can't say there've been "no results" yielded, can we? Are you familiar with the AIAA findings or the Sturrock results, when anonymously polling astronomers? Privately, a higher percentage of astronomers than of the general population say they've seen what's best described as a 'UFO'. So credentialed people will admit anonymously what the giggle factor prevents them from admitting publicly. And do you know how Jacques Vallee became interested in UFOs? He saw astronomer colleagues destroying data that suggested a true UFO. Apparently this was to avoid ridicule....

When the climate, from the beginning, is one of ridicule, it's very hard to say "but there should be data" of such and such type, and have its absence really mean anything, especially when there's other information accounting for that data's absence

We also can't ignore the gross entanglement in the U.S. between the federal government, the military, and science/academia. The DoD has an uncomfortably large say in what will and will not be studied by U.S. scientists.




Originally posted by atlasastro
Surely the UFO phenomena would not simply be confinded to our atmosphere if the ETH was indeed the cause of the phenomena.
I hope you see what I mean.


I do see what you mean, but that's not a hurdle. The 'data' is there, but the taboo nature of the topic, present from the beginning, prevents it from being brought to light. Read Sturrock, those AIAA papers, Vallee's account, and (though I'm not much into this area) what some astronauts and cosmonauts claim to have seen or know.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


... and again:
UFOs = Unknown phenomenon.
Aliens = Zero data, unknown, unquantifiable.

In the same vein, if we're playing the pick-your-favorite-imaginary-solution-devoid-of-any-indication-of-proof, we may as well throw UFOs = Demons, UFOs = rainbow unicorns, UFOs = Superman, or UFOs = any other ridiculous fantasy into the mix as well.

There's zero data on aliens.
As far as aliens are concerned as a mathematical value, their value is congruent with leprechauns and fairies.
We've zero indication aliens even exist, though some would love to play the statistical probability game.

You're taking one unknown variable and claiming it's equal to another unknown variable where the values of either are nonsums.

X=Y where the values of X & Y are unknown, and currently unknowable is what you're saying.

Brilliant. Call up the news media outlets! /sarcasm

With all due respect, are you simply lacking the cognitive horsepower to grasp the pre-school fallacy in this?
It's fine if you're challenged like that and it'd answer a number of questions regarding your posts if you were, but, just in case, in giving you at least some benefit of doubt, it'd be to your benefit were you to come to the understanding that replacing an unknown with a bigger unknown is not how science, or any interrogation of a subject works.

Replacing one unknown with another is on par with giving the answer "Because I said so".

Just in case you don't know, and lack the fundamental education, or even common sense to understand how an inquiry process works; In the case of unknowns, you take what data you can from the unknown, and attempt to match those variables with a body of already established data.
If you don't have enough data on either side of the variable, you wait, and you collect more data.
The more data you collect on either side, the closer one comes to defining the unknown.

Such is why the Einstein-Rosen Bridge example of speculation meets as higher probability, regardless your personal feelings, because there's a wealth of data to support Einstein-Rosen Bridges, and as spectacular and mouth-agape-in-disbelieving-shock unbelievable as such a wild speculation is, the data fits your UFOs.
I'm not saying that IS the answer.
I use that as a practical example.

You don't take unknowns and simply make up some other unknown to explain it away, then attempt to rationalize it all by forcing it.

Finally, even if you hit on one good fit for an unknown, based on solid data and rigorous prejudice, the hit is unacceptable until queried against any X number of similar possibilities, and reliably replicated any X number of times. Replication in cases of unpredictable random phenomenon can take place in building virtual predictive models where the models are then presented against and compared to real-world observations.

Good luck with chasing a non-value that you've replaced with just another non-value.
You may, however, want to break it down into math for some predictive modeling and see how it all works out when you try to divide something by zero.



edit on 19-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Except for I am not making a claim existence of ET as a fact based on the evidence, I am claimig simply 'Don't be so sure what it is not' thus I do not try to make claims of something existing without solid evidence, this is the difference between belief and open mindness


There is absolutely nothing wrong with that position as written.

However, that is not where you left it. You went on to accuse others of "denying absolutely possible things". i asked for specifics and you sidestepped my request. You and a couple of others here seem to rely on the misrepresentation or outright fabrication of positions in order to fuel your rants against "skepticism".

In your case I think you are having difficulty distinguishing possibility from probability. They are not the same, nor are they necessarily equal.
edit on 19-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Do you see just how incredibly hard you're having to work to deny what is obviously the most straight-forward explanation for this phenomenon?


Apologies to you both for my interjecting, but I have to ask - Exactly HOW is "ET" obviously the most straightforward explanation for the UFO phenomenon... without a shred of concrete proof?

Let's look at just some of the steps required to get from here to there:

Proof of life outside of earth.

Proof of intelligence.

Proof of technological advancement.

Proof of interstellar travel capability.

Proof of awareness of us.

Proof of interest in us sufficient to warrant travel to Earth.

Proof of travel to Earth.

Proof such travel accounts for the entirety or preponderance of UFO reports.

Now let's look at the available concrete proof:

Zip. Nada. Zero. The null set.


What amazes me is the oversimplification required to believe there to be a single explanation for the entire phenomenon, and the best "theory" being one of complete speculation. One might as well attribute it to magic.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join