Sponsors: Expat Living Forum


View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Mobile Version          Join Mailing List


Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Discussion about UFO's, Aliens, ET's, Alien Abductions, Ancient Astronaut theories, etc.
Posts: 328
Joined: May 21st, 2009, 5:01 pm

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » May 21st, 2009, 5:46 pm

Share |


I had composed the following article for the Above Top Secret UFO forum. I am reposting it here because it is very relevant to this forum.

I think there is a very severe problem of pseudoskepticism in the UFO community that impairs progressive research. I think the UFO community can benefit from clear thinking, and thus I am writing this brief primer on logic focussed particularly on the subject matter of Aliens and UFO’s. I will discuss the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics and offer a rebuttal.

I first want to clarify what I am not attempting to do.

I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply because I am going to debunk common pseudoskeptical arguments, does not mean that the believers arguments have been proven. Rather, all I am going to do is use the principle of non-contradiction in logic and show that the arguments used by pseudoskeptics are logically contradictory.

I am not vilifying skepticism. It is not possible for me to vilify skepticism without contradicting my own skepticism. We are all believers and skeptics, only that what we believe and what we are sceptical about varies from person to person.

That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic.

From hereon we will look at the common fallacious arguments used by pseudoskeptics in the context of Aliens and UFO’s. I do not claim to be exhaustive, I can only look at a limited set of arguments. If there are arguments not covered that that you think are fallacious and want me to debunk them, just request it and I will attempt to do so in another post.

Now let us look at the common fallacies one by one.

Argument: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility. Therefore ETH is not a valid explanation.

Rebuttal: This is an invalid and logically contradictory argument. For the following reasons

1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.

My opponent may argue that it is possible that life only formed on planet Earth and nowhere else. They may even point out that sample size I have of life in the universe is only one instance and this is not enough to make a generalization.

Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.

The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.

In conclusion: ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.

Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.

Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen. It is assumed that that the ET would be using FTL. Not necessarily. There are space craft planned on Earth that can reach a high percentage of the speed of light and they use as propulsion sources of energy available in the universe(hydrogen, sunlight) Thus an ET craft could do the same. Finally, the limitation of the speed of light does not apply to ET. This is because the speed limit of the speed light is one based on the predicates of General Relativity theory which states that if a mass is accelerated towards the speed of light its mass would become infinite and thus it would need an infinite amount of energy. Therefore FTL is impossible This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven. A theory is only based on observations made in an observable universe and when new observations are made theories have to be adjusted, sometimes even rejected. As ET’s are a part of an unobservable universe, we cannot generalise any of our scientific theories to them. So none of the predicates of GR actually apply to them.

All observations made in science are effects only, not causes. Mass itself is an effect, not a cause. Therefore finding a way to manipulate causes will manipulate effects. Take for example electricity, an electric current produced by a generator is an effect. When one learns the antecedent causes for the generation of electricity, one can manipulate the electric current generated with a transformer. There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.

In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.

Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.

Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.

Abduction for the purposes of scientific investigation is not really strange at all. We humans are constantly abducting animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. So we have no valid objection to the abduction phenomena, other than perhaps an ethical objection.

Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.

Rebuttal: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone. There are many people who claim they have encountered ET directly and many high-level witnesses in the government that have claimed contact has taken place. If their claims are true, ET is only hiding from some and not everyone.

Why would ET not reveal themselves? I am tempted to give the usual speculative explanation of an intergalactic prime directive, but I will desist. Instead the objection of the opponent can be dismissed like the previous argument. It is another argument from incredulity fallacy.

Argument: There is no scientific physical evidence of UFO‘s. No UFO samples. No ET DNA samples etc

Rebuttal: This is an impossible demand. If any of this evidence even existed, what are the chances that this evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for their personal inspection? Highly unlikely. Most people will have to rely on the authority of scientific experts who have handled the evidence. As they cannot handle the evidence themselves, they will have to simply trust the scientists.

There is a big problem with evidence from testimony. It is subject to whether you believe the authority or disbelieve them. There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth. The officials in the Roswell case who claim to have handled the UFO metal debris claim the metal has alien properties(it sounds very similar to modern shape memory alloys) Some scientists have testified that transistors are actually reverse engineered ET technology.

So it is not the case that there are not authorities figures who have not handled ET physical evidence. If the opponent is genuinely sincere about their argument, now that it has been demonstrated such evidence allegedly exists and some scientists have handled it, they should accept it as proof. If not, the opponent must withdraw their argument as invalid because of their duplicity.

I anticipate an objection. The objection is that there are no peer reviewed scientific physical evidence of UFO’s, therefore any scientific evidence that is not peer reviewed must be dismissed. This argument is invalid, because it commit’s the fallacy of appealing to an authority of some entity(a peer group) If some authority dismisses a scientists evidence, it does not mean that the scientists evidence is false, it simply means the authority doesn't like it.

Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.

Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.

The opponent may counter by saying that it is difficult to distinguish a UFO from other claimed paranormal phenomena(spirits, plasma balls, orbs). This maybe true in some cases, but not all. In cases which describe actual physical crafts, sometimes in rather vivid details, except these physical craft are displaying alien behaviour and look alien, one can eliminate all of the other paranormal possibilities

Argument: The UFO and ET reports by individuals are not necessarily true. They may claim a physical aircraft, but their data could be wrong. They could be lying, they could have misidentified something else for the UFO such as planet Venus, car headlights, swamp gas.

Rebuttal: Merely argument from possibility is not enough. Yes, all the above counter-hypothesis may be true, but they may be false as well. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate all the available data, eliminate all hypothesis that do not fit the data, and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the available data.

If the skeptic does not do that and instead makes suppositions, distorts the data, dismisses available data ,then it is invalid. Here is a simple hypothetical example of a distortion of data:

UFO witness: I saw it as clear as I can see you right now. It was metallic, it was emitting a bright orange glow and it hovered right above me on the road. You know like that film Independence day, the mother ship just hovers above. It was just like that. It wasn't only me who saw it, but my girlfriend as well. I am not lying I swear. I never believed in this stuff before, but I guess seeing is believing.

Skeptic: You said it was on the road, how do you know that it was not just the headlight of a car or truck?

UFO witness: Dude, I know what the headlight of a car or truck looks like. I've been driving on the road for 20 years. This was not a headlight.

Skeptic: How can you be sure? If you were the on road and a very bright headline shines in your face, it is hard to see anything clearly and then its easy to imagine that there is something large in front of you. Are you telling me it is impossible that you are not mistaken?

UFO witness: No, I am not saying that. Its always possible that one can be mistaken, but is it possible that both me and my girlfriend are mistaken.?

Skeptic: Yes, loads of people may all agree they see a ghost, only to later find out it was a lighthouse. Shared delusions are possible.

UFO witness: Look, I see what you are saying, but I believe 100% that I saw a UFO. I have never had an experience like this ever in my entire life.

Skeptic: Then you agree it is just a belief you saw the UFO. Then my job is done. Case dismissed.


The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.

Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:

1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negate the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a car headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using the argument from possibility fallacy - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"

The skeptic fails to account for the available evidence in this witness testimony. He claims that it was a headlight of some car, but the witness tells him he knows what a headlight looks like. The skeptic should be rejecting his hypothesis now, but instead he ends up debating it with the UFO witness. Then the UFO witness reveals that more than one witness say it, making it unlikely that two people would be seeing a hovering metallic, orange light emitting mothership in a headlight. Nor does the skeptic explain how a car headlight could look like the described UFO.

These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming" Radar reports - "It is possible the radar equipment malfunctioned" In all these cases the skeptic is debating a counter-claim and thus has a burden of proof themselves, but they behave as if they are immune from it.
Last edited by Indigo Child on May 22nd, 2009, 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.






Site Admin
User avatar
Posts: 3191
Joined: May 15th, 2009, 4:29 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Scepcop » May 22nd, 2009, 7:34 am


Excellent! I'll link this post to the home page. It is very relevant and exposes a lot of common fallacies of pseudo-skeptics!

Great job. We should put you on the committee too!

Regards,
Vinstonas
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Posts: 88
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 8:47 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby jakesteele » June 5th, 2009, 5:37 pm


Your post is outstanding. I am bookmarking it under my 'debunking' folder.

I wanted to add something to the argument about not being able to go FTL. I will try to find the link, but for now I will give you the overview. About 10-15 yrs. ago a physicist from Mexico or Spain came up with a plausible, but currently, infeasible theory that states if you had monster engines at the front and back of you ship you could contract the SOL in front of you and expand the SOL in back of you. What this would mean is that if you and I had a race to exactly 1 light year out, I would still be traveling at the SOL like you but I would arrive there sooner.

