|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2007 : 18:48:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Our concepts of pragmatism, safety, rationality and sanity are based on our knowledge. To discount the likelihood of aliens based on these concepts is to ignore the fact that our knowledge base is minuscule in comparison to the knowledge that we do not possess. |
I challenge you, Jerome, to estimate the likelihood of alien visitations of Earth based upon knowledge that you do not possess. Please note that the "mathematical probabilities" you cited earlier are necessarily based upon nothing more than human knowledge, so it is absolutely clear that you'll accept the premise "human knowledge is useful when considering the possible actions of aliens" when you agree with the conclusions, and you reject the premise when the conclusions do not. Just like you're quick to point out statistical windowing fallacies in arguments which support man-made global climate change, but completely ignore the same fallacy in an argument which purports to "debunk" the same hypothesis. In fact, it appears that your "skepticism" is so massively selective that you are best termed a "contrarian."
And what does it lead to? Arguments which go nowhere. Your post here has demolished what you presented earlier in this thread. You know, after shooting oneself in the foot, one can often get up and limp away from it. Here, Jerome, your argument has shot itself in the head.
|
Apples and oranges does not an argument make. Besides, I am not making an argument. I am engaging in speculation based on the knowledge that we do have. You are correct that speculation does not directly lead to a answer. Speculation is the foundation of science. Have you forgotten?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2007 : 18:51:29 [Permalink]
|
Bngbuck, ask another question. I do so enjoy the responses and my personal contemplation of your questions.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 20:50:35 [Permalink]
|
Jerome blathered:
Does this mean that you are guessing that "we" hold the correct and complete knowledge that precludes extraterrestrial life that possesses technology which we do not that can preform this feat?
|
Weren't you banned for this recently?
If you are intelligent enough to type then you are intelligent enough to comprehend what I said. Its all about the evidence dickweed. Without evidence all you have is imbecilic handwaving, something you are obviously familiar and comfortable with.
Dude said:
| Most people here would tentatively agree that there is a good chance of life existing elswhere in the universe, based on our current observations. But we'll need some compelling evidence that any life not of terrestrial origin has come to visit. |
You are deliberately altering what I said Jerome.
So stop trolling.
Jerome said:
| Speculation is the foundation of science. |
No, it isn't. Not sure where you got that idea, but you are entirely wrong. (not shocking)
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:04:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Besides, I am not making an argument. |
Absolutely you were, when you said,To discount the likelihood of aliens based on these concepts is to ignore the fact that our knowledge base is minuscule in comparison to the knowledge that we do not possess. It's an argument that my thinking processes are somehow deficient on the question of ET visitations. There's no speculation there. Furthermore, your statement about probabilities was also an argument, and one undermined by your attempt at undermining my counter-argument.| I am engaging in speculation based on the knowledge that we do have. |
You are engaged in a frantic backpedalling away from your earlier flawed arguments.| You are correct that speculation does not directly lead to a answer. Speculation is the foundation of science. Have you forgotten? |
It's only half the foundation, the other half being experimentation. Have any alien visitors for us to experiment upon? Didn't think so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:06:57 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I think you need to look up the scientific method. A speculation is the foundation (base, starting point) of the method.
Please explain your statement:| No, it isn't. Not sure where you got that idea, but you are entirely wrong. (not shocking) |
In response to my statement:
| Speculation is the foundation of science. |
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:18:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude, you cherry picked your own quote to misrepresent what I was responding too.
This is what I quoted that you said:
Dude said:
As has been said already... all those "probabilities" are based (currently) on guesses, and they say nothing about the ability to travel faster than light.
Most people here would tentatively agree that there is a good chance of life existing elswhere in the universe, based on our current observations. But we'll need some compelling evidence that any life not of terrestrial origin has come to visit. |
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 21:32:44 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME.....
Well, thank you for the implicit complement. I did appreciate your pickup on the Battle of Los Angeles. Personally, I would like to hear from others as to their views of this 1942 event. It is difficult to find single reports that embody all of the criteria that I have stipulated for "filtered" reports. BOLA lacks critical "investigation" because it predated mass awareness of UFO (or the politically correct term UAP). But that it occured certainly cannot be categorically denied because of the mass publicity it generated. What do the skeptics feel really happened that night?
