|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2005 : 00:07:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"You were looking at things through binoculars?"
when did i say that?
Page 2. You said: "I am a skeptic. I dont take first appearances. but when you see a glowing amorphous flying ring through your binoculars...you have to ask the question: what is it NOT?"
quote:
your presumtion as to the motives of a hitherto undiscovered alien species borders on abject arrogance. what could you possibly know, or claim to know, about an intelligent alien civilization and their purported interest in us and our planet? we are not excited about this planet because WE live here. its old news. maybe we have ancestors out there. maybe our life forms are unique. maybe theyre taking genetic samples. who knows? this is not a valid excuse for disbelieving.
It may not be a "valid excuse" for disbelieving (there are already plenty of those), but it is a fair question to ask. If the claim is that UFOs are the space craft of intelligent beings, then it is only reasonable to speculate as to their motives for coming here and compare them to the activities reported by UFO enthusiasts.
quote:
Lucky for me your guess is totally off. activelly looking for the unusual does not guarantee that i will find something. in fact, i rarely, if ever, seek these things out. they have always (with one exception) blindsided me.
Then you may just be very poor at recognizing what you see in the night sky. Or you may be fantasy prone. Either one of those is more probable than the idea that the lights you saw were extraterrestrial craft.
quote:
has you bothered to take a look at ufo footage available in a wide variety of videos or internet sites? call me crazy, but isnt video documentation evidence? perhaps you will understand why i have drawn a conclusion when you consider the plethora of photographic/video evidence and testimonials i have come in contact with.
Photographs and videos of what? Blurry objects and indiscernible lights in the sky? Yes, I've seen those. They are very good evidence that there are blurry objects and indiscernible lights in the sky. None of them are good evidence of alien spaceships visiting this planet.
But I tell you what. Provide us with a link to the best video footage of a UFO you know of and we'll take a look at it. Just give us the cream of the crop, no doubt about it, the best "that's a friggin' intergalactic mothership" photo or video you have. We don't need to look at "everything that's out there," because a really big collection of really, really crappy photos and videos is a whole lot of nothing.
quote:
an isolated incident is one case. repeated sightings that happen everywhere on the earth is, reasonably speaking, the result of some of these things we dont know.
Yes, that's what we've been telling you! "We don't know." These are things we can't identify. You are the one saying you can identify them, and as flying spaceships no less!
quote:
my be all end all statement on the matter is this: it remains largely unexplained, and skeptics owe it to themselves and others to dig for clues, and find out for themselves, rather than deciding outright that it is not worth serious investigation. the implications are too severe to overlook. i am not a lunatic for making up my mind about it. it is a reasoned reaction to my experiences, which are all i or anyone else has.
So you begin by saying the UFO phenomenon remains largely unexplained, but then turn around and say you've made up your mind about it. Sorry, but I'll just stop at the "it remains unexplained" part and await new evidence. And I used to be very well read in ufology. But after reading my 1,000,000 testimonial with nary a shred of evidence, I began to realize that there isn't anything out there to "go research." Call us when you actually get some solid evidence.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/09/2005 00:14:48 |
 |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 00:55:43 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
(RE "What aspect of quantum mechanics relates to this, and how? Please explain.")
Particles come and go in the fabric of space. quantum particles are, according to theory, waves, until there is an observer...
...but was related to my comments on perception and its role in science.
OK, so I take it your points are that (1) "Our science can't explain everything" and (2) "We can't discretely perceive absolutely every aspect of phenomenon our sciences predict could exist." Or, simply restated, "We don't know everything." That's old news.
Accepting the inherent perceptive and judgmental fallibilities of humans- including themselves- scientists base their beliefs on evidence and demanding criteria which satisfy the scientific method... that means evidence that's acceptable to others. Individual testimonial won't cut it. Had a military prototype picked-you-up and dropped-you-off in Peking 5 minutes after you left a restaurant... now THAT would be interesting!
If my wallet were missing from my pocket upon returning home from an airport, I'd rather accept a suggestion that it fell out, or I was pick-pocketed and hadn't noticed, than that quantum-theoretical mechanisms had caused it to "disappear" and "reappear"... maybe in a parking lot, in outer space, or perhaps in the middle of an ocean (although that's possible.) The first 2 possibilities happen all of the time- so do people mistaking what they see. The last possibility hasn't been documented- neither have alien spacecraft, nor are secret miltary prototypes with incredible capabilities commonly tested in civilian areas. What are we to believe? I'll go with one of the simpler and frequently demonstrated explanations, a number of which were mentioned. Light refraction, balloons or aircraft, etc. etc. etc. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 02:21:13 [Permalink]
|
There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.
-- Robert W. Service
I spent a fair number of years at sea. The night skies are wonderous out there -- almost no light pollution. It would not work for any sort of optics, though. Too much movement from the ship.
During the midwatch on a clear, winter night, the stars can seem almost close enough to touch, and a metor, especally a big one, is breath-taking. If there is no moon, the stars are as gemstones on indigo velvet.
While I can entertain the possibility of alien visitors, I have to assign it a probability of only a little above zero. Occham's Razor tells us that given the available evidence, the simplest solution is the most likely one. 'Alien visitors' is far too complicated in the face of natural phenomena.
Consider: these visitors could not have come from our solar system, thus they would have to have be from somewhere very far away -- traveling rather in defiance of the known laws of physics. Further, why bother? Why bother to visit our little mudball, here in the unfashionable end of the galazy? What is so interesting about us?
Looked at through the eyes (or whatever) of a stranger of another species, our planet would be seen to dominated by a single, highly aggressive, prolific species whose favorite pastime seems to be killing each other in highly imaginitive ways. Any attempt at communication with these creatures would very probably be fruitless, and quite possibly result in the deaths of those visitors. I rather think that they would say, "Holy shit!" or the equivelent, and drag-ass out of the system with all haste.
I give a bit better probability to weird aircraft, but again, no empirical evidence beyond ancedote. So that one will have to be shelved as well.
I do not entirely discount the possibility of angels, either. But I will bet that I will never see one, not even a fallen one. Still, people all over the world declare their existance for no better reason than they were told by someone else that they are real.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 03:40:49 [Permalink]
|
sigh...
"Accepting the inherent perceptive and judgmental fallibilities of humans- including themselves- scientists base their beliefs on evidence and demanding criteria which satisfy the scientific method..."
correction: scientists base their beliefs on their experience of the evidence.
experience is the only means by which anyone knows anything.
if the subject you are attempting to study is smarter than you by thousands/millions of years...what does this say about the results you'll recieve?
"that means evidence that's acceptable to others. Individual testimonial won't cut it. Had a military prototype picked-you-up and dropped-you-off in Peking 5 minutes after you left a restaurant... now THAT would be interesting!"
no it wouldnt. the simpler explanation is that i have a doppleganger who i secretly told to blab in peking. even so, it would be a silly story in your ear by the time the media spun the hell out of the report i generate. do you really think that extrordinary experiences could possibly occur without being destroyed by spin and degraded by rumors?
the simple explanation is not necessarily the best. what is simpler? continents stay where they are, and rest atop a bed of lava OR deep massive currents in the athenosphere move the continents over millions of years to different locations, pushing the crust underneath itself?
occams razor is not always scientific. in quantum physics, the weirdest answer is usually the one they find to support the math. and remember: quantum physics is trying to figure out what drives reality itself, down to the core--and we're not getting straight forward answers.
"UFO enthusiasts."
this is an unfair presentation. it lowers the phenomenon to a level of sideways interest, never to be taken seriously. this is a field of serious study. laugh all you want.
"Consider: these visitors could not have come from our solar system, thus they would have to have be from somewhere very far away -- traveling rather in defiance of the known laws of physics. Further, why bother? Why bother to visit our little mudball, here in the unfashionable end of the galazy? What is so interesting about us?"
you nor i know how far ET might have traveled. the idea that they "could not" have come from our solar system is imposible to speculate. if we knew we were something special, who would have told us? how do we know how unique we are? weve never left the front steps. your house is no big deal to you. it might be a bigger deal than you know.
but that is all speculation. i would encorage you to consider the reasons "they" would want to visit. isnt that the neighborly thing to do? to encourage a new civilization into the rest of the universe by coaxing them out? this would be an intelligent thing to do, if you ask me. but then, i dont know whats really going on. i just saw some lights.
"'Alien visitors' is far too complicated in the face of natural phenomena."
what is complicated about it?
