Psuedoskepticism vs scientific skepticism

[Daecon]

What, like you are?

 

[Magical Realist]

 

[DaveC426913]

Right..I'm totally lying that aliens means "creatures from outer space" even though I just quoted it from the dictionary and that's how the term is always used in our culture and in movies. (cue theme to the twilight zone.lol!.)

Dude. Totally busted.

You picked a definition (all of six words, from who knows where) and quoted it.

"alien: noun - a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial."

Then claimed interdimensional beings are not aliens, contradicting your own definition:

I never said they were necessarily aliens. Based on what we know about ufos, they are only superintelligent nonhuman beings. They could be interdimensionals or time travelers for all we know.

When called out on it, you claimed to have quoted it yet you carefully edited out the part where you contradicted yourself.

I already quoted that definition for you. Creatures from outer space. Try again? lol!

Then claimed to be the authority on cultural use of the term:

Right..I'm totally lying that aliens means "creatures from outer space" even though I just quoted it from the dictionary and that's how the term is always used in our culture and in movies. (cue theme to the twilight zone.lol!.)

As for behavior:

Look..I already told you to stop with this petty shit of trying to back me into a corner. Either discuss the topic like a sane mature adult, or get ignored. It's your choice.

Good choice of words. This entire thread is a petty attempt to lash out at contributors in your other threads who are dismantling your outlandish claims.

If you want to talk sane mature adults, let's go back and count the number of times you have mocked, insulted or name-called your opponents and see how that stacks up against the number of times your opponents have done same to you. You reeeeeally don't want to open that door.

 

[Magical Realist]

Dude. Totally busted.

You picked a definition (all of six words, from who knows where) and quoted it.

Then claimed interdimensional beings are not aliens, contradicting your own definition:

When called out on it, you claimed to have quoted it yet you carefully edited out the part where you contradicted yourself.

Then claimed to be the authority on cultural use of the term:



As for behavior:

Good choice of words. This entire thread is a petty attempt to lash out at contributors in your other threads who are dismantling your outlandish claims.

If you want to talk sane mature adults, let's go back and count the number of times you have mocked, insulted or name-called your opponents and see how that stacks up against the number of times your opponents have done same to you. You reeeeeally don't want to open that door.

LOL! Extraterrestrials ARE "creatures from outer space", NOT interdimensionals. Try again? Dude?

"extraterrestrial" (noun):

"a hypothetical or fictional being from outer space, especially an intelligent one."

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=extraterrestrial define&oq=extra&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0l3.4143j0j8

 

[Yazata]

The word 'alien' basically means foreign or strange. That's how the word is used in immigration law (if that even exists any longer) and in uses like 'alienated'.

So why not refer to aliens from another planet as 'extraterrestrials'? Aliens from another dimension could be 'interdimensionals'. It's probably useful to assign different kinds of aliens different names.

I'm not sure what 'interdimensional' would mean. It can probably be further subdivided.

If it refers to visitors from an alternate earth in some hypothetical multiverse, the 'aliens' might be very similar to ourselves. Perhaps even alternate versions of ourselves, whose lives took a slightly different course.

If it refers to some hypothetical realm where natural law is significantly different than in this universe, then they may be strange indeed and truly alien. The same alien strangeness might apply if they are 3 dimensional slices of 4 dimensional beings. (Spatial dimensions, not time.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse




:

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL! Extraterrestrials ARE "creatures from outer space", NOT interdimensionals. Try again? Dude?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse or whether you're really not following the logic.

I never said they were necessarily aliens ... They could be interdimensionals...

How could they be from another dimension yet not be alien? Alien by definition means not of Earth.

"alien: noun - a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial."

So you suggest they might not be aliens (which are extraterrestrial by your own supplied definition), but could instead be interdimensional - which is extraterrestrial.

So, the question you are evading is how can alternate-dimension creatures be extraterrestrial (by your definition) yet not be alien?

The answer is, of course, that you contradicted yourself.

That's OK, I mean this is a discussion. It's just that you would get a lot further if you weren't overstating your cases so often, and using trolling tactics of insults and mockery in virtually every post. It give no one any reason to cut you any slack.

 

[Magical Realist]

So you suggest they might not be aliens (which are extraterrestrial by your own supplied definition), but could instead be interdimensional - which is extraterrestrial.

