In defence of space aliens

It isn't. You still don't know what an ad hom is.

We'll add that to the list of Hypocritical Things You Do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet more irony.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you really not see that it is you who is trying to "wring from the unknown the answers you have already shaped in your own mind"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed.

"...try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds..."

MR is projecting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another ad hom...You do it so habitually you don't even know you're doing it.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

I am addressing your arguments that you are writing here in this thread. I can literally quote them.
If you don't wish for your arguments to be called out as hypocritical (i.e. when you argue one thing and then contradict it), then you should not post them as part of your defense of your position in this thread. But you do choose to post them - and that makes them - by your actions - a valid target for challenge, and thus not an ad hom.

Now, if you don't stop trolling I'll report you for dragging the thread off-topic with extant hypocrisy.

 

You didn't call my argument hypocritical. You called me a hypocrite. And now you are ad homing me again as a troll to be reported. Your efforts to shut me down are so transparent. Quit ad homing and discuss the topic like a civil human being.

 

Sure.

The irrational persistence of wish-thinking in the face of the mundane must have some underlying motivation, primarily one that desperately wants ufos to exist. Maybe it's a basic fear of the existence of the rational. But they obviously have some personal stock in ufos existing or they wouldn't try to push it so much.

All nice and "civil", right? Now remember, no attacking my pov!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nothing wrong with that as long as you really believe it.. Somehow I doubt it though..

 

In fact there is much wrong with it. It's all ad hom.

It attempts to analyze the motivations of the person(s) behind the opposing stance, in a flawed ad hom attempt to weaken the stance.

I will ask the mods to strike everything from post 5668 onward - the one where you made a entire post of at least half dozen ad homs - and then hypocritically complained about other people making ad homs.

 

Meh..Do whatever you want. Doesn't bother me a bit. The post was an answer to Wegs' post asking about skeptics' motivations for their own disbelief. Totally legit and on topic.

 

Open yourself to the mystery..

Plenty of mystery out there even if you left out UFOs and anything remotely paranormal

You don't get explanations in real life

Scientists actively seek out explanations and frequently find explanations

Scientists are working on the ultimate WHY?

The ultimate answer Physics Allows is going to be disappointing to a large portion of humanity (which in itself is a mystery)

And said disappointment lures a large portion of those down the infinite regression rabbit hole

Coffee moment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, it seems to me that the "skeptics" do have some unstated (and perhaps unconscious) psychological motive for dismissing even the possibility of anything that they don't currently believe in, everything that doesn't fit into their tight little world-view. I don't know why that is. Perhaps because it threatens the underlying scientism that seems to me to be the philosophical foundation of Sciforums. There's also their desire to imagine that they are the intellectually superior ones, always talking down to those they disagree with and pretending to "educate" them. Admitting that they simply don't know would play havoc to all that.

And people like MR seem to have an opposing psychological motive for embracing and highlighting those possibilities. I think that MR is more aware of his own motives than the "skeptics" are, since he's written about them in just the last few posts:

MR is trying to retain a sense of transcendence that seems to be anathema to the hard-scientism that motivates the (so-called) "skeptics". That's where the real disagreement lies, I think. MR wants to believe that reality is bigger, stranger and more wonderful than people currently know. That kind of idea threatens his critics, who want to believe that reality is a sealed little clockwork box whose contents they already know and understand, in principle if not in detail.

The philosopher (and the Fortean) in me makes me side with MR. Ever since I was a child, I've felt that reality is profoundly mysterious. Whenever we ask foundational questions about anything we quickly arrive at the frontiers of human knowledge. I share MR's psychological motivation, I guess. That's why I side with him in these arguments.

For example, our "skeptics" love to talk about 'reason' (and by extension logic and the mathematics that is the core of theoretical physics) and believe that they are paragons of that particular rational virtue. But I expect that they are as incapable as anyone else of explaining what reason is, what explains it, how human beings know about it, or why reality seemingly conforms to it. It's just something that they accept and believe in, much like the theist believes in God. It's hard to see how it can be evidence-based, at least without complete circularity.

I do agree that MR is often excessively credulous. I do try to rein him in on occasion. But since he's always under such unceasing attack by people that I perceive as anonymous discussion-board bullies, my tendency to side with the underdog can get the best of me. I've never liked bullies and often enjoy standing in their path and challenging them to come through me. That's my own psychological motivation I guess. It's ego-gratifying if nothing else, and perhaps it occasionally teaches a useful philosophical lesson.

 

It doesn't threaten anyone. We just like to see credible evidence for bold claims. Full stop.
This is a science forum, not a transcendence forum.

 

From what I see on the home page, each of the various subforums are divided into sections. The first section is "Science" and includes all the science subforums. Presumably these science subforums are what the group's plural name "Sci Forums" is referring to. The remaining sections such as "Technology" "Philosophy" "World" "Life" etc include non-science subforums. I post my ufo evidence in the "On The Fringe" section under the subforum "UFOs, Ghosts, and Monsters". That is not a science subforum. It is the totally appropriate place in this group to discuss this topic.

 

Can you show where these "skeptics" have denied the possibility of, say, extra-terrestrial visitation? Maybe they are just concluding that, among the vast array of possible explanations (based on the little information that we actually know) the ones involving such ETs are rather low on the scale of likelihood, often to the point of not worth considering further?
But in terms of "dismissing even the possibility", I'm not aware of much discourse that has gone down those lines. It seems to be mostly "while it is possible, it is not considered even remotely likely...".

I'm not sure what you're driving at here... how do you think one person on a non-scientific agenda threatens the philosophical foundation of Sciforums? Are you criticising people for addressing the claims matter with a scientific hat on?

I don't think that's a characteristic of the "skeptics" but rather to individuals, some of whom may be skeptics, some of whom may not be.

Now we get to it... your push for the "I don't know" position... one that I happen to share. However, unlike you, I don't see skeptics, even those here, as saying "I know it's not-X" but rather "I don't know, but it's highly unlikely to be X because of... so what else might it be..." etc.

He's not "highlighting those possibilities", but asserting their reality. There's a difference.

One can post quotes that you think shine a light on your motives all one wants, but if they don't act according to those quotes, and in fact act contradictory to them, how are they to be taken as a serious self-assessment of motive?

Again you do people here a gross disservice by caricaturing them as a (strawman) "skeptic" that really doesn't exist here. I'd be genuinely amazed if anyone here doesn't want to believe in a reality that is as you describe MR wants to believe in. Frankly, you're constructing strawmen to fit your own apologetic agenda, and in doing so dressing up what legitimate points you do actually have in clothes of irrelevancy.

So do skeptics! Even the (so-called) "skeptics" you are railing against here. But being mysterious does not mean that you accept what you otherwise consider to be unlikely, without first eliminating what you consider more likely.

Most people do. Seriously. Most people share those same motivations. Ask everyone here and they will say the same. I for one do.
As such you don't side with him for that reason, but rather for the other reasons you subsequently stated.

One can drive a car without knowing how the engine works, or enjoy a beer without knowing what is in it or how it is brewed.

It's something that everyone accepts and believes in, even if they think otherwise. One can not act without reason unless one is truly random / anarchic / chaotic. One can not function without some level of logical ability. One may not understand that which they employ, may not be able to articulate it, but it is there. But I guess a believer could say the same about God, could they not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look, I don't want to argue with you, Yazata. We agree on most things, I think, but here I honestly think you've constructed a caricature of a "(so-called) 'skeptic'" that actually doesn't exist here. Your support of MR is commendable, though.
Personally, I wish a lot more people would be content to openly admit "I don't know!" but if they do that shouldn't preclude them from also saying "but I think it highly unlikely to be X because of A, B, C".

 

You may have, I don't know...

It's ''understandable'' and sensible to not assume that all eye witness testimonies are factual. Or even a fraction of them. No disagreement there. I'm a skeptic to a degree, as well...but there seems to be a dismissal by some skeptics of exploring the claims further, chalking them all up to fantasy almost too quickly. The tic tac video gives me pause; it's probably the most convincing video of possible alien aircraft that we've heard of (that I've heard of), and that story seems to have died its usual death.

My point being, that I'd like to see more exploration considered...that's where the dismissal part comes in, imo.

 

The only one throwing a belligerent tantrum is you, ad homing and attacking me instead of my position...

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I as well as Qreerus and Yazata have also posted more than enough compelling evidence and arguments in this thread to convince anyone of the reality of ufos. Your incessant denials notwithstanding..