"Looked at through the eyes (or whatever) of a stranger of another species, our planet would be seen to dominated by a single, highly aggressive, prolific species whose favorite pastime seems to be killing each other in highly imaginitive ways. Any attempt at communication with these creatures would very probably be fruitless, and quite possibly result in the deaths of those visitors. I rather think that they would say, "Holy shit!" or the equivelent, and drag-ass out of the system with all haste. "
that is a sad view of our predicament. in spite of this, the kind of people who claim to have contact are not so dangerous.
aside from these people, i would not be so quick to discount the fact that most people are good. thats worth something, right?
you can stop hounding me =)
i am used to dealing with raging morons with not a shred of competence try to badger me with their misguided logic, all under the guise of a "skeptic". this group is far nobler. you guys dont always have an answer, but you dont stop short of every explanation, and every angle. this is respectable. i would only ask that you take my story and add it to whatever pile of "evidence" you've made for, or against, the posibility of extraterrestrial presence, and maybe, just maybe, look up every once in a while. seeing sometimes is believing. will you see the same things that i did? not likely. will you draw the same conclusions? doubtful. but at least you'll try...so i assume, anyway.
i really am pooped. its time for bed. now that ive established myself as a target of scrutiny, i think ill dissapear for a while, and try on some other topics later (religion looks fun, maybe ill rile up that forum).
-p |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 03:43:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Call us when you actually get some solid evidence.
[Simpsons]
"Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are *kinds* of evidence."
[/Simpsons] |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 05:18:30 [Permalink]
|
Sleep well, friend Patrick....
But I repeat: Occham's Razor: given the available evidence, the simplest solution is usually the most likely.
Unfortunatly, all we have here is ancedote, and that's really no evidence at all. Recall, back in the beginnings of this thread, when I briefly described a UFO experience of my own? How do you know that I wasn't lying through my teeth? In an effort to join in and call attention to myself, I might well have been. Folks do, you know. They also drink and otherwise alter their perceptions, and that is why ancedote is unacceptable as support for an hypothesis.
This is not to say that ancedote is a bad thing, no. A sailor's yarn, so to speak, has been the genesis of many an important discovery. However, it remained just another sea-story until an investigation turned up evidence supporting it.
Occham's Razor is not the end-all-be-all of scientific inquiry, but it is a good place to start.
I enjoy a little science fiction just as much as the next Star Trek nerd, but, like anyone with coherent thought processes, I must suspend my disbelief before indulging in it. And I have done the same with Harry Potter. But as soon as the show's over, I again disbelieve in that which has no empirical support.
So, as we can all agree upon the fact that any alien visitor had to have a home port somewhere other than our solar system, and the nearest possible (maybe) place is, what, some 4 light years or so away, by what means would a ship(s) travel those distances without taking many lifetimes to accomplish it? Bearing in mind, of course, the known laws of physics.
Heh, speaking of religion, and bearing in mind the known laws of physics, how does Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind speak publicly some 700 times a year? 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 07:52:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"With solar storms of the magnature we have seen in the recent past, it could have been auroral in nature as I have seen some aurorals as far south as Chicago."
Auras are not solid moving points of light.
Very small blobs near the perhiphery of auroral phenomenon can be points of light. Thus the question concerning proximity of auroral phenomenon. Your responses tend to indicate that there was no auroral activity in the area, so we'll discount that.
quote:
"Science will change without notice but not without empirical evidence. You have provided none which suggest that the lights you saw were anything but natural. I'll go so far as to call it a UFO for the time being, but stipulate that it is most likely natural or terrestrial."
Then offer me one plausible natural explanation.
You've left out crucial bits of information which with we could formulate a natural or terrestrial explaination. Dates, proximity to airports both military and civilian, etc.
quote:
"You really didn't give us much to go on and completely left out color changes. That's not very nice."
Hopefully you will think better of me. It was white.
But you said in another post that it changed color from white to red. Was this a different object that you were talking about or the same one?
quote:
"Also, as this is a skeptics board, you will need proof for your assertations."
Then this entire UFO debate tank is pointless and I am wasting my time. You are shooting believing fish in a skeptic barrel to excercise your intellect. No one with a story of a sighting has any proof but unto themselves.
Only because you say you have no proof and expect us to put faith in anectdotal evidence. And other folks who have sightings sometimes have video of it.
quote:
I have no proof, anymore than I can prove what I ate for breakfast last week. but i am a human, just like you, who uses his eyes, ears, and brain to figure out whats going on. that, on some level, is science. excercising faith in believing the honesty and sincerety of others does not make you cease to be a skeptic. it makes you human.
