View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Discussion about UFO's, Aliens, ET's, Alien Abductions, Ancient Astronaut theories, etc.

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby really? » 01 Jun 2010, 21:57

Indigo Child wrote:On the contrary I have provided a lot of logical arguments and evidence. You have simply chosen
to pretend no evidence has been offered and failed to engage in any discussion on points being
made. From the very start you have simply asserted something is wrong, without giving any reason
for why it is wrong. I am starting to think you are a troll. I am not going to waste my time.


As Nostradamus has pointed out you have not made a logical argument and you certainly have not provided evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. There are no proofs there is no evidence that there is life let alone intelligent life beyond this planet. To imply or state otherwise is one big gross error in logic. So the next time you decide to point out the errors of pseudoskeptics I first take a look at your own position and make damn certain your not rationalizing.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 02 Jun 2010, 02:33

Really,

I will simply say to you what I said to Nostradamus,if you think there is something wrong with my arguments,
you cannot simply state it is wrong, without giving reason why it is wrong. This shows that you are not engaging
what has been said and refusing to discuss. In fact you seem to be oblivious of the subject matter of this thread,
which is not to offer empirical evidence for the existence of ET and UFO, but to tackle common fallacies on ET/UFO.
I have rebutted many of those fallacies, so I already done my part, now if you disagree with any my rebuttals, you need
to show why they are wrong and why you are right. To be honest I am surprised that you need to be told this, as anybody
who has an education knows that points must always be backed up by reasons, illustrations and examples. If you were asked
to examine my position in a academic paper, and you simply wrote, "He's wrong" you would be failed.

In fact the inability to engage ones arguments and to instead resort to adhominems is very much characteristic of a pseduoskeptic.
I am going to start doing some quality control now and only respond to skeptics who show the effort of engaging the points laid out.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 02 Jun 2010, 04:07

Indigo Child wrote:I have rebutted many of those fallacies, so I already done my part, now if you disagree with any my rebuttals, you need
to show why they are wrong and why you are right.

Okay, here ya' go:

1) Indigo: 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.
ProfWag’s Rebuttal: No, you are wrong. There is not one shred of proof that ET exists. Also, it is NOT the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence. How much time would we skeptics have on our hand if we investigate every claim that’s come out? It’s the job of the person with “proof” to prove it. That would be like me saying to you “Hey, I saw a ghost.” Prove to me that I didn’t.”

“2)Indigo 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.”
ProfWag’s Rebuttal: True. Personally, I believe there IS life on other planets. The question is, have they visited Earth…

“3) Indigo: It impossible for ET to travel here.”
ProfWag’s rebuttal: I know this isn’t part of your rebuttal, but I’d like to know who told you it is “impossible for ET to travel…” It certainly wasn’t anyone in science since anyone with any kind of academic background will tell you that based on the theory of improbability that nothing is Impossible…necessarily…

4) Indigo: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone.
ProfWag’s rebuttal: Huh? It’s true that if they can make it through light-years of travel then they are probably smart enough to know it’s easier to show themselves to just one person rather than the entire Science Department at Princeton.

5) Indigo: 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.
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.

ProWag’s rebuttal: Again, I say Huh? What the hell do you mean it’s “highly unlikely” that evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for personal inspection. Of course it’s not. That’s an uneducated thing to say. There are moon rocks out there and or course it’s “highly unlikely” that they would mail me free samples for my inspection. However, if I am in the right field of science, I WOULD be able to examine them.

Unfortunately, your statements just aren’t making sense and I believe I have made my point enough that I can now get back to work…
ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 02 Jun 2010, 04:53

ProfWag’s Rebuttal: No, you are wrong. There is not one shred of proof that ET exists. Also, it is NOT the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence. How much time would we skeptics have on our hand if we investigate every claim that’s come out? It’s the job of the person with “proof” to prove it. That would be like me saying to you “Hey, I saw a ghost.” Prove to me that I didn’t.”


The word sceptic originates from the Greek word skeptikos, which means to inquire, to examine or research.

"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]

Anybody can doubt and assert, who cannot? Even the child doubts and asserts. However, few actually critically inquire and examine, because it requires objectivity, dedication and keen intellect.

If you identify as a skeptic then it is your duty to inquire, critically examine and research. If all that you are going to do is doubt and assert, then you are not a skeptic, but a pseudoskeptic and little removed from a child. So what you are suppose to be doing is reviewing the evidence. You say there is not a single shred of evidence for ET? Please review the following web sites: http://www.ufoevidence.org/

If you still maintain there is no evidence then I can know if you are a true skeptic or a pseudoskeptic.


