Maybe not antigravity devices, but some form of inertia control is evident based on the maneuvers these things exhibit.
This statement assumes that the explanations for UFOs exclude delusions, lies, hoaxes, reflections of light, astronomical events and bodies, and other misunderstandings and misperceptions by people who claim to see them. It also assumes that their observations are accurately reported and remembered.
As long as such explanations still exist and cannot be excluded with tangible and testable evidence, there's no reason at all to make claims that appeal to ignorance as yours above.
It is, however, perfectly fine to
hypothesize anti-gravity devices and devices that "exhibit" "some form of inertia control," but, in the end, these hypotheses are subject to the known laws of physics and Occam's Razor: the most parsimonious and efficient explanations that introduce the fewest new assumptions about what we know remain the most logical and probable.
Of course a percentage of UFO sightings are actually attributable to mundane explanations, no one is arguing that. Moot point.
The point is
very relevant if the percentage of UFO sightings are
largely mundane and prosaic, particularly if the remainder, even if they are explanations that are unique and wondrous, are still within the bounds of known science.
Making positive claims of extraordinary causality (which both you and electrafiction have done) without the inclusion of extraordinary evidence is woo.
And I guess without a pilot these crafts are suddenly able to move silently, make 90 degree turns at high speeds, and accelerate to impossible speeds.
Before you can make such claims, you must first demonstrate that there are "crafts" that actually
do make these maneuvers. Reflections of
light do it all the time -and there are a few other explanations that are rather mundane compared to your hypothesis that these are "craft" with a technology that violates the laws of physics.
This is WHY I am TRYING to get off the subject of ETs, you guys are clearly not ready. Instead I am trying to discuss man kinds involvement in the UFO phenomena.
I've very happy to move away from the ETI hypothesis for UFOs. I somehow doubt electrafixtion will let it go -he thinks they are "non-human technology" -implying ET.
Still, I think the explanations for UFOs are completely fascinating and wondrous
even if ETI is excluded. This would mean, however, that you would need to consider and evaluate the very nature of human belief, perception, cognition and power of observation.
As I have said many times, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (outside expert testimony), why keep bringing this point up when it has been addressed already on SEVERAL different occasions
.
On the contrary, there's a
lot of evidence. Evidence
abounds for the nature of human psychological behavior, response to extraordinary events, and also for phenomena that can create situations that can be misunderstood and misperceived.
If you're interested in this sort of evidence, I'm happy to cite it, though you might need to wait until at least Friday since I'm giving a lecture tomorrow night and will be preparing between now and then.
If you're
not interested, then I would assert that this is suggestive of a preconceived notion or conclusion that you don't care to evaluate or criticize. This wouldn't be a very scientific attitude, but it would definitely be one that is characteristic of human behavior.
As Ive said before logic is based on causality, without causality logic falls apart.
This is completely and utterly incorrect. I would also challenge you to cite the scholarly discourse that aligns with this notion. Logic, my friend, is critical to engaging in discussion and argumentation. It is also important to note that "argumentation" doesn't necessarily imply the colloquial "argument" that opposing view points have but, rather, formulating a position or assertion designed to convince others
Right now we are only observing the effect of a cause which we are incapable of understanding.
This is completely fallacious and, again, assumes that there is an extraordinary cause. If the cause is
ordinary it may very well be completely within our ability to understand, investigate, and adequately explain. This is, again, an argument from ignorance.
And I also have astrophysical in my user title. So you cant take one without the other unless of course your purpose is slander.
No. My purpose is to point out your failings in the hope you'll accept the correction and criticism in order to better yourself. Contrary to what you might think, my goal is to educate. Preferably
you but, if not, then perhaps others that stumble upon this thread from Google or elsewhere. Also, I clearly stated in a previous post that you've demonstrated neither term in the user title. Still, you have to admit that "astrophysical" is the adjective, modifying the subject "philosopher," so I've been accurate in addressing the correct term.
You arent capable of logically proving that they ARENT real man-made flying saucers, can you?
I can
certainly demonstrate the likelihood that many are not -and have done so in this thread. But I wouldn't dream of trying to "prove" all UFOs aren't "man-made flying saucers" in spite of the fact that I doubt
any are actually "saucers" of any likeness to the word. This is because even the sightings of the most mundane occurrences lack raw data to examine. A bird that swoops low over a lake a twilight or the reflection of the headlights of a distant car on a low bit of fog or cloud are as mundane an explanation as you can have, yet they leave no forensic data.
But of course the burden of proof is on us, so you have a get out of jail free card and a convenient way of avoiding the tricky parts.
I'm
always going to try to avoid the sticky parts. That's the nature of true argumentation -but I'm not arguing a position, you are. I'm simply questioning and criticizing that position with actual fact and providing logical alternatives to fanciful speculation. When I *do* resort to the "tricky parts" in a presentation or argument, however, I ensure that I've carefully dotted my "i's" and crossed my "t's" so that I can minimize the criticism. Then, when I get the inevitable criticism, I evaluate it and incorporate it into my hypothesis, revising and improving where necessary. I'm fully prepared to abandon my hypothesis altogether if the criticism cannot be overcome.
There some philosophy for you, and its telling you that you need to get off your high horse because your just as prejudice as I am. In fact I may start calling you crazy for NOT believing in man-made UFOs. You nutter.
That would be your prerogative, however, it is a position that isn't tenable since I most definitely believe that there are UFOs. I just think they have very plausible and probable explanations that are independent of those proposed by significance-junkies and mystery-mongers.