And those senses can percieve things that aren't there or prove assertations. We don't doubt your honesty or sincerity, we doubt that your perception of the object was accurate and we wonder if you looked really hard for natural or terrestrial causes for the phenomenon. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 07:58:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey...
there are more than enough resources, conferences, associations, books, videos, websites, photographs and documents for you to pore over. stick your neck out a bit and seek out an answer contrary to your opinion. i have been on several "skeptic" sites, read hundreds (can you believe it?) of ariticles against the case for ET visitation. they all have one thing in common: they dont directly address the available evidence.
How would you suggest one "directly address the available evidence?"quote:
on some rare occasion, an actual study is done on the cases of reported sightings. in these scenerios, the results are usually the same: most sightings are explainable by some conventional method, but about 10% remain unexplained. this isnt always the case, but 10% is the average.
So you're saying that roughly 90% of UFO sightings are explained by known phenomena, and 10% are unexplained. The way I understand it, that leaves 0% being explained as alien visitors. That doesn't seem such a tough concept to grasp, and nearly everyone involved in this discussion appears to be in agreement with it.quote:
but that is all speculation. i would encorage you to consider the reasons "they" would want to visit. isnt that the neighborly thing to do? to encourage a new civilization into the rest of the universe by coaxing them out? this would be an intelligent thing to do, if you ask me.
Patrick, your presumption as to the motives of a hitherto undiscovered alien species borders on abject arrogance. What could you possibly know, or claim to know, about an intelligent alien civilization and their purported interest in us and our planet? (Hmmm. Now, where have I heard that before?)quote:
the simpler explanation is that i have a doppleganger who i secretly told to blab in peking. even so, it would be a silly story in your ear by the time the media spun the hell out of the report i generate. do you really think that extrordinary experiences could possibly occur without being destroyed by spin and degraded by rumors?
It's usually the religious zealots who play the persecution card, but it's not unheard of from the alien believers' camp. Yes, Patrick, the whole world is against you. We're all part of a huge government plot to keep the alien visitors a secret from the masses. Persecution is just one of our many tactics. If that doesn't work we'll send out the men in black. Jeeeez.quote:
my be all end all statement on the matter is this: it remains largely unexplained, and skeptics owe it to themselves and others to dig for clues, and find out for themselves, rather than deciding outright that it is not worth serious investigation. the implications are too severe to overlook. i am not a lunatic for making up my mind about it. it is a reasoned reaction to my experiences, which are all i or anyone else has.
No, the skeptics don't owe it to themselves, you, or anyone else, to dig for clues. In fact I'd go so far as to ask: How dare you try to place the burden of responsibility on me to come up with evidence to prove something you believe but can't prove yourself? You've got a lot of gall, Patrick.
Those who believe that space aliens are visiting Earth have a responsibility to bring the evidence before those they are trying to convince. You've said it yourself, only 90% of the sightings have been explained. That seems to be a pretty clear statement that we don't know what those other 10% are. That is not evidence that those 10% are any one thing in particular, space aliens or otherwise. You've made the claim, therefore the burden of proof rests with you. It looks like you've got a lot of work to do.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 08:13:25 [Permalink]
|
Id like to point out that you dismissed the "thai wedding lamps" as a joke, yet that was the answer to the last unexplained ET sighting that we had around here and was reported by many witnesses as UFOs.
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ufo02ukc.htm ..the believers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/4369232.stm ..reality
Kicked in the head by a horse was a joke however.
I am at fault really as I am writing some fiction on the subject and I feel I have been manifesting new stars with the power of my mind. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 11:04:11 [Permalink]
|
Here I go again...
What this all boils down to is what we are willing to regard as a reasonable standard of evidence. It is the usual critical thinking vs. a more relaxed standard argument. As I have mentioned, oh, maybe a thousand times on this forum, I do not see critical thinking as a way to confirm any bias I may have. I see it as a way to cut through any bias on both sides of an argument. There just must be a method for evaluating evidence or any investigation will almost invariably confirm the bias of the investigator. While anecdotal evidence may be interesting, and often leads to further investigation, to a critical thinker it cannot by itself be regarded as strong evidence because of the many problems that we have come to recognize as being associated with eye witness accounts. On the other side, eyewitness accounts are sometimes regarded as a gold standard almost by necessity. It's not that those who make allowances for anecdotal evidence do not want stronger evidence. Evidence that would convince even the most hardened skeptic for example. It's that it simply doesn't exist for the existence of, for example, visiting ETs, fuzzy pictures not withstanding.