If this (to me) rather provocative example of a mass sighting and massive reaction does not satisfy the earlier hue and cry for specifics; I can, of course, give many more. My original question was well answered in the first thread (Topic). I started this one (P.S.) as ancillary to the original question, and, having received an abundance of good source from the first try, I can certainly provide more of the requested "examples" at this point, if that is still what is needed.
However, I don't see that the Skeptics necessarily want more examples than those given by Dr. Haisch and my one suggestion of BOLA. There has been relatively little response to two or more "inexplicable" examples. If BOLA doesn't interest you, nothing will, and the default position of "a UFO is a UFO" defines, as has been written by greater minds than mine.
Now that the furor is largely over concerning proper Skeptical Protocol, I felt that the introduction of Dr. Haisch's website might elicit some interesting dialog. After all, his bona fides are well nigh impeccable, as Filthy pointed out. I think there has been good general response here and my data file is still filling, but unfortunately Dr. Haisch is too busy working in the real world to join us here on the other side of the Reverend Dodgson's Looking Glass.
So, I tried to cast out a line (Whoops!), regarding how, in your humble opinion, would you go about applying the scientific method rigorously to the evaluation of the UFO sighting phenomenon? We had a good start, but not anything massive like WHY DON'T YOU GIVE ME EXAMPLES, YOU SOB??? I would like to hear more ideas on how to gather evidence for a proper scientific examination of UAP.
I am just full of questions to ask you folks, but I sense that your interest in the UFO/UAP subject is waning. Jerome, let's see if the collective attention span here has legs or not.
Anyone want to ponti... er, toss out an opinion or two on the Battle of Los Angeles?
Anyone have any ideas on "How to investigate UFO sightings"?
(Topic shamelessly plagiarized from the collected writings of Dave W.) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 22:16:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
By the way, what is the bottom limit on that negative scale? |
Unfortunately for us all, there is no lower limit on how badly one can screw up.| I think I dislike you a little less after that very nice consideration. |
I'll let you in on a little secret: I don't know you well enough to dislike you, so I certainly can't say that the feeling is mutual.| Remember, I am only momentarily offended and and I am not resentful. No hubris here. |
And if I were to hold grudges, Jerome would still be banned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 22:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Anyone want to ponti... er, toss out an opinion or two on the Battle of Los Angeles? |
I bet the whole thing is an even better example of mass panic than The War of the Worlds ever was, since the BoLA dealt with a much more concrete enemy and specific tensions.| Anyone have any ideas on "How to investigate UFO sightings"? |
Probably like any other historical science.
By the way, I'd like to mention that I still find it fascinating how the main UFO group over in England closed up shop some ten or twelve years ago because, they said, the huge increase in portable video recorders had gone hand-in-hand with a massive decrease in UFO sightings. I don't think many on this side of the pond have noticed. Is there a cultural component, different between the U.S. and Europe, to how something becomes a "sighting" in the first place? |
- 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 - 09/07/2007 : 23:16:06 [Permalink]
|
Trollboy said:
Dude, I think you need to look up the scientific method. A speculation is the foundation (base, starting point) of the method.
|
Are you asking a question? Its hard to tell with you flapping your ignorance in the wind for all to see.
Because you are completely wrong that speculation is the starting point of scientific inquiry.
Again, from you, this isn't shocking or even remotely suprising.
Dude, you cherry picked your own quote to misrepresent what I was responding too.
|
No, I didn't. The entirety of my post is freely available, so how the fuck can I cherrypick my own posts? Stop eating the mushrooms with the purple ring Jerome.
I'm criticizing your retarded ass for taking something I said and completely mischaracterizing it in a blatantly hostile attempt to troll.
No person with two braincells to rub together could get this:
JDG said:
Does this mean that you are guessing that "we" hold the correct and complete knowledge that precludes extraterrestrial life that possesses technology which we do not that can preform this feat?
|
... out of what I said earlier:
Dude said:
As has been said already... all those "probabilities" are based (currently) on guesses, and they say nothing about the ability to travel faster than light.
Most people here would tentatively agree that there is a good chance of life existing elswhere in the universe, based on our current observations. But we'll need some compelling evidence that any life not of terrestrial origin has come to visit. |
So the conclusion is that you are just back your usual imbecilic self. i.e. Soon to be banned again.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 23:30:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Because you are completely wrong that speculation is the starting point of scientific inquiry.
|
What then is the beginning if not the pondering of a phenomenon?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 01:42:04 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.....
Let's share little secrets. I know much more about you than you do about me, because I have read extensively of your opinions and your exchanges with many others, whereas you have only had a sampling of my views. Therefore, your statement that you don't know me is fairly put, but you should recognize that I am unfairly positioned with respect to a mutual understanding of each other's abilities, strengths, weaknesses and likeability. My initial impression was one of considerable hubris - nothing however compared to Those-whose-names-must-not-be-spoken. That view has changed somewhat however, with additional exposure to your acerbic personality and Renaissance Man repository of arcane information.
Despite extensive research of your expression on these SFN forums (fora, if you like, halfmooner), I don't feel I have a thorough enough understanding of your person or persona to fairly criticize you, ad hominem (first definition in Merriam Webster online, italics yours). With your as yet limited understanding of me, I appreciate your refraining from such criticism directed toward me. I believe we do have a mutual understanding in this respect.
If you held grudges and Jerome was still banned, you would be abusing your position of responsibility and should be fired or impeached or whatever passes for removal from office in foraland. I do not see you committing these blunders of manageritus (neologism - take your pick of definitions 1 or 2 of neologism)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are correct in your comparison of WOTW and BOLA. But do you think this was a UFO/UAP situation , or a Japanese reconnaisance mission, or a faked attack, or what; in view of the enormous amount of ordnance involved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With repect to the UK/Europe vs. US treatment of UAP, my reading has strongly indicated that there is much less controversy regarding UAP in most other Western civilization countries than there is in the US. I have seen enough of these comments to merit some serious research as to how the U.S. may be unique in its reaction to reported UAP sightings, and to why this may be so. I shall consult the UFO Encyclopedia, for a start.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To what do you refer as a "historical science"? Is the scientific method employed in these sorts of investigations? I am truly drawing a blank here. Please elucidate.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 02:43:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Based on the Laws of Physics, they've never come here and never will. Too bad, really. I'd like to share some suds, smoke and scuttlebutt with one or a couple of them as well. Can you imagine the sea stories they'd have?
|
The Laws of Physics as we currently understand them constrain your thoughts. You know that man; within science, makes up solutions for unexplained phenomenon. This is the part of the scientific process referred to as hypothesis. Two current examples would be string theory, and dark matter.
|
Uh-huh. And how exactly might string theoy demonstrate that the speed of light be exceeded? String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects called strings, rather than the zero-dimensional point particles that form the basis for the standard model of particle physics. The phrase is often used as shorthand for Superstring theory, as well as related theories such as M-theory. By replacing the point-like particles with strings, an apparently consistent quantum theory of gravity emerges. Moreover, it may be possible to "unify" the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear) by describing them with the same set of equations. (See Theory of everything.)
For a scientific theory to be valid it must be verified experimentally. Few avenues for such contact with experiment have been claimed.[1] With the construction of the Large Hadron Collider in CERN some scientists hope to produce relevant data. It is generally expected though that any theory of quantum gravity would require much higher energies to probe. Moreover, string theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of possible solutions.[2] Thus it has been claimed by some scientists that string theory may not be falsifiable and may have no predictive power.[3][4][5][6].
|
I don't know a lot about this string theory stuff, but it seems to me that there are a few knots in it.
As for dark matter, we don't even know what the hell it is. In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxy-sized as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. Fritz Zwicky used it for the first time to declare the observed phenomena consistent with dark matter observations as the rotational speeds of galaxies and orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is called the "dark matter component".
The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include ordinary and heavy neutrinos, recently postulated elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, astronomical bodies such as dwarf stars and planets (collectively called MACHOs), and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called non-baryonic dark matter.
The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the "visible" component of the universe.[1] At present, the density of ordinary baryons and radiation in the universe is estimated to be equivalent to about one hydrogen atom per cubic metre of space. Only about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space.[2] Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter makes a contribution to dark matter, but constitutes only a small portion.[3][4] Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with "terra incognita".[2]
|
All of this is hypothetical anyway; the speed of light is not.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 07:28:41 [Permalink]
|
Maybe I should just adopt the tactics of these lackwits, create deliberate distortions of what people say. I bet I could do it better than they do, and apparently it is acceptable behavior around here these days.
SOmeone send me a fucking email when you decide its not ok to troll people here.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Brights' opinions of select UFO sightings P.S.
Official Warning