The trap of dogmatic skepticism

I encounter many posters all the time whom I would consider dogmatic skeptics. By that I mean someone so against a particular proposition ( eg. that uaps, or ghosts, or bigfoot exist) that they won't even look at the evidence. This is not your normal and healthy skepticism--the kind we should all exercise when we encounter claims that sound extraordinary. That is a provisional and methodological skepticism that serves to help us in knowing the truth. That is real science.

Dogmatic skepticism otoh is based on an unswerving and faithheld belief system--that such things as paranormal or anomalous Fortean phenomena simply do not exist in spite of all the continuing evidence for it. And that therefore there is no good evidence for such.

It reminds me of the black swan fallacy. The dogmatic skeptic makes a claim of absolute knowledge---that there is no such thing as black swans because they have never seen one. And yet there is no rational basis for this claim since at any time a black swan might turn up. How do you KNOW there is no such things as etc etc is my question. How can you be so sure?

Below is an actual case of such skepticism as encountered by Rupert Sheldrake at a public debate. Totally rings true to me!

"Last week I took part in a public debate on telepathy at the Royal Society of Arts in London. My opponent was Professor Lewis Wolpert, a pillar of the science establishment.

Prof Wolpert claimed that telepathy did not exist. He provided no evidence for this opinion. He just kept repeating it, implying that those who disagreed with him must have something wrong with them. When I summarised evidence for telepathy from thousands of scientific tests and showed a video of recent experiments he looked away from the screen. He did not want to know.

Over 80 per cent of the audience disagreed with him. The great majority had experienced telepathy themselves, particularly in relation to phone calls, thinking of someone who then rang. There is a similar situation in the country as a whole. Most people believe in psychic powers because they have experienced them personally, or seen them in their pets. Yet a minority claim these abilities are impossible, and dismiss them as superstition. Usually they have never taken the trouble to look at the facts. Like Prof Wolpert, they believe they know the truth already. But science is not about dogma, but about evidence. As I have discussed in this column over the last two months, the facts strongly support the existence of psychic abilities. It is scientific to accept these abilities on the basis of evidence, and unscientific to deny them on the basis of ignorance. Of course scepticism is necessary and healthy, and we would be foolish to believe everything we are told. But genuine scepticism is about open-minded enquiry, not denial (see the excellent website SkepticalAboutSkeptics.org)."--- https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/dogmatic-scepticism

This is Trumpian Big Lie stuff.

Troll posts trash, trash is called out as trash. Troll admits he doesn't even believe in - or know what critical thinking is. Is banned many times explicitly for knowingly trolling and knowingly posting trash.

Troll pretends criticism of his terrible behavior is an assault on what he now adopts as The Noble and Good Principle of Healthy Skepticism, something which - once again - he admittedly neither believes in nor understands.

Troll takes zero responsibility for the egregiously bad quality of his posts and lack of analysis (which extends little farther than "I can't see any wings/strings, therefore it's probably a UAP/ghost" and the obligatory "compelling" label tacked on for good measure).

This is all on record, despite the OPs strategically short memory.

OP is essentially nailing two sticks together and asking for validation as an artist. When he gets none, he cries "It's an attack on The Very Institution of Art! Art critics are idiots!"

It's a mockery. Don't feed the trolls.

All it takes to counter "dogmatic scepticism" is evidence.

All it takes to counter "dogmatic scepticism" is evidence.

Click to expand...

You seem new to this forum. I invite you to peruse the hundreds of posts and threads in it kindly providing more than enough said evidence.

DaveC426913 said:

This is Trumpian Big Lie stuff.

Troll posts trash, trash is called out as trash. Troll admits he doesn't even believe in - or know what critical thinking is. Is banned many times explicitly for knowingly trolling and knowingly posting trash.

Troll pretends criticism of his terrible behavior is an assault on what he now adopts as The Noble and Good Principle of Healthy Skepticism, something which - once again - he admittedly neither believes in nor understands.

Troll takes zero responsibility for the egregiously bad quality of his posts and lack of analysis (which extends little farther than "I can't see any wings/strings, therefore it's probably a UAP/ghost" and the obligatory "compelling" label tacked on for good measure).

This is all on record, despite the OPs strategically short memory.

OP is essentially nailing two sticks together and asking for validation as an artist. When he gets none, he cries "It's an attack on The Very Institution of Art! Art critics are idiots!"

It's a mockery. Don't feed the trolls.

Click to expand...

LOL I'm Trump? I'm a troll? I'm an irresponsible artist? Sounds like Dave is desperately clutching for hateable ad homs here---anything personal to counter what is essentially a logical, evidenced, and well-articulated argument. It's what he does.

Magical Realist said:

hateable ad homs here---

Click to expand...

OP once again demonstrating he has no idea what an ad hom is.

The notion of "dogmatic skepticism" is an oxymoron. The entire philosophy of Skepticism, as a movement, is to avoid being swayed by dogmatism. Skeptics want to believe in true things for good reasons and to reject false things that other people believe for bad reasons.

The opening post is an amateurish ad hominem attack on skeptics, motivated by the opening poster's inability to produce any good evidence for the many varieties of nonsense that he says he believes in, over the course of at least a decade or two. The opening poster is frustrated that skeptics remain unconvinced by the reams of poor, low-quality or defective "evidence" that he offers up. The opening poster also has an established record of failing to apply even the most superficial kinds of critical thinking to the nonsense he regularly serves us. He can cut and paste a web address, but that's about as far as his own "analysis" ever goes, when it comes to the plethora of videos he posts.

Clearly, the opening poster is angry at himself due to a recent incident in which I invited him to sit down with me an examine a video of his choice with him. He was afraid to take me up on my offer, probably because of the loss of face he suffered the last time I walked him through a myriad of problems with the evidence he offered up in support of an old UFO sighting (which he, of course, wanted to argue was an actual alien spaceship, rather than what it actually turned to be: the planet Venus). He feels inadequate in the face of competent skeptics and his immature response is to lash out at them.

The opening poster is not a fool. It was interesting to observe a rare recent instance in which he dropped the mask of the gullible fool that he usually wears here, to post intelligently on a scientific topic. It showed that his pretence of not understanding scientific methods and not having the capacity to think critically is just that: an act he puts on when he presents his "woo".

It is gratifying to discover that Magical Realist has, in spite of himself, learned quite a few things from me about science and skepticism over the years. He knows the theory. He could think rationally about any of his pet topics (ghosts, UFOs etc.). In fact, I am beginning to suspect that, having learned about skepticism, now he finds himself in the uncomfortable position of feeling obliged to defend things he now recognises are bunk. But, apparently, his ego won't let him admit that he has learned anything, and it won't let him drop the pretence of actually believing in the woo he continues to deliver to this forum.

It's unfortunate that Magical Realist has chosen to substitute active dishonesty for his original naivete. These days, he plays the class clown, while secretly knowing better. It wasn't always that way. I think that he started off honestly believing the in the woo. These days, he knows where he went wrong, but he still wants to pretend that he's still the woo's number 1 fan. He has turned into a liar and a troll.

It's sad to see. To Magical Realist, I will say: it's never too late to change and become a better man. You're a poor shadow of your former self now. You have chosen to throw away any credibility you might once have had. Don't you think it is time to grow up and own what you actually believe, rather than putting on this trollish act of yours? How old are you now? Old enough to start acting more like a mature, responsible adult, I'd say. What do you think?

Magical Realist said:

I encounter many posters all the time whom I would consider dogmatic skeptics.

Click to expand...

Just to repeat, for emphasis: there's no such thing. It's an oxymoron.

By that I mean someone so against a particular proposition ( eg. that uaps, or ghosts, or bigfoot exist) that they won't even look at the evidence.

Click to expand...

As you know, skeptics aren't against your propositions. They simply find your evidence to be lacking. You ought to stop pretending you don't know this.

This is not your normal and healthy skepticism--the kind we should all exercise when we encounter claims that sound extraordinary.

Click to expand...

See? You're an expert on skepticism, these days. Why continue to play the village idiot, then? Be honest with yourself and with others. You'll feel better, I promise.

Dogmatic skepticism otoh is based on an unswerving and faithheld belief system--that such things as paranormal or anomalous Fortean phenomena simply do not exist in spite of all the continuing evidence for it. And that therefore there is no good evidence for such.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. But that's a deliberate concoction of yours, isn't it? You know exactly what you're getting wrong, and you're getting it wrong deliberately. Telling lies.