2)Indigo 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.”
ProfWag’s Rebuttal: True. Personally, I believe there IS life on other planets. The question is, have they visited Earth…

“3) Indigo: It impossible for ET to travel here.”
ProfWag’s rebuttal: I know this isn’t part of your rebuttal, but I’d like to know who told you it is “impossible for ET to travel…” It certainly wasn’t anyone in science since anyone with any kind of academic background will tell you that based on the theory of improbability that nothing is Impossible…necessarily…


Your responses are very interesting. So you actually both accept the possibility that ET exists and also accept the possibility they can get here. In that case, I ask you, why would they not pay a visit?

4) Indigo: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone.
ProfWag’s rebuttal: Huh? It’s true that if they can make it through light-years of travel then they are probably smart enough to know it’s easier to show themselves to just one person rather than the entire Science Department at Princeton.


And what form would that evidence take if the ET revealed themselves to one person? Testimony. Again review the evidence they have already revealed themselves to more than one person. They have revealed themselves to very high level officials as well, and you can find their testimonies on the web site I linked you to.

ProWag’s rebuttal: Again, I say Huh? What the hell do you mean it’s “highly unlikely” that evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for personal inspection. Of course it’s not. That’s an uneducated thing to say. There are moon rocks out there and or course it’s “highly unlikely” that they would mail me free samples for my inspection. However, if I am in the right field of science, I WOULD be able to examine them.


Well in that case, there is a lot of scientific evidence examined by experts ranging from analysis of ET metal samples, trace evidence from UFO’s, photographic analysis, analysis of radar reports, analysis of EMF effects.

It seems you are completely unaware that this evidence actually exists. I would be interested in your response after you review the web site I have shown you. I hope you surprise me, but I don’t have my hopes up.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 02 Jun 2010, 05:31

Indigo Child wrote:The word sceptic originates from the Greek word skeptikos, which means to inquire, to examine or research.
"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]
Anybody can doubt and assert, who cannot? Even the child doubts and asserts. However, few actually critically inquire and examine, because it requires objectivity, dedication and keen intellect.
If you identify as a skeptic then it is your duty to inquire, critically examine and research. If all that you are going to do is doubt and assert, then you are not a skeptic, but a pseudoskeptic and little removed from a child.

Thanks for sharing the thoughts of Miguel from 85 years ago. Unfortunately, I don’t give a damn what he thinks. Webster’s dictionary says of a skeptic: “an adherent or advocate of skepticism.” The word “skepticism” then means: “1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics”
Ain’t one word in there that says I have to investigate everything Stan Freeman says. If you have proof, let’s see it. Period. I have inquired, examined, and researched for 20+ years. You know what I’ve found? Nothing that proves the existence of ETs. If you’ve got something I haven’t seen, let me see it. If you have inquired, examined, and researched the facts on ETs, you would come to the same conclusion that there is no proof for space aliens.
Indigo Child wrote:So what you are suppose to be doing is reviewing the evidence. You say there is not a single shred of evidence for ET?

No, I did NOT say this. Please re-read. I said there is not one shred of PROOF. Big, big difference between evidence and proof. Should I quote Webster again?
Indigo Child wrote:Your responses are very interesting. So you actually both accept the possibility that ET exists and also accept the possibility they can get here. In that case, I ask you, why would they not pay a visit?

I would think that anyone who flat out rejects that there is no possibility that ET exists or could get here would be incorrect. What do I think of that possibility? I think it likely there ARE ETs out there (and I have Stephen Hawking on my side as well), but I just don’t think they have visited or that the likelyhood that they have is very, very small. If you went to the planet Nubula and flew over a city, wouldn’t you want to communicate with them?
Indigo Child wrote:Well in that case, there is a lot of scientific evidence examined by experts ranging from analysis of ET metal samples, trace evidence from UFO’s, photographic analysis, analysis of radar reports, analysis of EMF effects.
It seems you are completely unaware that this evidence actually exists. I would be interested in your response after you review the web site I have shown you. I hope you surprise me, but I don’t have my hopes up.

I am very aware of this evidence (keeping in mind it’s all evidence, not proof). I just don’t find it scientifically sound to say that aliens have visited Pascagoula Mississippi.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 02 Jun 2010, 06:14

If we compare and contrast the two definitions of skepticisn been cited so far, then it would seem that the definition of skepticism has been corrupted from its original etymology when it was something far more noble and constructive: to inquire, research and examine in order to know the truth of something. The later corrupted definition is on the other hand destructive: to doubt.

As I said, anybody can doubt, even a child can doubt. Nobody likes people who constantly doubt either, they are annoying. So you can either choose to be a skepic who is destructive, doubts and asserts and annoy us real researchers who inquire, research and examine, or you can be the positive skeptic who inquires, examine and researches and play a constructive role. At the end the common goal is to arrive at the truth of a situation. If you are not interested in the truth of a situation, and all you are going to do is doubt and assert, then you are a nuisance.

If you are going to criticise something you have to give a valid reason, and demonstrate it. A skeptic is not exempt from this. However, instead I find you skeptics do not give any reason, but instead push us to give you more evidence. Some of us fall for the gambit, and then you push us even further and we end up in futile effort to satisfy the insatiable appetite of skeptic for evidence. The truth is this kind of skeptic is a constant doubter and will never settle for any evidence, because they begin with the presuppositions that something is not possible. It is very much like trying to prove something that goes against the beliefs of a religious person.

Well, I am not going to fall for this gambit. The fact of the matter is there exists a staggering amount of evidence for ET/UFO and it is available for the rational person to review and come to their own conclusions.

The zero-sum game you are playing of demanding “proof” is actually an impossible demand, because there is no proof for anything, not even scientific experiments give one proof. There is only evidence.
And the fact of the matter is you accept some evidence, and reject other evidence, and thus are guilty of inconsistency and hypocrisy.

I noticed you did not respond to the part of my post where you said that you only required ET to have revealed themselves to one person, thus suggesting you want testimony. I then showed you that there exists a massive amount of testimonial evidence where ET has revealed themselves to more than one person. Are you going to shift the goal post now ;)

I would think that anyone who flat out rejects that there is no possibility that ET exists or could get here would be incorrect. What do I think of that possibility? I think it likely there ARE ETs out there (and I have Stephen Hawking on my side as well), but I just don’t think they have visited or that the likelyhood that they have is very, very small. If you went to the planet Nubula and flew over a city, wouldn’t you want to communicate with them?


I have to pull you up on this use of the word “likelihood” Many use this without realising they are using it fallaciously. How can you determine the likelihood of something, without knowing the possible outcomes? I know the Likelihood of winning the lottery because I know the possible outcomes, but I do not know the likelihood of dreaming of an elephant tonight, because I don’t know the possible outcomes. Similarly, how can you know the likelihood that ET visiting Earth is small when you do not know how many ET’s exist, what their purposes are, and how fast they can get here, and how nearby they are. You have too many unknowns to know the likelihood of it

The fact of the matter is ET has communicated according to evidence. Why do you not accept the evidence?
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 02 Jun 2010, 20:48

Indigo Child wrote:If we compare and contrast the two definitions of skepticisn been cited so far, then it would seem that the definition of skepticism has been corrupted from its original etymology when it was something far more noble and constructive: to inquire, research and examine in order to know the truth of something. The later corrupted definition is on the other hand destructive: to doubt.

As I said, anybody can doubt, even a child can doubt. Nobody likes people who constantly doubt either, they are annoying. So you can either choose to be a skepic who is destructive, doubts and asserts and annoy us real researchers who inquire, research and examine, or you can be the positive skeptic who inquires, examine and researches and play a constructive role. At the end the common goal is to arrive at the truth of a situation. If you are not interested in the truth of a situation, and all you are going to do is doubt and assert, then you are a nuisance.

If you are going to criticise something you have to give a valid reason, and demonstrate it. A skeptic is not exempt from this. However, instead I find you skeptics do not give any reason, but instead push us to give you more evidence. Some of us fall for the gambit, and then you push us even further and we end up in futile effort to satisfy the insatiable appetite of skeptic for evidence. The truth is this kind of skeptic is a constant doubter and will never settle for any evidence, because they begin with the presuppositions that something is not possible. It is very much like trying to prove something that goes against the beliefs of a religious person.

Well, I am not going to fall for this gambit. The fact of the matter is there exists a staggering amount of evidence for ET/UFO and it is available for the rational person to review and come to their own conclusions.

The zero-sum game you are playing of demanding “proof” is actually an impossible demand, because there is no proof for anything, not even scientific experiments give one proof. There is only evidence.
And the fact of the matter is you accept some evidence, and reject other evidence, and thus are guilty of inconsistency and hypocrisy.

I noticed you did not respond to the part of my post where you said that you only required ET to have revealed themselves to one person, thus suggesting you want testimony. I then showed you that there exists a massive amount of testimonial evidence where ET has revealed themselves to more than one person. Are you going to shift the goal post now ;)

I would think that anyone who flat out rejects that there is no possibility that ET exists or could get here would be incorrect. What do I think of that possibility? I think it likely there ARE ETs out there (and I have Stephen Hawking on my side as well), but I just don’t think they have visited or that the likelyhood that they have is very, very small. If you went to the planet Nubula and flew over a city, wouldn’t you want to communicate with them?


I have to pull you up on this use of the word “likelihood” Many use this without realising they are using it fallaciously. How can you determine the likelihood of something, without knowing the possible outcomes? I know the Likelihood of winning the lottery because I know the possible outcomes, but I do not know the likelihood of dreaming of an elephant tonight, because I don’t know the possible outcomes. Similarly, how can you know the likelihood that ET visiting Earth is small when you do not know how many ET’s exist, what their purposes are, and how fast they can get here, and how nearby they are. You have too many unknowns to know the likelihood of it

The fact of the matter is ET has communicated according to evidence. Why do you not accept the evidence?

I find it a little humorous that you correct me on the word "likelihood" and then turn around and use the word "fact" incorrectly as well.
Honestly, I didn't see your comment on ETs showing themselves to more than one person. I'll check that out and comment in a bit.
In the meantime, I'd also like to comment on this statement:
Indigo Child wrote: "The fact of the matter is there exists a staggering amount of evidence for ET/UFO and it is available for the rational person to review and come to their own conclusions.
I have reviewed the evidence and I have come to the conclusion that ET has not visited Earth. Why is it that you believers get so upset when we skeptics don't agree with you? You can believe all you want, but if we disagree, you go to great lengths to try to conince us otherwise with the same ol' evidence that truthfully, hasn't swayed the opinion of of us.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 02 Jun 2010, 21:36

Indigo Child wrote:I noticed you did not respond to the part of my post where you said that you only required ET to have revealed themselves to one person, thus suggesting you want testimony. I then showed you that there exists a massive amount of testimonial evidence where ET has revealed themselves to more than one person. Are you going to shift the goal post now ;)

Okay, I've re-looked at this statement and I'll stand by my original statement. Yes, it's true that there are a few cases where ET has revealed themselves to more than one person. However, and this is my fault for not making this clear, I was using a generalisation that they usually don't show themselves to more than one person and especially in abduction cases which I also did not make clear, so I apologize for that and will stand corrected. For you to say "there exists a massive amount of testimonial evidence..." is quite misleading to say the least. I don't believe there is a "massive" amount. To support this, I'll use an article from the website you mentioned. The entire article can be found here: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1786.htm
"It cannot be positively said that no one has never been physically abducted but it has definitely been an enormous mistake to downplay the similarities between bedroom abductions and demonic activity. Indeed with the exception of a handful of abduction accounts--the Travis Walton account of Snowflake, Arizona being the most noteworthy--that appear to have supporting witnesses..."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 03 Jun 2010, 07:20

I have reviewed the evidence and I have come to the conclusion that ET has not visited Earth. Why is it that you believers get so upset when we skeptics don't agree with you? You can believe all you want, but if we disagree, you go to great lengths to try to conince us otherwise with the same ol' evidence that truthfully, hasn't swayed the opinion of of us


I have emboldened these words "believe" and "opinion" in order to underline that belief and opinion have
nothing to do with rational examination of something. A rational examination only tells us what the data
is telling us. A rational examiner has no opinions or beliefs on the matter, and if they do, they have to
set them aside. Unfortunately, you have underlined by using these words that you are not operating from
a rational point of view, but from the point of view of wanting to be convinced, wanting your opinion
swayed i.e., from a rhetorical point of view.

However, as I pointed out in the previous post, you will never be convinced and your opinion never swayed
because you are working on the level of beliefs of what is possible and what is not, and beliefs are not rational.
A true skeptic suspends judgement when they investigate something, but you in fact begin with judgement and
already have a well defined worldview. It is not your own either, it is an inherited worldview from tradition. So
tradition says that there is only a material world; tradition says that we are alone in the universe; tradition says
that we evolved from apes; tradition says supernatural is primitive - and so on and so forth. The true skeptic, and
Hume is probably the best example of this, witholds judgement, even the judgement of the certainty of physical reality.

Now, you did indeed shift the goal post as I said you would on your demand for at least one person having ET contact.
Even the quote you cited from ufoevidence.org says that not all alien abduction cases can be explained by demonic
possession, some of course can only be explained by the ETH. The fact of the matter there exists many cases which
satisfy your demand for having at least one case of ET contact. Yet you still insist it is not proven. I submit to you,
the reason you insist this, is not due to any rational consideration of the evidence, because then you would have no
choice but to go with the data, but because you refuse to accept it because it goes agaisnt your beliefs, and therefore
you find various ways to explain it away by looking at the personal integrity of the witnesses, researchers or both, by
invoking explanations that cannot be disproven, such as, "It was a dream, it was a hallucination" although not proving
your own explanation.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 03 Jun 2010, 10:19

