Life on earth is living proof Extraterrestials exists.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi

It doesnt only matter to yourself. It matters because if you have a belief, then no matter what I say anad show ( which has been seen to be the case) you will deny, because you are already certain of your (illogical) conclusion.

I have denied anything but your fallacious logic. I have expressed no personal belief, nor have I provided a conclusion for you to deem "illogical".

You have not remarked on the potential validity of my logical proofs. Also you have been arguing against my efforts. which leads me to believe you have some longing to believe the opposite. Of course you could have cleared all this up by simply stating what you believe. There is a truth. We are both ignorant of it. But we can determine the most probable using the things ive exhaustedly mentioned. Physics, chemistry, biology, statistics, logic, reason, rationale.

I have determined the most probable scenario is that life exists in the universe. You have determined nothing, because you enjoy reveling in ignorance. Or you believe there is a chance life does not exist in the universe. I have no problem with you wanting to remain 50-50 agnostic. But I feel I can gain a closer insight into the true nature of reality by using physics, chemistry, biology, statistics, logic, reason, rationale. It is your prerogative and I respect that.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

You have not remarked on the potential validity of my logical proofs.

Then let me take this opportunity to do so:

They are neither valid nor logical when presented as "proof".

They are both valid and logical when presented as evidence in support of a possibility.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Excellent post!

I posted way back here regarding the irrational demand for 'proof' in general. Evidence and probability are concepts better tailored to this issue.

I think this kind of demand for proof is a symptom of a lack of education (due to its obvious lack of critical thought) and possibly has underlying psychological causes (it shares similarities with obsessive compulsive disorder). It's black and white thinking. It's unjustifiably binary. It fails to appreciate the granularity and nuances of the issue (and typically of the world in general).

Above all, these demands are the product of a belief-system that lacks evidence. The belief system is called Scientism (not to be confused with real science! - although many scientists unwittingly practice Scientism). In one sense, it's this belief that only direct empirical evidence is sufficient to justify a belief. It's doesn't take much reflection to tear this belief down and expose it as irrational, by simply asking oneself to think of some counterexamples.

But the problem is that we're dealing with what's most likely a psychological compulsion, and compulsions don't listen to reason. Contrary to what they believe, it's absolutely unscientific - it's essentially a religious mindset attempting to verbalize rational arguments and 'sound' scientific to defend its irrational beliefs.

It's fairly simple to pick these people out - they feel strongly 'compelled' to post on websites like this and obsessively demand proof, although when pressed, they bizarrely claim to have no interest in learning about these subjects. Sound religious and irrational? That's because it is!

Originally posted by ImaFungi

You have not remarked on the potential validity of my logical proofs.

And now your logical fallacies:

Burden of Proof Fallacy

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy

Straw Man Fallacy

Originally posted by Brighter

I think this kind of demand for proof is a symptom of a lack of education (due to its obvious lack of critical thought) and possibly has underlying psychological causes (it shares similarities with obsessive compulsive disorder). It's black and white thinking. It's unjustifiably binary. It fails to appreciate the granularity and nuances of the issue (and typically of the world in general).

And here's your logical fallacy:

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi

You have not remarked on the potential validity of my logical proofs.

Then let me take this opportunity to do so:

They are neither valid nor logical when presented as "proof".

They are both valid and logical when presented as evidence in support of a possibility.

What is an acceptable way to prove something? Give a few examples of a way in which things can be proven with out photographic evidence?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi

You have not remarked on the potential validity of my logical proofs.

Then let me take this opportunity to do so:

They are neither valid nor logical when presented as "proof".

They are both valid and logical when presented as evidence in support of a possibility.

What is an acceptable way to prove something? Give a few examples of a way in which things can be proven with out photographic evidence?

Direct observation.

Mathematics.

Indirect observation.



Not sure why you are so hung up on photography.

reply to post by draknoir2


So science, math, logic, reason, rationale... none of these things are of value to you. the only thing that can be true is what you understand and think? If you are incapable of grasping the significance of my statements and evidence, is it possible that says more about you, and not necessarily anything about reality, and my assessment of it?

You have provided nothing, you dont believe in anything, you dont know anything.

I will ask you simply. Do you think there is life in the universe? Why is this so had for you to say, if you would answer you are unsure, cannot not know, nothing has been proven so you dont know... What do you think? there is a truth. Yes life or no life. Given the evidence, what do you think?

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi

You have not remarked on the potential validity of my logical proofs.

Then let me take this opportunity to do so:

They are neither valid nor logical when presented as "proof".

They are both valid and logical when presented as evidence in support of a possibility.

What is an acceptable way to prove something? Give a few examples of a way in which things can be proven with out photographic evidence?

Direct observation.

Mathematics.

Indirect observation.



Not sure why you are so hung up on photography.

I equated direct observation with photography, like if a satelite imaged a distant planet and we saw sky scrapers and planes...

I cant believe after all that you would site direct observation as a proof.. lol. So all the direct observations of ATS members have alien encounters and being abducted is proof... there ya go.

mathematics, is what my entire argument has depended on. mathematics with physical variables such as quantity, time,space/scale and qualities such as chemistry and biology.

indirect observation....um... i indirectly know life exists in the universe?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by draknoir2

 

So science, math, logic, reason, rationale... none of these things are of value to you. the only thing that can be true is what you understand and think? If you are incapable of grasping the significance of my statements and evidence, is it possible that says more about you, and not necessarily anything about reality, and my assessment of it?

You have provided nothing, you dont believe in anything, you dont know anything.

I will ask you simply. Do you think there is life in the universe? Why is this so had for you to say, if you would answer you are unsure, cannot not know, nothing has been proven so you dont know... What do you think? there is a truth. Yes life or no life. Given the evidence, what do you think?

Pretty clear at this point that discussion with you is completely unproductive... not that you need me to have an argument with me. You're doing just fine making up statements and opinions in my behalf, so I'll leave you and yourself to it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So all the direct observations of ATS members have alien encounters and being abducted is proof... there ya go.

One last Fallacy:


Anecdotal

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So all the direct observations of ATS members have alien encounters and being abducted is proof... there ya go.

One last Fallacy:


Anecdotal

No no. it was direct observations... they directly observed them... they = you, if it was you that were them observing the aliens. direct observation.

Do you think life exists in the universe, in your opinion? using what you know of the universe?

using what you know of the universe do you think the ball I let go of will fall to the floor?

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter

I think this kind of demand for proof is a symptom of a lack of education (due to its obvious lack of critical thought) and possibly has underlying psychological causes (it shares similarities with obsessive compulsive disorder). It's black and white thinking. It's unjustifiably binary. It fails to appreciate the granularity and nuances of the issue (and typically of the world in general).

And here's your logical fallacy:

Ad Hominem Fallacy

edit on 14-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

If you knew what an ad hominem attack was, you'd be able to easily determine that every characterization in my post was directly relevant to a particular explanation, and none of them were personal attacks. Ironically, in order for you to have perceived them as ad hominem attacks, you yourself must have made a number of false inferences regarding intent. The relevant distinction here is between descriptive and evaluative. Many people are poor critical thinkers, and I don't judge them negatively for that. On the other hand, I'm entirely justified in describing them as such.

But I am getting the distinct feeling that you're pointing out superficial aspects of my post as a red herring in order to dodge the real issue here - the difference between proof, on the one hand, and evidence and probability on the other.

What's your argument for why the concept of direct, empirical proof is more appropriate in this particular context, as opposed to utilizing the concepts of evidence and probability?

Originally posted by Brighter

If you knew what an ad hominem attack was, you'd be able to easily determine that every characterization in my post was directly relevant to a particular explanation, and none of them were personal attacks. Ironically, in order for you to have perceived them as ad hominem attacks, you yourself must have made a number of false inferences regarding intent. The relevant distinction here is between descriptive and evaluative. Many people are poor critical thinkers, and I don't judge them negatively for that. On the other hand, I'm entirely justified in describing them as such.

But I am getting the distinct feeling that you're pointing out superficial aspects of my post as a red herring in order to dodge the real issue here - the difference between proof, on the one hand, and evidence and probability on the other.

What's your argument for why the concept of direct, empirical proof is more appropriate in this particular context, as opposed to utilizing the concepts of evidence and probability?

I think this kind of demand for proof is a symptom of a lack of education (due to its obvious lack of critical thought) and possibly has underlying psychological causes (it shares similarities with obsessive compulsive disorder).

Pretty clear to me.

But then again I suffer from a lack of education and critical thinking, as well as various psychological disorders similar to OCD.





Personal attacks are indeed evidence - evidence of a weak argument.

Originally posted by Brighter
...What's your argument for why the concept of direct, empirical proof is more appropriate in this particular context, as opposed to utilizing the concepts of evidence and probability?

I'm not draknoir, nor do I speak for him, but here is my take on this:



Evidence and probability are great tools. In this case, I think the evidence is overwhelming that life most probably exists elsewhere.

