DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And I'm beginning to suspect that many actually prefer it that way. They prefer mystery to answers.Maybe, none of us will ever know what these flying objects are.
And I'm beginning to suspect that many actually prefer it that way. They prefer mystery to answers.Maybe, none of us will ever know what these flying objects are.
(I'm back on Yazata's ignore list? Did I say something that offended?)
They say that you should never meet your heroes, as you'll only be disappointed... and I suspect it is the same for "believers" with knowing the truth about these observations. If you don't meet your heroes you can never be disappointed, and similarly if you never find out the truth about the observations...And I'm beginning to suspect that many actually prefer it that way. They prefer mystery to answers.
Really?Okay. Now, this video is definitely one of the more interesting ones out there.
I agree that it looks like birds.Pay close attention, because I didn't see it (the alleged UFO) right away. What do you make of it?
Of course not. It only becomes a false sighting if somebody starts claiming it is something that it isn't.OK. But 'unfamiliar sighting' doesn't automatically translate to 'false sighting' either.
No. It is not justifiable to make an a priori estimate of that probability as "most likely" when the circumstances are unusual. There's no relevant data on which you can base your probability estimate.If the instruments and witnesses are generally reliable, it makes sense (if by induction alone) to assume that most likely, they are reliable in the unfamiliar instance as well.
Right! But they should certainly keep in mind the possibility that JWST might be malfunctioning, or operating in some unexpected way.If the new JWST sights some unfamiliar astrophysical event deep in the cosmos, astronomers don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the JWST must be malfunctioning because they've never detected anything like that before.
Who is dismissing the data with a sneer?But until they are, the sighting that was reported as given still remains the primary datum to be explained and can't simply be dismissed with a sneer.
To assume that the instrumentation was working correctly and perceptions were accurate is to jump to conclusions, which is something that you just said people shouldn't do, just above. Why are you happy to give them a pass on this, then?I wrote: "What they say there doesn't imply that they are refusing to investigate the reports that they are given. It just says that more likely than not, the instrumentation was working correctly and that the observers are reporting their perceptions accurately."
Yes.It's consistent with what they wrote.
It is plausible. I have explained why, in some detail.They preface the text that you quoted by noting weather, atmospheric effects and interpretation of sensor data. And they conclude by acknowledging that a "select number" of sightings are attributable to things like sensor malfunctions or operator error. So it simply isn't plausible to read them as if they are willfully ignoring such things.
I see. You're feeling sorry for poor little Magical Realist again, so you're taking offence on his behalf. Do you think he's capable of standing up for himself, or do we need to make special allowances for his limited capacities? Should he get to hide behind mummy's coat tails when things get a bit difficult for him because of what he says?Reread your own post #8019. It's nothing but a succession of insults, directed at MR for agreeing with me.
Why reply to him about points I put to you? Don't I deserve the courtesy of a direct reply?I believe that my reply to him in post #8020 addressed your points from post #8018.
You have thoroughly earned the contempt I have for you, Magical Realist. Understand that it is not an all-encompassing contempt. Specifically, it is contempt for how you conduct yourself in discussions about all the woo that you seem to require. Out of the context of the gullible nonsense you suck in, you're probably a perfectly affable and normal-enough person, for all I know. But in this context you're mostly a fool, a troll, and at times a bit of both.It is your own compulsive contempt for me that gets you into trouble. It oozes and drips like a black ichor from every post you make to me. It's something you need to work on, this insatiable need to mercilessly put down certain people who happen to disagree with you. Is it any wonder so many of your posts are left unanswered?
I'd call my comment matter of fact, not aggressive. Each to his own.
You might remember him previously saying "If you want me to respond to your ideas, you might try being a bit less aggressive and confrontational in how you present them"
Maybe, therefore, if he has chosen to once again ignore you, it has something to do with you starting your latest post to him with yet more aggression. To wit: "thank you for replying, for a change."?
I was not and am not fretting. I was wondering why Yazata, having made a point of replying Magical Realist, did not reply to my post. I asked a question, which was parenthetical and therefore which might potentially be taken as rhetorical, if one is reading carefully enough.However, if not, it begs the question of why you are you that insecure that you start fretting when someone doesn't reply to you within a mere 9 hours??
As you can see, your speculations were incorrect. Why did you feel the need to inject them into the thread?Sure, he responded to someone else, but maybe he only had the time to respond to one post and is now asleep?
You could have fooled me. Most of your posts seem to be about me.But, above all, if you're really that concerned, rather than once again merely trying to play to an audience, why don't you send him a PM and keep it between yourselves? This site isn't all about you, James R.