Simply put Indy, if ET/UFOs were proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Period. There are so few, if any, ET cases that don't have questionable events surrounding the encounter that it becomes comical. I see you pointed out that I shifted the goal posts as you said I would. Fine, but I see you didn't correct your "massive amounts of..." statement, but that's to be expected. You are quick to proclaim what a skeptic is, but unfortunately, it appears to me at least you really don't understand what critical thinking is all about. Your statements tell me you are stuck in the "selective thinking and memory" routine so many believers get stuck in. They say "here's the evidence" but leave out such things as motive (could the person be lying?), alternate explanations, or simply seeing something different than what it really is (honest mistake).
Now, who the hell is talking demonic possession? I don't remember seeing that emphasized in that article and I certainly don't believe that demons play a role in ANY abduction case. However, I DO believe that there is a logical explanation for ALL of them.
BTW, I might add that I have seen the triangle UFO (probably most famously known as the Belgium UFO) quite up close (I could have hit it with a golf ball). Spooky to see at the time I might add until I realized what it really was (and it wasn't from another world.)
So, instead of giving a website of UFO research and claim that shows the evidence to support your theories, why don't you provide one example, perhaps the best one you can find, and let's see how solid of a case study it really is or if there are questionable circumstances surrounding it.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 03 Jun 2010, 18:19

You are repeating previous fallacies again ProWag.

You are playing the zero-sum game again, by demanding proof or something to be proven. The fact
of the matter is nothing has ever been proven. There is nothing that does not have questionable events,
even the most vigorously tested theories in science are stll questionable. All we can have is evidence, and
we have to explain that evidence with the best hypothesis that we can. However, the hypothesis has to account
for all the known facts.

You are also guilty of falsifying facts, if a witness testimony tells you, "I saw a large object the size of several foot
ball fields hover about me, then shoot out into the sky" Instead of working with the data, you will falsify the data,
by fabricating motives, "This person is lying or cannot be trusted because of x" This person stole a sweet when he
was 10 years old, this person has injested drugs at some point in his life, this person wants to make money. Now,
interesingly such concerns of finding motive does not appear when a scientist gives data, nobody lookes at the scientists
personal life, they look at the data. I submit to you the reason you have to falsify the data, is because it is impossible
for a rational person to accept the data and not use the ETH.

Now, when you say a "logical explanation for all of them" do you mean a logical explanation that includes the ETH as
a possible explanation, or one that excludes the ETH?

You asked for examples of cases that I think can only be explained by the ETH. Alright then, the following I think can
only be explained by the ETH: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc629.htm

Conclusions
In conclusion, with two highly redundant contacts -- the first with ground radar, combined with both ground and airborne visual observers, and the second with airborne radar, an airborne visual observer, and two different ground radars -- the Bentwaters-Lakenheath UFO incident represents one of the most significant radar-visual UFO cases. Taking into consideration the high credibility of information and the cohesiveness and continuity of accounts, combined with a high degree of "strangeness," it is also certainly one of the most disturbing UFO incidents known today.


Now here is my prediction(I got the last one right remember) You will not be able to explain the data as it stands, so you will falsify the data by either:

1). Fabricating motives for the researchers, personale, witnesses involved in the case
2) Forcing explanations that do not work, such as meteorite, reflections explanations
3) Inventing explanations from the argument of possibility fallacy such as all the radars malfunctioned, mass delusion
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 03 Jun 2010, 18:37

I don't find the ETH Hypothesis as particularly concrete as people make it out to be, because I don't feel it's the only valid explanation for anomalous UFOs. For all we know, those anomalous UFOs that defy conventional explanations may be extra dimensional travelers, time travelers from our future, crypto-terrestrials (a race of beings that share the planet with us, but remain hidden, such as deep under the sea) as the late Mac Tonnies theorized, or something else entirely. (Note, I'm only talking about the truly unidentified UFOs that defy conventional explanations, we have no idea what they are, and where they come from.)

The Rendlesham Forest Incident at Bentwaters in December 1980 for example, two of the key military eyewitnesses in the case, John Burroughs and Sgt. Jim Penniston, have very interesting things to say. John Burroughs disappeared for 25 minutes after being struck by the blue light of the craft, as another cadet witnessed, and then was returned. Sgt. Jim Penniston touched the strange symbols on the side of a craft in the Forest and felt a shock, a jolt. Sgt. Jim Penniston, in 1994 underwent hypnosis, and John Burroughs went under hypnosis in 1988, and they both independently revealed the same consistent story regarding what was revealed to them by the occupants. They were told by the occupants that they were humans, us, who were Time Travelers from over 40,000 years from now, who came back to "repair the timeline". Both men, independently revealed this in their sessions, without having discussed it with one another until over 20 years later.