It reminds me of the black swan fallacy. The dogmatic skeptic makes a claim of absolute knowledge---that there is no such thing as black swans because they have never seen one.

Click to expand...

See? These days you're even repeating the sort of material that skeptics have taught you, over the years. You're trying to twist it around, but you know you're telling lies. Do you feel good about yourself, lying all the time, knowingly, like this?

And yet there is no rational basis for this claim since at any time a black swan might turn up.

Click to expand...

See? You know this stuff. You've got it. But, publically, you never apply any of it. That's dishonest. If you weren't a troll, it would cause quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. But for you, apparently it's not a problem. At least, it doesn't affect the way you choose to present.

Below is an actual case of such skepticism as encountered by Rupert Sheldrake at a public debate. Totally rings true to me!

"Last week I took part in a public debate on telepathy at the Royal Society of Arts in London. My opponent was Professor Lewis Wolpert, a pillar of the science establishment.

Prof Wolpert claimed that telepathy did not exist. He provided no evidence for this opinion.

Click to expand...

I'm betting that Wolpert merely stated the truth: that there's no convincing evidence for telepathy. On the other hand, Sheldrake has a long track record for producing dubious studies that are hotly disputed by his academic peers.

When I summarised evidence for telepathy from thousands of scientific tests and showed a video of recent experiments he looked away from the screen. He did not want to know.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing he already knows, especially if he prepared for a debate with Sheldrake. Yes, there are some studies of supposed telepathy that show marginal better-than-chance results. However, larger meta-studies of research in the field do not show better-than-chance results overall. Also, independent reviews of the positive studies that have been done often raise questions about the methodologies used. Researchers can consciously or unconsciously skew the outcomes of poorly controlled studies.

Over 80 per cent of the audience disagreed with him. The great majority had experienced telepathy themselves, particularly in relation to phone calls, thinking of someone who then rang.

Click to expand...

Maybe 80% of the audience isn't aware of how often coincidences occur. But you can't claim to be ignorant about that kind of thing any more, can you, Magical Realist? You know that some proportion of the audience is naive to believe in telepathy. You know why it would be naive of you to believe in telepathy. Still, I'm sure you'll still tell us all that you're still a True Believer.

Most people believe in psychic powers because they have experienced them personally, or seen them in their pets.

Click to expand...

But you, of course, are aware of the obvious issues with those "experiences". Because, as you told us above, you are now accustomed to applying "normal and healthy skepticism--the kind we should all exercise when we encounter claims that sound extraordinary". You will have done so to these claims about psychic pets, I'm sure.

Yet a minority claim these abilities are impossible, and dismiss them as superstition.

Click to expand...

They are certainly superstitious. As you know, the onus of proof lies with those who seek to establish that things like telepathy are possible (and, indeed, are actually observed), not with the skeptics who just keep an open mind and wait for good evidence.

But science is not about dogma, but about evidence.

Click to expand...

Why have you made no effort to examine the evidence, then? Or have you? Why don't you ever present any good evidence here?

Of course scepticism is necessary and healthy, and we would be foolish to believe everything we are told.

Click to expand...

A fine note to end on.

And THERE it is! The whole predictable, condescending, insulting and pissy rant. Lies about my posting history and what I've posted.. Accusations that I'm somehow being dishonest in my posting and lying for the sake of trolling. Pompous claims of knowing my inner psychology and pretentious efforts at exposing some secret motives I'm supposed to have. And STILL the cowardly excuse-making refusal to look at one little spook video.

So why all the defensive verbiage James? It even took you TWO rambling and hateful posts. What happened James? Did I strike a nerve there? Relax. As I've already assured you, one little ghost video won't destr0y your fragile little world. At least not if you still have the good sense and the truly scientific humility to admit that we don't understand everything and certainly don't know all there is to know.

But as the OP clearly showed, you are not really about the science and the evidence at all. You are only interested in your own dogmatic belief system and in relentlessly protecting it from any outside threats. You might as well be the religious sheep you used to be and always will be, because you've merely swapped one unconditional faith for another. And to hell with anyone who questions with it. Hence your exaggerated vitriol and hostility.

So I suppose I should be grateful to you. Because you have simply and rather hideously demonstrated to a T everything I explained in the OP. So thanks buddy! But always bear in mind this: it only takes one black swan. So tread lightly. You've lost your faith once before. And it can all happen again at any time.

Because, as you told us above, you are now accustomed to applying "normal and healthy skepticism--the kind we should all exercise when we encounter claims that sound extraordinary". You will have done so to these claims about psychic pets, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

I have always exercised a healthy skepticism in my searching for evidence of the extraordinary. I just don't make a pretentious show of it in my posts simply because I have already exercised it. It is how I selected the evidence I did in the first place and so decided to post it as authentic and compelling. It goes without saying that I already eliminated dozens of other videos/photos that didn't bear up to my scrutiny. And I'm certainly not going to do it again for you or anybody else just because you falsely assume I didn't do it.

Real skepticism you see isn't some showy banner to wave about and strut around with. And it's not some ideological creed or snobby buddy club that defines who you are. It's simply the natural process of honing in on the truth by weeding out the questionable and that everyone is more or less capable of doing on their own. And it's something I do all the time.

Magical Realist said:

I encounter many posters all the time whom I would consider dogmatic skeptics. By that I mean someone so against a particular proposition ( eg. that uaps, or ghosts, or bigfoot exist) that they won't even look at the evidence.

Click to expand...

Oftentimes it isn't flat-out refusal to consider evidence, it's more a matter of how the evidence is weighted. If we start out disbelieving in something, we are going to be much more reluctant in accepting seeming evidence for whatever we deny the existence of. It's human nature.

This is not your normal and healthy skepticism--the kind we should all exercise when we encounter claims that sound extraordinary.

Click to expand...

The problem is that "extraordinary" just means unfamiliar in our own experience and in the collective experience of whatever group we identify with. Extra-Ordinary. Do we really want to adopt a position of effectively denying the unfamiliar?

I prefer fallibilism, the idea that whatever the proposition is, no matter how strongly we believe in its truth, we might nevertheless be wrong in that judgment.

Of course, while we might be wrong about any of our judgments, we are far more confident in the truth and reliability of some of them than in others. So our judgments are weighted.

And how are those weights assigned? Usually by the conformity of whatever we are being asked to believe with our own experience and with whatever it is that we already believe.

Dogmatic skepticism otoh is based on an unswerving and faithheld belief system--that such things as paranormal or anomalous Fortean phenomena simply do not exist in spite of all the continuing evidence for it. And that therefore there is no good evidence for such.

Click to expand...

One way out of that windowless box might be to distinguish between possibility and actuality. That's what I try to do.

Regarding Rupert Sheldrake, I disagree with most of what he says, both regarding telepathy and his morphogenic fields. Why do I disagree? Because his ideas aren't consistent with how I imagine that the world works. So I guess that I actively deny the actuality, the objective truth, of what he claims.

But I happily acknowledge that how I imagine the world works isn't the last word on the matter. I might very well be wrong about my beliefs (and probably am about many of them). That too is the human condition. Which leaves me accepting the possibility that he might in fact be right (even if I don't believe that he is).

That's what I take to be the essence of Forteanism, the idea that our current ideas about reality aren't the last word and that reality always retains the ability to surprise us by behaving in what appears to be an anomalous manner.

So I'm willing, even eager, to examine the evidence that he claims to have. I'm not going to try to sneer and insult him into oblivion.

And after examining his evidence, very likely I will have to tentatively conclude that "I'm not convinced, I still don't believe it". That's what I expect will happen.

What I won't be able to say is "it's impossible", along with all kinds of insulting stuff about his supposed intellectual inferiority and the evil of advancing unwelcome hypotheses and sinning against almighty Science (imagined as if it was some kind of supreme epistemology).

I'll have to keep his claims open as possibilities, however remote I judge them to be, and remain willing to examine any new evidence that comes in with a reasonably open mind, without rejecting it knee-jerk fashion as if it was stupidity incarnate.

That's what I take to be the essence of Forteanism, the idea that our current ideas about reality aren't the last word and that reality always retains the ability to surprise us by behaving in what appears to be an anomalous manner.

