|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 00:40:41 [Permalink]
|
Kil's point is a good one. It's important to stress not only about skepticism, but about science as well. Neither rules anything out a priori. They aren't clubs where membership hinges on whether you pledge to uphold certain assertions or creeds like "UFOs can never be aliens" or "the supernatural absolutely does not exist and no evidence can ever be good enough that it does." That's the portrait of skeptics our opposition likes to encourage. That we are dogmatic. That we are just blinded by a different set of prejudices. That we have made up our minds before ever giving things a fair hearing, proof that "for a believer, no evidence is needed; but that for a doubter, no evidence is sufficient."
So we need to point out as often as we can what nonsense that is. Good evidence is sufficient. All we ask is that it's actually provided. Provide the evidence and our promise to every wooster, faith healer, miracle worker, psychic, cryptozoologist, 9-11 truther, ufologist, spoon bender, and theologian is that we will seriously and fairly consider it.
But barring evidence, don't expect us to be dazzled by bullshit. And very much expect to be called out on a lack of 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 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2009 : 00:46:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
| The point is, we have no reason to believe that they have occurred. |
What could give one reason to believe that alien visitations have occured? |
That would be the problem of those who think it's occurred, wouldn't it?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 01:44:41 [Permalink]
|
jakesteele.....
| I think a big majority of the sightings are mundanes. There is a small group that are unexplained. Of that group, I think there are a number of plausible explainations that we just can't figure out due to lack of data. However, there are some sightings I can't casually write off. I fing the reports of skilled, experienced pilots and radar people, etc., particularily compelling. Sorry, but I don't buy the Venus thing over and over again. |
Jake, we very largely agree on what you have written here. Skilled, experienced Air Force pilots, radar, astronauts, even possibly some of the photography, many law enforcement personnel, incidents involving hundreds and then thousands of witnesses; no rational person could deny that there are a small percentage of the "sightings" that much effort has gone into investigating and for which no satisfactory explanation has been found.
To me, this in no way even suggests that the explanations for these unsolved puzzles must involve extraterrestrial visitation or activity of any kind! Only that the examples have happened, they have been somewhat investigated, and no explanation has been found!
The reflexive, instantaneous response from many "skeptics" is to immediately assume that if you even mention an UAP event, you in fact believe that the explanation is UFO's or (more recently UAP) of extraterrestrial origin!! Even if you have never even suggested alien visitation. They KNOW that is what you believe. I have never KNOWN what someone else believes unless they have told me. But some of these folks seem to feel that they absolutely know what you believe no matter how much you disclaim it!
Sometime last year on this forum we all discussed these UAP events for many, many pages! I was a newcomer and was astounded by the collective response from this relatively small (60-70 active) group to a thread that I introduced. The assumption was that I was a strong believer in ET visitation and even was proselyting that belief. As I learned more about "critical thinking", I found merit in their arguments that evidence is mandatory for declarative statements to be credible.
I didn't think I was making any declarative statements, but I discovered that I had stated something similar to what you have posted above -- that it appeared that there were a relatively few examples of UAP that remained unexplained after considerable detailed examination.
I was pressed, hard, for specific examples as though this highly intelligent, well-educated, widely read, internet savvy group had never heard of UAP that was closely examined and for which no explanation had been found. Finally I gave some examples, they were duly rejected as highly probable this or that, but not non-explained, and eventually the thread wound down after about thirty pages.
What I learned was, that for the "critical thinker", if there is no irrefutable evidence (such as alien corpse(s), a landed or crashed "saucer", photographic or video evidence that is unassailable-- like all TV networks with extensive coverage coupled with lots of newspaper photographa and stories, etc., etc.,-- then "alien" i.e. extraterrestrial explanations for UAP must not even be considered,, much less presented with [i]any[/] degree of probability. I didn't think I had made any such probability presentation but I have been very careful ever since to not take an advocate's position as to "aliens are involved in this UAP mystery". That's fair enough. Declarative statements like that certainly open one up to skeptical appraisal!
Your position is clear, I believe. Even the "unexplained" UAP is very unlikely to be a result of alien visitation, but it is a possibility. For the present, all we can do is consider it unexplained!
