The Skeptics Dilemma

1. We have no record of ETs being found (proved) to be responsible for UFO sightings in the past.

Again, this proves my point. The pseudo or bogus skeptics want these things "proven" before we weigh the evidence within reason. This way they can throw out any possibility.

Nothing works this way and this is backwards logic.

2. UFOs that have been explained in the past, have been found to be mis-identified natural or man made phenomena.

Again, another lie. All of these things have not been found to be man made or a natural phenomana. The fact that you even said this speaks for itself.

3. It's unlikely for various reasons that even if ETs could find us, that they would be able to travel here.

How do you know what a civilization that extra-dimensional or millions of years ahead of us in evolution can or can't do?

Also, we just found liquid water on Mars and life may be abundant in the universe on a microbial level. If they evolved in our own backyard , why would they have to travel long ways to get here?

These things are not that hard to understand. It's takes a little logic and reason.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by platosallegory]

All the better you should debate with me; I'm sure two believers debating will be far more entertaining to onlookers.

Originally posted by platosallegory
If you have a better explanation for these things then present it and lets weigh it within reason.

Can you please define 'these things'? Name a specific incident and we can discuss the possibilities there. On a different thread; this "mother of all arguments" thread is growing weary and isn't really apropo for a specific topical discussion.

Grouping everything from physical UFOs to astral travel together just isn't appropriate. Even my own experiences I have half a dozen different explanations for, not counting a few that still have the label "No freakin idea" hanging on them.

Of course we can keep these things unidentified and unexplained ad infinitum but that's not how science works.

Fortunately I am not a scientist, merely a layman with a real interest in science.

You really cannot use science as your criteria for evaluating "AN ANSWER" to "everything" in ufology/contact/etc. or you've lost the argument before you begin:

1) Most stuff has no physical objective evidence;
2) Even SOME that DOES have "physical, objective" evidence, those events are varied and open to speculation regarding cause, and
3) Again, we're talking about a ton of highly diverse stuff.

You come up with different hypothesis and then you weigh the evidence within reason.

Your reasoning is unlikely to be the same as other peoples' reasoning if you are including subjective testimony of 'contactees'.

And there are some alternative things even for people who totally believe what contactees are saying.

For example, I could say, "These things have been reported since the dawn of time, here are snippets of myth and legend that are very similar to reports X and Y in the modern time." (I highly recommend Thompson's "Alien Identities" book to skeptics. Ignore Streiber's introduction (please), ignore the retarded title, and read the SECOND half (it's divided) FIRST. I swear if you do this you would find it at least pretty interesting.)

One person could say, "You see? This proves it must be ET's or ED's!"

But another might say, "It may be that modern black ops has chosen to use symbols from myth and lore ancient and modern in experimental technology, mind control and more."

And another might say, "Maybe it's archetypes, which can manifest and unmanifest, but serve almost as an 'extra depth' to our reality accessed by psychology, but not objectively measurable unless someone had a measuring tool at that very instant before it popped back out of our frequency-bandwidth (reality) again."

And another might say, "Maybe when human neurology 'goes bad' like potato salad, the little symptoms are some similar 'structures of experience'."

Maybe all of those are true. It would not invalidate any one of them for another to also be true.

The pseudo and bogus skeptics want extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings to be tested and measured before we weigh the evidence within reason and that's illogical.

People might make fewer demands for scientific measure if you weren't promoting your arguments as being based on how science would do it.

So again, you can keep it unexplained or unidentified forever and I'm sure that's what alot of skeptics want so tthey can throw out any possibility like fairies or goblins.

I figure fairies and goblins really ARE a possibility. They have an entire cultural reference, and I've actually had experiences that had some small piece of something I associated with 'legend of faery' even while in the middle of it. We'd probably give them different names today though. If another culture lived deep under the earth, and had its own technology, what would we call it I wonder -- they wouldn't be any more alien than we are.

Superman and the Easter Bunny however are not an equal possibility.

PJ



[edit on 19-3-2009 by RedCairo]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by RedCairo]

reply to post by platosallegory


You might find the following interesting, in light of what was just posted.

The Objectivity of Science - Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism. by Rochus Boerner

1. The Skeptic has reached her skeptical opinion not after careful research and examination of the claim, but simply based on media reports and other forms of second-hand knowledge.

2. Making uncontrolled criticisms. A criticism is uncontrolled if the same criticism could equally be applied to accepted science.

3. The Pseudoskeptical Catch-22: "unconventional claims have to be proved before they can be investigated!" This way, of course, they will never be investigated or proved.