Flawed premise: interdimensionals are extraterrestrials and so are from outer space. Wrong. Interdimensionals have only to be from another dimension. They could be living right here on earth with us only be at a totally different frequency. Once again your peevish attempts to catch me at something fail miserably and only lower the course of this thread into petty egotistical one-upmanship. Try to show some class here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wrong. Interdimensionals have only to be from another dimension. They could be living right here on earth with us only be at a totally different frequency.

Ah, now we have 'frequencies'.

This is beautifully mirroring the Sagan's Dragon fallacy.

"Where's the dragon?" I ask.
"Oh, she's right here," you reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
I propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," you say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then I'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You counter every physical test I propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

"My inability to invalidate your hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder."

It's easy to create your own unfalsifiable belief. Just follow these steps:

1. Express a belief
2. Someone proposes a way in which the belief can be tested
3. Add or change an attribute of the belief to render the proposed test invalid, and return to step 2

"the proponent employs increasingly ad hoc reasoning to describe their belief in the face of further questions. Eventually, the goalposts are moved in such a way as to render the initial assertion practically unfalsifiable."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

 

[Magical Realist]

the proponent employs increasingly ad hoc reasoning to describe their belief in the face of further questions. Eventually, the goalposts are moved in such a way as to render the initial assertion practically unfalsifiable.

"

I didn't change a thing about my belief. I admitted from the outset they could be aliens, interdimensionals, or time travelers. The only thing that changed was your definition of alien and extraterrestrial to include interdimensionals. It never included that, as I have clearly proven.

Is my belief falsifiable? Ofcourse, should it be proven that all ufos are the result of some centuries long, conspiratorial hoax propagated by humans to make people believe in them. But that's not very plausible imo.

 

[Magical Realist]

"Where's the dragon?" I ask.
"Oh, she's right here," you reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
I propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," you say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then I'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You counter every physical test I propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Big fat strawman. I know of noone who proposes the existence of an invisible entity that is not detectable in some way and that has measurable effects on physical reality. Even ghosts are known to leave footprints, make sounds, move things, and emit EMF and infrared heat.

 

[DaveC426913]

I admitted from the outset they could be aliens, interdimensionals, or time travelers.

If they are other dimensional then they are, by definition, alien.

Is my belief falsifiable? Ofcourse, should it be proven that all ufo are the result of some centuries long, conspiratorial hoax propagated by humans to make people believe in them. But that's not very plausible imo.

Except now they're from another dimension. Which is unfalsifiable. Just like the dragon, the goalposts get moved back.

Even ghosts are known to leave footprints, make sounds, move things, and emit EMF and infrared heat.

No, they're not.

 

[Magical Realist]

If they are other dimensional then they are, by definition, alien.

Nope..Creature from outer space. Remember?

Except now they're from another dimension. Which is unfalsifiable. Just like the dragon, the goalposts get moved back.

LOL! Your own existence is unfalsifiable. Should we doubt it on that basis?

 

[DaveC426913]

Nope..Creature from outer space. Remember?

You continue to get this completely wrong. What you fail to realize is that everybody else reading sees you continuing to get it completely wrong. The logic is quite simple, yet you misunderstand it every single time. You're making a fool of yourself. I implore you to stop.

LOL! Your own existence is unfalsifiable. Should we doubt it on that basis?

I don't think you understand what unfalsifiable means. My existence is quite falsifiable.

 

[Magical Realist]

You continue to get this completely wrong. What you fail to realize is that everybody else reading sees you continuing to get it completely wrong. The logic is quite simple, yet you misunderstand it every single time. You're making a fool of yourself. I implore you to stop.

LOL! You lost this one 6 posts ago. Give it up. You're only making yourself look illiterate at this point.

I don't think you understand what unfalsifiable means. My existence is quite falsifiable.

No it isn't. You'd have to search every place in the universe to falsify the theory of your existence. And you yourself could never falsify your own existence. The ability to falsify your existence assumes your existence!

 

[Crcata]

MR

You said "your own existence is unfalsifiable"

He responded "my existence is quite falsifiable"

Now you say "the ability to falsify your existence assumes your existence"

No where did he say it had to be him falsifying it. You backed yourself into a corner (again) and try to word your way put. You are wrong. Objectively.

I can't help but face palm at your posts, the hypocrisy is so blatant, and your critical thinking is so lacking.