Psuedoskepticism vs scientific skepticism

[Magical Realist]

You presume too much.
I am addressing Yazata's implcation that no amount of evidence could prove the nature of these UFO phenomena. That is not true.

If the above were to happen, I would accept that as sufficient proof and explanation of the phenom.
If an alien zapped the Whitehouse into cinders, then landed and zapped a bunch of bystanders, I would accept that as sufficient proof too.
If a military general landed on the front lawn in his disc-shaped craft, I would accept that as proof of military origin.

The key elements here, are not what the explanation ends up being (it could be anything), but that the extraordinary phenomena is sufficiently extant to deliver extraordinary evidence.

You're still assuming things about the phenomena and requiring it to conform to those expectations to prove itself. What if it's none of the above? What if it's something far beyond what we can even comprehend? Do you think reality has to conform to your human rationality? Why?

 

[DaveC426913]

You're still assuming things about the phenomena and requiring it to conform to those expectations to prove itself. What if it's none of the above? What if it's something far beyond we can even comprehend? Do you think reality has to conform to your human rationality? Why?

I am not making assumptions. I am posting a hypothetical and obviously preposterous scenario, the details of which are unimportant, simply that the evidence would be compelling.

Name any explanation you care to, and I will tell you of a possible example I would accept as incontrovertible proof.

The point here is simply that there is a threshold of evidence above which a phenomenon would be accepted as explained by any skeptic. Yazata's conjecture is false.

 

[DaveC426913]

The only requirement of an explanation of some phenomenon is that it avails itself of falsifiability. If it sticks around long enough to show that it cannot be falsified, then it is accepted.

The provided photos and anecdotes cannot falsify the event because they are mere shadows of the original event.

 

[Magical Realist]

I am not making assumptions. I am posting a hypothetical and obviously preposterous scenario, the details of which are unimportant, simply that the evidence would be compelling.

Scenarios that would only prove a certain interpretation you have of the phenomena. You need to acknowledge the reality of the phenomena itself first and the fact that it could literally be anything at this point. Otherwise you will only see in it what you want to see.

 

[Magical Realist]

The only requirement of an explanation of some phenomenon is that it avails itself of falsifiability. If it sticks around long enough to show that it cannot be falsified, then it is accepted.

The provided photos and anecdotes cannot falsify the event because they are mere shadows of the original event.

LOL! Right. Photos and videos and anecdotes never prove anything. What planet do you live on?

 

[DaveC426913]

Scenarios that would only prove a certain interpretation you have of the phenomena. You need to acknowledge the reality of the phenomena itself first and the fact that it could literally be anything at this point. Otherwise you will only see in it what you want to see.

Interesting claim. That door swings both ways.

You see scenarios that prove to you certain interpretations you have of the phenomena. You need to acknowledge the ephemeral nature of the evidence of the phenomena first and the fact that it could literally be quite mundane but under unusual circumstances. Otherwise you will only see in it what you want to see.

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL! Right. Photos and videos and anecdotes never prove anything. What planet do you live on?

Earth. You?

You have a strange idea of what proof is.
Extraordinary explanations require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting claim. That door swings both ways.

You see scenarios that prove to you certain interpretations you have of the phenomena. You need to acknowledge the ephemeral nature of the evidence of the phenomena first and the fact that it could literally be quite mundane but under unusual circumstances. Otherwise you will only see in it what you want to see.

I HAVE considered the mundane possibilities in all the best cases. And none of them fit. If you had studied this field as long and as in depth as I have, I'd respect your opinion. But as usual the pseudoskeptic pontificates about a field he knows little about. Study it for yourself and THEN presume to speak intelligently about it. Your credibility would benefit enormously.

 

[DaveC426913]

I HAVE considered the mundane possibilities in all the best cases. And none of them fit. If you had studied this field as long and as in depth as I have, I'd respect your opinion. But as usual the pseudoskeptic pontificates about a field he knows little about. Study it for yourself and THEN presume to speak intelligently about it. Your credibility would benefit enormously.

And you're still coming to hasty conclusions.

von Daniken and Velikovsky spent years writing books about their subject matter, yet they still managed to spin wildly off reality.

 

[Magical Realist]

And you're still coming to hasty conclusions.

von Daniken and Velikovsky spent years writing books about their subject matter, yet they still managed to spin wildly off reality.

True..they invested more in their specific theoretical interpretation than in the phenomena itself. The same mistake you're making imo..

 

[DaveC426913]

True..they invested more in their specific theoretical interpretation than in the phenomena itself. The same mistake you're making imo..

I don't have a theoretical interpretation. I am not claiming such phenomena have an explanation. The argument all along (by everyone) has been until mundane explanations are ruled out, don't invent new ones out of whole cloth.

You, on the other hand, hit the nail on the head: you have invested in an interpretation.

You've nicely refuted yourself.

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't have a theoretical interpretation. I am not claiming such phenomena have an explanation. The argument all along (by everyone) has been until mundane explanations are ruled out, don't invent new ones out of whole cloth.

You, on the other hand, hit the nail on the head: you have invested in an interpretation.

You've nicely refuted yourself.

Really? My interpretation? What is that praytell? I'm open to all sorts of possibilities after having ruled out the mundane possibilities. You seem to think there is an infinite amount of mundane interpretations for a high speed flying craft that emits huge amounts of energy and sometimes even rays and in other instances is seen to land in fields leaving marks in the soil and on the vegetation and physiological effects on eyewitnesses. Go ahead. What are the mundane explanations I'm missing here?

 

[DaveC426913]

Really? My interpretation? What is that praytell? I'm open to all sorts of possibilities after having ruled out the mundane possibilities. You seem to think there is an infinite amount of mundane interpretations for a high speed flying craft that emits huge amounts of energy and sometimes even rays and in other instances is seen to land in fields leaving marks in the soil and on the vegetation and physiological effects on eyewitnesses. Go ahead. What are the mundane explanations I'm missing here?

For starters, you assume that
1] "high speed flying craft that emits huge amounts of energy and sometimes even rays"
2] seen to land in fields leaving marks in the soil and on the vegetation
3] physiological effects on eyewitnesses.
are the same phenomenon.
Why stop at those phenomena? Why not throw SHC and ghosts in there?
Because you have the presupposition that these unexplained phenomena have a common cause, and those unexplained phenomena have another common cause. i.e. you are formulating your own explanations that serve to link them in your interpretation.
Otherwise, each case would have to garner an explanation on its own merits.

 

[Magical Realist]

For starters, you assume that
1] "high speed flying craft that emits huge amounts of energy and sometimes even rays"
2] seen to land in fields leaving marks in the soil and on the vegetation
3] physiological effects on eyewitnesses.
are the same phenomenon.
Why stop at those phenomena? Why not throw SHC and ghosts in there?
Because you have the presupposition that these unexplained phenomena have a common cause, and those unexplained phenomena have another common cause. i.e. you are formulating your own explanations that serve to link them in your interpretation.
Otherwise, each case would have to garner an explanation on its own merits.

Right. When the events are similar in their basic respects, we infer a common cause. That's basic logic. Animals acquire different traits over time. Different sizes and colorations and morphological structures. Same mechanism. Evolution. Same thing. That's Occam's razor in action. Not multiplying explanations beyond necessity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Secondly, notice how you are concatenating d

Right. When the events are similar in their basic respects, we infer a common cause. That's basic logic. Animals acquire different traits over time. Different sizes and colorations and morphological structures. Same mechanism. Evolution. Same thing. That's Occam's razor in action. Not multiplying explanations beyond necessity.

Except you don't have a cause yet.

 

[Magical Realist]

Secondly, notice how you are concatenating d

Except you don't have a cause yet.

Superintelligent nonhuman beings. That much we know.

 

[DaveC426913]

Superintelligent nonhuman beings. That much we know.

Interesting that, just a few posts ago, you mocked such an explanation, calling it a preconception:

LOL! This proposed proof for ufos in itself is laden with unwarranted assumptions about what the ufo phenomenon is: They are aliens.

Unless, I suppose, you "know" they're Earthly super-intelligent non-human beings.

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting that, just a few posts ago, you mocked such an explanation, calling it a preconception:


Unless, I suppose, you "know" they're Earthly super-intelligent non-human beings.

"Aliens" does not equate to "superintelligent nonhuman beings". Figure it out.

"alien: noun

a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial."

 

[Russ_Watters]

No..that's an explanation for the phenomena. Read the article again:

"We speculate that..."

"Speculate". That's a potential explanation. The authors don't even claim it to be difinitively proven. Indeed, the wiki lists several potential mechanisms, making it clear that there is no current leading hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light

In either case, you are unlikely to find anyone here on Sciforums who would accept that earthquake lights are difinitively proven, so no one who fits your claim of unreasonable acceptance of a thin scientific phenomena.

LOL! No. Not unknown. I quote again:

"A ufo is an extramundane anomaly that exhibits the characteristics of an advanced craft by flying and maneuvering at extraordinary speeds, emits powerful energy levels, and has been witnessed even landing at times, leaving physical traces on vegetation and soil and physiological effects on eyewitnesses."

How does that even remotely equate to "unknown".

I tried "known" and you wouldn't accept it. I tried "unknown" and you wouldn't accept it .... even though you said "maybe", which sounds a lot like "unknown" to me. You can't have it both ways or neither way, MR. It either has to be known (proven) or unknown (unproven). Which is it?
[separate post]

Superintelligent nonhuman beings. That much we know.

So it is clear, then: we know UFOs are craft created by superintelligent nonhuman beings (aliens). That's your real position, right?

It's the truth. It's what you pseudoskeptics demonstrate here everyday. I provide the evidence, and then go thru 10 pages of explaining how it is evidence. You could not display a more biased attempt of denialism if you actually tried.

I submit you could not find a clear/concise example of such denialism even if you tried. The things you attribute to us are lies of your/Yazata's creation. Nobody says the things you think you are seeing. Specifically, no one would ever claim it is impossible that aliens are/have visited us. No one would ever claim that no UFO sightings ever are of not publicly known technology.

 

[Magical Realist]

Speculate. That's a potential explanation. The authors don't even claim it to be difinitively proven. Indeed, the wiki lists several potential mechanisms, making it clear that there is no current leading hypothesis:

It's the current hypothesis supported by scientists in a peer reviewed journal. That makes it a scientifically held theory.

I submit you could not find a clear/concise example of such denialism even if you tried. The things you attribute to us are lies of your/Yazata's creation. Nobody says the things you think you are seeing. Specifically, no one would ever claim it is impossible that aliens are/have visited us. No one would ever claim that no UFO sightings ever are of not publicly known technology.

Yet you do everything in your power to disprove their existence. That indicates your preexisting belief that they don't exist. Which is pretty much a faithheld worldview you defend tooth and nail.

I tried "known" and you wouldn't accept it. I tried "unknown" and you wouldn't accept it .... even though you said "maybe", which sounds a lot like "unknown" to me. You can't have it both ways or neither way, MR. It either has to be known (proven) or unknown (unproven). Which is it?

LOL! It's a known and evidenced phenomena. What's so hard about this?