4. Evidence of refutal is anecdotal or otherwise scientifically worthless. Pseudoskeptics tend to accept conventional "explanations" for unconventional phenomena very easily, no matter how weak, contrived or far-fetched.

5. The Skeptic rejects a discovery or invention merely because it has been believed for a long time that such a thing as the claimed discovery or invention is impossible.

6. The Skeptic claims that the claimed effect contradicts the "laws of nature" (and therefore has to be wrong, since the Skeptic and the scientific community he presumes to represent have of course already complete knowledge of the laws of nature).

7. The Skeptic believes in scientific mob rule. "In Science, the Majority Consensus is Always Right".

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Hi Malcram!

I am absolutely stunned that anyone even noticed that I was posting. hehehe

Are you the guy that came up with the term "Bogus Skeptic" here and defined it? If so, good work. That just IS by the rules. That was good. I might or might not have termed it that way.. I might have used simply "non skeptical skeptics", to try to avoid all the emotive conetent that has been flying this room.

As you can see, I haven't been trying to ba an AXS about, I' ve just been trying to help. If you look around and look around alot, you will see that many people do not understand the meanings of the words they use. Not just here, but in a more general sense.

Its a little disheartening to watch people banter back and forth about something that they misunderstand.

I probably should have quoted your text here, as now, I have completely forgotten you said... darn it!

At least I feel confortable that I haven't set out to start insulting anyone, I just found the entire dynamic to be a little disturbing.

I'll re-read the stuff later brother!

reply to post by Malcram


Thanks Malcram and that lists sums it up perfectly.

Sometimes it boggles the mind when you hear these illogical arguments but I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by platosallegory

1. We have no record of ETs being found (proved) to be responsible for UFO sightings in the past.

Again, this proves my point. The pseudo or bogus skeptics want these things "proven" before we weigh the evidence within reason. This way they can throw out any possibility.

I believe what he was expressing is that every person estimates "probability" -- meaning, what is "most likely" in their opinion -- based on past experience. That IS how human evaluation is done. If he has no past experience with ETs nor any past experience with external situations proving out as being ETs, he has no reason to make it the MOST likely explanation.

2. UFOs that have been explained in the past, have been found to be mis-identified natural or man made phenomena.

Again, another lie. All of these things have not been found to be man made or a natural phenomana. The fact that you even said this speaks for itself.

It's not a lie; he said "that have been explained". Obviously if they were 'explained' then one of three things was concluded (mistake, tech, or natural phenomenon). He did not say that "ALL" of those things have been explained. You can only fairly respond to what he does say, not to what you think he means.

I might add that anybody who believes the dismissal of UFO reports without some serious evidence is a bit gullible though. I mean, there are people who have had close up, multi-person sightings with radiation burns, and had someone go, "Oh, they just mistook venus or a weather balloon for a UFO." That's ridiculous too.

3. It's unlikely for various reasons that even if ETs could find us, that they would be able to travel here.

I did not agree with his logic on that one. Any 'assumptions' about what any group of people -- let alone a group of people we don't know at all -- let alone a possible species we don't know -- is verging on a religious faith level of trust that everything in the universe thinks just like we do and moreover just like that person does.

Best,
PJ

[edit on 19-3-2009 by RedCairo]

I thought the following was also interesting to consider as I find it very relevant to the discussion at ATS. Note, it has been edited for relevance. Words in [ ] are my own. The full article can be found by clicking the link.

On Pseudo-Skepticism


A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi


Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims...Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief- critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant;.. Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a [ufo] was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Mod Edit; Trimmed down large quote

[edit on 3/19/09 by FredT]

That's a good essay. Mario was something of a friend of mine via email anyway, and a good man. But aside from a few overtly ridiculous and limited posts on this thread, do you honestly consider the majority of the debate -- which was mostly refusal to agree that ET/ED is "the MOST" likely explanation of anomalies -- constitutes pseudo-science? I do not believe that was quite what he was referring to.

Best,
PJ

Originally posted by platosallegory
If it's a possible explanation then why can't it be a most likely explanation of these things?

Because thus far, there has been no evidence that can only be explained as being extraterrestrial. This is weighing all the evidence and weighing all the possibilities within reason.

Now, you may draw a different conclusion. And that is fine; I do not presume you or any other believer is being illogical for drawing a different conclusion than me. I am neither so arrogant or deluded.