Meanwhile, events like the Phoenix Lights should be investigated and acceptance of unlikely explanations like the various "flares" scenarios should be questioned, not swallowed whole.
There is no reason to consider positing an "alien" explanation unless someone drags a high-tech saucer or little dead bug-eyed corpses down off Camelback Mountain and presents them to the world to examine. And even then, you have to think about the "Alien Dissection" video, although the major media didn't make a major fuss over it, to their credit.
Like Dude, who occasionally earns the sobriquet "Crude" before his name, I would like to better understand your use of the word "quantum" ("quantum envelope") in one of your posts. I didn't get the full meaning of that sentence.
I hope you stay around for a while, Jake! To me, you represent a little breeze in some pretty still air. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 06:55:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
What I learned was, that for the "critical thinker", if there is no irrefutable evidence (such as alien corpse(s), a landed or crashed "saucer", photographic or video evidence that is unassailable-- like all TV networks with extensive coverage coupled with lots of newspaper photographa and stories, etc., etc.,-- then "alien" i.e. extraterrestrial explanations for UAP must not even be considered,, much less presented with any degree of probability. |
Seems to me that you should have learned that any proposed ET explanation has to compete with the physics that we do know. We have reasons to believe that the sightings aren't aliens, so any hypothesis which includes aliens has to be more compelling than those reasons. "We don't have any good mundane explanation" is an appeal to ignorance, and so can't compete. Jakesteele's plea for unknown advanced technologies is, in effect, an appeal to magic, and so also can't compete. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 08:14:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
As I stated earlier, if you open the door to the possibility of live elsewhere and haven't the vaguest idea of what kind, then bacteria is just as feasible as sentience until we find out differently.
|
I disagree. Life on earth has evolved for 3.8 Billion years, and only had space flight for about 50 years. It took 2.5-3 billion years to move from bacteria to multicellular organisms. Not all stars capable of supporting life have that life span to begin with. In another billion years, Earth will be uninhabitable due to solar radiation.
Pick a random date in the history of life, and you're by far most likely to end up on a day when there were only bacteria on earth. Pick a thousand stars in various stages of its development, and they too are most likely to have bacteria. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 11:36:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jakesteele
Just to clarify, the point I was making with the links is that if you went back 50,100 yrs. or more, this kind of stuff would blow people's minds. They would probably roll their eyes in their head and tell you to keep writing those crazy, wacky sci-fi stories, you might get one published. |
Unfortunately, the past performance of such things isn't a reliable predictor of any particular future technologies. In other words, the fact that top scientists 100 years ago would have been dumbstruck by today's incredibly easy access to online hardcore porn doesn't mean that 100 years from now, we will be similarly dumbstruck by overnight travel to Sirius.| Whenever I've seen a debunker, Phil Plait, for instance, asked the question if they think there is life elsewhere, they will inevitably respond with some take off on the Drake equation. As I stated earlier, if you open the door to the possibility of live elsewhere and haven't the vaguest idea of what kind, then bacteria is just as feasible as sentience until we find out differently. |
Of course, the plausibility of life on other planets has very little to do with the plausibility of travel between the stars, and especially not travel between the stars which ends in a few hours of hovering near a random city.
|
Could you please answer or opine on my simple questions?
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
p.s. the LUU-2 information was from the blog of Skeptoid who reasearched this part of the story...5 minute burn time.
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 11:41:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jakesteele
You tell me my statement about the boundaries and limitations is ignorant, yet we don't know exactly what happened at the instant of the big bang. We haven't reconciled quantum mechanics with relativity to come up with TOE. We're still working on string theoy, dark matter/energy, etc. Are those not limitations and boundaries or do you think the S.M. is omniscient? If so, please tell me about the big bang, TOE, etc... |
The difference is that your speculation - that because we might be dumbfounded by what science tells us 100 years from now, we should keep the "alien visitation" option open now - depends upon our ignorance, whereas almost all the researchers in cosmology and quantum physics seek to end our ignorance.
In other words, yes, ignorance abounds, but scientists don't wallow in it.
|
Could you please tell answer or opine on a couple of simple questions?
I would still like an answer to:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
p.s. the LUU-2 information was from the blog of Skeptoid who researched this part of the story...5 minute burn time. Did the lights last longer than 5 minutes? I don't know, please educate me?
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 11:43:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
jake said:
| You tell me my statement about the boundaries and limitations is ignorant, |
The fact that you fail to comprehend my criticism is simply more evidence of your ignorance. I don't say this to be insulting (it is though, I know), but there is no kind way to point out willful ignorance in a person.
|
Nice ad hominem, Dude.
Could you please tell answer or opine on a couple of simple questions?
I would still like an answer to:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
p.s. the LUU-2 information was from the blog of Skeptoid who researched this part of the story...5 minute burn time. Did the lights last longer than 5 minutes? I don't know, please educate me? |
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 11:59:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
Originally posted by Dude
jake said:
| You tell me my statement about the boundaries and limitations is ignorant, |
The fact that you fail to comprehend my criticism is simply more evidence of your ignorance. I don't say this to be insulting (it is though, I know), but there is no kind way to point out willful ignorance in a person.
|
Nice ad hominem, Dude.
Could you please tell answer or opine on a couple of simple questions?
I would still like an answer to:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
p.s. the LUU-2 information was from the blog of Skeptoid who researched this part of the story...5 minute burn time. Did the lights last longer than 5 minutes? I don't know, please educate me?
|
You also, apparently, don't know what an ad hominem argument is. I'm not saying you are wrong about anything because you are an idiot. I'm merely pointing out that you have a knowledge deficit. One so large that you don't seem to even comprehend my criticism of one of your statements. I'm not sure how we can even have a conversation until you correct that deficit, because you will continue to not understand what I'm saying and I will continue to think you are just typing random noise and pithy phrases you have heard other people improperly use as well.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 15:11:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
jakesteele.....
[quote]
[
The reflexive, instantaneous response from many "skeptics" is to immediately assume that if you even mention an UAP event, you in fact believe that the explanation is UFO's or (more recently UAP) of extraterrestrial origin!! Even if you have never even suggested alien visitation. They KNOW that is what you believe. I have never KNOWN what someone else believes unless they have told me. But some of these folks seem to feel that they absolutely know what you believe no matter how much you disclaim it!
*****You can shout out to the heavens that you aren’t saying you believe in UFOs but it’s like farting into a hurricane. This trait seems to be indicative of pretty much all skeptic/debunker sites I’ve gone to. It gets frustrating because they try to derail the thread and turn it into something they are familiar and comfortable with. You notice how my question hasn’t been answered yet? At this point I usually start cutting and pasting the same questions over and over again to get the thread back on track.
I have not said that I believe in ET type UFOs, I am simply asking a few simple questions that can be addressed with a few simple answers, opinions, theories, etc.
1. What is the Official Story behind the Henderson, Nevada sighting that traveled approx. 200 plus mph?
2. How long did the military flares burn?
3. If they burned too much more than 5 minutes then the Official Story has to be revised.
Could someone please answer the questions?
Your position is clear, I believe. Even the "unexplained" UAP is very unlikely to be a result of alien visitation, but it is a possibility. For the present, all we can do is consider it unexplained!
Meanwhile, events like the Phoenix Lights should be investigated and acceptance of unlikely explanations like the various "flares" scenarios should be questioned, not swallowed whole.
****That’s pretty much exactly what I’m saying.
Like Dude, who occasionally earns the sobriquet "Crude" before his name, I would like to better understand your use of the word "quantum" ("quantum envelope") in one of your posts. I didn't get the full meaning of that sentence.
*****My use of the word “Quantum” in the phrase, “Pushing the edge of the Quantum-Cosmological envelope is simply a way do describe how man explores the biggest know and the smallest know aspects of the universe. It’s like being in a storm shelter Kansas. You are inside and you are pushing the two doors outward. The left door is cosmology and the right door is quantum. Now imagine the hinges are rusty and give slowly and difficultly. That’s all I meant.
I hope you stay around for a while, Jake! To me, you represent a little breeze in some pretty still air.
|
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 15:15:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by jakesteele
Originally posted by Dude
jake said:
| You tell me my statement about the boundaries and limitations is ignorant, |
The fact that you fail to comprehend my criticism is simply more evidence of your ignorance. I don't say this to be insulting (it is though, I know), but there is no kind way to point out willful ignorance in a person.
|
Nice ad hominem, Dude.
Could you please tell answer or opine on a couple of simple questions?
I would still like an answer to:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
p.s. the LUU-2 information was from the blog of Skeptoid who researched this part of the story...5 minute burn time. Did the lights last longer than 5 minutes? I don't know, please educate me?
|
You also, apparently, don't know what an ad hominem argument is. I'm not saying you are wrong about anything because you are an idiot. I'm merely pointing out that you have a knowledge deficit. One so large that you don't seem to even comprehend my criticism of one of your statements. I'm not sure how we can even have a conversation until you correct that deficit, because you will continue to not understand what I'm saying and I will continue to think you are just typing random noise and pithy phrases you have heard other people improperly use as well.
|
All right, let's do it this way: instead of ad hominem we'll replace that with insult.
If you think I am that wacked, then there's no reason to respond to my posts, is there?
p.s.
1. What is the Official Story for the Henderson sighting?
2. How long did the flares burn? |
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 15:28:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
Could you please answer or opine on my simple questions? |
I already asked you some reasonable and simple questions that would need to be answered before your questions can be.Originally posted by jakesteele
Could you please answer or opine on my simple questions? |
Ah, the old "go mute and just repeat some questions" method of dodging discussion of uncomfortable issues.
The problem for you, Jakesteele, is that I'm perfectly happy with a "we don't know" answer to the questions you pose (and that's the only answer you'll get from me if you can't or won't answer my questions). You, quite obviously, have trouble tolerating unknowns like that. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 15:58:07 [Permalink]
|
jake said:
All right, let's do it this way: instead of ad hominem we'll replace that with insult.
If you think I am that wacked, then there's no reason to respond to my posts, is there? |
I did say that there is no nice way to tell a person they are wrong, didn't I? You appear to have no understanding of the scientific method. If I grant you the use of "quantum envelope" to mean the borders of our knowledge, it still won't help because you don't appear to understand what those borders actually are.
You should really set down your "investigation" of these "events" and try to fix the problems that are allowing you to fail to comprehend what science is, what it does, and how it works.
After that there might be some chance of having a conversation about these alleged "events" that is something other than you pointing at a bright light and going "ohh lookie! bright lights! I don't know what they are, but I'm going to reject the 1000 things I know they could be and insist on some one finding out exactly what they are, all the while I will ignore basic facts about reality and the scientific method, and I will act outraged when my ignorance is pointed out to me! BOOYA SKEPTICS! TAKE THAT!"
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 17:28:12 [Permalink]
|
Mabuse......
You said:
Originally posted by jakesteele
As I stated earlier, if you open the door to the possibility of live elsewhere and haven't the vaguest idea of what kind, then bacteria is just as feasible as sentience until we find out differently. |
I disagree. Life on earth has evolved for 3.8 Billion years, and only had space flight for about 50 years. It took 2.5-3 billion years to move from bacteria to multicellular organisms. Not all stars capable of supporting life have that life span to begin with. In another billion years, Earth will be uninhabitable due to solar radiation.
Pick a random date in the history of life, and you're by far most likely to end up on a day when there were only bacteria on earth. Pick a thousand stars in various stages of its development, and they too are most likely to have bacteria. |
I wouldn't know, but it sure sounds like a pretty durable life form to exist in the sturm und drang and temperature of a developed star!
In any event you are disagreeing with Dude, more than jakesteele, so be careful. Dude is liable to erupt into one of his patented fits and lose control of the oral end of his colon! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 18:20:12 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
| I leave the door open this far. If evidence is ever produced (and I don’t mean mysterious lights in the sky) that aliens are visiting us, I would be willing to consider it if enough reputable scientists thought it was worth investigating. And that goes for all claims that we generally regard as almost assuredly false. We must be at least that open, which isn’t very, or we truly do become nothing more than debunkers. |
Thank you, Kil! A calm and measured statement of reasoned skepticism, allowing for at least a modicum of imagination and sensible speculation in the pursuit of scientific truth. A relief from the near fanaticism of some apologists for "critical thinking". |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Phoenix Lights flare debris