That was the gist of it, but the 'engine' part I can't remember well enough to explain right now. Like I said, I will try to find the link.
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.

Posts: 88
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 8:47 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby jakesteele » June 5th, 2009, 5:43 pm


Hey, guess what? I found the following links pertaining to the above post of mine about SOL. Check them out, it's fascinating.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... star-trek/

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2141 ... ster-light
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.

Site Admin
User avatar
Posts: 3191
Joined: May 15th, 2009, 4:29 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Scepcop » June 7th, 2009, 9:08 pm


What is an SOL?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Posts: 300
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 10:26 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » June 15th, 2009, 1:12 am


Like Jacque Valle, I think there's much more going on with the UFO Phenomenon than merely the ET Hypothesis. Some of it may be extra-dimensional in nature, rather than ET. (I.E. Visitors from another dimension or reality.)

Other aspects of the UFO Phenomenon are more Paranormal in nature, like cases where UFOs are spotted in areas of "high strangeness" where STRONG paranormal activity is taking place (Good Example: Skinwalker Ranch, look it up), and cases where there are multiple eye-witnesses, and some will clearly see a UFO, and others will see nothing, and the ones who did see the UFO will sometimes describe the UFO differently. One fascinating case I read was of a woman who saw a UFO that was clearly the Starship Enterprise flying upside down, and another where a man saw a George Adamski styled UFO flying in the sky (even though Adamski has been pretty much debunked as a hoaxer, and the guy who saw the Adamski typed UFO also thinks Adamski was a hoaxer, and he commented that "it seems the phenomenon is trying to discredit itself" when he saw that Adamski typed UFO).

Then there is the crypto-terrestrial theory, that some UFOs may be from a hidden civilization here, far more advanced than us, either co-existed extra-dimensionally, or hidden deep underneath the ocean (which would explain USOs).

With that well known book on DMT, I think it's called "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" they were able to induce Alien Abductions via DMT experiences. However, the author argued that they may have been tapping into other dimensions or realities during their experiences. (From what I recall.) However, there are documented cases of abductees receiving physical marks and implants that have been removed. So, maybe there are multiple levels to this.

There is not one single UFO explanation that fits ALL the data. Some appear to be ET in nature, others appear to be extra-dimensional in nature, others appears to be Paranormal in nature. Some are obviously physical objects (take many trace evidence cases for example), yet others appear to be non-physical. I think UFOs are coming from different sources, not all are ET, or extra-dimensional, or Paranormal, or what have you, but there are cases that would fit each.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."

User avatar
Posts: 300
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 10:26 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » July 13th, 2009, 9:13 am


Indigo Child wrote:There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth.

I have serious problems with the Billy Meier case. I'm very familiar with the Meier case and there are severe problems with it. Check out the research done by David Biedny (who definitely has the professional expertise) and Jeff Ritzman where they successfully duplicated Meier photographs and exposed Meier photographs as clear hoaxes with their expertise knowledge on photo manipulation (especially David). They've thoroughly debunked them. They've taken the claims to task. And these guys are UFO Researchers, not close-minded skeptics.

Several Good Links debunking Meier:

http://forgetomori.com/2007/ufos/the-bi ... otographs/

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread277472/pg1

http://thebiggestsecret.online.fr/ufo/b ... ng_gun.htm

http://www.thebiggestsecret.org/forum-e ... php?t=2476

The two Paracast Hosts interviewed Horn for several hours in two Podcasts in 2006 where they pretty much tore the case apart ...

http://www.theparacast.com/podcast/june ... hael-horn/

http://www.theparacast.com/podcast/july ... hael-horn/

One only has to examine the infamous "Wedding Cake UFO" Photos (and see the clear evidence it's part of a trash can lid found on the Meier property), the images of a woman in tin foil holding a plastic toy "ray gun", images of supposed dinosaurs that Meier took photos of in a trip back in time (that were lifted from a painting in a book), and an image of one of his alien contacts which was lifted straight from an episode of the Dean Martin show, to see there's a serious problem here. On top of that, his ex-wife admitted he hoaxed the photographs.

Also, many of the people that are claimed to have "authenticated" the Meier photographs for example, when later interviewed by more serious researchers have stated to them that they were misquoted and misrepresented, or never heard of the Meier stuff.

As for Marcel Vogel in particular, according to David Biedny...

