(continued...)
Now, what you need to do, Yazata, is to compare our posts (i.e. mine and MR's). Look at which of us ignores evidence and possible explanations. Look at which of us makes ludicrous claims about what evidence is reliable and why. Look at which of us has only one working hypothesis in mind when evaluating evidence and which of us keeps an open mind.
After you've done all that, then you might be in a position to judge who has the confirmation bias.
Remember: all I'm asking is that the True Believers produce credible evidence in support of their alien/fairy claims.
Also bear in mind that, most of the time, I make no claim that I have solved a particular UFO case. I often claim that conventional explanations can't be discounted, because it's true. Every now and then, it turns out that the evidence is sufficiently persuasive to make it far more likely than not that a suggested mundane explanation is the solution to the mystery, but that's often not the case because we most often end up debating that 5% of UFO cases that are troublesome, rather than the 95% that are solved fairly easily.
I think that, for whatever reason, you're biased against skeptics. You - like the True Believers - believe they (we) are closed minded cynics.
I think that your conclusion that there actually were one or more physical objects is premature. But we need to be careful as to which particular sighting we're talking about. One problem that I have noted before is that throughout this discussion people have tended to conflate multiple sightings that happened at different times and places. In fact, in some cases separate sightings years apart have been assumed - with no evidence at all - to be the same thing.
The other strand of the argument is that even if one or more of these sightings was of something "physically there", the identity of the physically-there thing that was sighted remains undetermined.
I care very much about what is true, not so much about things not being true.
If you have good arguments that (a) something was physically there (in one or more of the sightings) and (b) it was/they were something "new", then by all means bring them.
If I believe that you have not made a good case for "physically there", or perhaps for "something new", that is hardly equivalent to my "caring very much about it not being true".
Bear in mind that we're dealing with a number of different "sightings" by different people in different places using different modalities. It is human nature to try to link them together into one coherent narrative, but it could well be the case that there are quite separate explanations for different parts of the narrative. This is something that is very often ignored by those who start with a preferred story in mind in the first place.
It would be a case of confirmation bias if I selectively cherry-picked only the evidence that tends to support the conclusion that a UFO is mundane, for example, while ignoring the rest. It would also be a case of confirmation bias if MR selectively cherry-picked only the evidence that tends to support his conclusion that a UFO is little green men (/interdimensional fairies/etc.).
Now, what you need to do, Yazata, is to compare our posts (i.e. mine and MR's). Look at which of us ignores evidence and possible explanations. Look at which of us makes ludicrous claims about what evidence is reliable and why. Look at which of us has only one working hypothesis in mind when evaluating evidence and which of us keeps an open mind.
After you've done all that, then you might be in a position to judge who has the confirmation bias.
Remember: all I'm asking is that the True Believers produce credible evidence in support of their alien/fairy claims.
Also bear in mind that, most of the time, I make no claim that I have solved a particular UFO case. I often claim that conventional explanations can't be discounted, because it's true. Every now and then, it turns out that the evidence is sufficiently persuasive to make it far more likely than not that a suggested mundane explanation is the solution to the mystery, but that's often not the case because we most often end up debating that 5% of UFO cases that are troublesome, rather than the 95% that are solved fairly easily.
I think that you'll be hard pressed to find any skeptic saying that "it must be something familiar" or similar. Can you find any instances where I've said anything of that kind - especially before I've examined the available evidence?
I think that, for whatever reason, you're biased against skeptics. You - like the True Believers - believe they (we) are closed minded cynics.
Maybe you should take care that you're defending somebody who deserves to be defended, or else you might find yourself siding with a troll.
Sure. Your view on the "tic tacs" is that you suspect they might be something truly "new". I have argued strenously that there's no good reason to think they are something "new".
I agree with you that we don't know what "it" was - if there even was an "it".
I think that your conclusion that there actually were one or more physical objects is premature. But we need to be careful as to which particular sighting we're talking about. One problem that I have noted before is that throughout this discussion people have tended to conflate multiple sightings that happened at different times and places. In fact, in some cases separate sightings years apart have been assumed - with no evidence at all - to be the same thing.
The other strand of the argument is that even if one or more of these sightings was of something "physically there", the identity of the physically-there thing that was sighted remains undetermined.
I care very much about what is true, not so much about things not being true.
If you have good arguments that (a) something was physically there (in one or more of the sightings) and (b) it was/they were something "new", then by all means bring them.
If I believe that you have not made a good case for "physically there", or perhaps for "something new", that is hardly equivalent to my "caring very much about it not being true".
Yes, based on the available evidence.
Bear in mind that we're dealing with a number of different "sightings" by different people in different places using different modalities. It is human nature to try to link them together into one coherent narrative, but it could well be the case that there are quite separate explanations for different parts of the narrative. This is something that is very often ignored by those who start with a preferred story in mind in the first place.
On the contrary, there is evidence that the radar might have been glitchy. There is evidence that people misidentify things regularly. There is evidence that people often embellish memories with imagination. There is a lot of specific, technical evidence regarding gimbal cameras and how they operate. I discussed all these things in the thread. Maybe you missed those discussions.
It may be unlikely, but remember that this is one of those 5% cases, not one of the 95%. The fact is, unlikely events and extraordinary coincidences happen regularly. Your chance of winning the lottery in any given week might be 1 in 40 million, but most weeks somebody wins the lottery. Why? Because lots of people play the lottery.
Last edited:
