is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

[duendy]

Hi...i was sad to see te previous thread about this subject close, as it was getting very interesting.....NOT including the disgusting attitude of mr annonnymous of course.
I dont see wy, just because of oneperson a thread should be closed for rthe main inquiry which is important for others.....? 'why couldn't he have been warned? i saw another member gety barred for a week for less...!
please mr annonymous. check out what you can be like if you are contradicxted. it aint pretty. and you end your foul mouthed rants wit 'peace'...?

so. look. i spose you will say your bit after tis, but from then on can you chek yourself, raelly??.....Gustav did not deserve such abuse. NO one deservews such abuse, and quite frankly it's you who should have been reprimnded not tread shut down....however i've said before, i wouldn't moderate such as that myself. i would deal with it in oter ways


OK. hiving said all tat. can we now PLESEfocus on the subject....? and not how many swearwords we can aim at each other. it is SO immatyure dont you think?

 

[one_raven]

duendy,
You probably should have sent this in PM.
Starting a thread out with a confrontation like this will likely steer it in the direction you are trying to avoid.
Not only that, it serves to make people talk about the confrontation (like it is doing to me right now ) rather than the subject, which you actually said nothing about.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is evidence for alien abductions, it's just that the bulk (perhaps all) of this evidence is of poor quality.

Duendy castigates science and scientists for failing to take claims of alien abduction seriously, or to investigate them. Let's examine that complaint for a moment.

Science has a set of rules which have been developed over centuries. If we don't follow these rules it isn't science. If Tim Henman decides to pick up a tennis ball and throw it over the net at his opponent in the Wimbledon Men's semi-final it may be entertaining, it mat even creat a new sport, but it is not tennis.

In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology. When that is done it does seem that there are so often much simpler explanations to account for the observations: explanations that have been validated by the scientific method.

Why then would a scientist choose to investigate a topic for which there are perfectly reasonable explanations? Only if there was something compelling in the evidence. Every time someone like Duendy places less than a very high demand upon evidence quality they encourage the scientists to walk away from the problem. Those wishing a proper investigation of these phenomena need first to subject them to highly critical examination themselves - that is what will generate valid scientific interest - if there is anything left to see after such rigorous examination.

 

[one_raven]

In the same way one of the requirements of science is that it be repeatable - how are you going to repeat an alien abduction - or that you can analyse the phenomenom with repeatable precision and methodology.

Do you not consider psychology science?

 

[Ophiolite]

Some of it is, some it is very flaky. Almost as flaky as string theory.

 

[Asguard]

i thought the same thing raven, the study of phycology doesnt really rely on expeciment so much as opsivation and clinical studys. You cant duplicate someone with for example bipola or multipul personality in a lab

 

[one_raven]

But psychologocal problems can't be reliably and precicely reproduced.
There isn't a single objective measurment that can be made in psychology.
Similar trauma afflicted upon mulitple people will have starkly different reactions and lasting effects on them.
There isn't even such thing as identical trauma.

 

[Balerion]

Granted, but we are talking about events relating to physical interactions and sightings, are we not? Doesn't that mean that we need to see some evidence? The thing is, we can aquire evidence of things.

What I'm saying is, when we talk about something like trauma, which isn't really based on repeatable, testable experiment, we can look at facts; there are symptoms of trauma which coincide with what would be considered traumatic events, correct? (I know this is oversimplification to the Nth power, but my understanding of this subject is limited)

When talking about something like alien visitation, something which is physical and visible, would it be fair to accept it without some solid evidence?

If I'm wrong, tell me.

JD (It's actually nice to start this thread fresh, at least we don't have to wade through a million flames to get to the posts we want...yet)

 

[one_raven]

I agree with you JDawg.
I was just making a pedantic point about what "science" is.
That side comes out of me when I come down here into the basement.

I don't think it is fair to say that there certainly is no such thing as aliens visiting because there is no physical evidence, but it is also not fair to say that anyone SHOULD believe without physical evidence.
That said, i would like to jknow what is included in the "etc" in the thread title.
If psychic phenomena, for example (or possibly one or two other common subjects down here) is included, then the pedantic point stands against that.

 

[phlogistician]

On alien abductions, psychology, and repeatability, such experiences _can_ be induced in the lab, and those who undergo such experiences reliably report the exact same sensations as those who think they have been abducted for real.