Click to expand...

I take a stronger position on fortean/preternatural phenomena. There are many videos and eyewitness accounts and TV documentaries that I have come across over the past 24 years that convince me that there is something real but undefined here. Typically this prior belief is enough for skeptics to automatically dismiss what I am saying on the grounds that I just want it so bad to be true. But actually it is a quite logical corollary to accepting the existence of such things.

Because if you accept that it has been shown to exist before many times, then for you the chances of it being real this time as well are greatly increased. Not to mention that once one opens the ontic gates of "what can exist" many other things sneak in and become credible that weren't so credible before. IOW, if you believe there's such a thing as ghosts, then why not interdimensional travelers, or sentient plasmoids, or psychic abilities? The worldview that one is left with after acknowledging the existence of these anomalous phenomena becomes more nebulous and unbounded by rationalist assumptions. A reality based on the vast messy Jamesian realm of human experience rather than on some unquestioned physicalist scheme we picked up from grade school science class and text books.

I like the extraordinary claims and evidence line. This applies to science also.
Of the biggest issue in cosmology right now is probably the data surrounding wide binaries and flat galaxy rotation curves already mentioned on here.

A paper claiming that the issue has been resolved via mechanism X or via particle P would come under enormous scrutiny and skepticism.

Why? All published papers come under scrutiny via peer review and are then discussed and dismantled at conferences.
Why especially with wide binaries and galaxy rotation curves? Because that is really big deal right now in cosmology it will take something special to crack it.

For the paranormal claims this will take something similar.

The difference for wide binaries is that they have been observed, distance and velocity as accurately as can be measured right now. They are just not obeying GR as they should. They do exist though.

Actions speak louder than rhetoric.

If anyone is interested in what skeptical evidence analysis looks like here on SciFo, check out this Costa Rica UFO analysis as just one exemplar.

Compare and contrast with a typical "analysis" of our resident believer: 'I can't see wings therefore it's probably an advanced UAP' (and that's usually after he has to be cattle-prodded to pass comment at all).

This whole thread is a attempt at Trump-like gas-lighting. It fails at that, but the silver-lining is that it provides a great opportunity for skeptics to school believers in what it means to put one's money where one's mouth is.

It would be a novelty to see MR might put his money where his mouth is ( with or without application of a cattle-prod).

If anyone is interested in what skeptical evidence analysis looks like here on SciFo, check out this Costa Rica UFO analysis as just one exemplar.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a really monumental demonstration of what skeptical analysis can accomplish:

MR: So what is your conclusion Dave? Is the object in the photo real or is it a camera artifact per James?

Dave: Of course there's no conclusion forthcoming

Click to expand...

Compare and contrast with a typical "analysis" of our resident believer: 'I can't see wings therefore it's probably an advanced UAP' (and that's usually after he has to be cattle-prodded to pass comment at all).

Click to expand...

Don't pretend you haven't been shown the abundant evidence of uaps without any wings, rudders, exhaust fumes or control surfaces. I could go down the list and repost the cases but it would likely just be scoffed at as this one is here. It is the difference between me going strictly by the data (the video/photo evidence and eyewitness accounts) and you twisting and cherry-picking the data to fit your own preconclusion. Just like all dogmatic skeptics you have no real interest in finding out the truth. You only want to debunk it as something mundane to protect your dreary little mundane worldview. And when you can't do it, you and James attack me as trolling.

BTW.. remember that Puerto Rico video taken by that US customs/border patrol plane in 2013 of the fast flying uap that splits in two and submerges into the ocean? The one you hilariously claimed to be a goose, or was it two geese clustered together? that had lost its way from the migrating flock? lol Yeah.. that one! Well here's the serious analysis of it again by truly objective and scientific experts:

What a troll you are, Magical Realist.

Magical Realist said:

And THERE it is! The whole predictable, condescending, insulting and pissy rant. Lies about my posting history and what I've posted.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Be specific. Of course, you won't, because that's not how trolls operate.

Accusations that I'm somehow being dishonest in my posting and lying for the sake of trolling.

Click to expand...

It's clear that you gave up on being honest about your beliefs some time ago. You're clearly only here to play the class clown these days.

And STILL the cowardly excuse-making refusal to look at one little spook video.

Click to expand...

No. You don't get to lie about that, Magical Realist.

I offered to carefully examine your "spook video" on the condition that you would engage in the process until I'm done. Because I have experience of your dishonest attempts to avoid discussions and to just move on to the next thing whenever you're backed into a corner on your bullshit.

Of course you wouldn't commit to what I asked you to do, in return for my devoting time and effort to what is more likely than not to be yet another time-waster exercise in which you pretend you can't see the bleeding obvious.

You wouldn't commit, so I decided not to waste more of my time on you, with your silly spook video. That's the truth, and you don't get to spin it with your lies. There's a record of how my offer and your response went down.

So why all the defensive verbiage James? .... What happened James? Did I strike a nerve there? Relax.

Click to expand...

You're not fooling anybody, Magical Realist. That bullshit is not even a good try.

You're looking to provoke an angry response, because that's what trolls do. I've got your number. If I have to respond to stop your continual lies, it won't be in anger, I assure you.

As I've already assured you, one little ghost video won't destr0y your fragile little world.

Click to expand...

That line doesn't work either, Magical Realist. You're the one who is camping out on the farthest limb of the loony fringe, there. It's your branch that's fragile and unsupported. In my big, wonderful, amazing world, your lies are like the buzzing of a mosquito in one's ear. The constant buzzing and the repetition can become annoying, but the bug is easily shooed away or squashed.

At least not if you still have the good sense and the truly scientific humility to admit that we don't understand everything and certainly don't know all there is to know.

Click to expand...

You imply, falsely, that I have somewhere claimed that we (or I) understand everything. But, of course, you know that not only have I never made such a claim, but you also know that I have explicitly said the opposite on many occasions.

You should stop telling lies.

But as the OP clearly showed, you are not really about the science and the evidence at all.

Click to expand...

Instead of pretending to get angry like you are, you should have payed attention and read what I wrote in response to your OP. But, of course, you did, didn't you? You're just playing the fool, as usual.

You are only interested in your own dogmatic belief system and in relentlessly protecting it from any outside threats.

Click to expand...

Like I said, "dogmatic skepticism" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Understand?

Your nonsense poses no threat to any beliefs I might have, Magical Realist. Surely you know that, by now.

You might as well be the religious sheep you used to be and always will be, because you've merely swapped one unconditional faith for another. And to hell with anyone who questions with it. Hence your exaggerated vitriol and hostility.

Click to expand...

You're frothing at the mouth. Take a moment to stop and think things through. You're making no sense.

Just above, you asserted that I'm "not really about the science ... at all". And here you are, a couple of sentences later, asserting that I have "swapped one unconditional faith for another", like swapping a religious faith for faith in science. Don't you see that you just contradicted yourself? That's amateur hour, coming from a troll like you. Surely you can do better than that?

So I suppose I should be grateful to you.

Click to expand...

Yes. I have helped to open your eyes, so now you are aware why all the nonsense you've been pushing for years is bullshit. It's okay, Magical Realist. You can stop pretending now. We skeptics will welcome you if you can give up your trolling habit.

But always bear in mind this: it only takes one black swan.

Click to expand...

Did I tell you that? You have learned well. Drop the pretence, MR. Start acting like an adult. You'll feel better.

Magical Realist said:

I have always exercised a healthy skepticism in my searching for evidence of the extraordinary.

Click to expand...

Not always, but we here on sciforums have taught you. It took years, but here you are.

Now you just have to give up on the game playing and the lies. You'll be a better man.

It is how I selected the evidence I did in the first place and so decided to post it as authentic and compelling. It goes without saying that I already eliminated dozens of other videos/photos that didn't bear up to my scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Your story isn't playing well with your audience, Magical Realist. You don't scrutinise any of the stuff you post. You mindlessly cut and paste any old thing and pretend you believe it is "authentic" or "compelling" to you. But the only thing that you actually find compelling is the trolling game. I see you.

Real skepticism you see isn't some showy banner to wave about and strut around with.

Click to expand...

Nor is it a "belief system", as you're well aware. But you'll still claim that it is to try to troll other people, even though you know better, won't you?