My comments here had nothing to do with MR, but rather your response to Yazata. They're not the same person, in case you were not aware. But your sarcasm seems to suggests that defending someone against aggression and attack is to be frowned upon, to be ridiculed? Shame, that.Nice to see you once again jumping to defend your good mate Magical Realist against the evil depredations of myself. What a knight in shining armour you are!
Such passive aggression is often not recognised, especially by the person doing it. You do it constantly. You have been called out for the aggression in your posts multiple times, some cases more overt than others. But I guess if you don't consider it aggressive, that's okay, then, right?I'd call my comment matter of fact, not aggressive. Each to his own.
Then try asking him in a PM. Asking in a thread just a mere 9 hours after you post suggests that you are rather full of yourself, and how dare someone not respond to you while responding to someone else in the meantime! And more, that you want everyone to know that they haven't bothered to reply to you within 9 hours! How dare they!!I was not and am not fretting. I was wondering why Yazata, having made a point of replying Magical Realist, did not reply to my post.
Putting a question in parenthesis does not make it rhetorical. But, sure, if you want the question to be taken as rhetorical then it still begs the question of why you are fretting about it such that you felt the need to make such a comment. 9 hours, James R. 9 hours. But, sure, it's not all about you, right?I asked a question, which was parenthetical and therefore which might potentially be taken as rhetorical, if one is reading carefully enough.
It begs no such thing. You asked a question. I gave a response. That's how threads tend to work.Your response begs the question of why you are so obviously fretting over this, though. Well?
You asked a question in the thread. I responded to that question in the thread. That's how threads work, whether or not my speculations were correct or not.As you can see, your speculations were incorrect. Why did you feel the need to inject them into the thread?
If you make this site all about you, any criticism of that is necessarily going to be about you. Stop making everything about you, then there won't be such criticism. Furthermore, stop behaving poorly, and then there won't be such criticism of that either. Moderators need to be held to account, just like everyone else. And so far your record is, well, not great (and that's being generous).You could have fooled me. Most of your posts seem to be about me.
Yes. My bad for writing "Magical Realist" there rather than "Yazata". I was replying to three people in that one post, so I had three names in my head. But you're a forgiving guy, so I'm sure you'll find it in your big heart to forgive this small slip of mine.My comments here had nothing to do with MR, but rather your response to Yazata.
Thanks, Sarkus. Gee, I'm glad I can count on you to help me work out who's who. What would I do without you?They're not the same person, in case you were not aware.
My sarcasm was supposed to suggest to you that jumping in to answer for somebody who ought to be able to answer quite adequately for himself is to be frowned upon. Why did you feel you needed to inject yourself into the discussion at that point?But your sarcasm seems to suggests that defending someone against aggression and attack is to be frowned upon, to be ridiculed? Shame, that.
Suppose, hypothetically, you were to post a message to somebody, addressing them by name, and they were to respond to somebody else about your post rather than to you. Suppose that this person were to continually act as if you were invisible.Such passive aggression is often not recognised, especially by the person doing it.
I hear that passive aggressive behaviour is not always recognised, especially by the person doing it. Calling somebody out for supposed aggression could be passive aggressive behaviour under the right circumstances. Don't you think?You do it constantly. You have been called out for the aggression in your posts multiple times, some cases more overt than others. But I guess if you don't consider it aggressive, that's okay, then, right?
I don't recall asking for your advice.Then try asking him in a PM.
No. You're completely off the rails. It seems you haven't even bothered to get your timeline straight on who posted what when in this instance. Your behaviour in aggressively calling me out suggests to me that you are rather full of yourself.Asking in a thread just a mere 9 hours after you post suggests that you are rather full of yourself...
Passive aggressive, again?But, sure, each to their own.
Indeed. What of it?Putting a question in parenthesis does not make it rhetorical.
I'm not fussed about whether it is taken as rhetorical. If I had wanted it to be clear, I would have made it clear. It was a parenthetical comment, like I said.But, sure, if you want the question to be taken as rhetorical then it still begs the question of why you are fretting about it such that you felt the need to make such a comment.
This schoolyard display is, again, mostly about you, now. How long are you planning to keep going?9 hours, James R. 9 hours. But, sure, it's not all about you, right?
Sure. Each to their own, as they say.It begs no such thing.
Why are you still fretting about it, then?You asked a question. I gave a response. That's how threads tend to work.
Clearly, I am the focus of much of your attention. Perhaps you should expand your horizons a little and consider the possibility that my power to make this site all about anything is, in practice, limited. Maybe you should consider the possibility that, in part, sciforums is what you make it all about, too. Not to mention all of the other people who post here.If you make this site all about you, any criticism of that is necessarily going to be about you.
You should consider practising what you preach. Set an example for us all!Furthermore, stop behaving poorly, and then there won't be such criticism of that either.
That's churlish (and childish) of you, seeing as you know that what you just said isn't true. This latest unfortunate display from you is another blemish on your own "record", I hope you realise.Moderators need to be held to account, just like everyone else. And so far your record is, well, not great (and that's being generous).
Not only should it be irrelevant. It is.But, anyhoo, just like your "rhetorical" question, this should all be irrelevant to the thread, other than perhaps informing you of your poor behaviour (again).
Don't be silly. This derailment is, now, almost entirely on you. I doubt Yazata will want to join your schoolyard bully gang. Magical Realist might want to whinge some more, I suppose. But you are free to take the high road at any time.If you wish to continue this line, rather than take it to PM, the subsequent derailment will be wholly on you.
Sure, but bear in mind that "I don't know, yet" is not the same as "I think it equally likely to be a bird, or an insect, or an alien visitation, etc". And ultimately even DaveC is not claiming to know for sure.
It's also just as "possible" it's angels or a sea serpent. All of them have never been confirmed.
The salient question I put to all enthusiasts is this:
If your motives really are to seek out the truth (as opposed to wallowing in "It's a Mystery!"), then how much time and effort (considering they're limited) do you want to put into exploring the possibility that its angels or a sea serpent or any other "possible" explanation? Wouldn't you want to concentrate what resources we have on the one most likely to bear fruit?
Because that what skeptics want.
There’s really no reference point when it comes to UFO’s, because there isn’t any conclusive evidence when it comes to any claims so far. Even the tic tac video is speculation, at best. I’d say the witnesses seem credible, but that’s all we can honestly say. And we can rule out what some UFO’s are not. That counts for something, I guess.Really?
The bar is set very low for this stuff, if you ask me.
lol I’ll have to watch it again.I agree that it looks like birds.
Says the person taking all that time to talk more irrelevant bollocks, while reconfirming all they're criticised about. Can't help yourself, it seems. Why do you bother? Does making it all about you help you cope with your obvious insecurities? Ah, well. Guess you'll never learn.This derailment is, now, almost entirely on you.
And I'm beginning to suspect that many actually prefer it that way. They prefer mystery to answers.
You have the answer to the UAP enigma? Feel free to post it at any time.
When you say "assumption" in the context of what you called the "problem of priors", it is important to distinguish weak assumptions from strong ones.Skeptics start from the assumption that particular kinds of reported phenomena are what they call "woo". That's their preexisting belief before any new evidence is even considered.
Correct.The word "woo" seems to refer to things that not only objectively don't exist, but beliefs that it's stupid and ignorant for anyone to even entertain seriously.
Unless you believe (and can demonstrate why) the skeptics are not doing their Bayesian calculations correctly, that would be a reasonable demand. Would it not?So your argument seems to me to effectively be a demand that any UFO investigation accept the "skeptics'" pre-judgement of what the initial priors should be.
It sounds like you'd prefer to have Magical Realist's thumb on the scales. Why?My objection is that to do that would essentially constitute the "skeptics" thumbs on the scale and bias the outcome of any investigation.
See my previous post. The fact is: no UAP report has ever been confirmed as an alien craft, while many thousands of reports have been confirmed to be mundane (i.e. there is conclusive evidence the UFO was mundane - at least to a "beyond reasonable doubt" level).There’s really no reference point when it comes to UFO’s, because there isn’t any conclusive evidence when it comes to any claims so far.
The "tic tac" evidence is a lot stronger than, say, the evidence in the blurry video recently posted to this thread. There is no argument that some UFO cases are better evidenced than others. But the fact that even in the tic-tac case - one of the best evidenced cases we know of - the evidence is quite unconvincing, insofar as it points towards alien craft or other woo.Even the tic tac video is speculation, at best.
Still not ready to stop, yet? Do you want to talk some more about you and me, Sarkus?Says the person taking all that time to talk more irrelevant bollocks, while reconfirming all they're criticised about. Can't help yourself, it seems. Why do you bother? Does making it all about you help you cope with your obvious insecurities? Ah, well. Guess you'll never learn.
An interesting conjecture. But that door swings both ways, does it not?My objection is that to do that would essentially constitute the "skeptics" thumbs on the scale and bias the outcome of any investigation.