Temporal lobe epilespy accounts for many abduction cases. Night terrors, and hypnogogic dreams some of the rest, with plain old fibs narrowing it down even further. If only people would accept the cause of their experience was mundane where it can be demonstrated to be, there would be a lot less other cases to look at, and that would be beneficial. But while people shout 'abduction' when we have an explanation, the whole thing becomes discredited.

Time for the believers to be far more stringent in what they will accept as evidence, if they ever wish to be taken seriously.

 

[one_raven]

Asking two people what they experienced in their heads is by no scientific standards an objective result.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

No, but you can calculate how many people you have to ask.

 

[duendy]

On alien abductions, psychology, and repeatability, such experiences _can_ be induced in the lab, and those who undergo such experiences reliably report the exact same sensations as those who think they have been abducted for real.

me::I would be interested to knowif there ha ever been any abducteeswho reorted actual abductions having had the lab-version and reporting if itis indeed the same?....any sources phlo?

Temporal lobe epilespy accounts for many abduction cases.

me::again. where is your proofs/sources, that temporal lobe eplepsy accounts for many abduction cases?

Night terrors, and hypnogogic dreams some of the rest,

me::well you personally had 'sleep pralysis' didn't you? please tell me a full account of your experience can be found? can you provide a direct link to it?......i in no waydiscount 'sleep paralysis' and'hypnogogic dreams', but do question the overused explanation of these expriences to explain away the MAJORITY of abduction accounts

with plain old fibs narrowing it down even further.

me:: am curious. which of the abduction cases can you point to that have definately been proven to be 'fibs'?

If only people would accept the cause of their experience was mundane where it can be demonstrated to be, there would be a lot less other cases to look at, and that would be beneficial. But while people shout 'abduction' when we have an explanation, the whole thing becomes discredited.

me::look phlo. take that family--the mum, gran, and two boys--who all experienced an abduction. what exactly do you want them to say to themselves? tat they have had sleep paralysis, suffered group hypnogogic dream, have all gt temporal lobe epilepsy......? what exactly?

Time for the believers to be far more stringent in what they will accept as evidence, if they ever wish to be taken seriously.

time for sceptics to be far more accpting of such as they may be not SURE about.

phlo.....may i ask you a question......?
do you believe in the scientific explanation for 'mental illness'. believe me, this question IS relevant

 

[Light]

time for sceptics to be far more accpting of such as they may be not SURE about.

phlo.....may i ask you a question......?
do you believe in the scientific explanation for 'mental illness'. believe me, this question IS relevant

Hello, Duendy,

I'm not here to flame or curse anyone, just want to ask a question and also present a little example.

First off, the question. What do you mean "scientific explanation" of mental illness? There are many different types of mental illnesses - for example, chemical induced ( mercury and other heavy metal poisonings), physical trauma to the head, birth defects, failure of parts of the brain to develop, and many others.

Next, the example.

A child runs in yelling, "Mommy, mommy - there's a ghost in the back yard!" What is mommy to do? Just believe the child? Go look?
If she goes to look and finds nothing, or perhaps a shadow cast on the wall, is that evidence of a ghost? If repeated attempts to find something turn up nothing, is the child to be believed?

My point is that that far too many believers in abductions are pretty much like a child. They hear about things theywant to hear and believe it to be true but when the "mommies" of the world look for the evidence there is nothing there BUT what someone has said.

You are very much aware that simply saying something does not make it true. So why is it that you and others who believe in abductions are so ready to believe when someone runs in with one of these stories? It's almost a child-like faith in ghosts, goblins, and banshees. Just take the story itself and run with it. It gives all the appearances of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. And that's why we - the "mommies" of the world have such difficulties in taking you serious. To us, it seems you will believe almost anything as long as it's weird enough. Yet you reject reasonable answers - more of the gnat and camel approach.

 

[john smith]

Hey Deundy, I reckon you already know the answer, you know if you click on 'Members', all you simply have to do is type in 'BARON MAX, then click on 'all posts' by max, and you have 2,588 counts of evidence for alien abductions!!! :m:

 

[duendy]

Hello, Duendy,

I'm not here to flame or curse anyone, just want to ask a question and also present a little example.

First off, the question. What do you mean "scientific explanation" of mental illness? There are many different types of mental illnesses - for example, chemical induced ( mercury and other heavy metal poisonings), physical trauma to the head, birth defects, failure of parts of the brain to develop, and many others.

me::there is in fact no scientific proof of mental illness--ie behaviour beein g deemed by mdical scince to be an organic disease. none. te cases you sight like brain truama ARE actual organic disease and damage. I ask tis quite cleary sos as to expose the blind faith in 'science' and its 'evidence'. think it quite an appropriate illustration

Next, the example.

A child runs in yelling, "Mommy, mommy - there's a ghost in the back yard!" What is mommy to do? Just believe the child? Go look?

me::first. WHY do you suddenly presume child is lying and mama needs to expose te 'lie'? children hav troughout the world been known to be quite senstive to seeing things many adults may not see, nor believe. who are we to say tat ALL children are making it up?

If she goes to look and finds nothing, or perhaps a shadow cast on the wall, is that evidence of a ghost?

me::if you lose a purse, maybe that procedure is more fitting. but a ghost? what if it was a momentary occurence? whats te use of lookin for it?

If repeated attempts to find something turn up nothing, is the child to be believed?
me;:surely yu'd carefully question te kid. mybe it WAS just a shadow tat freaked her out, or etc. but if you openmidedly question te child witout making out they are a liar or in need o 'medication'--ten you are collating information aren't you?

My point is that that far too many believers in abductions are pretty much like a child. They hear about things theywant to hear and believe it to be true but when the "mommies" of the world look for the evidence there is nothing there BUT what someone has said.

me::no. dont get that reasoning at all. from what i have seen of it. potential abductees and ones tat have serial abductions, tey do NOT ask for it, or hear of it and want it. it happenes. and ten they are truamatized by it usually. due tto now knowing what it is. it fuks up teir entire tunnel reality or worldview.....look Light. you have seen te hostility unleashed from talking about this. let me ask you......why do you think that is? dont be too quick to answer. think bout it?

You are very much aware that simply saying something does not make it true. So why is it that you and others who believe in abductions are so ready to believe when someone runs in with one of these stories? It's almost a child-like faith in ghosts, goblins, and banshees. Just take the story itself and run with it. It gives all the appearances of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. And that's why we - the "mommies" of the world have such difficulties in taking you serious. To us, it seems you will believe almost anything as long as it's weird enough. Yet you reject reasonable answers - more of the gnat and camel approach.

that is you'll underestimation is all. WE...the errr opposite camp..heehee---dont see it tat way. at least i dont. i cant speak for others....how i experienc the 'sceptical approach' as i've experienced here, is tat is is FEARful. that it seeks to explain away cause of utter contempt for even the possibility.....tis is why i am trying to also bring into this about so-called mental illness. as the belief in
te speudoscince of thaat major evil scam is THE very foundation of the present paradgim!...see the irony here?

 

[Gustav]

Gustav did not deserve such abuse.

lordy
i am traumatized
i am seeing a shrink
i do not know if i will ever recover
i was advised to confront my demons head on in order to gain closure
i have made a little progress....the demons have been named

please pray for me
peace and love
gustavio

 

[Gustav]

that said.....

duendy

i find you refreshingly honest with a genuine quest for knowledge.
i also appears as if you have some familiarity with abduction cases

give me a few
some notable cases
we should look into the details
generalizations are not productive and resolve nothing
for instance......

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.

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 just say "I rest my case."

you have to get into to the details

 

[Gustav]

Next, the example.

A child runs in yelling, "Mommy, mommy - there's a ghost in the back yard!" What is mommy to do? Just believe the child? Go look?
If she goes to look and finds nothing, or perhaps a shadow cast on the wall, is that evidence of a ghost? If repeated attempts to find something turn up nothing, is the child to be believed?

debunkery by association
the issue is abduction not ghosts

then....

My point is that that far too many believers in abductions are pretty much like a child. They hear about things theywant to hear and believe it to be true but when the "mommies" of the world look for the evidence there is nothing there BUT what someone has said.

STUPID, CRAZY LIARS: This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations.

all the while insisting

I'm not here to flame or curse anyone, just want to ask a question and also present a little example.

 

[Gustav]

lordy
i think i am relapsing