They also revealed during these sessions that these back travelers come here to harvest our DNA, because in the distant future our genetic structure breaks down, so they need to use us like "band-aids".

That suggests the possibility for more than ETH going on. Maybe it's time travelers screwing around with time and coming here to take our "purer" DNA to sustain themselves, after theirs was corrupted for whatever reason.

As for the Alien Abduction phenomenon, it has roots in traditional fairy lore, as some researchers have pointed out. There are tales from hundreds to thousands of years ago in many cultures, about elves and fairies kidnapping people, taking them to a strange land, doing strange things to them, and then returning them to their villages, and the victims come back to find that much time has passed (missing time). Which suggest it may be something going on here more than traditional ETH.

Also, in the book DMT: The Spirit Molecule, people given DMT would often hallucinate an ENTIRE Alien Abduction Experience while under the influence of the drug, and it's a chemical we produce naturally in our brains. The researchers, however, suggested not that the DMT caused the experience, but that it opened the door to the experience, rather than producing it. Suggesting the possibility that it may be a more metaphyiscal type of experience than physical.

Also, The Paracasts hosts Gene Steinberg and David Biedny have had various Alien Abductees on their show before for interviews, and when they ask them mundane questions like, "Did you go to the bathroom?", or "Where did you go to the bathroom?", during their abduction experience, they don't ever recall using the bathroom or going to the bathroom anything like that, even if the experience lasted a long time, which suggests it may be more than a physical experience. One abductee claimed that he was forced to have sex with a hybrid woman during the experience, but when David asked him what she smelled like, he said he couldn't remember a smell, and felt no wetness, which doesn't make sense physically.

Now, not all fit this mold however, you will have some who return after several days, after being physically missing, and they may come back with medical problems, alleged implants, etc. So, not all fit that mold.

My speculation, is not that one hypothesis is correct, but possibly several. Some UFO may be time travelers, others may be dimensional, others may be metaphysical / supernatural manifestations, and yet others may be ETH. I don't think they are all coming from the same place.

Just my speculation.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Indigo Child » 03 Jun 2010, 21:25

The ETH is certainly not the only explanation for genuine UFO's, as you say it is possible they are extradimensional, time travellers, cryptoterrestrial, or some kind psychic phenomenon. Unfortunately, these alternative explanations consist of too many unknowns to be viable.

Yes, we now have good reason to accept the existence of other dimensions(string theory) but we have no idea what kind of life forms would exist in other dimensions. According to Kaku, such life would not be of a physical nature. Even conventional esoteric traditions confirm that life in higher planes is non-physical. Therefore they would have no need to fly about in physical machines in their plane. Why then would they suddenly have physical machines in the physical plane?

The unknowns involved in the human time travellers theory is whether at it is possible for humans to go back in time. The best theory in support of this multiple world theory, but this theory is not proven itself, it is simply one interpretation to explain the wavefunction collapse in quantum physics, because it refuses to accept that consciousness collapses the wavefunction. However the later interpretation is the most simplest and is the prevaling one in quantum physics.

The unknowns involved in the cryptoterrestrial theory is the obvious unknowns of why they are hidden, why have we not detected them, and how can they survive down there and why don't they just come up here. I personally believe in the Naga beings that are said to inhabit the subterranian cities, but I have to set that aside, because of the lack of evidence.

The unknowns involved in the psychic manifestation theory of UFO's is how it is at all possible that the mind would manifest a physical machine that flies of its own accord and is capable of intelligent behaviour.

Therefore because of the many unknonwns involved in these alternative paranormal explanations they are not viable. On the other hand the ETH does not have any unknowns, because it is a known fact that life happens on planets capable of sustaining them. It is also known through estimation that there is staggering amount of earth-like planets in the universe. Finally, it is also known that intelligent life develops machines to travel, such as space craft to travel in space. Physical intelligent beings are technological beings.

Therefore in UFO cases where we clearly are witnessing physical machines, controlled by intelligent beings, it is clear there is a physical explanation. They are techological beings, and therefore they exist in the physical world. As it is clear that their level of technology far outstripps our level of technology, it is clear they belong to a domain where technology is far in advance of our own. It then easy to conclude that they belong to another planet in our universe. The ETH is therefore the best and simplest explanation for the generic UFO.