"The Meierites claim that Marcel Vogel held numerous patents, and while he was apparently a gifted scientist, he held not a single patent - this is easily verified via research."

In addition to all of this, Billy Meier claims to be Jesus Christ and other Religious Figure Holy Men reincarnated (basically God in flesh), and that all other UFO Contactees are hoaxes and that MOST UFO sightings and stories (besides his own) are hoaxes or military aircraft, and that the alien abduction phenomenon is not real. So, if you accept Billy Meier, you have to throw out all other UFO cases and the entire Abduction Phenomenon as invalid, and accept Billy Meier as Jesus returned.

That's the issues I personally have with the case.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."

User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Nostradamus » August 7th, 2009, 11:22 pm


There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility.


This is a mix of 2 issues. Shouldn't these be handled separately?

The first issue is: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists.

Your rebuttal to this is that there is lots of evidence.

Since I have seen no evidence to date I suppose that the first part of the argument is wrong.

By SETI equation I am guessing you mean the Drake formula.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.

Site Admin
User avatar
Posts: 3191
Joined: May 15th, 2009, 4:29 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Scepcop » August 8th, 2009, 9:45 pm


Nostradamus wrote:
There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility.


This is a mix of 2 issues. Shouldn't these be handled separately?

The first issue is: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists.

Your rebuttal to this is that there is lots of evidence.

Since I have seen no evidence to date I suppose that the first part of the argument is wrong.

By SETI equation I am guessing you mean the Drake formula.


There is evidence though, even if you deny it. We have tons of sighting reports from credible people including astronauts and air force pilots. UFO's have been picked up on radar, like in the White House Merry Go Round Incident. Alien Abductees have shared many of their testimonies and convinced skeptical researchers like Budd Hopkins and John Mack. And government personnel have come out publicly with knowledge of a government coverup, in the "Disclosure Project". If you aren't well informed about these things, google them. Or read some books by Stanton Friedman.

I'm not saying it's been proven that UFO's are aliens. I'm saying that it's very likely that they exist in some way. We just don't know what they are. Like Eteponge said, there are many theories. But standing there and denying all the evidence isn't going to erase them and isn't going to get anywhere either.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Nostradamus » August 9th, 2009, 6:09 am


There is evidence though, even if you deny it. We have tons of sighting reports from credible people including astronauts and air force pilots. UFO's have been picked up on radar, like in the White House Merry Go Round Incident. Alien Abductees have shared many of their testimonies and convinced skeptical researchers like Budd Hopkins and John Mack. And government personnel have come out publicly with knowledge of a government coverup, in the "Disclosure Project". If you aren't well informed about these things, google them. Or read some books by Stanton Friedman.

I'm not saying it's been proven that UFO's are aliens. I'm saying that it's very likely that they exist in some way. We just don't know what they are. Like Eteponge said, there are many theories. But standing there and denying all the evidence isn't going to erase them and isn't going to get anywhere either.


A while back I looked for UFO sightings by astronauts and found none. It is a common claim that astronauts have reported UFOs but I came up with a 0.

I am not standing here and denying all of the evidence. I am saying what evidence? Blurry videos?

What is interesting to hear is the analysis of a known event such as the NJ hoaxes. In that event the state police had identified the objects as flares on balloons, yet many credible eyewitnesses continued to deny that possibility.

In another case a pilot reported a huge UFO over Alaska that had a radar blip. Yet, a nearby flight was asked to look for this behemoth of a UFO and saw nothing.

I have been places where people pointed out UFOs. They were circumpolar satellites. Even after predicting that the so-called UFOs would blink out, disappear, and they did by entering earth's shadow, the UFO fans were even more stirred that something mysterious and amazing had occurred.

So again I stand by my claim of what evidence of UFOs? The evidence is scanty, and poor.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.

User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Nostradamus » August 9th, 2009, 6:47 am


2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.


Would you care to explain the probability you calculated? The way I see it today we have a probability of line on planets that appears to be 12.5% and dropping. Our planetary system has 8 planets and only 1 appears to have life on it. That's 12.5%. If we included planets discovered around other stars we might be in the range of 1% and dropping. As more planets are found the empirical evidence for life is likely to reduce the fraction of planets known to support life to a very small number.

Can life develop on planets? Yes.
To speculate that life exists elsewhere is for now a speculation.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.

User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Nostradamus » August 10th, 2009, 8:34 am


It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.


