skeptics - the inner workings

Status
Not open for further replies.
ives

I expect that Q will respond to my prior post by attacking my character again.

we'll see. i had assumed that the tard served a purpose here by weeding out the obvious crackpots. little did i know of the methods involved. its kinda fun tho so i'll tolerate him shitting on my thread for a while longer
 
debunkery


<li> Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.

Originally posted by thed
If these craft are so much more advanced than ours why do they keep crashing? I mean, really, if you had the technoology to travel light years across space in reasonable time and the ability to pull 100g turns, you'd think they might miss the ground. For that matter, why do we even see them. With that technology it would make a modern stealth fighter look like a paper aeroplane.
Click to expand...

it probably fits because thed presumes to know intent and attributes a particular line of actions and behaviours to be followed. he further imposes a level of tech they must possess. while a few presumptions can be made with regards to tech, invisibility is definitely not a requirement

like yknow, we have been to the moon and stuff. you would think that we would be at a point where a piece of foam would not cripple humankind's spacefaring endeavours
 
thed

Absolutely agree. More important, to me, is evidence. This seems to be the major sticking point skeptics want but the majority of UFO proponents get in a tizz about. A blurry photograph of something that could be anything is not evidence. Even eye witness testimony is not evidence. It is too well known that people are guilty of misrepresenting what they see or are out to make a buck.

What matters is a something like a device/material that could not originate on Earth. (thed)

perhaps you did not think this out thoroughly. would radio and other forms of communication meet your requirements?(instead of landing on the white house lawn, perhaps they can call the prez.) is it absolutely neccessary that the aliens leave a memento?

i agree that pics alone do not provide compelling evidence. nor do eyewitness accts. nor does radar reports. however what if all these factors are present?
would the case not automatically be assigned more weight? as in the belgium flap? thoughts?
 
Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments


If these craft are so much more advanced than ours why do they keep crashing? I mean, really, if you had the technoology to travel light years across space in reasonable time and the ability to pull 100g turns, you'd think they might miss the ground. For that matter, why do we even see them. With that technology it would make a modern stealth fighter look like a paper aeroplane.

I don't actually completely discount Thed's questions, for the following reasons. My argument with Q is to look at the actual data and draw reasonable inferences and speculations from that data. Q and other debunkers argue that my postion is worthless because I don't rule out the extraterrestrial hypothesis from the start. My response is to say that they are anti-empirical and ignore data inconsistent with their position. It makes no sense to make judgments before reviewing all the data. But in doing so I must argue that we engage in some anthropomorphizing since we can only judge the incident and apparent behavior from a human frame of reference. We are asking, what does this behavior reasonably represent from a human point of view? Q says no, disregard the evidence. I say looking at the evidence from the human frame of reference has served us well in the past, and is better than looking away.

So considering that, I don't want to ignore Thed's concerns and ignore data that does not make sense. Why indeed would someone come tearing across the galaxy only to run a stop sign and total their vehicle?

I have two responses. First, I personally am not a big Roswell person. I regard it as a major distraction from the study of other, far more telling incidents. The public seems to think that the entire UFO question rises and falls on Roswell. I posted on another thread my reasons for not liking that subject. So I'm not convinced that UFOs are in fact crashing on Earth. And I agree, it doesn't make a lot of sense, at least from my human point of view. But perhaps a civilization never becomes so advanced that it doesn' t have accidents. Doesn't chaos theory deal with this?

Second, while Thed's question and others like it are fair, they to are just as guilty as proponents of anthropomorphizing. The behavior of the UFO doesn't make sense to the doubter's human point of view. The actually goes one further and puts it in distinctly human terms: "If you had the technology". . . at least the UFO proponent, in being open to the data, can try to be objective. This "if you had the technology" approach does not make that same effort.
 
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."

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
because we have so often been confronted with something like "SEE! So my aunt WAS abducted and the stories of catle mutilations ARE true, Gotcha!" When all that was shown was that something unidentified flew from A to B on a certain date.

Cheers,
Hans
Click to expand...

whaddya think? a fit?

why do these seemingly scientific types allow the crackpots to define the terms of debate? why is joe blow's criteria for ufo/aliens be regarded as set in stone?

whatever happened to powers of discernment? do we not have a choice in the source of info that we input? mediocrity can be found in most fields of study. it usually is disregarded and soon forgotton. in the case of ufology the mediocre is given a prominent place and held to be the ultimate definition of it. why? is it because the kooks speak the loudest? who forces you guys to listen? for instance when tv programming panders to the lcd and airs these crappy reality show, do you have to watch them? dont you know there is also pbs? here is the equation...

reality show= guys with blurry pics and a loudmouth
pbs= govt orgs/quasi govt orgs reports and investigations

in both cases, a dose of commonsense should be utilized

my theory is that ufology serves as a convenient whipping post for the devout/religious/fearful.

hans
so you hang with the insane. no wonder you seem traumatized. lets take another look...

