In defence of space aliens

"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So then, I have to ask... what do you make of this "Flat Earth" craze that has started up again thanks to several high-profile celebrities (with, apparently, the combined education of a four year old) that are proclaiming it truly is flat and that "fish eye lenses are responsible for making it look round" et al?

People are, unfortunately, not as smart as we would like to think... and are all too easily swayed to believe something stupid when someone "important" tells them it must be true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've not heard of this. How do they account for planes and boats traveling around the world without falling off the edge?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW - a collaborative resource maintained by the Flat Earth Society!

This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.

and

Yeah... they're serious.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/16424622/reddit-conspiracy-theories-memes-irony-flat-earth

And

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41399164

Let that sink in - NASA guards the edge of the world to prevent people falling off...

just... *headdesk*

 

I feel there is more to this quote... A skeptic is "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual." (dictionary.com) To "flatly deny the existence" doesn't seem compatible with skepticism. In fact, it would be the skeptics that should doubt such denial.

Is this quote referring to skeptics in general, or a specific group of skeptics? What is the context?

Edit: I answered my own question: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208348

This quote is from an ufologist, and thus probably refers to UFO-deniers, not skeptics in general.

 

Ah, thank you for adding the proper context! This indeed strongly suggests we should read "deniers" where it says "skeptics".

 

It should also be noted that it's something written by a (fiercely) pro-woo person making a claim he doesn't (or can't) justify: "the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public".
What? People who say "where's the scientific evidence?" make a non-scientific public reject science?
Apart from the complete lack of figures to support his claim all he's saying is that people who don't know - or are already ignoring - science (apparently) get uppity when a scientists says "Show me the science".

 

Fun fact: complex partial seizures often feature components of prosopagnosia, retrograde and anterograde amnesia, autoscopy, and just plain weirdness. In short, I--along with countless other epileptics--have experienced episodes which are not unlike "alien abduction experiences"--right down to the witnessing of oneself being probed by "greys," and having no idea as to how the hell one got there,or got "back," for that matter. Typically, the face blindness aspect isn't quite that extreme, but I have seen people as largely featureless, their visible orifices--eyes, nostrils, mouth--appearing as simply black holes. IOW, they look pretty much like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Except, sometimes even a bit more freaky--like the figures in Adrian Lyne's Jacob's Ladder or the people on the train in Alan Parker's The Wall.

Fun times!

 

True. I just didn't want to open that can of worms.

And I bet that when a scientist (or '"skeptic"') shows the science, it's all "conspiracy", "close-minded", or "they got it all wrong" without any arguments.

 

John Alexander, NIDS, “Refuting Fermi: No Evidence for Extraterrestrial Life?”

“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?


There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence."

Evidence? Did someone ask for evidence?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

 

I'm no pilot, but I'd imagine any number of things can give the feeling of interference with flight controls, including lightning strikes, strong winds, ice, turbulence, mechanical failure, being tired, etc

During WWII, the use of radar reflective Chaff scared German bomber pilots into a frenzy, when a dozen or so incoming British interceptors suddenly blossomed into a swarm of hundreds of aircraft.

Unexplained doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial.

Yes, and these are undeniably, unquestionably UFO's.

That doesn't make them aliens. It simply means they are objects, flying through the air, that are unknown to the observer. None of that is evidence for alien life.

 

"An unidentified flying object, or UFO, is in its strictest definition any apparent object in the sky that is not identifiable as a known object or phenomenon. However the term is widely used in popular culture to refer more specifically to supposed observations of craft of extraterrestrial origin."---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

Remember THIS compelling case?

http://www.texasufosightings.com/buzz/zimbabwe-ufo-incident-new-amazing-witness-testimony

 

Well, when there is evidence enough to show it is in fact a craft of alien origin from an extraterrestrial source, it will cease being a UFO and, quite possibly, be a bogey.

 

Uh..there seems to be some confusion between seeing a ufo and believing in a conspiracy theory. One is a perceptual experience and the other is a belief. If someone believes in their own perceptual experience, despite skeptics bitching that ufos can't exist and that they were hallucinating or seeing swamp gas, they are the ones being scientific. The skeptics are the ones pushing a belief that requires them to set aside perceptual experience for the faith held proposition that ufos don't exist. So the skeptics in this case are actually demoting the scientific approach of accepting what was experienced and exploring it further. They deceptively parade around under the noble banner of science while mocking and dismissing experiencers of ufos as crazy or gullible or money-grubbers. They do a tremendous disservice to the spirit of true science which is to remain agnostic on the matter while researching the phenomenon as it presents itself. Fortunately the ufologists are doing just that and patiently gathering up the necessary evidence that shows ufos to be a very real and empirically evidenced phenomenon to all the world.

Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned anthropologist, "UFOs - Visitors from Outer Space?,"

"There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases - perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies - for which there is no explanation... We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to." (Mead, Margaret, "UFOs - Visitors from Outer Space?," Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)

 

Nothing in that post does anything, Magical Realist, to address the fact that seeing an unknown and unidentifiable object in the sky does not give one the ability to simply divine that it is somehow an alien creature piloting something from another planet.

Not knowing what something is does not make it aliens.

 

Right. A large metallic disc that flies at high speeds silently in the sky and shoots rays out of itself and even lands in fields with small beings that exit it isn't of extraterrestrial origin. How could you know that? What else COULD it be?

 

"What else could it be" is not science.

It is argument by incredulity - a fallacy: "I cannot imagine how this could be false; therefore, it must be true."

Which is why this thread exists.

 

As DaveC said... "What else could it be" isn't science.

What could it be? Literally anything. That's kind of the point - we don't know what it is... if we did, it wouldn't be a UFO at that point.

Presenting something you don't know and cannot prove or even support as fact is dishonest.