If you know that much, why is he allowed to stay?
Why does the government hide UFO's?
- Thread starter darksidZz
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No I don't run away. I go thru page after page in these threads answering the 101 complaints and excuses you all make up while denying the evidence set right in front of you. At some point though it becomes too ridiculous and I post more evidence, That's when you complain again. You bitch that I don't have evidence. And then you bitch that I present too much evidence. There comes a point where your anal hairsplitting becomes so absurd and indicative of intellectual dishonesty that I resign myself to the fact that no evidence will ever satisfy you. This is usually also the point I am being ad homed and insulted left and right by you and others here. That's when I move on. I have that right as a free poster here you know.
Last edited:
Well, in his defense, he is amusing, he's getting the attention he craves and he is posting his woo in the right forum.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
In MR's case, I think that he likes feeling that reality isn't all safely categorized in little boxes (even if they are scientific), that it still contains things that are amazing, unexpected and wondrous. To him, ufos and ghosts and whatever suggest that the universe exceeds and transcends the conventional conceptual categories, suggesting that our current understanding isn't the last word on everything. It's why other people embrace religion. (MR has the strongest sense of the miraculous of any atheist I've ever met.)
And I think that MR does like poking sacred cows with a stick. It isn't "animus against science". (Since when is disbelief in ufos 'science'?) It's because some of the people around here seem to him to be as doctrinaire as Biblical fundies. (I feel much the same way. One naturally wants to pop the smug self-satisfied balloons.)
As for me, I have mixed emotions. I think that many of the things that MR promotes aren't particularly credible. But I sympathize very strongly with what I take to be his motivation. It's just that I think that he's looking in the wrong place. I find my own sense of mystery in contemplating philosophical problems.
One of the things I dislike about Sciforums is the way that it's populated by people who go on and on about "evidence", "reason" and "reality", about the science/pseudoscience distinction, and about how everyone needs to employ the "scientific method" -- while seemingly having no feeling at all for the deep and difficult questions that all of those topics raise.
Whenever I think about science, I'm confronted by an almost endless succession of philosophical questions: The atheism/theism discussions. The assumptions of physicalism, whether methodological or metaphysical. The nature of evidence and how evidence is used to confirm hypotheses. Understanding deductive inference. What is truth? What does it mean to explain something? Problems of scientific methodology. Are there limits on what humans can know? Is anything absolutely certain? What are necessity and possibility? Does every event have a cause? What is the place of purpose and free-will in a physical universe? What is 'consciousness'? What are phenomenal properties like 'red'? What is meaning and how do words acquire it? What kind of reality do abstract objects like numbers have and how do we know about them? Is our knowledge of the physical world based solely on sense-perception? Can qualitatively new kinds of phenomena 'emerge' unexpectedly from complex systems? What is 'life'? What different kinds of life might there potentially be? What does quantum mechanics tell us about the nature of physical reality? What is the relationship between scientific theory and the reality it models? How do scientific theories change as science progresses?
And on and on... The questions are never ending. If we think about even the most familiar aspects of our lives for more than a minute or two, we are suddenly at the frontiers of human knowledge. We are surrounded by the unknown at every moment. It's the intellectual air we breathe.
It doesn't require a journey to CERN or to an astronomical observatory to approach the mysteries. It doesn't require scripture or a visit to a soaring cathedral. It doesn't take MR's ufo incursions or ghost hauntings.
It just takes a little thought.
And I think that MR does like poking sacred cows with a stick. It isn't "animus against science". (Since when is disbelief in ufos 'science'?) It's because some of the people around here seem to him to be as doctrinaire as Biblical fundies. (I feel much the same way. One naturally wants to pop the smug self-satisfied balloons.)
As for me, I have mixed emotions. I think that many of the things that MR promotes aren't particularly credible. But I sympathize very strongly with what I take to be his motivation. It's just that I think that he's looking in the wrong place. I find my own sense of mystery in contemplating philosophical problems.
One of the things I dislike about Sciforums is the way that it's populated by people who go on and on about "evidence", "reason" and "reality", about the science/pseudoscience distinction, and about how everyone needs to employ the "scientific method" -- while seemingly having no feeling at all for the deep and difficult questions that all of those topics raise.
Whenever I think about science, I'm confronted by an almost endless succession of philosophical questions: The atheism/theism discussions. The assumptions of physicalism, whether methodological or metaphysical. The nature of evidence and how evidence is used to confirm hypotheses. Understanding deductive inference. What is truth? What does it mean to explain something? Problems of scientific methodology. Are there limits on what humans can know? Is anything absolutely certain? What are necessity and possibility? Does every event have a cause? What is the place of purpose and free-will in a physical universe? What is 'consciousness'? What are phenomenal properties like 'red'? What is meaning and how do words acquire it? What kind of reality do abstract objects like numbers have and how do we know about them? Is our knowledge of the physical world based solely on sense-perception? Can qualitatively new kinds of phenomena 'emerge' unexpectedly from complex systems? What is 'life'? What different kinds of life might there potentially be? What does quantum mechanics tell us about the nature of physical reality? What is the relationship between scientific theory and the reality it models? How do scientific theories change as science progresses?
And on and on... The questions are never ending. If we think about even the most familiar aspects of our lives for more than a minute or two, we are suddenly at the frontiers of human knowledge. We are surrounded by the unknown at every moment. It's the intellectual air we breathe.
It doesn't require a journey to CERN or to an astronomical observatory to approach the mysteries. It doesn't require scripture or a visit to a soaring cathedral. It doesn't take MR's ufo incursions or ghost hauntings.
It just takes a little thought.
Last edited:
Nice post: In many respects I agree....I'm sure the universe is even more amazing, unexpected and wondrous then we can imagine, but as yet we still do not have the extraordinary evidence available to validate the existence of ETL, as much as I would dearly love for that to be evident before I kick the bucket.
I'm also not sure why you expect a forum that is first and foremost a science forum, to not apply scientific scrutiny to all claims, even those in the supernatural/paranormal/ghosts/UFO sections.
Life imvho most certainly exists off this Earth, but the facts remain as facts: and that is as of this time, we have no convincing or extraordinary evidence to validate that position, other then the indirect evidence of near infinite extent and content of the universe, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look.
You ask what is the relationship between scientific theory and the reality it models? and how do scientific theories change as science progresses?
My take on that is that scientists model as best as they can, what we observe and aligning with the results of those experiments: The reality is not the prime objective, but if they happen to hit on that reality, all well and good.
And obviously theories are changed, modified and improved as our observations are extended and improved, and as our technological abilities are enhanced.
And while it certainly does not require a journey to CERN or to an astronomical observatory to approach the mysteries of the universe that surrounds us, to write off such state of the art technology is plainly stupid.
I once while laying back on an isolated beach in Fiji, with my simple pair of 7x50's, saw the three of the four Galilean Satellites orbiting Jupiter: A defining moment in my life, which thrilled me to bits!
And again to repeat myself, I have also seen a UFO, and to this day that's what it remains.
The undeniable facts, that seem to upset MR whenever they are put to him, are never the less, legitimate facts.
I'm speaking of the many other explanations that could be seen to apply to any of his highlighted situations...delusions and illusions [people do suffer from them] Atmospheric disturbances and anomalies that also certainly take place, mirages being one, trickery and games by others looking for a weird sense of fun. These all can possibly be applied.
Could ETI have visited Earth? Certainly it could have: but as yet no extraordinary evidence of any such visitation is available.
In concluding, MR seems to want immunity to any scientific scrutiny applied to his beliefs: Other times, he denies he is stating anything as fact, but simply putting it out there for all to see, but then strangely, rejecting all other possible reasons for that scenario.
Then we have of course the extremism of river and his claims of a nuclear war on Mars and the sinister overtones of the supposed face on Mars, because, wait for it! He read it in a book!
What MR claims re UFO's and some of the reported sightings, may very well be true, but equally, they maybe false and simply innocent or willful fabrication in peoples minds for the reasons I have previously given.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I don't deal in belief. I present solid evidence of a phenomenon that's been occurring around the world for over 70 years now. I don't presume to believe anything more about it than that it is real and driven by some sort of transhuman intelligence. What I will not tolerate is the abuse of the noble name of science to defend your own faithheld worldview that ufos are not real or are somehow unexplainable. I will also not accept the glib dismissal of all this empirical evidence for ufos as nothing worth being concerned about. We are talking a phenomenon that is real, shows typical defined characteristics that make it predictable, and if finally taken seriously by mainstream science would open a new era of discovery and innovation such as we have never seen before in the history of our species.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
A wonderful post in which you express so many thoughts I share but have not taken time to list.
