The trap of dogmatic skepticism

[James R]

Tell me James, can you tell the difference between a car going 50 mph and a car going 200 mph without having to measure their speeds?

It depends. How far away from the cars am I? How fast am I going, and in what direction, relative to the cars? How are the cars travelling relative to one another?

To some extent, it is easy to say something about the relative speeds of objects that are reasonably close to one another and travelling in more or less the same direction. For instance, I can often say with confidence whether a car driving on the same road as I am in the same direction is going faster or slower than I am. In some cases, I can even make a good estimate of how much faster or slower, provided the speed of the other car remains reasonably constant and I have a reasonable observation period.

It's much harder to gauge absolute speeds of things (speeds relative to the ground), especially when as an observer you are yourself in a moving vehicle of some kind - like a car or, say, a fighter jet. Even getting a good idea of heading in 2D (let alone in 3D, if you happen to be in, say, a jet fighter) can be difficult when you're observing from a platform that is itself moving across the ground below.

Do you have a magical or superhuman ability to accurately judge absolute velocities of things, by chance, Magical Realist, unlike the rest of us mere mortals?

Is this something else we can add to your list of superhuman perceptual powers, like the power you have to tell instantly whether any given UFO video is a fake or not? (The strange thing is: they are all real. ALL of them! Who'd have thought?)

As far as uaps are concerned, we have precise estimates of such speed and behavior based on the accounts of such trained eyewitnesses and radar data.

What do you mean by "precise" in this context? Please elaborate.

A measurement would be better than any estimate, precise or not, would it not? Do you have any precise measurements, or just "estimates"?

And we also have eyewitness accounts of transmedium travel.

"Precise estimates" of what they think they saw. Yes.

Here's a summary of what was initially observed in the tic tac incident. I know you are well aware of all this, but you keep lying and dismissing it like it never happened.

Don't make accusations you can't begin to support. If you're going to accuse me of lying, bring the evidence of my lies. You're on very thin ice. Watch your step.

So I will just keep reposting it ...

Like a troll does. Repeating previously-debunked claims endlessly. Failing to address inconvenient questions. Ignoring all corrections. Disappearing when the pressure gets too much, only to reappear at a later time pedalling the same tired old claims for the n-th time.

 

[Magical Realist]

It depends. How far away from the cars am I? How fast am I going, and in what direction, relative to the cars? How are the cars travelling relative to one another?

Poor James. Such a confusing world you must live in, Can't tell if metallic spheres are metallic. Can't tell what eyewitnesses really saw. Can't hear the sound of planes in the sky. And can't tell when a car is going 200 mph as opposed to 50 mph. How do you make it out the door every morning James? So much inscrutable unknownness around you! Trees and buildings only appearing to be trees and buildings. Nothing really being as it seems. Should we EVER believe anything you say?

James R said: Repeating previously-debunked claims endlessly

Really? So you have previously debunked the whole tic-tac uap incident? When did that happen? So what did it turn out being? Please elaborate so everybody can know you're not lying again.

 

[Magical Realist]

What we have, instead, is a bunch of anecdotes, some aspects of which are disputed among the various eyewitnesses.

What we actually have now, if you really did read that article, are 3 eyewitness accounts of the video itself that showed the pilots' encounter with the tic tac uap. It was playing on the console's monitors before it was confiscated by govt officials. Pretty much blows your bullshit claim that pilot Cmdr Fravor was mistaken in his visual descriptions of the tic tac uap totally out of the water.

"A video playing on one of the console monitors immediately caught Turner’s eye. In it, the “Tic Tac” performed a number of seemingly impossible maneuvers, not seen in the brief clip released in 2017. Turner described what he saw in the Nimitz Encounters documentary:

“This thing was going berserk, like making turns. It’s incredible the amount of g forces that it would put on a human. It made a maneuver, like they were chasing it straight on, it was going with them, then this thing stopped turning, just gone. In an instant. The video you see now, that’s just a small snippet in the beginning of the whole video. But this thing, it was so much more than what you see in this video.”

Even now, Turner still appears visibly disturbed by whatever it is he saw that day. “I asked a good friend of mine who worked in that area, is this the training we’re going through?” he tells Popular Mechanics.

“No,” the friend replied. “This is real life.”

Equally by chance, during the time of the now-famous intercept, after being called to have a conversation with another detachment, Ryan Weigelt found himself inside the Princeton’s CIC. According to Weigelt, a video of an F/A-18 trying its best to catch the elusive “Tic Tac” was playing on the monitors. Like Turner, Weigelt says what he saw was a lot longer than the brief clip released in 2017.

“I was in there for quite a while and it was on the screen the whole time. I could not tell you how long, but it was playing when I went into combat and it was playing when I left,” Weigelt said in a YouTube interview.

Voorhis tells Popular Mechanics that he, too, saw a much longer and clearer version of the ATFLIR video through the ship’s Top Secret LAN network. “I definitely saw video that was roughly 8 to 10 minutes long and a lot more clear,” Voorhis says.

Did what he saw resemble any type of conventional aircraft?

“Umm, no!” he says with a laugh. “In the video I saw, you got a good sense of how the pilot was having a difficult time trying to keep up with this thing. It kept making tight, right angle turns.”

Five U.S. Navy Sailors Saw the Glowing ‘Tic Tac’-Shaped UFO. They Told Us Exactly What They Witnessed.

What, exactly, did the Navy encounter 21 years ago off the Southern California coast, when fighter pilots spotted a UFO? These men were there, too⁠—and it’s time they tell their side of the story.

www.popularmechanics.com

Here is the shorter clip of the FLIR video of the Nimitz tic tac intercept. The zoomed-in on object is clearly tic tac shaped.

History Shorts | HISTORY

Website for HISTORY.com

www.history.com

 

[wegs]

I consider myself open minded and you know that I’ve been skeptical of some videos you’ve posted as being proof of anything other than hoaxes or wishful thinking, but scientists/skeptics typically don't believe in things that lack evidence that isn’t available to be reliably tested or reproduced using scientific methods. Science relies on observable, measurable data to draw conclusions, and paranormal claims (for one example) falls outside of this framework. From their perspective, they might not see anything inherently wrong with being dogmatic. They may take it as a compliment.

Having said that, you don’t have to adhere to science when it comes to your belief in the paranormal. You believe in eye witness testimony and such, and there’s nothing wrong with that (for you). But, for many skeptics, they need something more before they “believe.” I think the best we can hope for is the science community showing signs of willingness to explore things that go beyond the scope of the scientific method. NASA’s interest in taking a closer look at what some of these UAP’s are that have been reported, for example, should give you some hope.

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't rely on science to tell me what's real and valid in my experience. When I left religion at around the age of 20 I went straight into philosophy and literature and poetry and cinema to guide me towards what are the ultimate questions of human existence. While I have always had tremendous respect for science, science does what science does--it reduces reality down to material particles and provides theories and laws explaining how they all fit and work together. And as far as helping humanity with new technologies and medicine and agriculture and genetics and psychology and military weaponry, it continues to break all barriers. But as for it being a source of meaning for human beings, it just doesn't measure up to that task. So I take the vast wealth of human experience itself, in all of its rich diversity and creativity, as the ultimate source of what's real and true in this world. We all live in this amazing universe full of mysteries and terrors and wonders. As I'm sure you do as well. And that's good enough for me.

 

[James R]

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were traveling through Scotland when they saw a black sheep through the window of the train.

"Aha," says the engineer, "I see that Scottish sheep are black."

"Hmm," says the physicist, "You mean that some Scottish sheep are black."

"No," says the mathematician, "All we know is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland, and that at least one side of that one sheep is black!"

 

[James R]

Poor James. Such a confusing world you must live in,

You're pretending to be confused. All I have done is to demonstrate, again, what clear, critical thinking about evidence entails. Of course, you ignored that. Because troll.

Readers: did you notice all the things that Magical Realist chose not to respond to? Keep an eye out for that. This man is fundamentally dishonest.

Can't tell if metallic spheres are metallic.

Do you have a magical ability to identify metal without fail, from a large distance, purely by sight? More superhuman powers? You seem to have a lot of those. Or, at least, claim that you do, in effect.

Can't tell what eyewitnesses really saw.

Do you have a magical ability to tell what eyewitnesses really saw, based solely on what they say? Please outline your method, if you have one. Nobody else can do this infallibly, like you claim you can.

Can't hear the sound of planes in the sky.

Except for people with superhuman hearing, which you pretend to have, nobody can hear every plane in sky. But you know this. And you lie. Because troll.

And can't tell when a car is going 200 mph as opposed to 50 mph.

You pretend to have forgotten the part where I walked you through the ins and outs of that particular attempt at measurement. You can do no better. Sure, you can pretend and tell lies; that's your standard practice. Because troll.

How do you make it out the door every morning James? So much inscrutable unknownness around you! Trees and buildings only appearing to be trees and buildings. Nothing really being as it seems.

As you are fully aware, I have at no time claimed that "nothing is really as it seems".

You have erected a straw man, because you're too trollish and cowardly to address the arguments and points that I have actually put to you.

Essentially, you're just repeatedly telling lies. It's very poor form, but you know that. You do it anyway. Because troll.

Should we EVER believe anything you say?

You should apply critical thinking and sensible skepticism to everything I say. Just as I apply it to everything you say.

Really? So you have previously debunked the whole tic-tac uap incident?

Sure have!

When did that happen?

Too many times to enumerate.

So what did it turn out being?

Your mum.

Please elaborate so everybody can know you're not lying again.

Says the troll.

 

[James R]

What we actually have now, if you really did read that article, are 3 eyewitness accounts of the video ...

Three accounts. Three anecdotes from people who claim they saw a video that nobody has produced.

... itself that showed the pilots' encounter with the tic tac uap.

You can't know what it showed or didn't show. You haven't seen it.

It was playing on the console's monitors before it was confiscated by govt officials.

So the anecdote goes. An anecdote that is disputed by your other star witness: the guy who saw the tic tac from his fighter jet.

Who are you going to believe? What a dilemma.

Pretty much blows your bullshit claim that pilot Cmdr Fravor was mistaken in his visual descriptions of the tic tac uap totally out of the water.

What? A video that Fravor himself says does not exist?

 

[James R]

I don't rely on science to tell me what's real and valid in my experience.

Nobody relies exclusively on science. If you don't rely on science at all, that's mistake number 1.

When I left religion at around the age of 20 I went straight into philosophy and literature and poetry and cinema to guide me towards what are the ultimate questions of human existence.

What are the ultimate questions of human existence? What did you find?

While I have always had tremendous respect for science, science does what science does--it reduces reality down to material particles and provides theories and laws explaining how they all fit and work together. And as far as helping humanity with new technologies and medicine and agriculture and genetics and psychology and military weaponry, it continues to break all barriers. But as for it being a source of meaning for human beings, it just doesn't measure up to that task.

Horses for courses. Did somebody tell you that science should be a "source of meaning for human beings"? Who?

What do you mean by a "source of meaning"? Are you looking for a purpose in life? Have philosophy, literature, poetry and cinema given you that?

So I take the vast wealth of human experience itself, in all of its rich diversity and creativity, as the ultimate source of what's real and true in this world.

The vast wealth of human experience includes the human experience of thinking scientifically and doing science. By ignoring those things, you're impoverishing your own life experience.

We all live in this amazing universe full of mysteries and terrors and wonders.

We also live in a universe where science has explained and invented amazing things. It's a pity you want to throw all that away so you can pretend that your fantasies about ghosts and bigfoot and little green men are all real. But you don't really believe in those things any more, do you? You just pretend, these days.

As I'm sure you do as well. And that's good enough for me.

Each to his own. Believe what you like, by all means. The only real problem comes when you start to tell lies to yourself and (more importantly) to the people, and you do it knowingly. Because that makes you a troll.

 

[Magical Realist]

You can't know what it showed or didn't show. You haven't seen it.

Sure I can. One of the eyewitnesses described what it showed. Too bad you don't believe in eyewitness accounts though, because you'll never know what it showed like I know:

"A video playing on one of the console monitors immediately caught Turner’s eye. In it, the “Tic Tac” performed a number of seemingly impossible maneuvers, not seen in the brief clip released in 2017. Turner described what he saw in the Nimitz Encounters documentary:

“This thing was going berserk, like making turns. It’s incredible the amount of g forces that it would put on a human. It made a maneuver, like they were chasing it straight on, it was going with them, then this thing stopped turning, just gone. In an instant. The video you see now, that’s just a small snippet in the beginning of the whole video. But this thing, it was so much more than what you see in this video.”

What? A video that Fravor himself says does not exist?

So you don't believe Fravor when he describes the intercept, but suddenly you do believe what he says about the video? That's awfully convenient. Is that what you brag about and call "critical thinking"? Methinks you pretty much believe or disbelieve whatever suits your assumption that uaps don't exist. That IS what dogmatic skeptics do afterall. Tks for demonstrating that for us.

 

[James R]

Sure I can. One of the eyewitnesses described what it showed. Too bad you don't believe in eyewitness accounts though, because you'll never know what it showed

The various eyewitnesses in this instance can't agree on a common story of what did or did not happen.

So, it seems you have a dilemma. If it's all about just choosing somebody to trust, for you, then tell me how you decided who to trust here.

You appear to be siding with the radar guys, against Fravor. So are you disputing Fravor's eyewitness testimony, then? How did you decide Fravor was wrong and the radar dudes were right?

There is an alternative to just randomly choosing somebody to put your total trust in, you know. See if you can work out what it is.

So you don't believe Fravor when he describes the intercept, but suddenly you do believe what he says about the video?

My position is that neither of these matters should be determined solely on the basis of asking whether Fravor can be trusted or not. Fravor is a human being. Human beings make mistakes.

It follows that maybe Fravor was mistaken about what he thought he saw (tic tac etc.), and/or maybe he was mistaken about whether or not the Men in Black came to the ship and took away the radar video.

How could we possibly work out whether Fravor got something wrong? What a mystery!

And how could we possibly work out whether the radar dudes got something wrong? Another mystery!

Oh, never mind. Let's just flip a coin. If it comes up heads, we believe everything Fravor says in its entirety, without question. If it comes up tails, we put our total confidence in the radar guys; fuck that Fravor dude.

This is how it goes with you. Right? Or are you just pretending, because troll?

Is that what you brag about and call "critical thinking"?

Nothing like it. Is this real stupidity from you, or just more pretending, because troll?

Methinks you pretty much believe or disbelieve whatever suits your assumption that uaps don't exist.

I have no such assumption, as you are fully aware.

Will you stop telling knowing lies, or do you plan on continuing with your clowning?

That IS what dogmatic skeptics do afterall...

That's an oxymoron, as I explained. Look up the word.

 

[James R]

By the way, Magical Realist, don't think I'm not fully and completely aware of all the stuff you just skipped over and ignored from my previous replies to you. Which, of course, was practically all of the substantial objections I raised against your claims.

Your trolling lack of honesty in that regard continues unabated. Not surprised. Because troll.

 

[Magical Realist]

The various eyewitnesses in this instance can't agree on a common story of what did or did not happen.

Sure they do. All 5 agree about what happened on those days leading up to the intercept, and 3 agree about seeing what happened on the video. So again, you are just flat out lying. I even posted a clip of the video that was released by the Navy. Remember that? So much for non-existent videos eh?

Maybe you should calm down and refresh your memory about the eyewitness accounts by reading that article again because you seem really confused. That is if you ever read it at all to begin with. I'm starting to think you never did. That's typical of dogmatic skeptics too ya know---not looking at the evidence.

 

[James R]

The various eyewitnesses in this instance can't agree on a common story of what did or did not happen.

Sure they do.

As you are fully aware, they do not. You are aware of this because (a) I wrote about it explicitly in a recent reply to you, and (b) it's written an article that you keep quoting, while - of course - deliberately leaving out all the inconvenient bits you'd rather pretend aren't in it.

Specifically, I mentioned the disputed claims about Men in Black supposedly boarding the ship and removing the recordings of the radar records of the amazing tic tac spaceships. Fravor says it never happened. The 5 guys you have decided to place your trust in, instead, say it did.

So, you are deliberately lying and trying to pretend that you don't know things you obviously know. Because troll.

You're certainly building a fine reputation for yourself as an outright liar and a cherry picking manipulator of the facts to try to suit yourself. Unfortunately, when you imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the room, you inevitably discover that there's somebody who's got your number. In your case, I'm that guy.

All 5 agree about what happened on those days leading up to the intercept, and 3 agree about seeing what happened on the video. So again, you are just flat out lying.

Another straw man from you. Nobody is as stupid as you pretend to be. Therefore, this can only be a malicious attempt on your part to try to manipulate your readers.

And, once again, you have made an allegation that I have told a lie, which you can't begin to support. But you have no shame, because troll.

I even posted a clip of the video that was released by the Navy. Remember that?

Link, or it didn't happen.

So much for non-existent videos eh?

We'll see. When you fail to post the video, it will be clear that, again, you are telling lies.

Maybe you should calm down and refresh your memory about the eyewitness accounts by reading that article again because you seem really confused.

The article you are telling lies of omission about, you mean? The one in which Fravor is quoted as saying he doesn't believe the Men in Black story from your 5 radar friends? That article?

That is if you ever read it at all to begin with.

Obviously you've read it all, because you couldn't cherry pick it to tell the lies you're telling without being across the whole thing. You had to make deliberate decisions about what to present and what to leave out, to weave your web of lies.

That's typical of dogmatic skeptics too ya know---not looking at the evidence.

The word is "oxymoron". Look it up.

 

[exchemist]

Sure they do. All 5 agree about what happened on those days leading up to the intercept, and 3 agree about seeing what happened on the video. So again, you are just flat out lying. I even posted a clip of the video that was released by the Navy. Remember that? So much for non-existent videos eh?

Maybe you should calm down and refresh your memory about the eyewitness accounts by reading that article again because you seem really confused. That is if you ever read it at all to begin with. I'm starting to think you never did. That's typical of dogmatic skeptics too ya know---not looking at the evidence.

Ah yes, a nice instance of “ya” suddenly appearing when someone gets riled. As discussed with Seattle the other day.

 

[Magical Realist]

Wow....you lie so much now that it's almost become too easy to expose you.

As you are fully aware, they do not. You are aware of this because (a) I wrote about it explicitly in a recent reply to you, and (b) it's written an article that you keep quoting, while - of course - deliberately leaving out all the inconvenient bits you'd rather pretend aren't in it.

Specifically, I mentioned the disputed claims about Men in Black supposedly boarding the ship and removing the recordings of the radar records of the amazing tic tac spaceships. Fravor says it never happened. The 5 guys you have decided to place your trust in, instead, say it did.

Which means all 5 agree in their accounts exactly as I said. If I was referring to Fravor, which I wasn't, that would've made six. Once again you are clearly lying. Or else lacking in reading comprehension.

Link, or it didn't happen.

I'm not going out of my way to repost something you are childishly claiming I never posted. I simply refer you to post #83. Apologies? I doubt it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Ah yes, a nice instance of “ya” suddenly appearing when someone gets riled. As discussed with @Seattle the other day.

LOL Doesn't sound like I'm the one getting riled.

 

[Magical Realist]

James R asked: What are the ultimate questions of human existence? What did you find?

Kant summed them up nicely I think: What can I know? What ought I do? What may I hope for?

Still searching for the answers of those, if they exist at all.

It's a pity you want to throw all that away so you can pretend that your fantasies about ghosts and bigfoot and little green men are all real

There is currently more video and photo and eyewitness evidence for ghosts, bigfoot, and uaps than there is for black holes or the Big Bang. So just going by empirically confirming data, believing in those is more scientific than believing in the latter.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR said: That's typical of dogmatic skeptics too ya know---not looking at the evidence.

James R said: The word is "oxymoron". Look it up.

Ofcourse it is. That's why I'm using it. Take an English course sometime.

"An oxymoron has several purposes in literature and may be used for a number of reasons. An oxymoron may be used to clarify different shades of meaning or to emphasize conflict. One might also be used to create a better description of a scene, intensify the emotions felt by the characters or reader, or simply to impose a lighthearted mood or tone. Regardless of its application, an oxymoron is used to enhance the reading and writing experience by adding dramatic effect."--- https://study.com/learn/lesson/oxymoron-purpose-examples.html

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for consistent trolling and for knowingly telling lies.

Due to accumulated warning points, he will be taking another two week break from sciforums.