Belief may lead to an investigation and verification by acceptable standards in a scientific context if the evidence that supports that belief exists and can be presented and is in the realm of what can be falsified.
And while it is common for believers of this or that anomaly to rely on standards of evidence that do not rise to a level that most skeptics and scientists would be comfortable with for drawing a conclusion, that does not mean that the conclusion of the believer is necessarily wrong. But again, without a method to go by, how can we tell? So, often in those cases we look for the most likely answer, since we are forced to speculate and wait for better evidence to come along one way or the other.
If we were to drop this standard we would be forced to accept the existence of ghosts, Bigfoot, the Lock Ness Monster, OBE's and NDE's as spiritual and not naturally caused occurrences, not to mention the word of all of those who say they have been healed by psychics or homeopathics. The list of what we would have to accept as proof of a claim is almost endless if we allow anecdotal evidence to rise to the level verification.
Patrick, I am really hoping you get the point I am trying to make. We are bound to a method not because we are closed- minded, but because without it we are left with a free for all where every claim has equal validity. There has to be a method for evaluating evidence that is minimally affected by whatever bias we may bring to it with regard to any conclusion we may want to draw from the evidence. We must be able to change our minds. But we also must be willing to sometimes admit that the evidence does not warrant a conclusion at this time…
Right now, the idea that aliens are visiting us is a null hypothesis. We are in no position to simply dismiss the idea. Nor are we in the position to accept it as a fact. If you are a skeptic, there is reason to doubt it based on how long the claim has been made when weighed against the actual evidence for it, among other reasons. If you believe the claim, well, then you believe it…
edited. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 14:12:51 [Permalink]
|
"If we were to drop this standard we would be forced to accept the existence of ghosts, Bigfoot, the Lock Ness Monster, OBE's and NDE's as spiritual and not naturally caused occurrences, not to mention the word of all of those who say they have been healed by psychics or homeopathics. The list of what we would have to accept as proof of a claim is almost endless if we allow anecdotal evidence to rise to the level verification."
a spiritual person accepts his/her spirituality to be a naturally occurring REality, thus it would cease to be separate from the normal and would in fact be a perfectly normal phenomenon. that science has been unable to prove/disprove it is not at all bothersome to the "spiritual". the word is a misnomer. obe's and nde's, along with a little something called human experience are not "spiritual", just unproven concepts that need more work. the reason i added experience to the group is that this is just as unprovable as an obe, or a ghost.
my point is that it is a little unfair to regard these things as spiritual when the fact of the matter is that there must be some underlying truth to everything, and that anything that happens on the surface is a result of underlying, scientifically understandable process.
metaphysics, though off topic here, is important to regard as not being entirely separate from physics. eventually, the thought is that what we deem metaphyiscal may one day be proven to be a reality. would issac newton have believed the possibility of radio waves, invisible, undetectable (at that time) radiation that could be used to transmit information? not likely.
how much do we really know? conjecture would lead me to believe we know close to nothing about how the universe works, which leaves plenty of room to accomodate the "metaphysical", inasmuch as we just haven't gotten there yet. i would leave room for the loch ness and bigfoot, but evidence has been extremely thin in this area. who knows? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 14:21:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
how much do we really know? conjecture would lead me to believe we know close to nothing about how the universe works, which leaves plenty of room to accomodate the "metaphysical", inasmuch as we just haven't gotten there yet.
So for you ignorance isn't something to overcome, but to be celebrated, since the greater our ignorance the more room there is to "accomodate" your unsupported beliefs. The fact that "we don't know" doesn't prevent you from assuming you do know. Gee, where have I heard stuff like this before?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 15:01:56 [Permalink]
|
| I seem to have dedicated my life to spitting into the wind... Skepticism is a dirty job I guess. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 15:41:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
they are, by definition, knowing, thinking, discerning indivduals who will react to us in a manner that is not predictible, not measureable, not classifiable.
