It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by karl 12
Brighter great thread mate and it looks that way to me too - perhaps these debunkers, UFO cynics, pseudo-sceptics or whatever you want to call them have far more in common with people who believe everything is a UFO than they like to think (far more dogmatic than pragmatic and all that).
Originally posted by karl 12
Thought Dr Bernard Haisch also made an interesting point below about many of them not being practicing scientists and there are plenty of other tactics employed here if you've not seen the list already.
Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.
...
In any case, imply that proof “precedes” evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.
...
Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly “assumed” to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and simply say, "I rest my case."
...
Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.
link
"Their critiques virtually all consist of scoffing, ridicule, ad hominem attacks, and the amazing claim that their dogmatic beliefs that certain things are impossible necessarily constitute laws of nature. It is a modern replay of the cardinals refusing to look through Galileo's telescope because truth has already been revealed to them. Interestingly many of the vocal skeptics are not themselves practicing scientists."
Astrophysicist Dr Bernard Haisch, Ph.D.
UFO Sceptic
Cheers.
Originally posted by Brighter
It’s become common practice for the serial debunkers to employ ad hominem arguments on these forums.
An ad hominem argument is just a logical fallacy in which you attempt to discredit someone’s position by attacking their character instead of addressing the relevant claim being made.
An example would be: “So-and-so is lying about having seen a U.F.O. because they receive money from writing books, giving talks, producing documentaries, etc.” (I’m sure you’ve seen this one before.)
Why are such arguments weak? It’s because they’re drawing your attention away from the important, relevant, issue at hand (creating a red herring) and trying to get you to focus on something else. In the case above, they’re trying to get you to focus – typically without any adequate evidence – on a potential character flaw, in the hopes that you then make a couple of further false inferences – that (1) they probably do have that flaw (even if no sufficient evidence was presented for this) and (2) that you then make the further mistake of assuming that if they have that character flaw, then they must be unreliable in most everything else they say.
Another way of seeing how these arguments fail is to look for counterexamples. For example, medical doctors typically make well over six figures a year. And not only that, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be doing what they do if they were receiving $10 and hour. Yet even so, does this make them unreliable sources of information? Of course not! It’s simply human nature to prefer actions that are incentive-based. Yet that doesn’t at all mean that anyone who demands compensation for their work is automatically dishonest.
So it’s pretty clear that this kind of argument rests on shaky reasoning to say the least. It’s basically the kind of rhetoric employed every day by politicians, used car salesmen and those who simply don’t know how to reason correctly, or those who do and simply want to take advantage of your tendency to not carefully scrutinize what they’re saying.
Now if they’re such bad arguments, then why do people keep making them? Well, I think it’s because they’re effective at shifting your attention away from the actual issue. They tend to easily fool people, because they strike a chord with one’s emotions. And the people who make these arguments realize that, at least subconsciously. They’re hoping that you don’t see what they’re doing (basically leading you down a separate, irrelevant trail of reasoning). It typically also has to do with a lack of proper education, or in some cases a lack of morals.
One more thing – after you call someone out for simply making ad hominem arguments, ask them to provide undeniable, documented evidence of said character flaw (you’ll often see that the ‘evidence’ they present at this point is simply hearsay, their own subjective interpretation, or that it assumes what they’re trying to prove). And even if they can provide such evidence, further ask them if that necessarily means that this person is being dishonest with the other claims they are making. Then ask them to directly address the issue at hand. At this point, whatever they offer you, scrutinize it carefully for other errors in reasoning.
If they’re sloppy enough thinkers to employ ad hominem attacks in the first place, it’s often a safe bet they’re making some pretty egregious errors in their other arguments.
Originally posted by draknoir2
Originally posted by Brighter
And it's hilarious how the "burden of proof" never applies to you, but as the actual laws of logic don't apply to you, I suppose that somewhat makes sense (?)
What is hilarious is your persistent failure to understand why it is that the burden of proof does not apply to me when I am not the one making the wild claims.
I am confident this will continue to be a challenge for you and look forward to many more, overly verbose posts on the evils of skepticism.
Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Eustace1
I think it usually stems from people having blind-faith in anything. Whether its with Jesus, Allah or Aliens it solely based on blind subjective faith.
