Ives
I was careful in my introductory post to point out that I don't feel that the evidence justifies a leap to the ETH as an answer to the core identity of UFOs.
So, your opening post was in Pseudoscience and your topic of choice was UFO’s and you claim to have spent time on another boards debating a skeptic.
What is it, exactly, that you presume I believe?
Here are a few of your qualifiers that put you in the category of ‘believer’:
many of you here have realized the transparent nature of debunker arguments… the Air Force public positions on UFOs are, shall we say, disengenious… an airborne object that exhibits behavioral characteristics consistent with intelligent operation and control… "Intelligent control" is a reasonble inference based on the observable evidence… Personally, I will confess to a strong hunch that some UFOs are in fact, alien spacecraft.
Your comments have left you with very little ‘wiggle’ room.
And that, Q, says more about the weakness of your position than it does about mine.
Then, by all means, attempt to exploit the weakness.
I regard myself as a skeptic; any truly critical thinker is a skeptic.
Yet, your statements would indicate you are neither.
To debunk is to expose the falseness of something. So debunking carries with it a pre-disposition of the falseness of the phenomenon. This is just what I called it; a predisposition or bias, and is thus inherently anti-empirical.
That would stand to reason in the case of Ufology considering nothing has ever been shown to validate the believers onslaught of claims for aliens. And your use of ‘anti-empirical’ is a fallacy. In order to conduct an experiment, one must have access to the observation or the evidence.
That line is most often crossed in truly compelling incidents in which they appear to be compelled to offer something, anything , to appease the public.
The believer relies completely on this method – they have nothing else to offer.
I am interested in the world around me, and find the UFO phenomenon intriguing.
And although you did not answer my direct question, I’ll repeat it here since it is one of importance to your position. What benefit do you gain from this interest? If all UFO claims turn out to be explained by terrestrial means, and most likely of an inconsequential nature, what exactly is so interesting? It seems to defy logic, especially from one who claims to be a skeptic and critical thinker. You stated to having a ‘strong hunch that some UFO’s are in fact aliens,’ so it would appear your interest lies within these parameters, and that you really want to believe aliens visit Earth.
Would you argue that the reactions of the military, intelligence and other governmental insitutions are irrelevant in a search for the truth?
Are you referring to conspiracy theories?
I think government agencies; institutions, etc. go far beyond what is necessary when accommodating UFOlogists. It is a useless drain on resources and funding.
I have not advocated that aliens are visiting the Earth.
I think you do.
you must construct the arguments of your opponents for them in order to shoot them down.
Perhaps, but only because they were unable to construct there own.
So yes, I do think you are "in fear of the believers and the nonsense they shoot
That’s almost too funny. If an emotion you seek, pity is more relevant.
I also know that "science" as an institution has been telling us many things were impossible for a long, long time, and that often, science was wrong.
Science attempts to explain how things work based on observation. It is of course, important as to the level of sophistication in regards to how a phenomenon is observed. When science is wrong, this is often the reason.
Can you cite any recent observation that has been shown to be completely wrong based on the findings?
Moreover, people more scientifically educated than I have concluded that such travel is not an impossibility.
And of course, you thoroughly researched this claim, looked at all the variables and came to a ‘less than scientifically educated’ conclusion that it is a possibility. Are you sure you didn’t come to this conclusion because you really wanted to believe it possible?
Perhaps you should address why American tax dollars are at this moment examining exotic propulsion systems
What exotic propulsion systems? The only propulsion systems I’m aware of are not exotic.
I do not advance the argument that genuine UFOs are occupied by aliens
You keeping saying that yet your statements contradict.
I would argue that a small percentage of UFO incidents do not appear to represent human technology, but do appear to be intelligently operated or directed.
How do you know that? How can you compare human technology to non-human technology without direct evidence of non-human technology? What is non-human technology?
If an object is under intelligent control but not of human origin, I suppose the intelligence behind it, regardless of core nature, could be termed "alien".
How would you know that? Has it been confirmed that non-human (alien) intelligence exists here on Earth, or anywhere else?
You draw comparisons with that which cannot be compared. Certainly not the methods one would use as a critical thinker or skeptic.
There are endless possibilities that we could enjoy discussing, but you deny yourself that.
Sure, we could sit here and fantasize all day and come up with practically anything that defies logic and reason. Is that your intention?
And if so, perhaps such intelligence visits us now. Would I argue there is evidence for that? No.
Therefore, it is all wishful thinking not based on anything but science fiction.
But if we see evidence of non-human intelligence, what then? Do we simply ignore it, as you appear to support, or do we at least try to engage in thougtful speculation about it?
First we need the evidence – then we can engage. Fantasizing about it is pointless, unless you feel the need to disengage from reality. And of course, I have no problem with that except for when the nutters begin demanding funding for their fantasies and place a drain on resources.
Which is more in our interest as a species?
Certainly not fantasies of visiting aliens?
it is you who have anthropomporphized the "aliens", not me
OK, what would you call it? How do you account for aliens who apparently can travel to Earth from lightyears away and never show themselves?
Are you talking about abductions, sightings, radar cases, what?
Take your pick.
But your vagueness and over-generalizations are a waste of time.
As are the claims of believers and this thread, so, that should make it about even.
You need to do some homework and then come back prepared to talk in more specific terms.
Should I visit all the UFOlogy sites and read up on every claim of visiting aliens? Should I study the latest FTL theories, regardless of the confines of physics? Watch X-Files? Learn to speak Klingon?
Less study is a good thing? Let's be honest here, Q does not represent a point of view interested in honest exchange. Q is here to disrupt and invalidate the subject matter.
Yes, less study of UFOlogy and the claims of believers. Nothing of any benefit can be concluded from their so-called subject matter.
In my opinion, it is the believers who are here to disrupt and invalidate. They do little more then confuse and deceive those looking to understand and learn about science.
For some reason, people like Q don't like that quest and mock it.
Yes, as I mentioned, it is a pointless use of funding and resources and benefits no one except those who take advantage of the believer for profit.
The methodology he imploys is to ignore data and instead ask us to accept his beliefs instead of looking at the actual data.
I don’t ignore the data – I find it specious at best. I’m not asking anyone to believe anything – in fact that is what you and your pals are doing.
I want to know what makes believers come to the conclusion that aliens are visiting Earth. You said it yourself:
…the evidence is slim and the conclusion relies heavily on speculation.
