Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

a reply to: Jonjonj

The surest and easiest way for you to find out is to investigate it yourself by mystical means. Of course that could take a really long time and it might not be your temperament. Maybe you don't believe in such things. Practice and cultivation might reverse that opinion given enough time.

"Those who practice know whether realization is attained or not, just as those who drink water know whether it is hot or cold."
- Dogen

It's a world of possibilities.

a reply to: James1982

What are you even talking about....

a reply to: Jonjonj

any "evidence" for dark energy is anecdotal right?

Wrong.

Or have you personally shown it to exist, categorized it, put it in a book somewhere?

No, whatever gave you that idea?

Oh and this discussion, in which I am participating, is not about physics.

You don't seem to have worked out what this discussion is about. First you try to tell people it isn't about extraterrestrials, when it is perfectly clear from the OP that it is. Now you're claiming that you're not talking about physics when you mention dark energy and the Standard Model.

This is wonderful! Please don't stop.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Jonjonj

any "evidence" for dark energy is anecdotal right?

Wrong.

Prove it.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: James1982

What are you even talking about....

The reason the skeptic can't accept the truth is because they are human, with two eyes two legs two arms and 10 fingers and 10 toes just like the rest of us. But that is part of the problem isn't it, is that maybe not everyone has a matching number of toes and ears and butts and knees and perhaps that is from a deformity at birth, maybe due to an injury or a disease that required a part of the body removed.

But really what we are talking about is trust and there is nothing more trusting than a child of their own mother. Not all mothers are worthy of that trust however and sometimes there is a situation where a child thinks someone is their mother but later it turns out it's actually an aunt or some other friend or family member that stood up and raised the child because the real mother was unable to for some reason. Those situations can definitely be hard on everyone and I think it's best to keep in mind that the choices were made for the best of the child.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: roncoallstar

Now whether or not these cases could be attributed to ET or man made objects is an entirely different subject.

No. That is precisely the subject.

Although, I would apply the same logic to that as well and say that among the many cases that report these sightings as extra-terrestrial in nature either by close encounter from far, logic would seem to suggest that at least one of them would be true.

Why? Why not demons, for example? You'll find that notion is not unheard of. Just as much evidence for demons as ET. Maybe even more.

At the very least I would certainly not discount the possibility as many skeptics do, seeing as the odds are largely not in my favor.

Asking for evidence is not the same as discounting. What's wrong with saying, "That's weird. I don't know what it was."

Hey Phage, it is weird and I don't know what it is.

Do you believe in demons even in the most abstract form? Meaning, there is something here that doesn't fall into the readily explainable, with that said given all the information available, do you agree there is something more than meets the eye that is a bit more homegrown?

a reply to: neoholographic

We study things like the multiverse, holographic principle, Hawking Radiation, inflation and more and there's physicist that accept these things based on the available evidence even though there isn't any scientifically verifiable evidence.

Don't forget "dark energy" and String Theory. No physicist thinks that any of the things on this list are necessarily true, because there is no evidence in support of them; they simply work with them as an hypothesis until they can be falsified. In most of the cases you list, the hypothesis was formulated to explain observations that can be repeated by multiple observers under repeatable conditions, and are hence objective. What you call "evidence" for the ET hypothesis is anecdotal; it is something experienced once under conditions that cannot be repeated. It is subjective. Since there is no need to explain subjective experiences objectively, there is no need to invoke the "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis."

originally posted by: Beavers
a reply to: JackHill

I'm superman and I did it.

Well you believed their bull, why not mine?

Where is the anecdotal evidence you are Superman? The evidence for ET's might be # but not bull#. Your post however, is just that.

Now if you said you were a real life talking beaver, well than, now we're on to something.

originally posted by: neoholographic

In fact, science used eyewitness accounts all the time before they had the technology to look into certain areas. For example with comets or meteors.

Although meteors have been known since ancient times, they were not known to be an astronomical phenomenon until early in the 19th century. Prior to that, they were seen in the West as an atmospheric phenomenon, like lightning, and were not connected with strange stories of rocks falling from the sky. Thomas Jefferson wrote "I would more easily believe that (a) Yankee professor would lie than that stones would fall from heaven."[53] He was referring to Yale chemistry professor Benjamin Silliman's investigation of an 1807 meteorite that fell in Weston, Connecticut.[53] Silliman believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of November 1833.[54] People all across the eastern United States saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. Astute observers noticed that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation Leo.[55]

en.wikipedia.org...

Your own quote invalidates what you wrote before it.

Note what you quote Jefferson as saying. Science certainly did not rely on anecdotal or eyewitness evidence to determine what meteors are.

Harte

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: mirageman

I could go further but I will not. Which of those studies is international, politically unbiased and well funded again?

Please do not use the old data to justify the old methods. We have moved on, both technologically and scientifically, if NOT politically. Or am I wrong here?

Yes, you're wrong. Nobody is disputing that there are unidentified flying objects (unidentified by those who witness them). However, unidentified does not equal extraterrestrial. If they were in fact extraterrestrial in origin, there would likely be no doubts by anyone. As it is, though, there is zero evidence supporting such an idea.

There is Zero evidence for dark energy, yet the modern standard model of physics is based around it, what is your point?

No standard model in science is "based on" the existence of dark energy.

Dark energy is an hypothesis, not an accepted theory.