What is it about your trolling that really gives you the kicks? I'm interested to find out.

Magical Realist said:

There are many videos and eyewitness accounts and TV documentaries that I have come across over the past 24 years that convince me that there is something real but undefined here.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in your village idiot act any more. Nobody could actually be that stupid and gullible. Not after what you have learned here.

I don't believe you're convinced about any of the nonsense you post, these days. It's all an act.

Also, could you possibly be more vague? There's "something real but undefined". Ooh! Call the news networks! Magical Realist has found something or other. It's real, but he can't define it at all. But it's definitely something! Everybody gather round and pay attention, because Magical Realist is about to tell us something ... or other ... about ... stuff.

Of course, being as vague as that is a common troll tactic. Trolls don't like being pinned to specifics. So, keep it vague. Never commit to anything. Change the subject whenever specific questions or objections are raised, or if the ostensible subject under discussion becomes too well defined.

Because if you accept that it has been shown to exist before many times, then for you the chances of it being real this time as well are greatly increased.

Click to expand...

Magical Realist, the man who proclaims that he habitually applies healthy skepticism, also proclaims that your prior beliefs are important determinants of what is real and what is not.

He's lying about one thing or the other here, folks.

Oops! Caught out. A troll should be more careful.

Magical Realist said:

Don't pretend you haven't been shown the abundant evidence of uaps without any wings, rudders, exhaust fumes or control surfaces.

Click to expand...

What a troll you are.

As you're well aware, UAPs are not a single phenomenon, but refer to a class of disparate phenomena, all of which are unidentified. So yes, there are UAPs without visible wings, rudders, exhaust fumes etc. For instance, UAPs later identified as weather balloons have none of those things. UAPs later identified as the planet Venus have none of those things.

What there isn't any good evidence for is little green men in alien spaceships and the like. There are no UAPs - none - that later turn out to be alien visitors. At least, none that have turned out that way so far.

The only person pretending that he hasn't seen abundant evidence that does not support the little green men hypothesis is our resident troll.

It is the difference between me going strictly by the data (the video/photo evidence and eyewitness accounts) and you twisting and cherry-picking the data to fit your own preconclusion.

Click to expand...

If the troll went "strictly by the data" he would be forced to admit that none of the data gathered so far establishes the existence of the little green men. None of it.

But the troll insists that, in fact, there is an "unknown intelligent aquatic species" that lives at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and that "intelligent plasmoid lifeforms" have been shown to exist.

The troll is caught out again, because the troll knows that, going "strictly by the data", these claims the troll has made are unsupported.

Just like all dogmatic skeptics you have no real interest in finding out the truth.

Click to expand...

"Dogmatic skeptic" is an oxymoron.

The only relevant truth here is that Magical Realist is a troll who has been found out.

Pinball1970 said:

I like the extraordinary claims and evidence line. This applies to science also.
Of the biggest issue in cosmology right now is probably the data surrounding wide binaries and flat galaxy rotation curves already mentioned on here.

A paper claiming that the issue has been resolved via mechanism X or via particle P would come under enormous scrutiny and skepticism.

Why? All published papers come under scrutiny via peer review and are then discussed and dismantled at conferences.
Why especially with wide binaries and galaxy rotation curves? Because that is really big deal right now in cosmology it will take something special to crack it.

For the paranormal claims this will take something similar.

The difference for wide binaries is that they have been observed, distance and velocity as accurately as can be measured right now. They are just not obeying GR as they should. They do exist though.

Click to expand...

Quite. MR has shown on other recent threads he understands the philosophy of science fairly well. What he is selectively overlooking in this context is the requirement for evidence to be reproducible and the correct application of Ockham's Razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate, or words to that effect - Ockham does not seem to have actually used that precise phrase, but many equivalent ones pop up in both his writings and those of scholars of the time: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham)

I am reminded of the creationist "tornado-in-a-junkyard" argument, which seizes on the random mutation part of the theory of evolution while perversely choosing to ignore the role of natural selection. It seems to be much the same wilful application of only part of the process, in order to support a belief.

Though I am still unsure to what extent this poster relally believes any of his UFO ideas. It may just be he finds that with UFOs he can tap a rich vein of trollery.