Casual Approach to Evidence (Multi-Thread ST-4)

[SkinWalker]

This is a Sub-Topic from a Multi-Thread discussion. The Main Thread is located at this link. http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109356

 

Sub-Thread 4 (ST-4) : Casual Approach to Evidence

 

Evidence is the cornerstone that sets asisde science from any other humna intellectual endeavor, including (to a large extent) philosophy. Given its pivotal role, admissible evidence has to be solid and reliable. If we cite a "fact," we have to be reasonably sure that it indeed corresponds to a verifiable piece of evidence. Hearsay is not admissible.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The single best example that I can think of that demonstrates this criteria is the so-called "UFOlogy" movement.

 

UFOlogy is the alleged study of UFOs. Unfortunately, only perhaps a very, very small percent of "ufologists" are actually of a scientific mind when it comes to "studying" the phenomena that surround this field.

 

Many of the self-proclaimed ufologists are nothing more than lay persons with no scientific background that are making an effort to "investigate" claims of alien craft visiting our fair planet. There are also many who are actually quite deceptive in their efforts and/or motives. The number of hoaxes that are perpetuated in the name of "UFO research" is astounding. Some are obvious, others have explanations of fakery that are much more plausible, given the extent of the evidence available.

 

I point anyone interested to a site called UFOTheatre, which proclaims itself as a site for the investigation of UFO video evidence. The person who runs this site has a discussion board, posts videos from various sources, etc. In particular, look at the video titled Nfoufo Black UFO (2003) about 1/3 down the page. I warn you, it is rather large, but if you have a decent connection the wait is relatively short.

 

The problem with this video, is that I saw too many ways it could be faked much more easily than it could be explained that it was an alien craft:

 

Now, bearing this in mind, I looked at this Video frame-by-frame. What I noticed right away was that the reflection in the "UFO" changed just as it neared the house. If it were "2 miles away" this would not have occurred, however it is possible that another object caused the reflection change.. unfortunately, none is visible in the video.

 

The second thing I noticed was the line, and though I was looking for it, I was surprised because this is something I would have been very careful to utilize Photoshop's clone tool to remove.

 

At first, I merely thought it to be an artifact of the video, however, this "artifact disappears behind the "ufo." That is not consistant with digital video artifacts. (I do know a little about video after all it seems).

 

Here's the images as I've noticed them:

 

 

I don't think images are displaying in the Senate, so you might have to click the links, but they are small images.

 

I emailed both the person that runs UFOTheatre and Jeff Willes, the person who created the video, with my observations. What I got in return is hostility. In fact, UFOTheatre (his screenname on one or more disscussion boards) assailed me with insults, profanity and questioned my sexual orientation enough that even Freud would wonder what he's hiding!

 

Still, they couldn't satisfy my questions. AND, they both have something else to gain. Money. Good old greenbacks. UFOTheatre sells compact disc compilations of "ufo videos" and Jeff Willes sells him the original videos. It's a scam. Pure and simple. UFOTheatre even sells a program called "the magic 8-ball," which I pointed out after he tried to advertise it under another screen name on another scientific discussion board. I, of course, was assailed again… this time by his alternate screen name.

 

That last bit is important, because when the evidence of someone who makes a pseudoscientific claim is questioned, it is often defended in such a manner. Profanity, name-calling, questioning the person who questions the evidence, anything that might deflect attention from the original issue: the evidence. It can be seen when a non-believer questions any belief… be it ufo's, religion, esp, or that Madonna isn't getting old.

 

What are your thoughts? Anyone want to defend UFOTheatre? I must admit, many of the videos on his site are difficult to explain. Yet, the presence of some obvious fakes would seem to invalidate the others. Also, the absence of credible, understandable explanation doesn't mean that the paranormal or supernatural is at work... or aliens from space for that matter.

 

Anyone want to discuss evidenciary procedure? Evidence used in other areas of pseudoscience?

 

Also, see a related thread that I started on Fingerprint Evidence.

[Eldritch]

What I find even more amazing is that many of these "UFOlogists" are also amateur proctologists... a fact which I plan to proove with a lot of shoddy filmmaking, sketchy eyewitnesses, and the largest silver wok you've ever seen.

 

 

 

Please don't consider this anything but jest. These people at UFOTheatre are, as you so aptly put, nothing but scam artists.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

(...)questioned my sexual orientation enough that even Freud would wonder what he's hiding!

Well, if he's into that "homo is a bad word" thing, he doesn't sound that scientific to me. "You sound gay so you probably are wrong.":D. I almost love those.

 

What I find even more amazing is that many of these "UFOlogists" are also amateur proctologists... a fact which I plan to proove with a lot of shoddy filmmaking, sketchy eyewitnesses, and the largest silver wok you've ever seen.

Ditto. If NASA or ESA or some other serious, respected organization comes up with evidence, then fine. Otherwise... tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

That last bit is important, because when the evidence of someone who makes a pseudoscientific claim is questioned, it is often defended in such a manner. Profanity, name-calling, questioning the person who questions the evidence, anything that might deflect attention from the original issue: the evidence. It can be seen when a non-believer questions any belief… be it ufo's, religion, esp, or that Madonna isn't getting old.

Ditto again.

 

If he said something like:

 

Yes, I know some videos are obviously fake, but in the name of science and preserving history I decided to post them all anyway. I agree that one's probably a fake, but you must agree that several of them are still unexplicable.

 

This site concerns itself with analyzation of all available movies, not just the ones I consider real. There might still be some variable here that makes that line go behind the UFO, and I wanted to make the movie free for others to be the judges.

 

...then I might have taken him a bit more seriously (though I don't believe in UFOs).

 

But if he attacks you, you're pretty much sure he's wrong. Common experience when debating someone who's just hopelessy stuck and doesn't want to admit it.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Lord Siraious]

It is a shame that there is more scamers out there than real UFOologist. What am I talking about why do I just stop at UFOology, heck there is alot of scamers throughout the whole scienific community but thats another story .

 

Back to the topic.....

 

As most people know scienitific proof is based on the falsification system. Which mean we prove something is correct at the current time by proving that the other options are false. (I stated it right didnt I? its been a while since I had to got back the the basis of scienitific method.)

 

So if they were real UFOologist and follow science, I assume these {Sarcasm}intelligent people{/Sarcasm} dont, they would have to investigate questions that question the validity of their evidence. As Skinwalker said they failed to do so instead they resorted to something lower than a grade 2 child and started to abuse him. Unfortunately when they did this they destroyed any chance of people and inparticular scientists (I include myself in this group, I'm a student of medical science) taking them seriously, which could mean that IF they had any real evidence it would also be included as trash and ignored.

 

{I think everything I said has made sence if not I'll edit it }

[SkinWalker]

In dealing with subjects, such as UFOs, the evidence is typically one of two types: anecdotal or graphic imagery.

 

The problem with both is that they are easily contrived. It takes a great many corroborating sources to allow either as legitimate evidence. Or it requires a corroborating alternative source of evidence.

 

Take the video of a subject in a convenience store during the time of a robbery. The video (hypothetical) shows only the subject walking through the store, going off camera, then hurridly running out. If this were the only evidence, a conviction could not be forthcoming. How do we know this video was shot at the correct time or even the correct day? How do we know this is even the suspect on trial (these videos are rarely of any clarity)? How do we know that the store was actually robbed?

 

Easily answered questions when corroborated by witnesses, fingerprints, clothing matches, video date/time stamps, recovered items, etc. But without any or even all of these, a jury cannot say that the person in the video is our suspect.

 

In looking at a video and hearing an eyewitness testimony, one has to ask what other evidence is available and is it secured? A grainy photo or even a relatively sharp video of an object that cannot be discerned cannot be said to be anything more than unidentified.

 

Take the Bigfoot case for instance. Mr. Wallace perpetuated his hoax until the day he died. Only after his death did his family come clean. The famous video of Bigfoot walking from a small clearing into some trees was actually his wife in an ape suit made by the same people who did the original Planet of the Apes!

 

All that existed was a video and some casts of foot prints. I remember distinctly the hype that occured during the '70s and '80s about how the footprints could not have been faked, since they contained anatomically correct flaws; the many eyewitnesses that came forward to speak of their experiences; the anecdotal claim that there was a distinct odor that accompanied Bigfoot sightings; etc., etc.

 

Skeptical examination of the evidence was given little attention. Never mind that there was an extremely limited amount of physical evidence, all of which was easily hoaxed. But who would go to such lengths? Mr. Wallace.... for one.

 

This is an important subject. Evidence is important in other areas of our lives, not just in debunking claims of UFOs, Bigfoot, and the paranormal. We cannot expect people to be truthful when there is a possibility to gain status. There's little harm in 15 minutes of fame at being the "one who saw Bigfoot" or "took a ride in a UFO."

 

But not everybody seeking status to cares about the well-being of others. A look at Enron, WorldCom/MCI, and Montana Power will prove that. A look at government will demonstrate it as well. There are those within our governments (if you think corruption is uniquely American, this Multi-Thread is for you) who will stop at very little to get what they want.

 

This is an old thread, but it seemed the most appropriate to become home for the side-topic that erupted in the Why Atheism? thread.

[Windu Chi]

Don't you think it's a bit futile to guess endlessly about something you have no chance of figuring out yourself?

Yes, it is futile, Tyrion.

But these philosophical questions are really fascinating and disturbing to me.

Don't the idea of something that always existed and never had a beginning disturb you too?

I want to make existence make logical sense to me, but it don't make any sense at all.

 

He meant that he can only assume they do not exist as so far there is no proof they both are real and have affected our life.

Well, I'm going to assume they do exist almost everywhere in the Milky Way, we are just going have to have a match of assumptions.

It is ridiculous to me if the galaxy isn't populated by extraterrestrials.

[Samuel Dravis]

Yes, it is futile, Tyrion.

But these philosophical questions are really fascinating and disturbing to me.

Don't the idea of something that always existed and never had a beginning disturb you too?

I want to make existence make logical sense to me, but it don't make any sense at all.

I find most everything interesting. That doesn't mean it's very useful at all. For example, your assumption in this post that the universe always existed is uncalled for. You don't know. It's easy to create problems with things when you make them up based on... what? If you're just doing a logic game, that's okay. But to say that assumption is reasonable is incorrect.

 

 

Well, I'm going to assume they do exist almost everywhere in the Milky Way, we are just going have to have a match of assumptions.

It is ridiculous to me if the galaxy isn't populated by extraterrestrials.

To assume they exist without any real evidence for them is to be irrational. If that's your thing, well, fine. Considering you seem to think that there is infinite numbers of aliens, at least some of them have GOT to be gunning for us, right?

 

Whatever - just don't try to get public funding for 'defense against the alien hordes.'

[Windu Chi]

I find most everything interesting. That doesn't mean it's very useful at all. For example, your assumption in this post that the universe always existed is uncalled for. You don't know. It's easy to create problems with things when you make them up based on... what? If you're just doing a logic game, that's okay. But to say that assumption is reasonable is incorrect.

Well, the best any of us can do at the moment is to assume, since we can't leave this damn planet and explore the universe to find out any still unknown mysteries that we can't figure out by remaining in only one perspective.

Can't be skeptical of everything, we got use our imagination sometimes.

I'm not no damn computer, I have a imagination.

So, I don't depend on logic only to make my decisions.

So, I'm not going to be close-minded to any ideas, be they ridiculous.

Also, since it maybe the case of possible infinite realities, becacuse of the absurdity of a ultimate beginning to everything any of us can imagine out there, it will be foolhardy to assume that ridiculous ideas are false because we and I mean everybody in our civilization on this planet.

Because we don't observe or find evidence for it here on this planet, which is still again, our only perspective at the moment.

To assume they exist without any real evidence for them is to be irrational. If that's your thing, well, fine.

For you to be skeptical of everything, then that is your thing, Samuel.

Considering you seem to think that there is infinite numbers of aliens

Well, if you talking about existence then, yes.

 

Whatever - just don't try to get public funding for 'defense against the alien hordes.'

You got jokes, huh?

Well, because I believe in aliens I'm crazy?

Then so be it, because I be damn I'm going to believe we are the only ones in this galaxy.

Until, someone go out there and search every nook and cranny of the Milky Way.

[Samnmax221]

Oh-boy, this has turned into a pissing contest.

[Samuel Dravis]

Well, the best any of us can do at the moment is to assume, since we can't leave this damn planet and explore the universe to find out any still unknown mysteries that we can't figure out by remaining in only one perspective.

You can assume things based on evidence that is available to you at the moment. If there's no evidence, then your assumption is just a guess, hardly to be relied on. Why not treat it like that?

 

Also, since it maybe the case of possible infinite realities, becacuse of the absurdity of a ultimate beginning to everything any of us can imagine out there, it will be foolhardy to assume that ridiculous ideas are false because we and I mean everybody in our civilization on this planet.

Because we don't observe or find evidence for it here on this planet, which is still again, our only perspective at the moment.

I will change my perspective when there is reason to. Also, I don't say that your ideas were false (I don't know enough to make that assumption); they are just not based on anything observable. When I see sufficient evidence for (whatever) I will believe that it exists.

 

For you to be skeptical of everything, then that is your thing, Samuel.

 

Well, if you talking about existence then, yes.

How about this:

 

If there is an infinite universe, and there are infinite aliens, then there must be aliens who have come here. Do I see any aliens outside? Are there any accurate reports of aliens? No, I don't see them, and there are no accurate reports. So, can you tell me why don't I see any aliens?

 

(this is called the Fermi Paradox, by the way)

 

You got jokes, huh?

Well, because I believe in aliens I'm crazy?

Then so be it, because I be damn I'm going to believe we are the only ones in this galaxy.

Until, someone go out there and search every nook and cranny of the Milky Way.

I don't think you're crazy. For you to believe that there may be aliens is reasonable. For you to say that there's any reason to base decisions on that right now is not true. I'm not basing my decisions on the existence or non-existance of aliens until they show up. It's the same thing for everything else, including the topic of this thread.

[Totenkopf]

So, can you tell me why don't I see any aliens?

 

 

Perhaps you're only seeing what they want you to see.......

[Samuel Dravis]

Perhaps you're only seeing what they want you to see.......

Yes, I'm an avid believer in the efficacy of the blue pill (though taking medication without a label is pretty foolish IMO). Even so, don't forget to remind people that the aliens could be using us as batteries while they control our minds with a computer program. A highly realistic scenario; I think everyone would find it more believable if you told them about it while wearing sunglasses and a trenchcoat.

 

 

^_^

[Nancy Allen``]

Seeing as how this has gone into discussion on aliens I'll add my two cents.

 

The two big things I point to as evidence that there may be aliens, I've probably raised these before, are things such as the Egyption pyramids and Area 51. To go into detail the pyramids were built really not long after man first evolved on Earth, whichever way you want to go by (Adam & Eve, evolve from apes, ect). Now the story goes that Pharoh had his slaves build the pyramids and statues, however even with technology today we cannot do what the Egyptions did and there is a strong belief that aliens were involved. I'm not saying they were, but the possibility is there. The other strong indicator is Area 51 and all that was involved with it, Roswell, ect. For decades the government had denied the existence of Area 51 despite eyewitness testimonies and many believed this was where aliens were being kept, most likely the ones that had meant to have crashed in Roswell New Mexico. Only recently had it been revealed that Area 51 did exist, I'm not sure if this is the official reason but one of the rumors was that they tested experimental aircraft there. I'm willing to go with this theory (and the crash in Roswell was pilot error as opposed to aliens), especially when considering one important fact. If aliens are so advanced that they can travel lightyears through space they would hardly be captured by such a primitive world.

[Samuel Dravis]

Well, I wasn't interested in discussion about aliens as much as I was about why you'd believe in them. Anything is possible, I grant you. Aliens could have helped make the pyramids. Or they might not have. Given that it's certainly possible for the pyramids to be constructed without such intervention and the alien possibility has no solid evidence behind it, I wouldn't say that such an event was really all that credible.

 

Funny how that's pretty much the same argument for the topic of the thread, eh?

[Totenkopf]

Yes, I'm an avid believer in the efficacy of the blue pill (though taking medication without a label is pretty foolish IMO). Even so, don't forget to remind people that the aliens could be using us as batteries while they control our minds with a computer program. A highly realistic scenario; I think everyone would find it more believable if you told them about it while wearing sunglasses and a trenchcoat.

 

 

^_^

 

 

Hold on there...........you forgot about the tin foil hat.

[Windu Chi]

You can assume things based on evidence that is available to you at the moment. If there's no evidence, then your assumption is just a guess, hardly to be relied on. Why not treat it like that?

I'm not asking my assumption to be relied on, I'm just going to believe this until or if I'm proven wrong.

 

I will change my perspective when there is reason to. Also, I don't say that your ideas were false (I don't know enough to make that assumption); they are just not based on anything observable. When I see sufficient evidence for (whatever) I will believe that it exists.

Well, how do you observe infinity, there is no perspective to reach and observe from.

How do you observe infinite evidence?

My argument is, our existence don't make no damn sense; by continuing looking from or continuing trying to look from a infinite perspective.

Every finite creation idea us humans put forward, always have to explain every previous creator of this creator of this ultimate beginning of this finite creation idea, in infinite regression.

The idea something always existed or came from nothing, don't satisfy me, I don't like nothing.

 

If there is an infinite universe, and there are infinite aliens, then there must be aliens who have come here. Do I see any aliens outside? Are there any accurate reports of aliens? No, I don't see them, and there are no accurate reports. So, can you tell me why don't I see any aliens?

It may surprise you, but I actually haven't seen no UFOS, even though I'm a UFO nut( I'm not saying you are calling me one, but some people do called me one.)

Or, neither have I been abducted by aliens, but if I were I probably won't be coming back here; the chance to explore the Milky Way(If they don't turn out to be evil, of course) is what I want to do now, but I'm not smart enough yet, or these so called "geniuses" on this planet aren't smart enough or brave enough(stop being close-minded to strange ideas of interstellar travel) to make this dream of mine's, happen right NOW.

 

 

I don't think you're crazy. For you to believe that there may be aliens is reasonable. For you to say that there's any reason to base decisions on that right now is not true. I'm not basing my decisions on the existence or non-existance of aliens until they show up. It's the same thing for everything else, including the topic of this thread.

I wasn't saying you were calling me a nut, Samuel, I was talking in general terms of what some people here think of me.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'm not asking my assumption to be relied on, I'm just going to believe this until or if I'm proven wrong.

Why? There's more interesting things to believe in, such as furry monsters under the bed that disappear whenever someone looks for them.

 

Perfectly plausible - I mean, no one's ever seen one (obviously they can't because they disappear) but everyone's heard about them. Why should anyone object to someone's belief in them? Would you think someone who told you that this monster exists was strange? A little off their rocker? If so, why?

 

Would you tell them they're wrong when they try to get "In the Furry Monster we trust" on your coinage? At what point is it you say "enough"? What do you do when the leader of your country says he consulted this fuzzball when considering starting a war? Would you consider that perfectly rational behavior?

 

Well, how do you observe infinity, there is no perspective to reach and observe from.

How do you observe infinite evidence?

My argument is, our existence don't make no damn sense; by continuing looking from or continuing trying to look from a infinite perspective.

Every finite creation idea us humans put forward, always have to explain every previous creator of this creator of this ultimate beginning of this finite creation idea, in infinite regression.

The idea something always existed or came from nothing, don't satisfy me, I don't like nothing.

You're still taking a position on that. That's not necessary; there isn't enough information to say what happened with any certainty better than a guess. "I don't know" doesn't mean you think that the universe existed forever by itself. It means you really don't know and are not taking any position without reasonable evidence to suggest that it is correct. If you can't live with that kind of uncertaintly then this, and other problems like it, are most likely going to plague you for the rest of your life.

 

It may surprise you, but I actually haven't seen no UFOS, even though I'm a UFO nut( I'm not saying you are calling me one, but some people do called me one.)

Or, neither have I been abducted by aliens, but if I were I probably won't be coming back here; the chance to explore the Milky Way(If they don't turn out to be evil, of course) is what I want to do now, but I'm not smart enough yet, or these so called "geniuses" on this planet aren't smart enough or brave enough(stop being close-minded to strange ideas of interstellar travel) to make this dream of mine's, happen right NOW.

And all I'm saying is that so far, progress in the way of understanding has never been advanced by stating that an unknown factor is responsible for any given effect. You can say, "Aliens/God/Leprechauns did this", but does that really help you understand anything? Does it really make sense to create "explanations" that don't actually explain the phenomena?

 

I suggest that it doesn't. A scientist won't discover a hyperdrive by testing out every random guess (at least not very quickly anyway ), people's futures won't be accurately foretold by an astrologer, and people's belief in things that don't have any evidence behind them will still be futile, however devout that belief.

[Windu Chi]

Why? There's more interesting things to believe in, such as furry monsters under the bed that disappear whenever someone looks for them.

Strange as reality is and our only little keyhole perspective on our universe you can't rule out nothing.

 

Perfectly plausible - I mean, no one's ever seen one (obviously they can't because they disappear) but everyone's heard about them. Why should anyone object to someone's belief in them? Would you think someone who told you that this monster exists was strange? A little off their rocker? If so, why?

As I will say again strange as reality is, you can't rule out nothing.

But I don't believe in monsters personally, unless you are speaking of aliens.

 

Would you tell them they're wrong when they try to get "In the Furry Monster we trust" on your coinage? At what point is it you say "enough"? What do you do when the leader of your country says he consulted this fuzzball when considering starting a war? Would you consider that perfectly rational behavior?

I won't tell anybody they are wrong in there beliefs, because I'm not the damn answer man.

Of course, I don't know everything either,

now these other questions you are asking here, sound ridiculous.

 

You're still taking a position on that. That's not necessary; there isn't enough information to say what happened with any certainty better than a guess. "I don't know" doesn't mean you think that the universe existed forever by itself.

Well, I'm not accepting with high certainty with the decision, that existence or whatever came from nothing.

How, else can anybody explain, that there is a beginning to everything, without explaining a infinite regression of creators?

Also I really don't like saying, that I don't know something.

So, I won't ever give up in trying to find the answer to a problem.

 

It means you really don't know and are not taking any position without reasonable evidence to suggest that it is correct. If you can't live with that kind of uncertaintly then this, and other problems like it, are most likely going to plague you for the rest of your life.

As I will say again, how the hell can anybody get this evidence, if we got to search infinity?

Well, there is going to be maybe, always some knowledge that we may never be certain of.

 

And all I'm saying is that so far, progress in the way of understanding has never been advanced by stating that an unknown factor is responsible for any given effect. You can say, "Aliens/God/Leprechauns did this", but does that really help you understand anything? Does it really make sense to create "explanations" that don't actually explain the phenomena?

The phenomena seems to be real.

Aliens; the government secrecy, UFO video, pictures, 10 millions of witnesses; Last I saw in a poll half the population of the people believe in UFOs and ET in the U.S.A, military contradictions for explanations for UFO phenomena; Venus, bulllsh*t!

Venus is everywhere?

Swamp gas( oh, that is my favorite one ) and weather balloons, with all the different shapes people report this explanation fails horribly.

Now, we can go into the conspiracy theories and whatever, but that was already discuss in the Pseudoscience of UFOs thread.

 

I suggest that it doesn't. A scientist won't discover a hyperdrive by testing out every random guess (at least not very quickly anyway ), people's futures won't be accurately foretold by an astrologer, and people's belief in things that don't have any evidence behind them will still be futile, however devout that belief.

There is no damn random guesses, there is some serious physics of interstellar propulsion and travel to consider; warpdrive, wormholes and maybe hyperdrive, but we would have to find if or what specific dimension of spacetime vibrate at, to phase in hyperspace.

I have been reading a physics book called, ELECTROGRAVITATION AS

A UNIFIED FIELD THEORY by JERRY E. BAYLES, it explain how gravity is a component of electromagnetism(also the possible unification of the strong nuclear and weak force with gravity and electromagnetism ), and some physics of hyperspace.

Well, in this book hyperspace is theorize, to be a location where electrons in atoms make quantum leap jumps through to other energy levels, that is define by quantum physics.

The book can be found here http://www.electrogravity.com/, if you are interested.

[Samuel Dravis]

Strange as reality is and our only little keyhole perspective on our universe you can't rule out nothing.

 

As I will say again strange as reality is, you can't rule out nothing.

But I don't believe in monsters personally, unless you are speaking of aliens.

I'm not ruling them out. I'm saying that there is no current, verfiable reason to believe in them.

 

I won't tell anybody they are wrong in there beliefs, because I'm not the damn answer man.

Of course, I don't know everything either,

Would you tell someone that believes that babies come from storks that they're wrong? Why or why not?

 

 

now these other questions you are asking here, sound ridiculous.

Why do they sound rediculous? What gives them that quality?

 

Well, I'm not accepting with high certainty with the decision, that existence or whatever came from nothing.

How, else can anybody explain, that there is a beginning to everything, without explaining a infinite regression of creators?

Also I really don't like saying, that I don't know something.

So, I won't ever give up in trying to find the answer to a problem.

Let me tell you something: I really don't like not knowing something too. I think it's much more fun to know why something happens than to be forced to say I have no idea. However, that doesn't mean that I start believing in something for which I have no other reason to believe it.

 

 

As I will say again, how the hell can anybody get this evidence, if we got to search infinity?

Well, there is going to be maybe, always some knowledge that we may never be certain of.

I agree with you. There's probably going to be some things that we never find out. I just don't think people need to come up with an explanation where there is actually none possible. There's no reason to do so.

 

 

The phenomena seems to be real.

But it has a problem. There's no hard evidence for it. All it comes down to is personal opinion. While that may be enough for some, I don't see how it makes sense to utilize that belief in any sense other than a thoughtgame.

 

 

There is no damn random guesses, there is some serious physics of interstellar propulsion and travel to consider; warpdrive, wormholes and maybe hyperdrive, but we would have to find if or what specific dimension of spacetime vibrate at, to phase in hyperspace.

All the unified field theories in the past have fallen flat on their collective faces. I'll reserve judgement until it's proven, or at least provable. Until then, it is a guess (perhaps an educated one), which may or may not be true. I wouldn't start living my life around that theory if I were you.

[Windu Chi]

I'm not ruling them out. I'm saying that there is no current, verfiable reason to believe in them.

That is your opinion then, but some people going to believe what they are going to believe in, no logic or reasonable explanation going convince them otherwise.

 

 

Would you tell someone that believes that babies come from storks that they're wrong?

Hmm, I see what you are trying to do here.

 

Why or why not?

The idea that babies come from storks is straight bulls*t, but you are trying to come up with ridiculous questions, to make me change my opinions.

 

Why do they sound rediculous? What gives them that quality?

They are manipulative questions, Samuel.

 

Let me tell you something: I really don't like not knowing something too. I think it's much more fun to know why something happens than to be forced to say I have no idea. However, that doesn't mean that I start believing in something for which I have no other reason to believe it.

Once again, that is your opinion.

 

 

 

 

But it has a problem. There's no hard evidence for it. All it comes down to is personal opinion. While that may be enough for some, I don't see how it makes sense to utilize that belief in any sense other than a thoughtgame.

The really hard evidence is missing because of government secrecy.

If you don't believe the governments of this planet keep secrets from their public citizens.

And I'm not talking of military secrets, only.

Then all I can do is

 

All the unified field theories in the past have fallen flat on their collective faces.

I'm more on the opinion that there is no unfied field theory, but those theories may have useful application to things like interstellar travel.

I'll reserve judgement until it's proven, or at least provable. Until then, it is a guess (perhaps an educated one), which may or may not be true. I wouldn't start living my life around that theory if I were you.

Well, most physics theories have pan out, so I will continue to pay close attention to this one, ELECTROGRAVITATION.

[Samuel Dravis]

Hmm, I see what you are trying to do here.

 

 

The idea that babies come from storks is straight bulls*t, but you are trying to come up with ridiculous questions, to make me change my opinions.

 

 

They are manipulative questions, Samuel.

How is it manipulative to compare two examples of the same reasoning - or lack thereof - and ask why they are not treated the same way? If you don't want to answer the question since it is uncomfortable for you to do so because the answer challenges your beliefs, then that's something you should overcome. Self-imposed irrationality is the most insidious kind. If you don't answer those questions, I will simply assume you have no answer to them that doesn't contradict your previous statements.

 

And yes, my arguments are meant to convince you of my view. That's why it's a debate.

 

Once again, that is your opinion.

Can you give me a good reason to have any other? Can you give a good, concrete reason for anyone to have a different opinion?

 

The really hard evidence is missing because of government secrecy.

If you don't believe the governments of this planet keep secrets from their public citizens.

And I'm not talking of military secrets, only.

Then all I can do is

If there was a government conspiracy to keep us from knowing about aliens, it would have fallen apart 50 years ago. There's no way that that many people could know about it and never leak anything substantial. That would be an inhuman accomplishment, much like other conspiracy theories.

 

That is your opinion then, but some people going to believe what they are going to believe in, no logic or reasonable explanation going convince them otherwise.

Okay, then I won't bother you anymore if you don't want to listen.

[Windu Chi]

How is it manipulative to compare two examples of the same reasoning - or lack thereof - and ask why they are not treated the same way? If you don't want to answer the question since it is uncomfortable for you to do so because the answer challenges your beliefs, then that's something you should overcome. Self-imposed irrationality is the most insidious kind. If you don't answer those questions, I will simply assume you have no answer to them that doesn't contradict your previous statements.

Asking me a question about a Furry Monster, or whatever the hell you are talking about is ridiculous to me.

And yes, my arguments are meant to convince you of my view. That's why it's a debate.

Well, I don't know of your success rate with other people, but it is not going to work with me, I always keep a open-mind, even if questions are ridiculous to me.

 

Can you give me a good reason to have any other? Can you give a good, concrete reason for anyone to have a different opinion?

Are you talking about aliens, well if you don't believe because you don't have no evidence, then I can't help there.

 

If there was a government conspiracy to keep us from knowing about aliens, it would have fallen apart 50 years ago. There's no way that that many people could know about it and never leak anything substantial. That would be an inhuman accomplishment, much like other conspiracy theories.

Heh, don't give me that bulls*t, Samuel, they can't keep secrets.

C'mon, if no one could keep secrets(D-Day invasion plans) the Nazis will be ruling the world now.

Much to learn you still have.

 

Okay, then I won't bother you anymore if you don't want to listen.

Don't want to listen!

What the hell you think I have been doing all this time.

[Samuel Dravis]

Asking me a question about a Furry Monster, or whatever the hell you are talking about is ridiculous to me.

And I asked why it was rediculous. What makes the idea rediculous?

 

Are you talking about aliens, well if you don't believe because you don't have no evidence, then I can't help there.

 

Well, I don't know of your success rate with other people, but it is not going to work with me, I always keep a open-mind, even if questions are ridiculous to me.

I suggest that having an 'open mind' also means that you are ready to reject propositions as well as accept new ones. An openminded person would need to consider every idea, argument and claim based on merit. I submit that anyone who will believe in anything regardless of lack of evidence etc, are not, in fact, openminded - they are instead credulous. Anyone who refuses to drop a belief when there is zero evidence for it is not acting rationally. That's all there is to it.

 

Heh, don't give me that bulls*t, Samuel, they can't keep secrets.

C'mon, if no one could keep secrets(D-Day invasion plans) the Nazis will be ruling the world now.

Much to learn you still have.

Is it a bit harder to keep a secret for 50 years? How about doing that for hundreds, if not thousands, of people?

 

Don't want to listen!

What the hell you think I have been doing all this time.

If you aren't willing to be convinced, then. That is true closemindedness. Skepticism doesn't mean you reject everything; it simply means you don't hold unjustified beliefs. If that means rejecting some beliefs that you currently hold, then that must be done if you want to retain your rational integrity.

[Windu Chi]

And I asked why it was rediculous. What makes the idea rediculous?

Ok, Samuel I will deal with your annoying questions.

It is ridiculous because the question concern a Furry Monster, also what the hell is this furry monster?

Also the questions are meant to get me into a trap.

I'm not falling for it.

 

I submit that anyone who will believe in anything regardless of lack of evidence etc, are not, in fact, openminded - they are instead credulous. Anyone who refuses to drop a belief when there is zero evidence for it is not acting rationally.

There is no damn "zero evidence" concerning aliens.

Look, this discussion is getting us nowhere, fast.

Is it a bit harder to keep a secret for 50 years? How about doing that for hundreds, if not thousands, of people?

If you still believe there is no secrecy whatsoever, then you are a casualty of the government lies of the past 59 years.

Your perception of the honesty of government just would've to remain maimed.

Because you trust the government and the military ridiculous explanations,

to strongly.

So, good luck with that!

If you aren't willing to be convinced, then. That is true closemindedness. Skepticism doesn't mean you reject everything; it simply means you don't hold unjustified beliefs. If that means rejecting some beliefs that you currently hold, then that must be done if you want to retain your rational integrity.

Skepticism is a disease of the imagination.

I don't want to catch it.

You aren't going to convinced me that the governments of this planet isn't keeping secrets of alien contact.

I don't... trust them.

[Samuel Dravis]

Ok, Samuel I will deal with your annoying questions.

It is ridiculous because the question concern a Furry Monster, also what the hell is this furry monster?

It's the furry monster under the bed that vanishes when you look for it, of course.

 

Also the questions are meant to get me into a trap.

I'm not falling for it.

If there's a trap, it's one of your own devising. I can't manipulate logic. Answer the question, even if only to yourself. Then try applying that same reasoning to other things that are similar.

 

If you still believe there is no secrecy whatsoever...

I specifically was talking about the improbability of government conspiracies involving aliens. I'm sure the government has secrets. I fully expect the government will do what is best for the government, and that might not always align with the good of the people.

 

Skepticism is a disease of the imagination.

I don't want to catch it.

You aren't going to convinced me that the governments of this planet isn't keeping secrets of alien contact.

I don't... trust them.

A disease of the imagination, eh? Explain how you will determine which of these is most reasonable:

 

The effect of lightning is caused by:

 

1) aliens using mind powers to create a bolt of lightning because it looks cool

 

2) muppets that live in the 28th dimension stomped their feet

 

3) god wanted to smite a bit of turf (or someone unlucky enough to be in the way)

 

4) it's a natural weather effect that happens when there is a difference in the electrical charge between the clouds and the earth.

 

Does this mean that we need to go running off to find the aliens or muppets or whatever in order to actively disprove that they're not making lightning work the way it does? Hardly. Why is that? Because all ideas are not equal in merit. When one doesn't have credible evidence to believe in a statement like some of those above...one simply doesn't believe in them. There's no benefit to doing so, and it impedes actual progress. I'm sure you can understand - If you don't have any system of seperating the bad ideas from the good, then it's going to take you a long time to get anything done, isn't it? A really long time.

 

Being skeptical doesn't mean that you dismiss any idea permanently, or promote one as the "Truth." That would go against the whole idea of openmindedness. Skepticism is simply a tool to seperate the chaff from the grain, reality from guesses, and a useful tool it is. I would never say that aliens could not be making the lightning - but I might say it's pretty unlikely. If more evidence comes up that makes the aliens doing it more plausible, I'll switch to that view. Until then, I'm going to stick to what I can find out right now. No guessing, no lying to myself on things I don't know about. Just looking at things the way they are, as best I can.