You never address most of the issues in your rebuttal. Why do you say "drunk pilots"? Why do you ascribe crop circles to ETs? Why do you connect mutilation of cattle to ETs?

Someone claims that a set of actions appear to be incomprehensible. Your claim is that a claim of incredulity is not a worthy position to take.

My question is simply, why do claim that these are related events?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.

Posts: 328
Joined: May 21st, 2009, 5:01 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » May 30th, 2010, 6:04 am


Also, many of the people that are claimed to have "authenticated" the Meier photographs for example, when later interviewed by more serious researchers have stated to them that they were misquoted and misrepresented, or never heard of the Meier stuff.

As for Marcel Vogel in particular, according to David Biedny...

"The Meierites claim that Marcel Vogel held numerous patents, and while he was apparently a gifted scientist, he held not a single patent - this is easily verified via research."

In addition to all of this, Billy Meier claims to be Jesus Christ and other Religious Figure Holy Men reincarnated (basically God in flesh), and that all other UFO Contactees are hoaxes and that MOST UFO sightings and stories (besides his own) are hoaxes or military aircraft, and that the alien abduction phenomenon is not real. So, if you accept Billy Meier, you have to throw out all other UFO cases and the entire Abduction Phenomenon as invalid, and accept Billy Meier as Jesus returned.

That's the issues I personally have with the case.


Dear Eteponge, I find Billy Meier's case very fascinating and at the same time frustrating. It is clear
that some of the so-called evidence is fake(dinosaur, Asket and Nera) but some of the evidence remains
irreproducible, even using latest technology. I demonstrated this in a very contoversial discussion on Above
top secret where I exposed the IIG' West investigation of Billy Meier's case, which has wrongly been touted
as an expose of Meier. I demonstrated through photographic analysis of their so called reproductions and the
original Meier photographs, that the reproductions were not in fact reproductions, because they failed to
reproduce the depth of field, the extreme distances and height at which the UFO objects seem to be. Moreover, unlike
the Meier originals which were subjected to very vigorous scientific tests, the IIG refused to have their duplications
subjected to any independent scientific tests. This was obvious why, because even a basic visual analysis of the photos
that I did showed they were obviously models close to the camera

.
Last edited by Indigo Child on June 13th, 2010, 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 328
Joined: May 21st, 2009, 5:01 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » May 30th, 2010, 6:21 am


Dear Nostradamus,

I realise you posted this in 2009, and I have only just saw your post today, as I
have been away for a while, busy with work. Hopefully, you are still around to see
my response.

The point I am making in this argument is that the phenonenon of life in the universe is 100%,
and we know this by the fact that there is life on Earth. There is therefore no reason to reject
the possibility that life has not happened on other planets where the conditions are present. The
fact that we know there are billions of planets with similar conditions, gives us no reason to doubt
that these planets could harbour life. To deny this would be like denying the fact that there maybe
a planet where there is no gravity, when we know that if an object has mass it will have gravity, through
the universal law of gravitation. Similarly, if a planet has life supporting conditions, it should have life.
Last edited by Indigo Child on June 13th, 2010, 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Nostradamus » May 30th, 2010, 7:10 am


I do not disagree in general, but I think that your argument is lacking.

Your claim appears to be it happened once, therefore it happened multiple times. That's not a very good argument. I am suggesting that you improve the argument.

Here are your facts:
1. Life happened at least once.
2. There are potentially billions of places where it might happen again.

Here are some fallacies:
1. we know there are billions of planets with similar conditions
2. faith, i.e. "gives us no reason to doubt that these planets could not harbour life" is not evidence
3. connecting the existence of life to gravity
4. being dogmatic "Similarly, if a planet has life supporting conditions, it should have life."

We don't know there are billions of planets out there. In fact, only recently have we found a rocky planet outside of our solar system. Being dogmatic means that you are giving up demonstrating the likelihood of life on other planets and simply declaring it is true.

Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.

I think this is a very poor argument. You are relying on odds which you do not provide. You are trying to argue from no evidence. You are actually using a fallacy called begging the question.

The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.

I find this argument to be very, very poor and unjustified.

I feel you can do better than that. There is much better evidence for the possibility of life in the universe outside of the confines of Earth. Find and use those arguments.

These are really poor arguments and I believe you understand that.

You also can win arguments at ATS easily because thinking is not a prerequisite over there. I know you can come up with sounder and better arguments than those supplied to date.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.

Next

Return to UFO's / Aliens / ET's

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest