Pathological Skepticsm.

[Giambattista]

which "descended into the atmosphere from above,"

Oh, of course. The fact that it DESCENDED from ABOVE proves that it was a satellite, since satellites generally plummet to the earth when they reenter the atmosphere.

 

[Gustav]

it is all very strange
most here accept that it is likely there are alien civs
the caveat is they simply cannot be here

the nature of denial practically borders on a religous fervor with the accompanying irrationality. i mean.....

I could go on but you get the point. Nothing matters but physical evidence and repeatable controlled experiments and observations.

*forces a viewpoint down my throat
*first contact could be thru seti
*subsequent contact thru a tv broadcast

yet the pseudos remain in denial since they are unable to poke an alien.
wait!
pseudo pokes alien and remarks...."it must be a dream"

the defenses are remarkable for its pathology

 

[Gustav]

2) You do know that the weakest form of argument is "argument from authority"?

you have said nothing

Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority

*Any argument should ideally be based solely on direct evidence, not on the authority of the messenger. However, it is rarely possible in common discourse to provide all the direct evidence, so an "appeal to authority" is often used as a shortcut:

*The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity. A sports or entertainment figure making claims about foreign policy is an example of how this rule is frequently violated.

*The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, then later made claims that massive quantities of vitamin C would prevent cancer in humans. This claim was in the field of medicine and thus outside his field of competence.

*The authority must be interpreted correctly. This is particularly a problem in religion; where the Koran, Bible, Torah, etc., have been interpreted with varying and sometimes contradictory results.

*The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample). Lawyers sometimes find a non-representative "expert" to offer a theory which is not generally accepted (such as a so-called Twinkie defense) in hopes of winning their case.

*A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to develop a consensus. (wiki)

so ahh
when the only argument going for et is an appeal to authority, characterizing it is uneccessary

the prez announces radio contact has been made
i cite him as source
your distinction then becomes meaningless

 

[Gustav]

I thought we were examining the state of UFO claims and such.

with little jake's account being given as much weight as a seasoned pilot
hey, any specific one you have in mind?

 

[superluminal]

with little jake's account being given as much weight as a seasoned pilot
hey, any specific one you have in mind?

No.

You all talk about the 'religious fervor' with which skeptics greet extreme claims. Self reflect a bit. Why are you so convinced they're true? I don't care about anybody's "account" of anything. Only an idiot does. Why do you think the "evidence" indicates aliens are visiting us? If I told you that there was a ten foot long set of intricate biological instructions bound up in every cell in your body - with no evidence but my say so - would you believe me? Of course not! But we have lots of credible evidence for this. You just want to believe, that's all. What's pathological about wanting some physical evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny? If you all are this credulous and in no need of actual evidence, then I've got some ion crystals that allow you to time travel. They're for sale. Starting at $10,000 US each. PM me and we'll talk.

 

[Gustav]

What's pathological about wanting some physical evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny?

hmm
i find this an excellent question
i will attempt an answer soon
if the brain unmuddles

ahh
different standards and kinds of evidence for the various types of sciences.....for instance, the inferential sciences like say, astronomy

to be ctd

 

[Gustav]

Eyewitness testimony is scientifically useless.

bullshit. once again you say nothing. observation is the starting point for most scientific methodologies. do you think a neanderthal's observation of lightning included a knowledge of the mechanism behind it. does this ignorance make the observation any less true?
there could be a reference to an observation of a meteor strike in the historical recordf that provides an impetus for a geological expedition and perhaps subsequently proved to be accurate and of some worth. scientifically useless? i think not.

Who decides what is moderate and what is extreme?

i will decide. ja, i am smart that way.
lets take a few comparisons often introduced by you pseudos....

*green cheese moon
*santa clause
*easter bunny
*et

and examine....

*green cheese: the composition of the moon has been demonstrated by exploration of surface and a examination of its constituents. do you deny this? walk into to a museum. they probably have moon rocks lying around - zero likelihood

*easter bunny: if there is anything the biological sciences can say with absolute certitude. it would be that mammals do not lay eggs - zero likelihood

*santa claus: the origin of the myth....saint nicholas a bishop of byzantine anatolia, modern-day turkey (350 miles northwest of bethlehem): famous for generous gifts to the poor: there is a celebration called ' sinterklaas feest'....the birthday of sinterklaas during sinterklaasavond ("sinterklaas's evening") :- 99% probability, the remaining 1% are slight variations in language and perhaps location

do you get it? these ridiculous comparisons can be shown to be untrue. it is impossible rather than improbable. can you to do the same to et/craft when we have some entirely reasonable postulates that may attest to their probable existence? in addition to these deductions, we have observations of ufos that support rather than detract the said postulates. now, at this point, i find it entirely reasonable to consider a ufo hypothesis. neither will i discard this hypothesis simply because it cannot be validated to a certainty. the prefered course of action is to then shelve it in case additional data will be available at some future point in time.

for instance, it was postulated that a unseen mass was causing uranus to wobble. some scientists purposefully peered around there. years later, pluto was found. perhaps during those days, rabid pseudo skepticism had yet to develop into the mindlessness we see today

why is logic given such short shrift? why is the emphasis given to actual physical evidence which is then the only criteria required to validate the et hypothesis? i seriously find this plain and simple pathology

As for "debunkery by association" I am happy to take each and every instance on its own merits.

do not contradict yourself. it does not paint you in a flattering light. lets take a quick gander......

*Arent they all stupid just because they are baseless? And they are baseless. Everything discussed in here is without a shred of scientific evidence.

*Have I missed any? Please include your favorite delusion if I have...

the list of theories you provide must have been investigated by you, ja? or do you merely appeal to a pseudo skeptic "authority" in order to justify charges?

 

[Communist Hamster]

*easter bunny: if there is anything the biological sciences can say with absolute certitude. it would be that mammals do not lay eggs - zero likelihood

Echidnas and platypuses (or is that platypi?) lay eggs. Also, the Easter Bunny theory does not states that it lays the eggs, it merely distributes them.

 

[Gustav]

hmm
fascinating and i stand corrected
most peculiar tho. perhaps the classification as mammalian was for convenience? it is said that monotremes are an early offshoot of mammals and share some reptilian characteristics.

nevertheless, exceptions do not make the rule

the easter bunny is not a theory. in all countries excepting for france, the storyline includes eggs laid by the bunny. the french however say the egss are dropped by flying churchbells on route from rome

 

[Gustav]

revision...

*easter bunny: if there is anything the biological sciences can say with absolute certitude. it would be that leporids do not lay eggs - zero likelihood

 

[VRob]

So I will ammend my "proclamation". Claiming UFO's are alien spacecraft is silly based on the current state of evidence. There.

Unfortunately for you, there is plenty of evidence that SOME UFO's are in fact not of this known earth.

Once again, I'll ask the debunkers to explain the Rendelsham forest incident.

 

[superluminal]

Ok, you guys. UFO's are really alien spacecraft visiting earth. You have bulletproof evidence. Mounds of it. SO, stop whining and take me to your proof.

Anyone that says "Eyewitnesses said..." is stupid.
Anyone that says "I have photos of..." is stupid.

Why am I so blunt? This is discussed at length in many articles on how to assess evidence. Read about it and become unstupid.

Why do you think you UFO nuts are called UFO nuts? Possibly because your standards of evidence wouldn't convince an intelligent ten year old?

Why do you think actual scientists require the level of proof that they do? Can you answer me that one?

Remember, I've accepted your proposal that UFO's are alien spacecraft. Present your evidence. No photos. No eyewitness testimony. Your paper will be summarily rejected.

Ok. Prove away...

 

[superluminal]

Unfortunately for you, there is plenty of evidence that SOME UFO's are in fact not of this known earth.

Once again, I'll ask the debunkers to explain the Rendelsham forest incident.

Prove it. Rendelsham? Is there any physical evidence? No? Guess what? Even if there was, with one instance of marginal evidence it is impossible to come to a conclusion. Why is that? Study the analysis and disposition of evidence in a scientific investigation then get back to me.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

:bugeye: ... What?!

Address the matter in terms that go beyond the wholly superficial y'say?!

Good Lord, man - have you gone quite doolally in the head?! - that sort of approach means.... means actually getting off ones arse and conducting an actual physical investigation into the matter. Going over and reviewing first hand eyewitness testimony first hand, conducting interviews, verifying corroborating statements... Physically visiting the site.... Establishing and verifying the incident in context with events as they actually happened at the time the alleged incident took place....

Dear God man, this is the 21st Century - These days all one needs to physically do is simply read anything one happens to like the sound of and, of course, naturally it's the gods honest truth.

What you're suggesting make a mockery of everything the internet stands for!

I suspect you may be a terrorist. I'm going to fetch a Modulator right this instant.....

 

[superluminal]

I suspect you may be a terrorist. I'm going to fetch a Modulator right this instant.....

A Modulator? You mean like this:

http://www.gargaro.com/MaRvInWaVs/goody.wav

 

[btimsah]

Ok, you guys. UFO's are really alien spacecraft visiting earth. You have bulletproof evidence. Mounds of it. SO, stop whining and take me to your proof.

Anyone that says "Eyewitnesses said..." is stupid.
Anyone that says "I have photos of..." is stupid.

Why am I so blunt? This is discussed at length in many articles on how to assess evidence. Read about it and become unstupid.

Why do you think you UFO nuts are called UFO nuts? Possibly because your standards of evidence wouldn't convince an intelligent ten year old?

Why do you think actual scientists require the level of proof that they do? Can you answer me that one?

Remember, I've accepted your proposal that UFO's are alien spacecraft. Present your evidence. No photos. No eyewitness testimony. Your paper will be summarily rejected.

Ok. Prove away...

You can't prove that a UFO is an alien spacecraft - without the actual craft in your garage. How likely is that?

There are some UFO cases in which the object's and their abilities described do not fit any known aircraft in the world today. Even so, that does not prove their ETI - it merely suggests that the object is unknown. It's fair to theorize what they could be and (I think) should be encouraged.

 

[superluminal]

You can't prove that a UFO is an alien spacecraft - without the actual craft in your garage. How likely is that?

Pretty damn unlikely given the current 'evidence' for alien spacecraft.

There are some UFO cases in which the object's and their abilities described do not fit any known aircraft in the world today. Even so, that does not prove their ETI - it merely suggests that the object is unknown. It's fair to theorize what they could be and (I think) should be encouraged.

I completely agree.

- Swamp gas
- Satellites
- Hallucinations
- Venus
- Car headlights
- Hoaxers
- Military aircraft
- Frisbees
- Dinner plates
- Atmospheric refraction
- Sun dogs
- Mental illness
- Meteors
- Bolides
- Lenticular noctilucent clouds

Whew... getting tired...

 

[Gustav]

superluminal

getting rather hysterical, ja?

the "dinner plates" got me smiling. good one!

now. lets assume above examples have been ruled out.
do you continue to think? if so, please share

 

[Gustav]

one more thing
you seem to have an idea of my beliefs regarding the subject matter that pertain to this forum.

what are these ideas and how were they formed? links would be useful.
i personally think i am the modicum of restraint but if you beg to differ, give reasons

thanks

 

[Gustav]

:bugeye: ... What?!

Address the matter in terms that go beyond the wholly superficial y'say?!

please do not scare the n00b away

/smile