Just because I am not convinced the evidence suggests extraterrestrial visitation, I am still open to the possibility it may be happening. But of the evidence I have seen, I do not think it is the most likely explanation.

Why is this a problem for you? Why am I a "bogus skeptic" or a "pseudoskeptic" or not being logical for drawing a different conclusion? What is so wrong with that?

Originally posted by platosallegory
Again, if extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings are a possible explanation, why can't they be the most likely explanation for these things? Why do you even exclude the possibility?

STOP!!

You have lied again about my position!

I never said it was not a possibility. Stop misrepresenting what I have said. Stop lying about what I have said. How many times do we have to repeat it to you?

reply to post by akalepos


Hi Akalepos.

Yes I was listening. I read all your posts, I starred a few of em too. LOL. You have been the voice of reason and moderation, so of course you were ignored.

I probably spent way too much of my time in the middle of this rather rough scrum, but I do feel passionately about the issue of "bogus skepticism" and about clearly defining it. As you can see, such a clear definition is not at all welcomed, by some.

I can't take credit for introducing the phrase bogus skepticism here recently and attempting to differentiate between legitimate skepticism and bogus skepticism - something everyone, including legitimate skeptics should welcome. I can't recall who it was but it was in the "When does Evidence become Proof?" thread. Someone else brought up the phrase and it's definition and I felt it would be extremely useful for an understanding of exactly what constitutes bogus skepticism to become commonly understood at ATS. Which is why I keep talking about it.

Unfortunately, it's a hot potato, to say the least. But hopefully, when the message sinks in that bogus skepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) has a clear definition and that it DOESN"T mean that legitimate skepticism is bogus, then legitimate skeptics will calm down a bit regarding it's discussion.

So, please do keep commenting, as I am certainly reading

Peace

Malcram.

reply to post by RedCairo


[quote]I believe what he was expressing is that every person estimates "probability" -- meaning, what is "most likely" in their opinion -- based on past experience. That IS how human evaluation is done. If he has no past experience with ETs nor any past experience with external situations proving out as being ETs, he has no reason to make it the MOST likely explanation.

I don't think so. There's plenty of people who never had experience with extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings that come to the conclusion that they exist. Edgar Mitchell the astronaut is one example. I have never been abducted by aliens but I can weigh these things within reason.

I have no past experience with parallel universes and never been to one but I can weigh the evidence within reason and I can come to conclusions as to whats most likely and less likely.

Again, another lie. All of these things have not been found to be man made or a natural phenomana. The fact that you even said this speaks for itself.

It's not a lie; he said "that have been explained". Obviously if they were 'explained' then one of three things was concluded (mistake, tech, or natural phenomenon). He did not say that "ALL" of those things have been explained. You can only fairly respond to what he does say, not to what you think he means.

I don't think so. He was answering my question and I was answering it in that context. My question:

Can extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for abduction cases, mass sightings, trace evidence, pictures, video and more?

So obviously he had to be saying because some UFO's have been explained in the past that we have to exclude the possibility that extra-terrestrial or extra-terrestrial beings can't be the most likely explanation for these things because they have been explained in the past and we will somehow explain them in the future.

If this is not the context, the response to the question doesn't make sense.

Ah.. here ya are!

Its just sort of my understanding that many people get ideas of what a word means and then use it that way. Now that should sound normative.

But when you have an incorrect understanding and your inner self is such that it cannot learn or rufuses to take on modifying information, then verbal arguments result.

It is the distinction that is important. As long as you guys collectively figure it out, then you will begin to make progress.

To address you directly:
"Bogus" has this sort of emotional attachment that come with the word that has tendency to ruffle feathers. So you're right "psuedo" or "non" would work better.

Many people who present themselves as "skeptical" or "skeptics" are really cynics. I call my self a "skeptic" but frequently I am just plain cynical like everybody else. But when it is time to use the skeptical methodology, as when one analyzes a thing, then I take the proper appraoach.

And these folks just don't understand the distinction. Once they find out and adjust, they are usually happy about it. After all: "Who wants to be wrong about thing?" hehehe

Take care Malcram... and the rest of you guys too!

[edit on 19-3-2009 by akalepos]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Again you are proving my point.

You start with a priori that things don't or can't exist. That has to be the case if you say as you did that there's no evidence for these things.

I have debated skeptics who will never make such a blanket statement because they weigh the evidence and some evidence is more compelling then others. They just don't think it's the most likely explanation for these things.

Why do you exclude extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings from being the most likely explanation for these things?

See, I can admit that natural phenomana can be the most likely explanation for these things. I don't agree with it but I can accept the possibilty because I weigh these things within reason.

This is why I posed the question this way. I knew that bogus or pseudo skeptics are really closed minded debunkers and they could never admit to the possibility that extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings can be the most likely explanation for these things.

Complex, you continue to prove my point beautifully.

Originally posted by platosallegory
This is why you can throw out fairytailes and goblins when talking about ufology.

What are you arguing here, Polomontana?

Are you arguing that there is a non-human-intelligence driving the phenomenon or are you arguing the origin of this intelligence?

Even if I grant you that a non-human intelligence is driving the phenomenon, there is no evidence as to the nature or origin of the phenomenon. The evidence for it being extraterrestrial is just as compelling as it for being something far more strange. And I draw this conclusion by weighing all the evidence within reason.

You believe it to be extraterrestrial, and that is fine. However even among those who believe there is a non-human-intelligence is driving the phenomenon, there is a debate about what that non-human intelligence is. There are many who think this intelligence has more in common with what we would call faeries than what we would think of as extraterrestrials. They have come to this conclusion, though different from your's, by looking at the same evidence as you. They are no more illogical or not exercising reason than you are in drawing this conclusion. For example, this is the theory forwarded by Jacque Valle.

And once again, you both ignore and misrepresent the earlier explanation I gave you, and expose your hypocrisy. You scoff at the idea of it being faeries, even though faeries would be in keeping with your extradimensional entities. You will not even accept it as a possibility; you don't even have to weigh it as an equal possibility, but you will not even entertain the possibility.

Click here for more information.

I have no evidence that I can present to you on either the existence or non exisitence of extra terrestrial life, aliens, or the ufo phenomena.

I have plenty of reports from other people.

I have TONS of specious "evidence".

So...

I choose to believe on SEEMING prima facie "evidence" a priori, that there is in fact something odd occurring about all of this stuff.

But that, in and of itself, presents only my belief. (my sneaky suspicion)
It is because it is not verifiable empirical data that justifies my belief, that I must admit ignorance and cannot say "knowledge".

So while it may be true that at this moment in time, we cannot "know", there is nothing stopping anyone from assuming a belief in the matter.

SO to answer the one primary question: Paraphrased: Could it be the case that extra terrestrial beings (etc.) are the cause of the phenomena?

The right answer to me is Yes, it could be, but I do not KNOW that. I'm happy with that answer.

I have a lot of specious information that points that way. So in a normative sense, my belief is justified. But in a qualified sense it is not.

see what I'm saying to you?

My experiences in life lead me to believe that there are in fact Guardian Spirits for each of us. I cannot prove it. My existential interaction with the world makes me think that. I could be wrong. I can't prove it. But it is good enough for me. IF I can't convince you of it, I ought to not try. Why?

Cuz that would be a useless and meaningless endeavor.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by akalepos]

Originally posted by platosallegory
You start with a priori that things don't or can't exist. That has to be the case if you say as you did that there's no evidence for these things.

You are lied and misrepresented my position again. I never said these things do not exist. I cannot repeat that enough.

Once again, for everyone to see, so you cannot lie and misrepresent what I have said.

I have not said these things do not and can not exist. I have been explicit that I believe extraterrestrials exist and pointed you to my astrobiology posts.

Acknowledge you have read that and acknowledge it is my position. Acknowledge that I do believe there is life elsewhere in the galaxy.

I did not say there was no evidence for extraterrestrial visitation. What I said was there was no evidence, thus far, that can only be explained as extraterrestrial.

Acknowledge you have read that and acknowledge it is my position.

Those are my positions. Do not attempt to twist them again. Do not put any spin or variation on them.

[sigh] I don't think I want to participate in this thread any further, as it is not going anywhere, but I appreciate the opportunity for discussion so far. Maybe in the future there will be threads specific to certain kinds of experiences and their possible implications, and I'd be happy to participate in those.

Best,
PJ

I'm done.

People like PlatosAllegory and Malcram will think they have won the argument by browbeating the skeptics, not realizing it is not the same as proving their
argument.

But I hope everyone has seen what kind of people they are dealing with in PlatosAllegory and Malcram.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I'm done.

People like PlatosAllegory and Malcram will think they have won the argument by browbeating the skeptics, not realizing it is not the same as proving their
argument.

But I hope everyone has seen what kind of people they are dealing with in PlatosAllegory and Malcram.

For what it is worth , no on I believe changed their minds on anything

or anybody , regardless of this thread