However, whether or not I personally feel that enough evidence exists to believe life almost certainly exists elsewhere does not answer the more philosophical question of "Does life TRULY exist elsewhere" -- i.e., is it a fundamental and known truth that life 100% certainly exists elsewhere.

The answer to that would be "No"; it would not be a fundamental and known truth until hard empirical evidence is found....and when I say "Truth", I mean in the philosophical or metaphysical sense.

However, I still personally believe that life almost surely does exist elsewhere, based on the circumstantial evidence.

My position has always been and remains that the subject line of this thread is not a valid statement.

It's that simple and that complex.

Originally posted by draknoir2
Personal attacks are indeed evidence - evidence of a weak argument.

Well, since you're clearly going to continue making this basic error until the end of time, I'll explain to you what an ad hominem argument is.

Here's an example of an ad hominem argument: "My opponent would make a terrible president because he likes tacos."

The reason why this is an ad hominem argument is because one's preference for tacos has no relevance whatsoever to one's ability to lead a country.

But what if I were to say: "His mathematical proofs are unreliable because he's a poor reasoner."

Since being able to reason properly is directly relevant to one's being able to perform a mathematical proof, it's incorrect to say that this is an ad hominem argument. In other words, just because an argument appears to contain a "criticism" of someone, this doesn't imply the presence of an ad hominem argument. If the perceived "criticism" is relevant to the issue at hand, then it can in fact support an argument.

Similarly, the inability to select the correct conceptual tools that are most appropriate to the job at hand (obsessing over 'proof' as opposed to focusing on evidence and probability), is directly relevant to this issue. And I'd argue that this basic error is attributable to a lack of education (a lack of experience in thinking through complex issues) or a psychological issue (involving repetitive, irrational statements). And furthermore, because a lack of education and psychological issues are directly relevant to one's ability to form a proper argument, they are in fact relevant to the issue.

Bringing those issues up is not analogous to my talking about how you have a preference for tacos.

Originally posted by draknoir2
My position has always been and remains that the subject line of this thread is not a valid statement.

It's that simple and that complex.

So you take the view of extreme agnostic and skeptic. Nothing wrong with that. But then in order to be consistent, you literally do not know anything, because nothing can be proven, You dont know what your are, where you are, how you are, why you are, when you are. you have never seen anything because you dont know what atoms are or light is, you cant be sure if you or the universe exists, you literally are the opposite of knowledge,knowing and understanding. you think thats air your breathing? Because you hold this position you have no power to posit, to think, to infer, to suppose, to deduce, because you are not familiar with laws and statistics and science. Even if an alien came down and sat on your lap, it would not quality as proof because all your perception takes place in your mind and you could never be sure if you were dreaming or hallucinating or imagining, because you couldn't prove that moment. I can know life exists in the universe because I dont prescribe to the same qualifications of proof as you do.

I understand your line of thought. Ignorant until proven otherwise. and you are the judge of your own proof, so in the end you are always right and free to believe whatever you want or not believe anything.

ok your line of thought: If aliens landed tomorrow on earth and said "hey whats taking you guys so long, the universe is a big party full of life..." ( well you couldnt believe what they said about universe being full of life because thats anecdotal) this event would be proof of life having arisen on other planets? and then you can say. Now it has been proven to me that life exists throughout the universe... you would come back to this thread and say... you guys were wrong... it wasnt proven,, but now its proven, i was right....

I guess what im getting at, is if we can get to the truth without proof... arent we still getting to the truth and knowing the truth?

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by draknoir2
Personal attacks are indeed evidence - evidence of a weak argument.

Well, since you're clearly going to continue making this basic error until the end of time, I'll explain to you what an ad hominem argument is.

Clearly. Until the end of time.



You can spare me the back-pedaling. We both fully understood the content and tone of your post.

reply to post by draknoir2


en.wikipedia.org...

The deepest humans have ever traveled into the earth is about 2 miles... the distance between the surface of earth and the core is somewhere between 3,160 and 3,954 miles.

We have never been close to the earths core. But because we know aspects about the universe (with pretty great degrees of certainty) scientists have a pretty good idea on the potential and probable physical description of the earths cores.

There is a higher percentage that the earths core is what they have deduced that it is, then that the earths core is an infinite number of other physical things (i.e. bubblegum, balloons, cotton candy, dark noir novels, mice, rice etc.)

our argument that life exists in the universe, although we can not prove that it does, (like scientists cannot prove what the earths core is) we can say with high probability and percentage (like they can) that we know life exists in the universe. It would be irrational for the earths core to be filled with jelly beans from what we know about nature. It would be irrational for no life to exist in the universe from what we know about nature.