I have no difficulties with MR and think I know where he is coming from but understanding his motivations is not necessary for me to enjoy his input.
I have been disappointed to realise science is not interested in truth but only in a model that enables prediction.
Of course I also understand the philosophy that demands such an approach and finally happy to abandon the search for truth on that basis.
I do believe the requirement that models offer predictions dangerous in so far as observations will be claimed to support an existing model or theory when indeed a new theory may be preferable.
I often wondered why the prospect of dark matter would be considered possible when our observations discover gravitational annomolies with rotation curves of galaxies and the answer would seem to be..."well our maths tells us there must be additional matter " in line with observations must fit expectations of a model , when an inoccent mind would and indeed should think " does our observation suggest we may not be able to apply our existing knowledge for to do so introduces a proposition that seems somehow wrong"
But of course concerns of a mere layman are of no consequence and dismissed understandably as a case of a failure to grasp the concept due to no education.
However from my attempts to find truth I do not dismiss possibility and I do not accept any evidence readily as proof of any proposition because although we think we know everything I believe we know very little and that fact is undeniable but annoying to anyone who professes to have the answers, be they thesists, scientists or cranks.
I believe that much of the UFO evidence is rubbish and if there is anything valid one would have little chance of finding it amid all that is out there.
Its like the public calling the police to report a sighting of a felon...sure one or two calls may have been correct but the other 50,000 whatever just hide the truth.
Oh and I don't want to be showered with proof of dark matter and if anyone says Bullet Cluster I won't respond.
My comments are on approach and strangeness of seeking prediction.
Again a wonderful post.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I think you are taking away the wrong message here.
Those who practice the Scientific Method recognize that "The Truth" pretty much cannot be attained. Every model we make is only an approximation; there is always a sublayer - more granular than the one we're looking at - that we don't undertstand.
Our predictive models can, at best, hope to approach The Truth asymptotically. We always acknowledge that approaching- but-never-reaching- zero gap.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Well my world was turned upside down when I read that the model of the solar system where it placed the Earth at the centerrr was considered a good scientific model...it is because with it we can tell where Saturn will be next Thursday...but clearly the model does not show things correctly.
My lack of education does not enable me to understand the principle of inflation in the big bang model for example..I find it impossible to accept that everything grew from zip to at least the size of the observable Universe in" a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second" to quote DeGrasse in a TV episode ( great authority eh) and then wonder is this supposed to be close to the truth or is it simply a model, like the Earth centered solar system, that it enables predictions that are helpful to hold the model together and make useful predictions.
Same with singularities. I think I better understand the use of the term and that we really don't expect to find matter compressed to smaller than a pin head in a black hole...however the impression is...the truth is science tell us that the center of a black hole is incredibly small... It seems the model actually is saying we don't know...
I am sorry to raise any of these matters as they serve no purpose other than to present my lack of education.
Moreover I am not anti science in any way shape or form.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There are lots of things that are well-understood enough to be effectively Truth.
The germ theory of disease. (yup, many diseases are spread from tiny, invisible microbes)
The atomic theory of matter.(yup, matter is generally made of tiny, invisible particles)
Chemistry is nearly a closed science. (yup, we get that chemical properties are combined atoms)
But frankly, I think we live in an exciting time. When I was younger, I thought there wasn't much more to discover. But now, all sorts of physics is being thrown into a new light.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
To the extent that a large amount of science, if not most of it, is composed of linguistic propositions about nature and the universe, it DOES involve truth or falsity to a large extent. It also relies on certain philosophical propositions about the nature of reality, the mind, and other issues. So yes, science DOES deal in truth and belief and assumption just as any field of knowledge does.
Of course you deal in belief and of course to an extent you also have faith!
Everyone does!
And of course you believe in Aliens having visited Earth, and of course you reject the scientific scrutiny when applied, that whatever the situation is, it cannot be anything other then Aliens!