It was proposed as a means of explaining the surprising result of observations that the speed of expansion of the universe is accelerating. It was given the name "dark energy" simply because we don't know what it is or if it even exists.

originally posted by: JonjonjThere is plenty of anecdotal evidence (anecdotal through lack of investigation by the way) that there is a phenomena that can not be explained by commonly held views of physics.

Actually, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. However, it is true that there are examples of actual evidence indicating such unknown phenomena. If there were not, then Physics would be completed.

originally posted by: JonjonjAnyway, I have a question for you, are you here simply to say it is pointless to investigate the phenomena? Why are you really here, what is your objective regarding this subject?

This is the typical fallback position of the believer once skepticism is encountered - the inference that skeptics have no place in investigation.

Harte

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: JackHill

CIte your sources and then we can dissect the evidence.

Trueman put together a pretty comprehensive thread:

touch me

The OP in that thread indicates the car was two hours late, not two hours early.

Harte

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

You may not have said it, but you certainly implied it:

...this is a paradigm shift in the whole cosmos of possible realities.

So you take something that's implied, you know...anecdotal ....and make an accusation as if fact. Yet when offered overwhelming anecdotal evidence of something unexplained you think anyone who believes it should be locked up.

"Hi Pot, it's me Kettle. You're black."

Sorry, but no.

Admirethedistance responded to something that was said - something we can ALL go back and read.

There's no analogy there.

What would be analogous would be if Admirethedistance had stated that he had read something that Jonjon had said elsewhere (and now has been deleted.) That would be anecdotal evidence.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Come on Harte, we all know you believe in little green men.

But honestly, same question to you that I proposed to Phage. Out of the countless stories offered, do any of them point to something inexplicable? Not ET's mind you but just some serious unexplained woo woo.

If so, what? Not being facetious.

It would be interesting to see a thread where some of ATS's best "skeptics" (using the term lightly as it pertains to OP) sit down and discuss this topic without being "derailed" by "believers" just to see where it goes but with a fence sitter as a moderator to keep it from hitting a brick wall, you know....swamp gas lol.


If you're up for it, my very first thread is about my "UFO" experience. What's your take on that?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: JackHill

CIte your sources and then we can dissect the evidence.

Trueman put together a pretty comprehensive thread:

touch me

The OP in that thread indicates the car was two hours late, not two hours early.

Harte

The story is still the story and sources and storyline can be obtained from the link above. Although, even the original story does appear to have a time contradiction. It doesn't make the story true just that there was a comprehensive thread on the topic.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

You may not have said it, but you certainly implied it:

...this is a paradigm shift in the whole cosmos of possible realities.

So you take something that's implied, you know...anecdotal ....and make an accusation as if fact. Yet when offered overwhelming anecdotal evidence of something unexplained you think anyone who believes it should be locked up.

"Hi Pot, it's me Kettle. You're black."

Sorry, but no.

Admirethedistance responded to something that was said - something we can ALL go back and read.

There's no analogy there.

What would be analogous would be if Admirethedistance had stated that he had read something that Jonjon had said elsewhere (and now has been deleted.) That would be anecdotal evidence.

Harte

my point stands and discussing other members violates T&C, if you really wish to discuss it (which I doubt) U2U me.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Out of the countless stories offered, do any of them point to something inexplicable?

Professor Hyneck pointed to reports that had both a highly reliable witness and a high degree of strangeness as being "inexplicable." He estimated this as being about 5% of reported cases. Factoring in the large number of unreported cases, I would put this figure at about 1/2 of 1%. "Inexplicable" simply means that we do not understand the phenomenon using our current body of knowledge. It is not evidence for any arbitrary theory or belief.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neoholographic
Saying that aliens almost certainly exist is not evidence that UFOs represent extraterrestrial evidence.

They could be extraterrestrial, they could be terrestrial, they could be interdimensional, they could be something we didn't know about, but certainly they're not part of our civilization.

originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: -Blackout-

90% of the skeptics on this subject do not "want to believe" nor do they want to get to the truth

I'm a skeptic, I want to believe.....go ahead and convince me....show me the money!

Nobody needs to 'convince' you, this is not religion. I provided a well grounded case, analyze it and let us known how can you explain it.

a reply to: neoholographic

We study things like the multiverse, holographic principle, Hawking Radiation, inflation and more and there's physicist that accept these things based on the available evidence even though there isn't any scientifically verifiable evidence. In many cases, you just don't have the technology to test these things and you draw conclusion based on the available evidence.

This is a good point except these things are testable with math or whatever they do. Ufology isn't testable. To make it a bonafide science, you must be able to test a working theory. That's why science and ufology has come to a standstill at the crossroads. The second problem is standardization. Without a working theory, you can't adhere to strict protocols which separate pseudo science from good science.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: neoholographic

We study things like the multiverse, holographic principle, Hawking Radiation, inflation and more and there's physicist that accept these things based on the available evidence even though there isn't any scientifically verifiable evidence. In many cases, you just don't have the technology to test these things and you draw conclusion based on the available evidence.

This is a good point except these things are testable with math or whatever they do. Ufology isn't testable. To make it a bonafide science, you must be able to test a working theory. That's why science and ufology has come to a standstill at the crossroads. The second problem is standardization. Without a working theory, you can't adhere to strict protocols which separate pseudo science from good science.

Ufology, as you put it, most certainly IS testable! It is every bit as testable as dark matter, your "multiverse", exotic radiation or indeed anything else. using the very same "math or whatever they do"...

Science is at a "standstill" mainly because scientists have no balls!