Now, in UFO's where we have a mix of physical and psychic facts, such as in alien abduction cases which overlap with demons, elves napping souls at night, we have to be discerning here. Clearly, in some of these stories it is not the body which is being napped, but the soul. In other words the kidnappers are spiritual entities. In the case of alien abductions, it in fact the body being napped, and they are usually escorted into a UFO(physical craft) suggesting these kidnappers are physical entities.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby ProfWag » 03 Jun 2010, 22:18

Indigo Child wrote:
Conclusions
In conclusion, with two highly redundant contacts -- the first with ground radar, combined with both ground and airborne visual observers, and the second with airborne radar, an airborne visual observer, and two different ground radars -- the Bentwaters-Lakenheath UFO incident represents one of the most significant radar-visual UFO cases. Taking into consideration the high credibility of information and the cohesiveness and continuity of accounts, combined with a high degree of "strangeness," it is also certainly one of the most disturbing UFO incidents known today.


Now here is my prediction(I got the last one right remember) You will not be able to explain the data as it stands, so you will falsify the data by either:

1). Fabricating motives for the researchers, personale, witnesses involved in the case
2) Forcing explanations that do not work, such as meteorite, reflections explanations
3) Inventing explanations from the argument of possibility fallacy such as all the radars malfunctioned, mass delusion

Could you pick another case Indigo please? If you'll refer to my post under the "Share Your Experience" thread and then under "I saw a UFO," you'll find that on Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:52, I had said the following:
ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:KungFuScience and ProfWag,

How do you explain this famous incident? As you can see, UFO evidence is not confined only to people seeing distant objects in the sky.


Scepcop, if you don't mind, I would like to stay out of the Bentwaters UFO discussion. I was in the Air Force and stationed in the area in the early 1980's and may have knowledge and/or personal bias towards actual events of that sighting. I'm afraid that my discussion on this subject could not lead to anything productive so I respectfully decline your invitation.
Thanks though.
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Postby Eteponge » 04 Jun 2010, 02:09

Indigo Child wrote:The ETH is certainly not the only explanation for genuine UFO's, as you say it is possible they are extradimensional, time travellers, cryptoterrestrial, or some kind psychic phenomenon. Unfortunately, these alternative explanations consist of too many unknowns to be viable.

That's a rather biased conclusion, you obviously have a strong bias towards all UFOs being ETH. I strongly disagree. Jacque Vallee (a well known UFO Researcher), Stan Gordon (key UFO Researcher in the Keckberg UFO case), my friend Don Ecker (founder of UFO Magazine and UFO Researcher), among other UFO Researchers, started out believing that the ETH Hypothesis was nuts and bolts, concrete. But then they each came across a number of unconventional UFO cases, such as those I will mention, that highly suggest there may be more going on here than simple ETH. All of those UFO Researchers are now open to other origins to UFOs in addition to ETH.

Indigo Child wrote:Yes, we now have good reason to accept the existence of other dimensions(string theory) but we have no idea what kind of life forms would exist in other dimensions. According to Kaku, such life would not be of a physical nature. Even conventional esoteric traditions confirm that life in higher planes is non-physical. Therefore they would have no need to fly about in physical machines in their plane. Why then would they suddenly have physical machines in the physical plane?

Pure assumption that they wouldn't be using physical (type) machines. Also, just because UFOs may look physical to us, doesn't mean they all are. Some could be using craft that are not physical, but we can still see them as though they are (like how people can see solid looking ghost apparitions).

There are cases of UFOs where multiple people will see the same UFO, but describe it very differently, like they are all seeing the craft in a different way, suggesting maybe there is something more going on in certain cases.

There are also cases of UFOs out there where one person will see it, and several others standing with them will be looking the same way, and not see anything, even though there is no chance they could miss it. Kinda like psychic phenomenon, like ghosts.

However, on the flip side, there are UFO cases where the UFOs were touched, examined, and lasted negative effects (burns, radiation, etc) were found on those individuals.

I don't think they all have the same source. Some may be ETH, others may not be. That's my point.

Indigo Child wrote:The unknowns involved in the human time travellers theory is whether at it is possible for humans to go back in time. The best theory in support of this multiple world theory, but this theory is not proven itself, it is simply one interpretation to explain the wavefunction collapse in quantum physics, because it refuses to accept that consciousness collapses the wavefunction. However the later interpretation is the most simplest and is the prevaling one in quantum physics.

According to two key eyewitnesses (John Burroughs and Sgt. Jim Penniston) of the Rendlesham Forest Incident (the most famous UFO incident in UK history), the occupants in that specific case identified themselves as Time Travelers.

There are also Remote Viewers who have picked up via Remote Viewing sessions that certain other UFO type incidents may be as well.

Also, research the Double-Slit Experiment and the recent Oxford Study released last year which mathematically proved Many-Worlds Interpretation.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? ... 24/1657258

According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by 'wave functions' representing a set of multiple 'probable' states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options. The Oxford team, led by Dr. David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.