Again, of course you presume! You are presuming that your interpretation of the evidence as some "transhuman intelliegence"
is correct, despite any evidence to support that, and then you presume, that the evil discipline called science, can unjustly dismiss your concerns as simply unexplainable and/or unidentified, and judging on your many past anti science threads, that science and scientists are also in some form of conspiracy to deny the truth to the world as a whole.Of course you won't, because it interfers with your own prejudicial beliefs re UFO's, that you have held for many years.
Again, show me an Alien body, some obvious Alien artifact, some Alien excreta and/or DNA: And then explain to me again, after so many thousands of visitations, so many kidnappings, practising medical procedures, that they still have not made their presence official and known to all.
And then explain to me where they come from, and show me your reasons and the convincing evidence you supposedly have, that makes you 100% certain you are correct.
The phenomenon is certainly real, and as yet remains Unidentified and unexplained, as much as those two words seem to get you so fired up.
And finally, when the opportunity arises, where some extraordinary evidence is found of ETI, somewhere, or even extraordinary evidence that they have visited Earth sometime, then science will be as it always is, showing the way, and making the best of the situation, gaining whatever knowledge for the betterment of the human race that it is able to.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Of course you deal in belief and of course to an extent you also have faith!
Everyone does!
And of course you believe in Aliens having visited Earth, and of course you reject the scientific scrutiny when applied, that whatever the situation is, it cannot be anything other then Aliens!
Again, of course you presume! You are presuming that your interpretation of the evidence as some "transhuman intelliegence"
Of course you won't, because it interfers with your own prejudicial beliefs re UFO's, that you have held for many years.
Again, show me an Alien body, some obvious Alien artifact, some Alien excreta and/or DNA: And then explain to me again, after so many thousands of visitations, so many kidnappings, practising medical procedures, that they still have not made their presence official and known to all.
And then explain to me where they come from, and show me your reasons and the convincing evidence you supposedly have, that makes you 100% certain you are correct.
The phenomenon is certainly real, and as yet remains Unidentified and unexplained, as much as those two words seem to get you so fired up.
And finally, when the opportunity arises, where some extraordinary evidence is found of ETI, somewhere, or even extraordinary evidence that they have visited Earth sometime, then science will be as it always is, showing the way, and making the best of the situation, gaining whatever knowledge for the betterment of the human race that it is able to.
I was very clear on my position and intent on presenting this issue. Spreading lies about me and what I believe only exposes your agenda of denying all the evidence in favor of your own pet worldview. Basically your holy religion of scientism disguised in the labcoat of objective science..
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You know I thought the same thing.
When 11 yrs old I "invented" the electric motor, my first response to my father telling me we could not achieve perpetual motion..I was a kid, wear or energy supply was overlooked and I did not know the electric motor was already with us.
But when the facts became known to me I did feel as if there could be nothing new in the world.
I have mentioned I spent much time when in the bush working out how gravity could work, I was obsessed for years with the notion that it must work via some sort of pressure from all the stuff flying around in the nothing of space...Well then I find out Le Sage came up with such a notion in 1745... So again I felt that it all been done.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Alex
I spred no lies my friend: I don't need to. The evidence supporting what I have said is there for all to read in many threads started by yourself, particularly one real crazy thread claiming science has did nothing, or achieved nothing for human kind.
That thread alone woke me up and many others on this forum re your own pet faith based view.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Right..I blasphemed your holy religion by showing how science isn't the divine oracle of truth you claim it to be. So what? I'm entirely entitled to have my own opinion. Does that scare you? People not strutting around waving the banner of science like you do?
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Lord Kelvin:
At least you pair were/are in good company.
You presume too much again MR: You are not that important. What you say, about science or myself, is neither here nor there and in time will fade into oblivion.Science though will always be with us, and certainly does not need me carrying any banner, the way you fly your own paranormal,supernatural, Alien banner.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Science though will always be with us, and certainly does not need me carrying any banner, the way you fly your own paranormal,supernatural, Alien banner.
You're not that important either. Hence your penchant for hiding behind groups and institutionalized science as a way to make you feel greater than you are. That's what your religion of scientism does. It makes you feel oh so special doesn't it? Who would dare question YOU what with your magical scientific method?
Last edited:
Rave on my boy: All you are doing in your vitriol angst, is proving what most already know. ps: This question was raised after some nonsense in another thread, by another....If you are so fanatically anti science, why come here? Plenty of woo forums about that cater for your sort.