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I might give another example of argumentation that sometimes make me feel VERY tired:

Believer: (Theory of the government hiding something)

Skeptic: This is totally unfounded.

Believer: Do you think the government always tells you the truth??

Skeptic: Only when they cannot think of a lie.

Believer: See? So what I say is true!

(slightly exaggarated for clarity)

Hans
Click to expand...

"exaggerated for clarity"! that indicates an agenda. the two examples you come up with has you introducing a clearly irrational person in order to make your point. thus in one stroke, it appears you demean and ridicule an entirely legitimate, scientific endeavour.

what say you?
 
Originally posted by Ives Second, while Thed's question and others like it are fair, they to are just as guilty as proponents of anthropomorphizing. The behavior of the UFO doesn't make sense to the doubter's human point of view. The actually goes one further and puts it in distinctly human terms: "If you had the technology". . . at least the UFO proponent, in being open to the data, can try to be objective. This "if you had the technology" approach does not make that same effort.
Click to expand...

I fear you are guilty of the same logical error, regarding skeptibunkers, as you claim we are towards the UFO phenomena. Why do I say that?

Saying what you did you assume that we can not ascribe non-human behaviour to something. Further, you state that only proponents of the UFO phenomena can think outside the box. I'll state up front this is not the case.

Most skeptibunkers I've met across the Net are invariably graduates of Physics (as am I [1]) or a similar science. The first thing you learn in science is to lay aside pre-assumptions on how you think the Universe should behave. It's a point that has helped me many times in my real job, IT. Just because the manual says x causes y doesn't mean it does.

Perhaps more importantly, I have read prodigous amounts of SF and am more than conversant with the problem of Anthropormiphisation. To restate this, I've seen all manner of behavioural patterns ascribed to putative aliens. I can easily believe that a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue does exist out there. Aliens as depicted in Star Wars, Star Trek, Media SF are only nominally alien. Their physical appearance is different to appeal to the masses. I don't count myself amongst the masses.

So then, would a real extraterrestial behave differently to us Homo Sapiens. Of course they would. They have evolved in very different circumstances and under different evolutionary pressures. Why then don't they act alien?

Ignoring the classic images of the alien comes to Earth to feed on us, invade, warn us or similar human behaviour why do these highly advanced species skulk around backwoods or in lightly populated regions and are only observed by a few individuals. Seems to me there is something highly human going on here, at least in the witnesses to unknown phenomena.

Case in point. I used to participate in the Mad Scientist Network. One punter claimed that there daughter could turn off street lamps at will. On further questioning, turns out they where guilty of selective data. By chance one or two lamps had switched off in their vicinity. They then extrapolated this to imply a psychic ability to turn off all lights.

Are people around here aware of the Law of Fives? That everything happens in 5's. You will find that on close examination of any phenomena the number 5 plays a role. Try it, it works. Understanding why is the clever bit.

Now if you'll excuse me I've got to channel somebeing called Semjase. Claims they have an important message about an upcoming density shift and photon belts.

Hail Eris.
 
Originally posted by spookz
"exaggerated for clarity"! that indicates an agenda. the two examples you come up with has you introducing a clearly irrational person in order to make your point. thus in one stroke, it appears you demean and ridicule an entirely legitimate, scientific endeavour.

what say you?
Click to expand...

Hans is about right, IMO. This is a tactic often employed by conspiracy theorists. They assume skeptibunkers can not imagine the Gummint lying so challenge the skeptibunker as stated. When we agree the Gummint lies, they jump up and say, "You agree with us then". They are also rather fond of the absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy tactic. It wouldn't be a conspiracy otherwise.

I've noticed of late that this is being used to confirm the existence of Chemtrails.

Spookz, to understand that which is rightly ridiculed you should start reading Usenet, specifically news://alt.fan.art-bell, news://alt.alien.visitors, news://alt.conspiracy and their ilk more often. The absolute anarchy that prevails there is indeed a sight to behold. Alternatively look up the estimable Art Wholeflaffer. On the flip side, search for Brother Blue.

If your ISP does not have a news server you can read them on http://groups.google.com.
 
Originally posted by spookz
Practice debunkery-by-association.*snip*

whaddya think? a fit?

Actually, no. My example is real, and I did not generalize. In fact I admitted to a fault.

why do these seemingly scientific types allow the crackpots to define the terms of debate? why is joe blow's criteria for ufo/aliens be regarded as set in stone?

*snip*

Is it?

*snip*

hans
so you hang with the insane. no wonder you seem traumatized. lets take another look...

Mmmm, no comment ;)

"exaggerated for clarity"! that indicates an agenda. the two examples you come up with has you introducing a clearly irrational person in order to make your point. thus in one stroke, it appears you demean and ridicule an entirely legitimate, scientific endeavour.

Ehr, of course I have an agenda. Don't we both?

I ridicule the irrational person. How you can come to the other conclusion is beyond me. I even have the honesty to note that my account is exaggerated.

what say you?

What exactly is the scientific agenda you are referring to?
Click to expand...

Hans
 
Q says no, disregard the evidence.

No, I said disregard the ‘aliens_visiting_Earth’ claims to the alleged evidence.

I don't rule out the extraterrestrial hypothesis from the start. My response is to say that they are anti-empirical and ignore data inconsistent with their position.

If the data is inconsistent to begin with, then it should be ignored. Data presented by UFOlogists cannot be referenced to anything non-terrestrial simply because of the fact that there are no references to non-terrestrial phenomena.

How can a UFOlogist claim that a phenomena might look like an alien craft if they have no idea what an alien craft looks like, that is, if one even exists?

The behavior of the UFO doesn't make sense to the doubter's human point of view.

This is flawed logic. How do you know what behavior a UFO is supposed to exhibit? How would know that the behavior of an alien craft visiting Earth is consistent with the UFOlogists observations?

…at least the UFO proponent, in being open to the data, can try to be objective.

UFO proponents lose all objectivity the moment they claim non-terrestrial phenomena are responsible for the alleged evidence.
 
UFO proponents lose all objectivity the moment they claim non-terrestrial phenomena are responsible for the alleged evidence.
Click to expand...

UFO debunkers lose all objectivity the moment they claim ONLY non-terrestrial phenomenon CAN BE responsible for the alleged evidence. You can fall into the same logic trap, buddy.

The behavior of the UFO doesn't make sense to the doubter's human point of view.
Click to expand...

This is something to think about more carefully. In everyone's personal experience is a listing of how known flying objects behave, just as everyone has experiences about how a car should handle on roads, or for that matter, how to walk. It is something of an instinctual ability. Your brain for example, does a billion calculations subconciously just to be able to walk. By the same token, everyone who watches airplanes fly, or frizbies, or kites, gliders, birds, ect. gain some instinctive working knowledge of how flight works. This is probably best shown in Leonardo's flying machines. While they didn't work in practice, the theory was EXACTLY right. In fact, Leonardo's glider would have flown had it only more wing surface area. But, did Leonardo have the math to back it up? No. And yet, he had the correct concepts in the correct forms to produce not only the airplane, but the helicopter as well. Never underestemate the human brain on any level. It is filled a billion capabilities that we may not conciously recognize.

Case in point, if a casual observer witnessing a UFO defying everything they know about flight sees what they think is extrordinary, it is probably is. Now, this does NOT mean it is extraterrestrial, but it does certanly defy what is in the human experience.

The skeptics are right when they say attributing it to ET's is jumping the gun. However, when believers say that the objects appear intelligently controlled, and COULD be extraterrestrial, they have just as good a case. Both sides are right and even in agreement on the basice point, they are just disagreeing on the probability of which conclusion is more likely to be right.

One side sees an unknown work from the deepest secrets of nature. Someone else sees something that the Government doesn't want you to know. Someone else yet sees visitation from ET's. Who is to say which is more likely?
 
One side sees an unknown work from the deepest secrets of nature. Someone else sees something that the Government doesn't want you to know. Someone else yet sees visitation from ET's. Who is to say which is more likely?

Who is to say? Q is. Since he already knows there is a terrestrial explanation, there is apparently no need to even consider any other possibility.

UFO proponents lose all objectivity the moment they claim non-terrestrial phenomena are responsible for the alleged evidence.

Of course, Q does this by mischaracterizing his opponent's positions repeatedly. It brings to mind the child that says something funny and then says it over and over again, still thinking it's clever each time, when all the adults in the room have had enough.

I can only speak for myself; my position is to not disregard a hypothesis before reviewing the data, which is quite different from claiming non-terrestrial data are responsible.
 
Xevious, your post by the way was thoughtful and fun to read. I appreciated your observations on the brain and its workings and possibilities.
 
Thed

Saying what you did you assume that we can not ascribe non-human behaviour to something. Further, you state that only proponents of the UFO phenomena can think outside the box. I'll state up front this is not the case.

Your responses are good ones. You are correct that I cannot ascribe non-behavior human to something unknown. But if we cannot make inferences and draw conclusions from unfamiliar data outside our frame of reference, where would that leave us? Admittedly, it leaves us in very unstructured territory.

But are we not entitled to use our human frame of reference to view events around us, even unknown ones, and assign characteristics to them? Even Q, were he piloting an aircraft, would avert his course if an unknown structured object changed its course in a way that made a collision appear imminent. If the unknown object were moving in a straight line, and made a right angle course change to affect the imminent collision, what would Q do? Ignore the data presented to him?
Since meteors and other natural objects do not engage in right angle turns in flight, how would we evaluate its behavior? By saying we cannot attribute human characteristics to it? These are not unheard of behavior characteristics of UFOs, by the way.


Further, you state that only proponents of the UFO phenomena can think outside the box.

If I stated or fairly implied that, I was wrong.
 
hans

Actually, no. My example is real, and I did not generalize.

the first, second or both? the first includes...."..with something like "SEE!...." the terminology utilised indicates that it is mere rhetoric. (i am assuming "real" signifies an actual situation and not validity) as for the second, it sounds so childlike that i have difficulty in believing it is a tactic successfully employed by the kooks

Is it?

allow me to elaborate on that statement...why is joe blow's criteria and reasoning....

look at the second example you give and look at the reaction it evinces in you. who else but joe would indulge in such ridiculous and self-serving rationale? to rephrase.. why is joeblows reasoning even taken into consideration? "set in stone" is probably a bit too assertive but the point here i cannot let the kooks or pseudo skeptics set the ground rules

Ehr, of course I have an agenda. Don't we both?

hmm, i wonder if definitions are required here. nevermind. you appear to know i have one. is the nature of my agenda also apparent?

How you can come to the other conclusion is beyond me. I even have the honesty to note that my account is exaggerated.

do not take the accusation seriously. i am just randomly slinging mud, hoping something will stick. apologies

What exactly is the scientific agenda you are referring to?

well you coupled two words that appeared separately and in its own context.
however "agenda" indicates fraudulent debunkery. scientific endeavour refers to ufology ;)
 
thed

Hans is about right, IMO. This is a tactic often employed by conspiracy theorists. They assume skeptibunkers can not imagine the Gummint lying so challenge the skeptibunker as stated. When we agree the Gummint lies, they jump up and say, "You agree with us then". They are also rather fond of the absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy tactic. It wouldn't be a conspiracy otherwise.

it is so lacking in sophistication that i am hesitant to even call it a tactic. but... whatever.. fucking disingenuous nutters!

Spookz, to understand that which is rightly ridiculed you should start reading Usenet, specifically news://alt.fan.art-bell, news://alt.alien.visitors, news://alt.conspiracy.......

now now brother thed
you wish for me to lose the little bit of sanity i have left? shame!
 
UFO debunkers lose all objectivity the moment they claim ONLY non-terrestrial phenomenon CAN BE responsible for the alleged evidence.

That’s very funny Xevious.

If over 90% of all so-called sightings have been verified to be of a terrestrial nature and the rest remain unexplained, and that which was left unexplained shows NO evidence to suggest anything of a non-terrestrial nature, the skeptic is NOT being objective for not considering non-terrestrial phenomena?

And yet the UFOlogist IS being objective by suggesting non-terrestrial phenomena is valid?

It’s amazing how believers can lose objectivity to logic.
 
Of course, Q does this by mischaracterizing his opponent's positions repeatedly. It brings to mind the child that says something funny and then says it over and over again, still thinking it's clever each time, when all the adults in the room have had enough.

You guys are quite the comedians. If a reference to children is to be your debating tactic, then I would suggest the child who is asked a question and provides an answer not to the question, but instead to something else entirely different that their lack of attention to the question has conjured, and eventually the adults stop asking and ignore, Ives.
 
I'm not quite sure how it's possible to have an argument about ufo's. We don't know what they are. If we did then they wouldn't exist.

That is, we know that ufo's exist, nobody disagrees with that. This proves that we don't know what they are. In this case they could be anything at all.

Seeing as how the finest experts in our intelligence services can't even distinguish between a clapped out factory and a weapon of mass destruction I don't give them much chance of solving this one.
 
I wouldn't worry about Q. She is constantly on the rag, and we all don't listen to women, do we?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top