You said on page 2 that you are a skeptic. This is just one quote from you that clearly shows that you must have a totally different definition of this word than most others do around here. (By the way, your description sounds a lot like the way christians describe god. Mysterious are the ways... Can break the laws of physics... And as for aliens, the "evidence" for he/she/it's existence is "overwhelming". Lots of sightings, and he/she/it often leaves images of him or his saints on windows, roads and potatoes. Interesting parallells.)
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Heh, speaking of religion, and bearing in mind the known laws of physics, how does Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind speak publicly some 700 times a year?
Maybe he considers everything he says outside the shower as speaking publicly? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 15:55:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
sigh...
"Accepting the inherent perceptive and judgmental fallibilities of humans- including themselves- scientists base their beliefs on evidence and demanding criteria which satisfy the scientific method..."
correction: scientists base their beliefs on their experience of the evidence.
experience is the only means by which anyone knows anything.
if the subject you are attempting to study is smarter than you by thousands/millions of years...what does this say about the results you'll recieve?
So to continue in this train of thought, if aliens are visiting the earth, and they don't want to be detected we couldn't detect them, right? Since you, and thousands of others, have seen the lights of alien spacecraft in the sky they must not care if we detect them. Given this, it seems strange that we do not yet have any "good" evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial craft.quote:
"that means evidence that's acceptable to others. Individual testimonial won't cut it. Had a military prototype picked-you-up and dropped-you-off in Peking 5 minutes after you left a restaurant... now THAT would be interesting!"
no it wouldnt. the simpler explanation is that i have a doppleganger who i secretly told to blab in peking.
It's true that it wouldn't be bulletproof evidence but it would be much stronger evidence than "lights in the sky".quote:
even so, it would be a silly story in your ear by the time the media spun the hell out of the report i generate. do you really think that extrordinary experiences could possibly occur without being destroyed by spin and degraded by rumors?
Of course any one incident can be spun, sensationalized or dismissed but if it were to happen to thousands of people it would become very strong evidence that something weird was going on. Much stronger than hundreds of thousands of people seeing unexplained lights in the sky.quote:
the simple explanation is not necessarily the best. what is simpler? continents stay where they are, and rest atop a bed of lava OR deep massive currents in the athenosphere move the continents over millions of years to different locations, pushing the crust underneath itself?
Given the available evidence! The movement of the continents has been measured!
Ockham's Razor does not simply say that the simplest explanation is usually right. It says that the simplest explanation that can explain the evidence is the best we can do. When more evidence becomes available it often means we have to revise our current theories.quote:
occams razor is not always scientific. in quantum physics, the weirdest answer is usually the one they find to support the math. and remember: quantum physics is trying to figure out what drives reality itself, down to the core--and we're not getting straight forward answers.
Ockham's Razor still applies, many quantum concepts certainly do seem weird to us, but they are still the simplest set of rules (that scientists could come up with) that explain the available evidence.quote:
"UFO enthusiasts."
this is an unfair presentation. it lowers the phenomenon to a level of sideways interest, never to be taken seriously. this is a field of serious study. laugh all you want.
It may be a "serious" study but untill there is more than anecdotal evidence and blurry photographs, it is not science.quote:
"Consider: these visitors could not have come from our solar system, thus they would have to have be from somewhere very far away -- traveling rather in defiance of the known laws of physics. Further, why bother? Why bother to visit our little mudball, here in the unfashionable end of the galazy? What is so interesting about us?"
you nor i know how far ET might have traveled. the idea that they "could not" have come from our solar system is imposible to speculate. if we knew we were something special, who would have told us? how do we know how unique we are? weve never left the front steps. your house is no big deal to you. it might be a bigger deal than you know.
but that is all speculation. i would encorage you to consider the reasons "they" would want to visit. isnt that the neighborly thing to do? to encourage a new civilization into the rest of the universe by coaxing them out? this would be an intelligent thing to do, if you ask me. but then, i dont know whats really going on. i just saw some lights.
Exactly, why they would or would not want to visit earth is all speculation. How and why they would cross interstellar space (if they are from outside the solar system) just to buzz earth with stange lights and whatever else it is speculated that they are up to. All of this is speculation, and it will continue to be speculation, until there is evidence that can pass scientific scrutiny. Until then, as you've said, the answer to what caused the lights you saw is "I don't know."quote:
"'Alien visitors' is far too complicated in the face of natural phenomena."
what is complicated about it?
It requires more unevidenced assumptions that alternative speculations. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
