Skeptics vs True Believers

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by James R, Aug 19, 2015.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    In a recent thread in the Fringe subforums, Magical Realist posted this:

    I'm interested in the things that make people come to view various pseudoscientific claims like this.

    On the one hand, taking all the evidence together is just what deep thinkers in any field of inquiry are supposed to do. It seems like a good thing that believers in alien visitations and the like are of the view that they are considering all of the evidence.

    But then comes the disconnect. Magical Realist says that he starts with the assumption that space aliens exist, and therefore does not "start from scratch" with each UFO sighting. Instead, it seems that his methodology is to assume that every UFO is an alien spaceship. Then, if there's convincing enough evidence that it isn't actually an alien spaceship, Magical Realist might - perhaps - grudgingly change his mind about that particular sighting (although I can't recall too many instances where he has said "Oh yes, that sighting did turn out to have a mundane explanation" or to be a fake, or whatever).

    This starting with a conclusion and trying your best to interpret the available evidence in a way that supports your prior bias, is antithetical to the scientific method. It is true, of course, that scientists themselves are not immune to this kind of thinking, but they at least aim for an objective assessment of the evidence. Moreover, scientists who fall into the trap of picking and choosing data to support a hypothesis are often exposed sooner or later by other scientists. That way of thinking and working is frowned upon in the world of science.

    So what's going wrong here? Do the pseudoscientists have a blind spot, so that they truly believe they are examining all the evidence when in fact they are picking and choosing? Or are they simply not educated in what it means to critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of evidence? Or, could it be that they are so distrustful of experts and authorities (scientists, in particular, perhaps) that they are inclined to disbelieve any analyses that come from these "official" sources?

    This sounds like confirmation bias to me. "Look! There's a red Ferrari. .... Look, there's another red Ferrari. .... Maybe all Ferraris are red. Let's google it: search for "red Ferrari". Yes, it seems that all Ferraris are red; just look at all those pictures of red Ferraris."

    And then: "Hey, did you see that? Was that a yellow Ferrari? No, it couldn't have been. It must have been red. When we live in a reality where all Ferraris are red, then the next unexplained sighting that comes along can be much more certain to be red than for a skeptic who continues to live in a reality where some Ferraris can be black or yellow. Probably that Ferrari just looked yellow because of a trick of the light."

    Let's look at this two ways. First, is it a fair summary of what skeptics do? Second, do believers in pseudoscience do the opposite?

    The UFO skeptic, I would say, does not start from the position that he knows that a given UFO is not an alien craft. Certainly, the skeptic may believe that any given UFO sighting is more likely to have some other explanation, but the skeptic is willing to examine on its merits the evidence that is being presented, without starting with an assumption about what the evidence will show. And what of the skeptic's judgment about the likelihood before investigation? No doubt the skeptic would argue that no previous UFO case has ever been convincingly shown to have been an alien spacecraft, so it would be surprising if this one was. That doesn't rule out the possibility, of course. But proof of the existence of alien visitors would be truly extraordinary and of fundamental importance to humanity. Therefore we'd better be pretty confident about the interpretation of the evidence before we start jumping to conclusions.

    And what of the believers? Magical Realist wrote just above that "I don't start from scratch with every sighting, assuming the ufos don't exist. I assume they do exist..." That is, he assumes that every sighting is an alien craft, unless (possibly) it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it isn't. Is this "real objective science"? Admitting a phenomenon in advance of looking into it?

    The giveaway here is the statement that we should "judge the evidence based on the conclusions that we make" (by looking through the whole field and weighing accounts). So the conclusions come first, then the judgment of the particular case. But a critical thinker would surely say that this is backwards. We should judge the evidence and then form conclusions.

    Both the believer and the skeptic say that they aren't basing their judgment as to whether aliens exist (or ESP or pyramid power or whatever) on any one case, but rather on many incidents or examples or studies. So what is the difference? Does it lie in the quality of the evidence for and against, as opposed to quantity? Does it lie, perhaps, in the amount of evidence needed to flip the individual from skeptic to believer (i.e. perhaps the believer has a lower threshold for belief)? Does it lie in poor reasoning power, or a liability to let one's mind run off into fantasy ahead of what the evidence is actually saying? Is there are deficit of critical thinking? Or what about this:

    Is it, then, just a matter of individual preference - that we believe what we want to believe? If so, does this deficiency of character apply only to skeptics, as Magical Realist seems to imply, or might it also apply to believers?

    Or do scientists and skeptics suffer from a failure of nerve, unlike those brave souls - the believers - who face the aliens without flinching? Is it that scientists can't handle the Truth?

    Or, could it be that believers think that skeptics are closed-minded, when in fact the fault might be on the believers' side - minds so open that brains fall out and all that?

    Perhaps there's a theme here. If ghosts and UFOs and Bigfoot exist, then human beings have less control over our lives than we think we do. Skeptics like to think they are in control, so they deny the existence of these things.

    Or, could it be the other way around? Perhaps believers in UFOs and Bigfoot feel like they don't have enough control over their lives. Believing in UFOs and Bigfoot supports their general suspicion that they are not powerful, so they are just being consistent in their worldview.

    What do you think?
     
    billvon likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Nice write up. I think something that 'believers' never seem to get is that most skeptics like myself would love to have some alien spaceship land in my back yard. Now I have to admit not so much with ghost - I have enough trouble just trying to keep mice out of my house!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    UFO term is always a misconception. AV is the actual classified term.
    av mean alien vehicles.

    alot of so called ufo's are simply government projects. an example of one would be a triangle craft. this is a human concept from aerodynamics. things like this is what should be focused on when pondering such things.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    krash661:

    Please address the topic of the thread if you wish to contribute.
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Actually I suspect that the type of approach you describe as "antithetical to the scientific method" is very common among scientists. You quite often see, in evolving theories, the formation of two or more "camps", who carry out research intended to support a version that they subscribe to. The argument is only settled either when someone lands a knockout blow to the other theory or, (more commonly) over time the evidence stacks up more and more in favour of one version, at the expense of the other, which then loses adherents and progressively atrophies.

    As I have written in other threads, I do not myself believe most scientists are trained in or consciously practise, something called "the scientific method". I think the scientific method exists alright, but is the product of competition and collaboration among scientists, as a group. The one thing that really does distinguish scientific investigation, it seems to me, is the requirement to offer observations that are objective and free from error or unconsidered influences. This is often how theories are attacked in fact by other scientists, who scrutinise the reported observations for defects - hence there is an incentive for the researcher to make his findings bulletproof in this regard. The same of course applies also in the Humanities: really it is a characteristic of academic work in general, not just of science.

    In the case of UFOs being alien spacecraft, the weight of evidence is clearly against this hypothesis: so many simpler alternative explanations for so many of the "sightings", lack of any patterns of behaviour, lack of reproducible observations, and so on. But there remains a tiny rump of eccentric people who continue to choose to believe in the alien explanation, probably for psychological and aesthetic reasons as much as anything else, rather as you speculate.
     
  9. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    i was commenting from your opening post. the whole topic is about aliens and ufos along with believers and nonbelievers , correct ?
    i only gave info that pertains to this topic moving in an accurate destination.
    oh well. i guess i should just read only at this place.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    shrugs i tried, once again.
     
  10. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    But your post isnt really about Skeptics vs true believers is it? It is simply about MR's position(s).
    What is All the Evidence MR considers? That the universe is billions of years old, with Billions of stars, with Billions of planets, and we exist in such a minute time frame in the-bigger-picture and have gone from horse and buggy to cars to landing on the moon in a 100 years, is it more likely than not that similar leaps and bounds have occurred elsewhere in the near/far universe, faster and more complete than our own experience (and slower/still ongoing)?

    That it is true the government, under the blanket of national security, denied they were seriously contemplating this very thing for many years, with the help of some of the best scientists in these fields, scientists willingly sworn to secrecy, to pursue their own sense of wonder, at the cost of denying everyone else this 'knowledge' should it be discovered?

    Or are we so rare, so unique in the universe it is impossible or even unlikely for this to have occurred twice? While sending probes to mars to look for signs of life... among other things...

    In my not so humble opinion the fact we are here provides ample evidence it is more likely than not its happened elsewhere. After all it is really really big out there isnt it? When we finally do wander outside of the solar system, we will be looking for planets exactly like this.. well we are looking for that now. And do you think that one of our rules should be non-interference or non-contact with civilizations if discovered? If not for their sake (thinking of our known interference with various peoples on earth), for National Security interests?

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/us/feat-nasa-kepler-planet-discovery/

    Point being, with our own governments efforts in this realm of "pseudo-science", is MR's position really that Fringe?

    And is it really all that fringe to not quite believe the governments "heres all our ufo files" when we have this:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

    And we can watch the military lying to congress "we the people" with impunity.

    For me, I can understand a governmental position of "AVs do not exist". It is a matter of national security. Makes perfect sense that our government wouldnt want to admit to people-- Folks there is stuff going on out there that we have no control over, a technology we have no idea how it works let alone how to defend ourselves against and an intelligent life form that wont make contact.

    But dont worry...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

    Scientists are quite capable of less than stellar morality/honesty.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

    If \(H_0\) is UFOs are terrestrial phenomena and \(H_1\) is UFOs are frequently witnessed extraterrestrial artifacts, and \(E_{PL}\) is a mass-witnessed and documented event like the Phoenix Lights, what does Bayesian inference tell us?

    \(P(H_0 | E_{PL}) = \frac{ P(E_{PL} | H_0) }{ P(E_{PL}) } P( H_0 ) \\ P(H_1 | E_{PL}) = \frac{ P(E_{PL} | H_1) }{ P(E_{PL}) } P( H_1 ) \)
    Since \(P(E_{PL} | H_0) \approx 1\) -- The world is large and somewhere people very well might be awed by the appearance of nighttime military operations like parachuting flares disappearing behind a distant ridgeline and \(P(E_{PL} | H_1) \approx 1\) The world is large and somewhere people very well might be awed by the appearance of UFOs at night, if such things really happen, the conclusion is that ambiguous evidence doesn't make a strong case one way or another.

    Gathering multiple pieces of ambiguous evidence also doesn't make a strong case one way or another. Strongly held preconceptions aren't shifted much one way or another by ambiguous anecdotes. Since the Phoenix Lights eventually was traced to a non-sinister terrestrial origin, it suggests that anecdotal evidence, which arises piecemeal from uncontrolled circumstances and from sources of unknown trustworthiness needs to be scrutinized.

    The correct way is to go about this methodologically. For example, if eye-witness reports of aliens and UFOs are genuine, one doesn't expect them to follow fashion trends. Yet recent UFOs are rarely are reported as 1950's "flying saucers" and more often as the more ambiguous "lights in sky." http://www.syracusenewtimes.com/flying-saucers-classic-ufo/
    But this was obviously a fashion trend based on the media reports of Kenneth Arnold's December 10, 1946 report of pieces of a meteor tumbling and with trajectories perturbed by irregular atmospheric effects. Kenneth described the motion as "like a saucer skipping over water." Bingo, 50 years of flying saucers. Before, not so much. Recently, not so much. Ergo, a trend in fashion popularized by the media informing people what they should see in the sky.

    Likewise for the "Gray aliens" -- we first have "eyewitness" reports that only arose under years of hypnosis (which can be easily abused) and illustrations came out only after the 1964 episode "The Bellero Shield" of the Outer Limits. A decade later an NBC TV movie The UFO Incident cemented this look in the popular culture.

    And I think crop circles might be a third trend attributed to extraterrestrials that turned out to be very simply explained under \(H_0\).

    These trends are hard to explain if aliens are extraterrestrial, but not even noticed if you just look at many isolated anecdotes.
    Here \(P(E_{trend} | H_1) << P(E_{trend} | H_0) \approx 1\) because aliens have no business having their form or engineering decisions based on distorted media reports.

    As a side note, \(H_0\) and \(H_1\) are not mutually exclusive. A mixed hypothesis that some UFOs are extraterrestial vistors would survive statistical tests. But as the evidence that favors \(H_0\) over \(H_1\) accumulates, "some" can't be interpreted as "most" or even "more than a few."

    Personally, I am biased by prior experience to favor \(H_0\) over \(H_1\) by a factor of at least 1000, so anecdotal claims of eyewitnesses, photos, movies mean nothing to me in terms of shifting my evaluation of \(H_1\). Physical evidence of alien cooties or a discarded alien food container would cinch the case for \(H_1\) in my mind and most rational people who have favored \(H_0\). But in this age of CSI, claims of intelligent malicious aliens who thumb their noses at our air traffic regulations, medical procedure licensing and laws against kidnapping seem peculiar in the light of the lack of physical evidence. Do they wag their asses at our air forces and hide in terror from our court system?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    All of the above, and by the way nice factually correct post imho.
    Simply put and which our believers ignore...
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    I saw a UFO myself around 20 years ago, driving along Foreshore Road in Botany Sydney...a bright blue disc, about the apparent size of the Moon and on the horizon. I saw it for about 3 seconds before it dipped below the horizon.
    I would like to think I then invoked the scientific method and common sense and logic.
    I went home, went to bed, trying to work out what I saw...[obviously a UFO

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
    I woke the next morning, hurriedly went to the paper shop and purchased the local paper. No reports of any other sightings was evident.
    The next few days were normal..no reports of any Alien invasion fleet, no other sightings, no other weird happenings.
    So I forgot about it and put it down to either an illusion, or someone with a balloon in a boat out on Botany Bay. :shrug:
    I certainly see the Universe as being teeming with life at various stages of evolution. The numbers game tell me that, the near infinite size of the Universe tells me that, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look tells me of that. But I also accept that the true scientific answer is "we do not know" But I chose though to believe otherwise anyway for the reasons stated.
    I also accept the facts that any alien visitation needs to overcome incredible distances and would obviously be in advance of us.
    Then one would need to ask, why come all that way, why land in some out of the way place and conduct rather bizarre medical experiments and than take off again.
    That makes totally no sense to me.
    In other words, the reasons you have stated, and the application of the scientific method makes any Alien visitation and interactions, Bigfoot sightings, ghosts, goblins etc as most unlikely, particularly in the absence of all physical evidence of such phenomena.

    Yep, same sort of phycological problems apply to our conspiracy theorist pushers.
    People feel insecure, maybe unwanted, so they go out of there way to impress, be noticed, turn the spotlight on themselves.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2015
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    What evidence do you have that the government (I suppose you must mean the US government) denied it was contemplating moonshots? I am intrigued, as I have never come across this notion before.

    Also, can you give relevant examples of the military lying to Congress? This seems rather shocking, if true.
     
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Since Sputnik was in 1957 and Explorer 1 in 1958 and Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1 was in 1961 followed the next month by President Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon, rather than "many years of secrecy" the evidence rather suggests 1 month.

    On the ICBM front, RTV-A-2 Hiroc was funded only from 1946-1948 with funding ending because the US had no need for it. Later in the mid-1950's thermonuclear weapons shrunk enough to be placed on a missile and because of Soviet advances in building atomic weapons and making progress on ICBMs that the Atlas program became a top priority circa 1957. Even this line of reasoning doesn't allow for planned secret moonshots, because it wasn't feasible to launch a payload to the moon with Atlas technology.
     
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Colin Powell is famous for repeating lies to the UN in 2003. But just because some intelligence agents knew better, doesn't make Colin Powell a liar. And he was Secretary of State, not in the military; speaking to UN and the Press, not Congress.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    "The reason I can be more certain a particular ufo is an alien craft is because I take all the evidence together. I don't start from scratch with every sighting, assuming the ufos don't exist. I assume they do exist, and hence for me the prospect of a silver disc in the sky being one, or of 62 kids seeing aliens come out of a flying saucer, is much more plausible to me than to a skeptic."

    I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is, but I think there are at least two here. One is assuming the conclusion. The other one is treating large amounts of bad evidence as adding up to good evidence. In fact, every incident should properly be treated separately.
     
    Russ_Watters likes this.
  17. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    I worried triming JamesR post would cause issues. Sorry for that.

    Gov denied UFO files existed, not moonshots.

    Yes most of my references are in regard to the US government.

    They are not relevant to UFOs at this time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

    Above referenced in Frontline link with video of the testimony.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

    And I already posted a link to various experiments done on unknowing persons (many military) that were also denied for years and years.

    The point was there is a history of lies and it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of the governments official position. There is a pattern. It does involve science/scientists. And it was intended to point how people can become attached to the pseudo-sciences.
     
  18. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Without a reference, your post seems Random and Pointless. Is there any insight on
    And if so could you please explain the connection. Logically I mean.

    FOCUS dude!
     
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I was replying to exchemist's post.
     
  20. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Which one? and again I ask, how is that relevant to the topic? We already know SOME people dont think the moon landing happened.

    Focus Dude!
     
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    So MR was banned for two weeks starting yesterday (for the crime of defending himself against Kittamaru's attacks) and then you immediately start a thread devoted to criticizing his views in absentia, without giving him any chance to explain what he meant or to defend his ideas?

    MR just seems to have said (in effect) that we tend to interpret things in terms of our preconceptions. That isn't dissimilar from the 'paradigm' idea in Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.

    MR interprets UFO reports in the light of thousands of other UFO reports that debunkers are likely to disregard based on their own preexisting faith that UFO reports are nothing more than bullshit.

    The debunkers are typically just as guilty of starting with their own conclusions and then seeking arguments and evidence to illustrate them.

    It would seem to be implicit in the 'hypothesis testing' model that people typically come up with when asked what the phrase 'scientific method' means. Investigators start by assuming that their hypothesis is true, then try to deduce some observable consequences of its being true, then look for evidence of those consequences. In science, an initial hypothesis is typically supported by far thinner evidence than the hypothesis that UFOs exist. Often, scientific hypotheses are little more than speculation.

    I think that objectively speaking, it's undeniable and indubitable that UFOs exist. Not everything seen in the sky is identified. The point where disagreements legitimately arise is when explanations are proposed for that large body of observation reports.

    At CERN, finding evidence of something like Higgs' boson requires computers crunching huge bodies of experimental data in hopes of identifying a few very rare confirmation events.

    Similarly, if somebody spins up a hypothesis about UFOs and intelligent purpose, he or she is likely to select reports of UFOs seemingly displaying intelligent behavior from the thousands of UFO reports out there.

    That's ad hominem.

    Exactly, I think that was MR's point. He's just saying that the confirmation bias works both ways. It's as obvious among the debunkers as it is among the believers.

    That belief is likely to be very strong and it's going to influence the plausibility weights that the skeptic assigns interpretations different than his or her own favored one.

    Wouldn't it be nice if that was really true? It isn't. In real life the skeptics are often debunkers, out to defend what they perceive as the science/pseudoscience distinction. They come to these arguments already convinced that they know what belongs on each side of that dichotomy, and already certain who the good-guys and the bad-guys are.

    UFO believers obviously have their own preexisting assumptions that influence not only how they interpret the data, but also what they are willing to accept as data in the first place.

    That's an interesting question. I'm inclined to say 'yes'. In most cases people do believe what they want to believe. Clearly some beliefs have better justifications than others and arguably it might be better to hold some beliefs than others (true beliefs? useful beliefs? morally good beliefs? politically or religiously correct beliefs?). But however beliefs are adopted, there does seem to be an element of choice to it. If there wasn't, then why all the rhetoric, argument and persuasion? Why education? People are always trying to influence other people's choice of beliefs.

    My opinion is that MR creates such fascination and consternation here on Sciforums because he challenges the board's pervasive scientism. MR doesn't believe that the limits and scope of contemporary scientific belief are synonymous and co-extensive with the limits and scope of reality itself. He doesn't accept the axiom that if phenomena find no place in contemporary scientific theory, those phenomena can't exist. MR believes that reality is more amazing than we currently realize.

    So MR expects anomalies, intrusions of the unknown into the known. He actively searches for them because in his mind they represent transcendence. I'm something of a Fortean myself and I have a great deal of sympathy with his quest, even if I think that some of his examples are badly chosen and aren't persuasive.

    There's an element of truth to that. It's certainly comforting to believe that everything has already been figured out and that everything that exists is assigned to its own little box. Of course people have entertained that same subjective conceit throughout human history. I expect that paleolithic hunters sitting around their campfires thought that they had it all figured out too.

    Sure, there's obviously a large element of truth to that too. Personally I think that MR tilts too far in the direction of uncritical credulity.

    But that's no reason to hate him or for people like Kittamaru to chase him around from thread to thread trying to insult him into oblivion.

    The goal is to find some balance-point between closed-minded dogmatism and abject credulity.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2015
    milkweed and Secular Sanity like this.
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    one of my favorite phrases:
    i understand now that boundaries between noise and sound are conventions. all boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended. one may transcend any convention, if only one can first conceive of doing so. [cloud atlas]
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That's science, more precisely astronomy/cosmology. MR deals in pseudoscience.
    Sure, sometimes governments do see the need for cover ups, in the interest of national security. Area 51 in the US immediataly comes to mind.
    That doesn't mean that reported UFO sightings were not investigated properly with proper decisions being made that no evidence exists to claim of Alien origin.
    Obviously people who want to cling to these fantasies ignore the more mundane and obvious conclusions.
    Examples of Imagination going wild I suggest.
    I accept on the evidence available that we most certainly are not alone...numbers involved, near infinite universe and the stuff of life everywhere, but until we find physical evidence of ETI or even remains of long extinct ETI, the only real scientific answer is "WE DO NOT KNOW"
    The same applies to the question of UFO sightings being of Alien origin, coupled with the other recognised facts that make that mostly unlikely.
    And of course while realising that most cosmologists/Astro biologists etc, accept that we are probably not alone, they also accept that time and distance makes contact very difficult.
    As I have just said, time and distance makes such contact difficult.
    If of course contact were to be made, It is far more logical to accept the fact that they would make themselves known to world governments and leaders, and maybe leave some physical evidence of that visitation, certainly not appearing to a bunch of school children or to some impressionable individual out the back of nowhere.

    Taking into account all his beliefs, other then Alien visitations, we need to include Bigfoot, Poltergeists, and ghosts, so the answer is a definite resounding yes!
    Yep, certainly some are...We can never claim that all the individuals of a country, or orginization, or government department, are all totally perfect.....Not even the scientific method itself. Still, it is the best we have, and without it we would be in a mess.
    No.
    But I won't go into it anymore as I don't believe your premise in thinking this thread is about him is factual.
    It's about members in general, expressing a claim, and having that claim undergo scientific scrutiny and peer review.

    No, reports of UFOs are real, the scientific evidence supports that fact. Scientific evidence does not support the fact that UFOs are of Alien origins, which is what the "debunkers" are using to debunk those claims.
    remembering again...Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

    No again: They are simply invoking the scientific methodology.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Claims that UFOs are of Alien origin, is certainly an hypothesis in line with other hypothesis. But the necessary evidence to gain acceptance [analogous to a scientific theory] is absent......as it is with ghosts Bigfoot and Poltergeists.
    Yep agreed.And they remain UFOs as distinct from Alien origin UFOs, until proper extraordinary evidence is finally forthcoming.eg: an Alien craft or object not of this earth, a dead Alien, proper logical contact in popular places or seats of governments that are properly documented, photographed and researched.

    Personally, evidenced by his anti science threads he has started, I see the problem more extensive than that.

    The goal is to come up with irrefutable extraordinary evidence to support that some UFOs are of Alien origin, that Bigfoot roams the forests of the USA, that ghosts and goblins are real.
    With regards to UFOs, one day that may be evident. With the other two, I see as totally unscientific concepts and therefor more or less just fairy tales.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2015

Share This Page