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 DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by gortex
Good .... glad you liked it , always happy to help .
Of course we all know that science is the only true religion , science is infallible and is never wrong , why would anyone even bother to question scientific reason .
If that if what you really believe, then you have a no understanding of what science is.
And Friedman's reliance on that particular non-sequitur shows what a poor scientist and thinker he is. I
I hated wasting the money to buy the January/February 2009 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol. 33, Issue 1) which has for years been trying to debunk all sorts of so-called paranormal phenomena. But the cover said: Special Issue “The New UFO Interest: Scientific Appraisals.” This is an excellent example of false advertising since the appraisals are anything but scientific. SI is published by what is now labeled “The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry” (CSI Lite??). In actuality, the active writers and “investigators” aren’t skeptics. They are Debunkers doing their best to pull the wool over the eyes of a curious public. They know the answers, and so don’t really need to investigate. Proclamation is more their style. Deception is the name of the game. For example, inside the front cover is a very impressive list of about 75 scientists, writers, philosophers, etc., including three Nobel Prize winners. Also included on the list is Bill Nye, “The Science Guy,” whose purpose is to Deny… judging by his Larry King appearances. Unfortunately, most of the highly credentialed people aren’t the ones who write the articles or “investigate.” The dirty work in the trenches is normally done by the debunkers in residence. The primary tools are those of the propagandists such as very selective choice of data, positive and negative name calling, and misrepresentation.
Originally posted by theMegaladon
Psuedo science makes me throw up a little in my mouth I just do not have a stomach for those types any more.
Originally posted by theMegaladon
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by gortex
Good .... glad you liked it , always happy to help .
Of course we all know that science is the only true religion , science is infallible and is never wrong , why would anyone even bother to question scientific reason .
If that if what you really believe, then you have a no understanding of what science is.
And Friedman's reliance on that particular non-sequitur shows what a poor scientist and thinker he is. I
HUH?
He seems to be quite brilliant and a professional on the subject. Did you get the wrong link? Not that Stanton Friedman I know? Could you please point out his poor scientific thinking ?
I see none
thanks
[edit on 7-9-2010 by theMegaladon]
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And without it, people like Friedman have some nerve making statements about how science was wrong.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by theMegaladon
Psuedo science makes me throw up a little in my mouth I just do not have a stomach for those types any more.
Then how could you possibly be intrigued by a guy like Stanton Friedman who is the quintessential pseudo scientist? The simple fact is that UFO skeptics wouldn't exist if there were testable, tangible evidence confirming the existence of aliens or UFOs. And without it, people like Friedman have some nerve making statements about how science was wrong.
"I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said.
Originally posted by theMegaladon
Actually i meant psuedo skeptics is what i meant to say, who really are not skeptics rather or even use science. Isn't it the whole point of science to learn and progress rather than impose opinions over facts? Claiming science knows everything there is to know blah blah.
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. I consider myself a skeptic in that respect rather the undecided. How dare Stanton challenge science and say science was wrong? I mean Science is NOT etched in stone and is always subject to change. Science is always subject to change so yes it is wrong.
Originally posted by type0civ
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And without it, people like Friedman have some nerve making statements about how science was wrong.
An example of Mr. Friedman's point being a statement from Lord Kelvin ( i think) that heavier than air flight is impossible, and eight years later The Wright Flyer did it's thing.
You should listen to the lecture.
Originally posted by azzllin
why would a top of his field Scientist admit that a lot of what they theorise and have worked on most of their careers is a load of rubbish?
Originally posted by game over man
reply to post by theMegaladon
I find Carl Sagan's explanation pretty reasonable with the Betty and Barney Hill Case. You can look up the episode on youtube, obviously Carl Sagan/Betty and Barney Hill.
In summary he explains, Betty's star map, is all based on perception. Wherever the person is standing to observe a star system might look completely different if observed from somewhere else.
Carl Sagan also adds, if you remove the lines, her star map looks nothing like Zeta Reticuli.
So that kind of sealed the deal for me. However Roswell, is still unsolved.