So person walks out one night and encounters a Ufo in close promity and goes home and tells their experience on Ats. Ats says thats because it was your blind subjective faith. I hear your basic argument and yeh people can turn their Ufo belief into a religous faith. There are however people seeing ufos who dont have a faith bone in their bodies.
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
So isn't this thread just an ad hominem argument against those pesky debunkers?
Originally posted by WilliamOckham
Opening post is inaccurate and pretty darn funny.
First off, anyone who refers to people who use critical thinking and approach claims with logical skepticism as "debunkers", is showing their obvious bias & disdain for truth. You don't get to the truth by simply believing something. Credible and verifiable evidence is needed. Anything other than that is just hearsay and requires faith. It is in the same vein as religion and is not grounded or based in reality or truth.
To be clear, most people who question the laughable UFO claims on here, do not discount the possibility of life on other planets or that aliens can/will visit Earth. In fact, most welcome it and are genuinely interested in the topic. However, these same people choose to apply common sense and refuse to accept unreliable witness testimony or second or third person accounts of what someone thinks they saw, as proof. And why on earth should they?
What the opening post failed at realizing or tackling, is how erroneous it is to accept witness account as proof. How most UFO sighting/story threads here lack any kind of skepticism or honest attempt at getting to the truth (However boring or mundane that actual truth may be - e.g ...You saw a plane, not a UFO).
Humans are beings of bad perception who will experience and understand events differently than everyone else. This has been proven over and over and over again. People are NOT reliable witnesses when it comes to things they do not understand. The mind and the imagination heavily influences their perceived experience.
Anyway, nice try. Still no real proof of alien visitations to earth. When you find it, please do post it. [/quote
edit on 17-5-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)
"how erroneous it is to accept witness account as proof"?....doesn't this pretty much invalidate human history before audio & video recording devices?edit on 17-5-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Eustace1
Originally posted by mr10k
To the contrary, Most ad hominem attacks I have seen in UFO debates usually stem from the believer. Usually due to the fact that it is often the believer who is passionate about their belief and ends up getting emotionally charged, whereas the majority of the time, humorously, the 'skeptic' isn't really professional or anything as such, just someone who doesn't believe the other person.
I think it usually stems from people having blind-faith in anything. Whether its with Jesus, Allah or Aliens it solely based on blind subjective faith.
Originally posted by Brighter
It’s become common practice for the serial debunkers to employ ad hominem arguments on these forums.
An ad hominem argument is just a logical fallacy in which you attempt to discredit someone’s position by attacking their character instead of addressing the relevant claim being made.
An example would be: “So-and-so is lying about having seen a U.F.O. because they receive money from writing books, giving talks, producing documentaries, etc.” (I’m sure you’ve seen this one before.)
Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
That is a new one: Scientists are entertainers.
You need to talk with my son, he reckons scientists are boring.
LOLedit on 17-5-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by Brighter
It’s become common practice for the serial debunkers to employ ad hominem arguments on these forums.
An ad hominem argument is just a logical fallacy in which you attempt to discredit someone’s position by attacking their character instead of addressing the relevant claim being made.
An example would be: “So-and-so is lying about having seen a U.F.O. because they receive money from writing books, giving talks, producing documentaries, etc.” (I’m sure you’ve seen this one before.)
The example should be... "They receive money from writing books, giving talks, producing documentaries BECAUSE they are claiming to having seen a U.F.O."
Let's be serious here. These people are entertainers, nothing more.
Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by Brighter
It’s become common practice for the serial debunkers to employ ad hominem arguments on these forums.
An ad hominem argument is just a logical fallacy in which you attempt to discredit someone’s position by attacking their character instead of addressing the relevant claim being made.
An example would be: “So-and-so is lying about having seen a U.F.O. because they receive money from writing books, giving talks, producing documentaries, etc.” (I’m sure you’ve seen this one before.)
The example should be... "They receive money from writing books, giving talks, producing documentaries BECAUSE they are claiming to having seen a U.F.O."
Let's be serious here. These people are entertainers, nothing more.
I don't know if you realise it, but you just proved what the OP has said as being correct
Originally posted by mr10k
To the contrary, Most ad hominem attacks I have seen in UFO debates usually stem from the believer. Usually due to the fact that it is often the believer who is passionate about their belief and ends up getting emotionally charged, whereas the majority of the time, humorously, the 'skeptic' isn't really professional or anything as such, just someone who doesn't believe the other person.
Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
You just further proved what the OP has said as correct.