What evidence would work?
- Thread starter Crcata
- Start date
What evidence would work:
That would depend on the claim, but something verifiable and able to be reproduced... case in point, a metallurgical analysis, an autopsy or other medical examination of a specimen by a third party, things of that sort would suffice.
That would depend on the claim, but something verifiable and able to be reproduced... case in point, a metallurgical analysis, an autopsy or other medical examination of a specimen by a third party, things of that sort would suffice.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Not just one, for me.
If the Nat Enquirer, or even the NYTimes, wrote an article that said a metallurgical analysis had been done on a piece of metal, and that it was of no known origin, or that an autopsy was done and they could not identify the creature, that would not be enough to convince me that there are aliens or ghosts, bigfoot or what have you. (Note that "we have never seen it before and can't identify it" is not a positive confirmation in and of itself. OTOH, "it is made of a stable isotope of element 153" - that's pretty positive.)
A single test would definitely get my attention, and I would follow the story obsessively, but I would need to see it confirmed by other labs.
Well we all want that ; soild evidence ; it is there ; for sightings anyway .
But of course it is a matter of one's willingness to actually investigate for themselves ; which so many DO NOT DO ; so you bunch that do not think that UFO's do not exist ; as UFO's being defined as actually saucer, cigar shaped and triangular shaped . Then what can one say ; to convince you of the phenomenon ?
If you do this serious investigation into UFO's ; when you do this investigation you will find , credible information about the existence of UFO'so from the fifties ; up to the present .
The evidence is clear and precise .
In the case of UFO's one must think in terms of being a police detective ; gathering the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion and some science.
river
More a case of it just being a plane old vanilla flavoured UFO:
Your willingness to accept such garbage is simply gullibility.
No it is not...It is anything but.
That's what science does and is called the scientific method, and it has established that most sightings are explained, and a few simply remain as UFO...U meaning Unidentified.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Flawed logic.
It is tantamount to: if you don't see what I see, you haven't looked.
Since the existence of compelling evidence is not granted - and in indeed the very subject of this thread - riv is committing the fallacy of begging the question - the conclusion is embedded in the premise: that there is clear, concise, compelling evidence to be had.
You're welcome to your conclusions riv, but it has no effect on the judgement of others.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
My post to this thread, and most of the other replies as well, said that physical evidence, things such as live or deceased cryptozoological creatures, physical ufos whether crashed or landed, the ability to perform biological investigations on their occupants, would be the kind of thing that would be convincing.
But what about belief the other way? Does anything justify Sciforums' profound conviction that ufos ARE NOT alien spaceships? Wouldn't lack of a crashed saucer be just as good evidence of the reliability of the vehicles as evidence of their non-existence?
I see an analogy with belief in God and think that here too, agnosticism is more intellectually defensible than outright denial.
I'm still curious about the anger and hostility that the whole subject elicits among self-styled "skeptics". I see it here on Sciforums and in organizations like CSICOP. It reminds me of the anger that the "new atheists" wear on their sleeves.
But what about belief the other way? Does anything justify Sciforums' profound conviction that ufos ARE NOT alien spaceships? Wouldn't lack of a crashed saucer be just as good evidence of the reliability of the vehicles as evidence of their non-existence?
I see an analogy with belief in God and think that here too, agnosticism is more intellectually defensible than outright denial.
I'm still curious about the anger and hostility that the whole subject elicits among self-styled "skeptics". I see it here on Sciforums and in organizations like CSICOP. It reminds me of the anger that the "new atheists" wear on their sleeves.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's because it's the same group. Atheists that spend days arguing with creationists have extended their jihad against what they call "pseudoscience" and pompously declare the non-reality of just about any anomalous phenomena that's even been. And they typically do so under the auspices of Science--which is actually the exploration and study of new phenomena, not it's flippant and mocking dismissal as "woo". Hence you have whole sites like RationalWiki that basically promote a whole worldview based on debunkery and pseudoskeptical claims. They're like self-styled warriors for the truth, although the only truth they claim to champion is an ambitious negative one---that something is NOT real.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Certainly. And, as is the case in exploration, sometimes they lead to dead ends.
Otherwise, science would just blindly accept any crazy thing that came along.
We'd welcome platonic-solids orbits, electric universes, push gravity and healing crystals alike.
Skepticism is the pillar of science.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No. The assumption of doubting a phenomenon is as biased as the assumption of believing the phenomenon. The pillar of science is agnosticism--the assumption of not knowing either way whether a phenomenon is real and going strictly by the evidence. Skepticism isn't science because it assumes the non-reality of every new and anomalous phenomenon. That's not a given. It's ideological bias.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yup. And until the evidence compellingly points toward a new phenomenon, we don't toss out the existing explanatory phenomena.
It is not an equal opportunity path. New explanations must pass the test.
To turn one's back on skepticism is to willy-nilly accept any new hotness that springs up.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Which is precisely what scientists do in their examination of the new phenomenon.
Am I understanding this right?
You are saying that by not believing a UFO (unidentified being the key word) is alien until proven, we are just as bias as believing it's alien without it being proven?
That's what I'm understanding, and if I'm correct then I guess you are technically right? But I think the former is a lot more reasonable than the latter.
Really? I'd love to see some -- can you show me?
I don't see that. I just see a lack of supporting evidence that they are.
UFO's are about equally likely to be evil demons, alien spaceships, angels, Russian water tentacles and/or cracks in The Matrix. They might be any one of those things; there is merely no evidence that they ARE one of those things.
Indeed. And the lack of dead unicorns in your lawn is just as good evidence that those immortal, magical creatures never die as they are passing through your lawn at night. (Indeed it might prove they ARE immortal after all!)
It's pretty simple to explain: we don't like liars/crackpots/frauds/trolls.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So anyone that believes differently from you is a "liar/crackpot/fraud/troll"? Wow. That's a whole lot of crackpot/frauds/trolls out there! But I wonder....does that demonize them enough? I mean why not include "witch" and "heretic" in there? That would justify they're burning at the stake. Perhaps the perjorative "mongrel" would suit you? History is filled with examples of one group dehumanizing and ostracizing outsiders with labels. Consider the possibilities!
Last edited: