Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

[Indigo Child]

[Nostradamus]

[Indigo Child]

I will consider your responses in terms of the 3 arguments I outlined;

1) The induction that there is life on other earth like planets
2) The telelogical nature of evolution
3) The statistical argument of earth like planets existing in the universe

1) Your claim that discovering 5 more earth like planets would establish the rule of life being more probable is as much as an induction
as my induction of generalizing from one earth like planet. You are commiting a probability fallacy in fact, for the likiliness of an event
cannot be established based on repeat instances. If I toss a coin 1 million times and I get heads 100% of the times, then what is the probability
of getting heads on the next trial? It is the same as any other trial: 50%. Thus no induction by enumeration is going to establish a rule or the
probability of a rule. To set a number of instances(5, 500, 5000) whereby a rule can be established is not rational, but an arbitrary human rule.
As the certainty of the rule will still not be established. This is known as the philosophy of falsificationism, originally developed by the philosopher
Karl Popper. He demonstrated that no amount of observations will ever establish any rule, for instance Newtonian physics has been shown to be
correct for centuries over hundreds of thousands of trials, but then later was falsified by General relativity.

Thus what the above discussion shows, if you can follow it, is no amount of observation or trial will ever establish a rule or the probability of a rule.
So logically it does not matter whether you generalize from one instance, or from 500, it is still an induction. You are within your rights to reject
induction, but you must do so by rejecting all inferences and science. The fact of the matter is you do indeed generalize from one example all
the time, you infer the existence of other minds from the one private experience of your own. Therefore you are guilty of inducing a general from
one instance, and therefore for you to reject my induction of ET life on earth like planets from Earth commits the fallacy of inconsistency. You are
therefore forced to accept that ET life exists on Earth like planets. Any rejection of this, will not be rational, but just sentimental.

2) It was shown above that no amount of instances will ever confirm any theory. Therefore the naturalist evolution theory is still a theory. It is still
possible that a teleogical theory of evolution is true. As it has been shown earlier that no induction by enumeration of instances will confirm a theory,
it means that we require other means to test theories, and those means are logical tests. Using the principle of non-contradiction in logic if we can reduce
a theory to absurdity then that theory can be rejected. If one critically evaluates the naturalistic theory of evolution one will find it rests upon the assumption
of materialism. That is that there is a real material world, to which everything is reducible and all things are separated and act upon each other deterministically
and in this scheme mind and consciousness are emergent properties of matter. Therefore as they are emergent properties they themselves cannot affect matter.

Materialism is no longer supported by science. The new view which has arisen due to quantum physics is that there is no such as a real material reality where things exist in separation from one another, but at the fundamental level or quantum world everything exist in a quantum superposition state and is is inseparable(empirically proven by the test of the Bell inequalities) Furthermore, in this new view mind has a direct effect over matter because no real material world exists without the presence of consciousness, which is required to collapse the wavefunction. Earlier quantum physics only applied to microscopic objects, but now quantum behaviour can be seen exhibited by macroscopic objects, meaning quantum physics has now emerged as a universal theory encompassing all phenomenon.
It has been long observed that matter exhibits coherence and synchronized behaviour, even in a simple organism the entire body operates in tandem with each other, such that nothing is working in isolation, but interconnections. This coherence is not just limited to the internal structure of the organism, but the organism itself is in coherence with the environment itself, that changes in the environment will directly affect the organism. To add to the complexity it has now known for a fact that mind is also in coherence with matter, that ones mental states will also affect ones physical states.
In other words both matter, organic matter and even mind are in coherence with one another and work inseparably that nothing can happen in isolation as predicted by the older naturalist theory of evolution. Therefore it is impossible for evolution to be a purposeless actvity, the coherence can only be explained as an organizing intelligence present within nature that it is capable of purposeful actvity. Hence reducing to absurdity the naturalist theory.
The new understanding in biology admits the existence of purpose-driven behaviour in nature. Such as the science of epigenetics. To give an example, cited by Dr Bruce H Lipton: Protein switches in the cells membrances respond to environmental signals by relaying secondary signals into the cells cytoplasm. Some membrance derived signals regulate the cells physiological functions; other membrance singnals are directly sent to the cells nucleus where they control gene activity.
In other the previous essentialist theory of evolution where genes are determinants is now shown to be false, instead is is now known that genes respond to signals from the environment and transform accordingly. Thus explaining why organisms adapt to their environments and evolve exactly that which is needed to survive in the environment.
The following article is a good article discussing the competing theories on evolution and the new views on evolution emerging: http://www.noetic.org/publications/revi ... arman.html
There now exists a vast database of scientific studies which clearly show the coherence of mind, matter(inorganic and organic) and also the fact that mind is more fundamental than matter. In other words matter is in service of the needs of mind, therefore everything within the universe is service of life. Therefore the function of a planet is also in service of life, and as there are an estimated 40 billion trillion of them in our obserable universe it means life must be abundant in the universe.

3) The discussion here will be very brief, because I do find your rejection of this argument to be based on weak grounds. I will use the terms of probability, if you find the term of statistics improper. The probability of there being no other life in the universe other than our own is extremely unlikely as to being impossible according to probability theory, because of the staggering amount of earth-like planets estimated in the universe. The fact is clear that life emerged on this planet rapidly within moments in Earth time, suggesting the clear relation etween the chemical ingrediants of the Earth and the emergence of life. Therefore even probablistically the existence of ET is certain.

So I will reiterate again the 3 arguments again which logically establish the existence of ET. A rational being can simply accept the existence of ET, even without having any empirical confirmation. Therefore the ET hypothesis can be admitted as a part our observable universe and knowledge, and can be used to explain phenomena we encounter, such as UFO's. The fact that the common description of a UFO is that they are physical, intelligently controlled flying objects which defy all human physics, necessarily then means that they belong to non-human technological beings i.e., ET's.
The evidence for UFO's is so overwhelming that a rational being cannot maintain they do not exist. The link between UFO's and the ETH is so logical, that a rational being cannot maintain that UFO's are not of ET origin. Indeed, today some UFO's maybe of human origin due to the reverse-engineering of ET UFO's and secret government experimental crafts, but historically going back to the beginning of the 20th century and prior they could not have been of human origin.

[Indigo Child]

I apologise for the inconsistencies in formatting, I am having a lot of trouble composing a post
in the text window, beyond a certain point it does not let me scroll anymore. I just wanted to finally
add a comment to your claim my "arguments are weak" I do not think so at all, because my arguments
are informed by a strong understanding of logic, epistemology, philosophy of science and modern science.
On the contrary, if I may say so, you do not seem to be aware of such considerations and the nuances between
an inductive and deductive argument. This is fine, one has to study philosophy and logic to be aware of them,
but then it would be wrong of you to state my arguments are weak, when in fact they are highly complex, nuanced
and professional.

You also seem to have an outdated understanding of science. For example you are talking about theories of evolution
which have long been superceded and ontologies of the world which have long been proven to be false.

The new worldview in modern science, to use the terms of the contemporary philosopher of science Ervin Laszlo, is
"enchanted" We now understand the intimate relationship between consciousness and the universe, and the existence
of planes of reality beyond space and time where more fundamental activity take place. It is now known that all activity
begins in non-physical planes of reality(or in other words minds) and we know how thought have the power to manifest in
reality as physical and tangible things. In this worldview, life is a cosmic imperative, not a cosmic accident. Therefore life
is very much pervading all of reality and all planes. In fact the existence of ET is no longer that amazing, as is the existence
of spiritual planes of reality populated by gods, angels and spiritual masters. I say this as humbly as I can: Get with the times.

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

The reason I find your arguments so weak is that you try to slide by on logical arguments devoid of evidence. You provide no evidence and make appeals which are of the type my kids make, "oh please, oh pretty please let me buy something." That's the way they come through to me. You make claims which are weak or use disconnected conclusions and then state that if you don't agree then you have to reject everything and anything. No. You, not me, have to fix your argument.

I figure you got away with using polysyllabic words to cow the folks over at ATS. Does not work here. You need to provide simple arguments with evidence. You make up examples that are not relevant or are misrepresentations of the issue such as the million coin flips. I'm not buying any of this.

My position on this issue is not what is at stake. I may believe in the possibility of life existing outside of the domain of the Earth. I may not. What is certain is that I do not find your arguments to be valid.

[Indigo Child]

[Indigo Child]

[Nostradamus]

[Indigo Child]

Well, seeing as you still have failed to demonstrate any of your statements, I am going to
assume you are incapable of rational discussion and not waste my time trying to reason with somebody
not ameniable to reason. It is impossible to discuss anything with somebody who never gives any valid
reasons for their statements, or valid reasons for critiquing others statements. You are very much a
classic example of the pseudoskeptic being debunked in this thread, and a great illustration of how a
pseduskeptic gets a torn a new one when they debate with real skeptics

[Nostradamus]

[Indigo Child]

[Indigo Child]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]