"Dr Deutsch showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. This work was attacked but it has now had rigorous confirmation by David Wallace and Simon Saunders, also at Oxford.

Dr Saunders, who presented the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, told New Scientist: "We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works. It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."

Also ... http://quantumphysics.suite101.com/arti ... experiment

Indigo Child wrote:The unknowns involved in the cryptoterrestrial theory is the obvious unknowns of why they are hidden, why have we not detected them, and how can they survive down there and why don't they just come up here. I personally believe in the Naga beings that are said to inhabit the subterranian cities, but I have to set that aside, because of the lack of evidence.

You are forgetting the whole phenomenon of USOs (Unidentified Submerged Objects). There are many books and websites about this phenomenon, where UFOs are often seen diving into the ocean and not coming back up. And many cases where UFOs are also witnessed under the water, and cases where they are witnessed emerging from under the water and shooting outwards. Which suggests they may be coming and going from there.

Indigo Child wrote:The unknowns involved in the psychic manifestation theory of UFO's is how it is at all possible that the mind would manifest a physical machine that flies of its own accord and is capable of intelligent behaviour.

There's a well known case where a woman witnessed a UFO that looked just like the Startrek Star Ship Enterprise flying upside down (complete with USS Enterprise written on it), and a reputable UFO Researcher witness who saw a George Adamski type 1950s styled light bulb sci-fi craft flying in the sky in modern times, and several other witnessed who have seen true UFOs that seem to reflect strange twisted elements of pop culture. Which suggests some could indeed be a psychic manifestation.

Also, research the Skinwalker Ranch case. It was a ranch that was filled with paranormal activity, ghosts, strange looking animals, etc. And yes, many UFOs witnessed alongside of the paranormal activity on the ranch.

Then there are events like the Brown Mountain Lights, which are technically UFOs, and other similar light type UFO phenomenon that react intelligently, but don't appear to be conventional.

There are some researchers who have pointed out that areas that also have strong paranormal activity also seem to have frequent standard UFO sightings as well.

As I said earlier, there are cases of UFOs out there where one person will see it, and several others standing with them will be looking the same way, and not see anything, even though there is no chance they could miss it. Kinda like psychic phenomenon, like ghosts. And cases where multiple eyewitnesses will describe the craft they all saw very differently.

UFO Researcher Stan Gordon has been connecting places of paranormal activity to frequent UFO sightings. Interesting stuff.

Indigo Child wrote:Therefore because of the many unknonwns involved in these alternative paranormal explanations they are not viable. On the other hand the ETH does not have any unknowns, because it is a known fact that life happens on planets capable of sustaining them. It is also known through estimation that there is staggering amount of earth-like planets in the universe. Finally, it is also known that intelligent life develops machines to travel, such as space craft to travel in space. Physical intelligent beings are technological beings.

You fail to realize that I'm not saying that the ETH is not viable, I'm very open to many UFOs being ETH, just that there exist many cases that do not seem to fit the standard ETH mold, which suggests there may be more than one origin for UFOs.

Indigo Child wrote:Therefore in UFO cases where we clearly are witnessing physical machines, controlled by intelligent beings, it is clear there is a physical explanation. They are techological beings, and therefore they exist in the physical world.

All pure assumptions.

Indigo Child wrote:As it is clear that their level of technology far outstripps our level of technology, it is clear they belong to a domain where technology is far in advance of our own. It then easy to conclude that they belong to another planet in our universe. The ETH is therefore the best and simplest explanation for the generic UFO.

All assumptions.

Indigo Child wrote:Now, in UFO's where we have a mix of physical and psychic facts, such as in alien abduction cases which overlap with demons, elves napping souls at night, we have to be discerning here. Clearly, in some of these stories it is not the body which is being napped, but the soul. In other words the kidnappers are spiritual entities. In the case of alien abductions, it in fact the body being napped, and they are usually escorted into a UFO(physical craft) suggesting these kidnappers are physical entities.

What of the DMT trips experiencing full Alien Abduction scenarios, and the Alien Abductees who can't ever remember going to the bathroom or feeling they have to go to the bathroom, and the one who had sex with an alien hybrid but can't remember feeling wetness or remembering smells. That doesn't sound physical.

There are cases however, that do seem physical, such as Travis Walton, where he vanished five days, and had medical problems afterwards. And Betty and Barny Hill, and others with alleged implants.

I'm just saying, not all fit the traditional mold, so we should be open to other possibilities, is all.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

PreviousNext

Return to UFO's / Aliens / ET's

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests