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

[Windu Chi]

 

My warning again: avoid the consistent use of profanity, even with the asterisk. I dislike editing posts as above and find it far more easy to click the delete button. The latter option is unfair to you, but the expletives in your post are unfair to the rest of us who prefer not to wade through them.

As many people I see curse on this forum with asterisks, you target me, I see what is going here.

Delete edit I don't care.

[ET Warrior]

The Senate Chambers is not the same as the rest of LucasForums. If you are attentive, I think you would find very little use of profanity in the vast majority of Senate Chambers posts, and if there IS profanity, it is used in moderation, not in every sentence.

[SkinWalker]

In addition to what ET has said above, I also notice that others heed casual warnings to curb this. I've given you several, very friendly and casual warnings about it. You've ignored them.

 

Finally, this will be the last off-topic post about it here. If you have any further questions or meta-discussion PM me, ET, and admin or start a thread in the Site Feedback subforum.

[Windu Chi]

You're avoiding the question. Why wouldn't I believe in furry monsters? Because I have no reason to believe in them other than anecdotal evidence, which really is just opinions.

I don't care, can you accept that, I'm not avoiding question; I believe nothing is impossible, so obviously I will consider the possibilty of this furry monster as real.

Show me the facts you have brought up for any of your points. Show that your points are logically supportable. Show that it is rational to believe in something without evidence.

Because existence is infinite, explain how something can come from nothing, without have to keep explaining a infinitude regression of previous creators of that something?

Also there is evidence, you don't understand the concept of secrecy; you trust the government and military so much that you are blind.

You are lost in their lying campaign.

 

You're attempting to avoid responsibility for the logical outcome of your arguments. It's not helping you.

Whatever you say!

Yeah, by that definition I suppose you are. You refuse to accept any evidence, or lack of evidence. You absolutely will not accept that you're wrong, that people aren't lying to you continuously, however unlikely that may be. Yes, I agree you are completely and totally irrational on that subject.

Whatever !

I'm wrong , I not smart enough yet to travel the Milky Way.

They are lying, the government and military.

Also you refuse accept that they are lying.

So, we have a impasse here.

Then demonstrate you know how to use logic and carry my question to its conclusion. If you're correct then there is some real reason to believe in aliens. Is there? Show us. Show me.

Do I got to keep on saying this?

If I had evidence, you think I will be wasting my time here debating about this.

So, stop asking me.

I'm not telling you to prove that the government and military isn't lying, so stop asking me this annoying question.

[Jae Onasi]

The history channel is hardly on par with the news, but you're right. I am skeptical about some things I see on the news. I don't reject everything out of hand, but I find it healthy to question what I see, hear and read in the various news media.

 

Sometimes the news gets it right, sometimes not. One of the things I saw when I spent a week at the Lyndon Johnson library doing some research on his relationship with Martin Luther King, Jr. was what reporters at that time said about Johnson's stance on civil rights and what LBJ actually said behind closed doors to his advisors could be very different. What LBJ asked his advisors to release ot the news about civil rights and what actually was reported in the news was sometimes also different. Those differences also varied by the individual reporters' stances on civil rights legislation. It was fascinating to track LBJ's memos to advisors, the statements released by the advisors to reporters, and reporters' articles. It was almost like a grown-up version of the 'Telephone Game' at times. Some of LBJ's comments on what the reporters wrote were rather pithy, too.

[Emperor Devon]

I believe nothing is impossible,

 

You don't say. Would you mind explaining why everyone should believe that?

 

how something can come from nothing, without have to keep explaining a infinitude regression of previous creators of that something?

 

Scientists are still researching that. In time it will be possible to create mini-bangs, which should grant us a greater understanding of the origins of the universe.

 

In any case, the statement 'nothing is impossible' is really quite contradictory. If nothing is impossible, then it's entirely possible there are some things which are impossible, since possibilities are limitless... which contradicts itself. There's really no logic to it.

 

Also there is evidence,

 

Show me.

 

They are lying, the government and military.

 

Would mind telling us all what they have been lying about?

 

Also you refuse accept that they are lying.

 

Samuel seems reasonable enough not believe anything there is no proof of.

 

stop asking me this annoying question.

 

I'll take it you can't answer it? You've killed your own claims if you admit you can't back them up.

[Samuel Dravis]

Windu, I think we're actually getting somewhere. To make my argument a bit easier to see, I'm going to rewrite mine.

 

I am skeptical of your claims that aliens are/were being held in Roswell because:

 

There is no evidence that they were according to the government.

Seperate investigations, including one done by the General Accounting Office (completed in 1994), searched through all surviving records held by the military and Air Force for that time period. They found no indication that there was anything other than a baloon (part of the then-top secret MOGUL project), used to observe nuclear explosions before seismic detection was available. This balloon carried a radar reflector quite similar in shape to a "flying saucer." Image.

 

There was no increase in messages, alerts, improved security, or activity of the Air Force, military or any other government agency involved that would indicate a cover-up.

 

The military's statement on the materials taken from the wreckage was that it was a "flying disc." Given that the term had only been in use for a few weeks beforehand in relation to the MOGUL project, it's quite understandable how people might misenterpret that statement.

 

I find the governments statements on these credible because:

 

1) Given that the base population was about 1800 by 1965, it is unlikely that if any alien claim was true, there would be evidence by then. People are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, particularly one on something so significant.

 

2) If any inconsistency in the government's activities were indeed true, then all of the UFOlogists would have had a cow. So far, I have heard no mooing.

 

3) Many of the prominent people involved in UFOlogy also have significant commercial interest in keeping public attention on their claims.

 

4) During the time from 1967 to 1990, the Cold War was in full swing. Spies from Russia penetrated our top-secret military bases and stole plans for nuclear weapons; it stands to reason that if there was actual contact between aliens and the US Military they would have known about it. This greatly increases the number of people who would know the "truth" of the Roswell incident. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, I have seen no Russian statements on UFOs.

 

Etc., etc. I could do more. My point is, you're going to have to bring up some more substantial evidence than "the government is lying" to raise your claim to a credible level. You have agreed that you have no such evidence.

 

Now, I want to talk about how to choose between two explanations. Rationally, this should be done quite similar to the way science does it; in fact, this is how I've been applying my logic through this entire discussion. Let's examine my case of the furry monster under the bed alongside your aliens:

 

Me: I claim that there is a monster under the bed. I also say that it turns invisible whenever it is looked for.

 

You: You say that the aliens crashed/landed in Roswell.

 

There is a similarity: You agree that you have no objective evidence for aliens. I agree that there is no objective evidence for my monster.

 

Since we are trying to get the most likely explanation, we have to consider all possibilities. My monster just may not exist. Your aliens may not have crashed. Are these more plausible than our existing claims? Above, I showed you why I didn't think there was reason to believe that aliens crashed in Roswell, even with the sort of culture that has grown up around them. You agree that the monster story is rediculous, and for good reason: You can find no evidence to support the idea, and there is another explanation that is better supported - the monster is not real. This is not to say that the aliens could not exist, or my monster could not exist - I do agree with you, pretty much anything is possible, strictly speaking. For instance, in the Evolution thread, Jae said that any chance beyond 1 in 10^50 is so small as to be pretty near zero, so she considers it literally impossible for something as unlikely as her number, 10^40000 to ever come about. She is correct; it is extremely unlikely, and I agree with her it is pretty much impossible to get lucky with those odds. However, even that may come about. There's just other explanations that fit better. Likewise, I just think that there are more probable explanations for the Roswell incident, and I showed you why.

 

Now I'm curious; why don't you think that other explanations are more plausible? Do you simply enjoy believing in aliens so much that you just don't care what case is more likely? If so, then that's simply illogical behavior. You don't come to the conclusion "aliens" from "flying disc." My belief in the monster doesn't make it real. Were I to tell people that I actually belived in it, they'd think I was delusional, the monster imaginary. They'd be right; there is no reason to belive the monster real, but certainly reason to believe that people can hallucinate. Which is more likely?

 

I don't care, can you accept that, I'm not avoiding question; I believe nothing is impossible, so obviously I will consider the possibilty of this furry monster as real.

You avoided it again. Let me restate it so it's clear in your mind:

 

I asked YOU what YOU thought of the existence of the monster. Do YOU think it exists? Do YOU think it is reasonable to consult this monster when planning a war? Do YOU think it's logical to believe in such a monster? Do YOU think it is reasonable to postulate its existence? Do YOU think that there is reason to modify your behavior based on what the monster might tell someone else?

 

Because existence is infinite, explain how something can come from nothing, without have to keep explaining a infinitude regression of previous creators of that something?

I don't have to explain that. I've never tried. Do you have a reason to believe that existence is infinite?

 

Also there is evidence, you don't understand the concept of secrecy; you trust the government and military so much that you are blind.

You are lost in their lying campaign.

Ah. Okay. Either show me I'm wrong, show that I have reasoned with the available evidence incorrectly, or stop telling me I'm taken in by lies.

 

Whatever you say!

It's not "whatever I say." That's just the way it is.

 

Whatever !

I'm wrong , I not smart enough yet to travel the Milky Way.

They are lying, the government and military.

Also you refuse accept that they are lying.

So, we have a impasse here.

No, I'll accept they're lying. I'll do that just as soon as you give me good reason to believe they are.

Do I got to keep on saying this?

If I had evidence, you think I will be wasting my time here debating about this.

So, stop asking me.

I'm not telling you to prove that the government and military isn't lying, so stop asking me this annoying question.

The burden of proof is on the one who produces a positive argument. You have said "they are lying." Now show the proof that they are. If you, in fact, have no reason to believe they are lying... then I'm afraid you are the one doing the lying, so far as I can tell.

[Windu Chi]

You don't say. Would you mind explaining why everyone should believe that?

I going to believe that, I don't care if no one else ever believe what I believe.

 

I'm not asking nobody to believe what I believe.

 

 

In any case, the statement 'nothing is impossible' is really quite contradictory. If nothing is impossible, then it's entirely possible there are some things which are impossible, since possibilities are limitless... which contradicts itself. There's really no logic to it.

Yes, I know it is a contradiction, I have said before a while back that believing that nothing is impossible is believing in contradictions, so yes it is illogical, no argument there.

I think I have said that in the moral relativism thread.

 

Show me.

I'm not going to say this again.

 

 

Would mind telling us all what they have been lying about?

Alien contact, Alien visitation of Earth.

Proof that we aren't alone in the Milky Way.

That we aren't the only intelligent life in the Milky Way.

Alien technology: in Area 51, July, 8 1947 Roswell Incident: the crash of a alien craft, recovery of alien technology by Air Force, that might explain some UFO reports.

Also:

Alien bodies: quote abovetopsecret.com, "Wright-Patterson AFB has become very well-known among UFO researchers and theorists due to its connection with the Roswell incident of July 1947. This is one of the locations, alongside the Groom Lake/Area51 installation in Nevada, where wreckage of a crashed UFO as well as alien bodies were shipped. Wreckage of the craft was shipped directly to Ohio aboard a B-29 after the mysterious crash and placed in the infamous Hangar 18."

 

Let me see... Philadelphia Experiment: a secret experiment conducted by the U.S. Navy at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on or before October 28 1943, in which the U.S. naval destroyer USS Eldridge was rendered invisible to human observers for a brief period of time.

That cause the ship by accident to teleport to the US naval base at Norfolk, Virginia.

Of course, there are other lies of the government, but I'm not going to flood this thread with them; look on the internet for others.

Samuel seems reasonable enough not believe anything there is no proof of.

Whatever, ok!

Just to skeptical to trust any evidence.

 

 

I'll take it you can't answer it? You've killed your own claims if you admit you can't back them up.

How many times I got to say this, I'M NOT THE DAMN ANSWER MAN, IF HAD THE DAMN EVIDENCE, THIS DEBATE WILL NEVER HAD EXISTED.

 

So, stop acting like I have the proof in my hands.

[Windu Chi]

I am skeptical of your claims that aliens are/were being held in Roswell because:

 

 

 

There was no increase in messages, alerts, improved security, or activity of the Air Force, military or any other government agency involved that would indicate a cover-up.

So, you are going to conclude there is no lies because of that?

The military's statement on the materials taken from the wreckage was that it was a "flying disc." Given that the term had only been in use for a few weeks beforehand in relation to the MOGUL project, it's quite understandable how people might misenterpret that statement.

I don't trust military, what the hell make you think I'm going to believe their explanation?

I find the governments statements on these credible because:

 

 

 

 

 

I asked YOU what YOU thought of the existence of the monster. Do YOU think it exists? Do YOU think it is reasonable to consult this monster when planning a war? Do YOU think it's logical to believe in such a monster? Do YOU think it is reasonable to postulate its existence? Do YOU think that there is reason to modify your behavior based on what the monster might tell someone else?

I don't care so, stop asking me this.

 

I don't have to explain that. I've never tried. Do you have a reason to believe that existence is infinite?

Yes, how something can come from nothing, without have to keep explaining a infinitude regression of previous creators of that something?

 

 

Ah. Okay. Either show me I'm wrong, show that I have reasoned with the available evidence incorrectly, or stop telling me I'm taken in by lies.

You think I'm credulous, I think you have been sweep up by lies.

So, we are just going to have to accept our differing opinions of each other.

 

No, I'll accept they're lying. I'll do that just as soon as you give me good reason to believe they are.

The burden of proof is on the one who produces a positive argument. You have said "they are lying." Now show the proof that they are. If you, in fact, have no reason to believe they are lying... then I'm afraid you are the one doing the lying, so far as I can tell.

Stop saying me, I'm not the only one;

millions of others.

How the hell I'm I lying?

The burden of proof is not on me.

This is a debate forum not a proof forum.

[ewok mercenary]

The burden of proof is not on me. This is a debate forum not a proof forum.

Windu, you're laughing at people for being duped by 'government lies', yet you haven't presented one shred of evidence to support your claims. Nobody is asking for definitive proof that aliens landed as Roswell. Indeed, there is rarely such thing as definitive proof. However, if you want people to take you seriously, you at least need to provide some form of logical reasoning for believing what you do. If you don't have any, how can you expect people to debate with you?

[Windu Chi]

Windu, you're laughing at people for being duped by 'government lies', yet you haven't presented one shred of evidence to support your claims. Nobody is asking for definitive proof that aliens landed as Roswell. Indeed, there is rarely such thing as definitive proof. However, if you want people to take you seriously, you at least need to provide some form of logical reasoning for believing what you do. If you don't have any, how can you expect people to debate with you?

Skeptics won't trust any evidence, so I don't give a damn about it.

But there is evidence that the government of the U.S.A is lying; watch the UFO files on the History Channel, the episode is called, UFOs and the White House.

 

If you don't want to look at that program.

Then this what happen:

 

Grant Cameron, a Presidential Researcher ask Dick Cheney a question:

Cheney's appearance on the Washington D.C. Public Radio Station WAMU on April 11, 2001 on the Diana Rehm show. Dick Cheney spoke from the White House.

There is a vicious rumor circulating in the UFO community that you've been read into the UFO program. So my question to you is, in any of your government jobs, have you ever been briefed on the subject of UFOs, and if you have, when was it and what were you told?

 

This is what Dick Cheney said:

 

Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it

Now, the skeptics argument is, oh that's not a shred of evidence, then I say then the hell with it.

Like I said, skeptics isn't going to trust any evidence.

The opinions that skeptics have of UFO believers is that I and them is believing a delusion and we believe they are living a lie, with their trust in government.

So, it is just going to have to be a impasse.

Skeptics is not going to believe any evidence and UFO believers is not going to believe any of the government's and military explanations.

So, it is just going to stay this way.

Time will tell who's right.

[SkinWalker]

Skeptics won't trust any evidence, so I don't give a damn about it.

 

Which, again, shows that you don't understand the first real thing about skepticism. Skeptics must accept evidence that is testable and verifiable.

 

But there is evidence that the government of the U.S.A is lying; watch the UFO files on the History Channel, the episode is called, UFOs and the White House.

 

You keep telling us to watch a television program that is designed to appeal to popular audiences and obtain ratings, make money for producers, etc. A few out-of-context quotes by politicians, anecdotes to which there is no verification or testing available, is hardly any sort of evidence. One of our politicians thinks god speaks to him. Others believe astrology has something that can truly be said about how to live their lives. Being a politician does not make an anecdote "evidence" nor does being on television constitute "evidence."

 

We're asking for real evidence. Either you have it or you don't. Obviously its the latter.

 

The real subject of this thread, however, isn't whether or not windu6 is correct in his beliefs of space aliens but, rather, the ways in which relatively smart people allow themselves to be duped in to believing weird things. That process is aided by a credulous nature combined with the desire to believe in one or more specific fantastical ideas as well as being biased in skepticism.

 

That's right. Windu6 and many others who are openly critical of skeptics are, themselves, skeptical. Only they apply their skepticism with bias. If an idea or notion is counter to their beliefs, they're automatically skeptical of it. If the idea or notion supports their beliefs, they accept it blindly. Take the contrary skeptical ideas windu6 has mentioned above in the same post: he is skeptical of anything the government says, unless it supports his claim (Dick Cheney's commnet?). He's skeptical of academia and rational responses, but supportive of lore and myth that supports him (Roswell & the so-called 'Philadelphia Experiment').

 

Why doesn't the believer apply skepticism or even lack of skepticism uniformly? The answer is that the original notion or idea is what is already true in the mind of the believer. The only thing left is to find supporting data to be able to say "see, that's what I'm talking about." Conversely, the believer must reject any data that is not supportive and even counter to the original idea or notion.

[Samuel Dravis]

So, you are going to conclude there is no lies because of that?

 

I don't trust military, what the hell make you think I'm going to believe their explanation?

I conclude that there's no reason to believe that they are lying on this particulary subject. If you want more reasons, I can provide them.

 

I don't care so, stop asking me this.

Why? The reasoning behind your answers to those questions will show you clearly your argument's validity - or that it's illogical. You really don't care to improve your understanding?

 

Yes, how something can come from nothing, without have to keep explaining a infinitude regression of previous creators of that something?

Go ask that question of people who believe your idea. I have no reason to believe it.

 

You think I'm credulous, I think you have been sweep up by lies.

So, we are just going to have to accept our differing opinions of each other.

Incorrect. I have reason to believe you are credulous. You, by your own admission, cannot show me any reason that suggests I am taken in.

 

Stop saying me, I'm not the only one;

millions of others.

You're the one making the argument here so I address you in particular. Besides, even if everyone else that ever lived believed in something, it woudn't make it more rational. It wouldn't make it more believable. It would simply mean that people are acting irrational. By the way, by this statement of yours you commit the logical fallacy known as the Appeal to the Majority.

 

How the hell I'm I lying?

You're making statements which, so far as I can tell, are not true. You are presenting them as true, though. How is that not a lie?

 

The burden of proof is not on me.

 

This is a debate forum not a proof forum.

You made the claim. The burden is yours. This applies in any argument, made anywhere, by anyone. What if I said I require you to disprove the furry monster? That's rediculous, and it's rediculous because it can't be done. So you must produce proof that shows your position is more likely than any other. You have not done so.

 

Interestingly enough, I had actually believed in one conspiracy theory for a few hours a while back. Apparently it was about the government (of course) redefining "citizens" as some sort of chattel. It was convincing enough for a while. Fortunately I always look up opposing views on the internet, mainly because that's the surest way to figure out if something is correct. Anyways, it was pretty embarrassing. I think I even posted a thread on this forum about it, but deleted it after I realized I was an idiot - fortunately no one had responded.

[Nancy Allen``]

You made the claim. The burden is yours. This applies in any argument. What if I said I require you to disprove the furry monster? That's rediculous, and it's rediculous because it can't be done. So you must produce proof that shows your position is more likely than any other.

 

Everyone should take this and memorise it. This is the type of strawman posts that should be ignored.

 

SkinWalker, do yourself a favor and get a digital box. I know how much a bad TV reception sucks and even the cheapest one will get you razor sharp clear picture and extra channels. For what, 30 bucks, it's worth every cent.

[Samuel Dravis]

Everyone should take this and memorise it. This is the type of strawman posts that should be ignored.

Explain exactly how it is a strawman, and why it is incorrect.

[Nancy Allen``]

To demand an answer to something like whether or not Atheists think they have the right to persecute, or to demand evidence of a furry monster, is what SkinWalker calls a strawman. From my experience one way it's wrong in the way McCarthism was wrong, the Salem witch trials were wrong, ect in that in those denials of guilt became admissions and only confessions were accepted. Same here, you put forward your case and it's rejected. SW could probably explain it better than me.

[Samuel Dravis]

To demand an answer to something like whether or not Atheists think they have the right to persecute, or to demand evidence of a furry monster, is what SkinWalker calls a strawman. From my experience one way it's wrong in the way McCarthism was wrong, the Salem witch trials were wrong, ect in that in those denials of guilt became admissions and only confessions were accepted. Same here, you put forward your case and it's rejected. SW could probably explain it better than me.

I'm not sure how my post applies in your statement. I simply require evidence to believe in something. When windu says "aliens have been to roswell" then I expect him to show me that they have. Otherwise he's simply someone with a belief that's not founded in anything discernable.

 

If someone asked me for proof that my monster is real, I wouldn't be able to give it to them. Why not? Because the monster disappears when it's looked for. Ah hah.

 

When windu says the aliens were there, he's not able to show any evidence for it. Why not? The evidence disappears when it's looked for. Ah.

 

What's the difference? What's the difference between those suggestions and nothing being at roswell? What's the actual difference between that view and the fact that my monster doesn't exist?

 

There is no effective difference. Thus, Occam's Razor:

 

There is no reason to believe that aliens were at Roswell.

Aliens were not at Roswell.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm not sure if you misread what I said, but I was referring to this bit in particular, 'What if I said I require you to disprove the furry monster? That's rediculous, and it's rediculous because it can't be done.' You are so right in saying that, and for someone to demand to disprove it is unfair.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'm not sure if you misread what I said, but I was referring to this bit in particular, 'What if I said I require you to disprove the furry monster? That's rediculous, and it's rediculous because it can't be done.' You are so right in saying that, and for someone to demand to disprove it is unfair.

Oh, okay. Sorry for jumping on you like that.

 

But yeah, I don't require absolute proof of anything. I just need some reason to believe - I don't want to be so openminded my brains fall out. I can't prove that something is impossible, or that something is true in an absolute sense. The only thing I can do is show that's it's more likely/unlikely than another explanation. Whether I like it or not, the answer I get is as accurate as I can make it, and I'll accept anyone's help in making it even better - which is why I like talking here in the Senate.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it

Actually, this sounds like a tongue-in-cheek answer by Cheney--he has a very dry sense of humor.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it

Which is true. As far as I understand it, he's not allowed to answer. That's how such things work.

 

To strike a rough analogy, if you asked me (who's joining the Norwegian R.C. visitation service) or Jae (who's a doctor) if a certain person we were seeing was possessed by demons, technically we'd not be allowed to answer "yes" or "no" (although I either would give you a "no" or tell you how absolutely absurd the belief in demonic possession is in the year of 2007).

[ET Warrior]

Everyone should take this and memorise it. This is the type of strawman posts that should be ignored.

I honestly don't see how that is a straw man at all. A straw man is a counter argument that takes the original argument, misrepresents it, and then refutes the incorrect argument. This sets up a situation where it looks like the original argument or statement was answered and refuted, when it actually was not.

[Windu Chi]

Go ask that question of people who believe your idea. I have no reason to believe it.

It's my damn belief ok, I'm going to believe it anyway I don't care if no one share it.

I'm not asking you to believe it.

Incorrect. I have reason to believe you are credulous. You, by your own admission, cannot show me any reason that suggests I am taken in.

And I have a reason to believe that you have been taken in by lies.

Our opinions isn't going to change so, stop believing you are right because you're skeptical.

 

You're the one making the argument here so I address you in particular. Besides, even if everyone else that ever lived believed in something, it woudn't make it more rational. It wouldn't make it more believable. It would simply mean that people are acting irrational. By the way, by this statement of yours you commit the logical fallacy known as the Appeal to the Majority.

You are also commiting a logical Formal fallacy of Apeal to ridicule: with your ridiculous questions about this damn furry monster.

And a logical fallacy of Appeal to authority: because of your blind trust in the government, that your strong belief that they are a totally objective source, with their claims and that they don't tell false truths ever, with no doubt in your mind.

Also you are commiting another logical fallacy of Appeal to consequences:

Appeal to consequences: known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin: argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

Because:

I find the governments statements on these credible because:

 

1) Given that the base population was about 1800 by 1965, it is unlikely that if any alien claim was true, there would be evidence by then. People are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, particularly one on something so significant.

 

2) If any inconsistency in the government's activities were indeed true, then all of the UFOlogists would have had a cow. So far, I have heard no mooing.

 

3) Many of the prominent people involved in UFOlogy also have significant commercial interest in keeping public attention on their claims.

 

4) During the time from 1967 to 1990, the Cold War was in full swing. Spies from Russia penetrated our top-secret military bases and stole plans for nuclear weapons; it stands to reason that if there was actual contact between aliens and the US Military they would have known about it. This greatly increases the number of people who would know the "truth" of the Roswell incident. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, I have seen no Russian statements on UFOs.

 

You're making statements which, so far as I can tell, are not true. You are presenting them as true, though. How is that not a lie?

And you are lying to yourself that the government isn't keeping these secrets.

 

4) During the time from 1967 to 1990, the Cold War was in full swing. Spies from Russia penetrated our top-secret military bases and stole plans for nuclear weapons; it stands to reason that if there was actual contact between aliens and the US Military they would have known about it. This greatly increases the number of people who would know the "truth" of the Roswell incident. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, I have seen no Russian statements on UFOs.

 

Russia still keep secrets, but they do have UFO phenomenon.

KGB kept UFO secrets.

look here for more UFOs in Russia.

The site is called UFO Evidence.

So, you don't trust it, you don't believe there is UFO evidence.

Make your choice!

Russia also had a Roswell similar event:

On September 16, 1989 in the sky above a port the Zaostrovka, on fringe of Perm, occured something strange. Many inhabitants, open mouthes, watched unprecedented battle. Six strange silvery devices reminding combined together plates, coursed behind seventh more dark.

Look here for more. Russian Roswell ? .

Of course you don't trust the internet, video, pictures, people, or the History Channel...etc.

 

So, click on the link or don't; I don't give a damn.

[Samuel Dravis]

It's my damn belief ok, I'm going to believe it anyway I don't care if no one share it.

I'm not asking you to believe it.

I don't care what you believe - until you say it in a debate forum or otherwise public place. Then I'm happy to criticize.

 

And I have a reason to believe that you have been taken in by lies.

Our opinions isn't going to change so, stop believing you are right because you're skeptical.

If you have reason to believe I am taken in, then tell me the reason.

 

You are also commiting a logical Formal fallacy of Apeal to ridicule: with your ridiculous questions about this damn furry monster.

How about we check wikipedia, okay? Show that an analogy used to demonstrate underlying reasoning is an appeal to ridicule. I never mocked your argument. I simply demonstrated that, because there is no evidence for either situation, then there is no reason to believe that either hypothetical existed. I'd like you to take the parts of my posts that do so in your opinion and tell me why, exactly, you think they are ridiculing/making your argument look rediculous.

 

Besides, I'd hardly have to make your arguments look rediculous in order to win any points. By their very nature they already are.

 

And a logical fallacy of Appeal to authority: because of your blind trust in the government, that your strong belief that they are a totally objective source, with their claims and that they don't tell false truths ever, with no doubt in your mind.

Again, check the definition. Blind trust is not a factor. I personally have seen the government tell the truth, particularly on reports. There are many government agencies that do so. The GAO is a reliable source, as it has been in the past. If you have reason to doubt their credibility on this statement, then demonstrate the reason. I've never said that ANY source is completely reliable, myself included. In fact, I've explicitly stated otherwise. Perhaps you might want to look at my statement a few posts up about absolute "truth."

 

Also you are commiting another logical fallacy of Appeal to consequences:

Appeal to consequences: known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin: argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

Let's see what I actually said since you've already read up on wiki.

 

Have I ever: claimed to know that your story was true or false?

Have I ever: shown that I want one side to be correct and the other not?

Have I ever: declared that I would not believe in the face of actual evidence?

 

Please demonstrate and quote exactly where I have committed any of these fallacies or, of course, any others. I appreciate you attempting to correct my arguments.

 

And you are lying to yourself that the government isn't keeping these secrets.

Demonstrate that they are keeping aliens secret.

 

Russia still keep secrets, but they do have UFO phenomenon.

KGB kept UFO secrets.

look here for more UFOs in Russia.

The site is called UFO Evidence.

So, you don't trust it, you don't believe there is UFO evidence.

Make your choice!

I acknowledge that there are UFOs, as in Unidentified Flying Objects. I don't see how you make the jump to "aliens in roswell," "KGB kept secrets on aliens" and "coverup." They just don't follow.

 

Russia also had a Roswell similar event:

On September 16, 1989 in the sky above a port the Zaostrovka, on fringe of Perm, occured something strange. Many inhabitants, open mouthes, watched unprecedented battle. Six strange silvery devices reminding combined together plates, coursed behind seventh more dark.

Look here for more. Russian Roswell ? .

I checked that link, and it was a witness account of one person. Also, neither of the links worked at the bottom, so I couldn't investigate further. Nikolay Subbotin, Director of the Russian UFO Research Station, apparently uses geocities to host his sites. That doesn't really add credibility to his account.

 

Of course you don't trust the internet, video, pictures, people, or the History Channel...etc.

Present some evidence! All you have given are simply opinions. Pictures of aliens would be great, so long as they appear in a credible source and are documented with other hard evidence. Things are far too easy to photoshop these days - I could easily make a UFO pic myself I felt like it.

[Nancy Allen``]

I honestly don't see how that is a straw man at all.

 

I might have misunderstood what SkinWalker meant when he referred to strawman posts, but my point is Samuel is spot on about his comment on disproving furry monsters.

 

Present some evidence!

 

I covered this, but how about Area 51? For decades this was kept hidden and only recently has the government admitted it's existence. I said how I can accept they tested experimental aircraft there, but was such an explanation ever made? I think all we know for certain is it's existence. So why cover it up for so long?