Skeptics have already made their minds up about UAPs

[foghorn]

Do you really believe that you are somehow qualified to teach other people how to think? Pretty arrogant, don't you think?

My bold above.
Yeah, JR is not " qualified to teach 'critical thinking' classes" Like you.
My bold below.

I'm probably one of the few Sciforums participants who is formally qualified to teach 'critical thinking' classes.

Does your kind of 'critical thinking' include the continuous use of your Big Lie.

I'm probably the most intelligent and reasonable participant that you have on this board.

What was that about "arrogant". Can we also add hypocrite for you?

 

[Pinball1970]

He's just somebody who disagrees with you. You seem to be totally intolerant of that. Intead of agreeing to disagree, and ideally giving some reasons for your disagreement, you attack, insult and bully.



Do you really believe that you are somehow qualified to teach other people how to think? Pretty arrogant, don't you think? Perhaps what we should be doing isn't simply assuming that we already represent the paragon of proper reason, and instead acknowledge the interesting issues of how best to think about the edge-cases that the "fringe" fora present us with. The "fringe" fora needn't be an annoyance on a science board, but rather a resource.



And there you go. You seem to have already made up your mind about "fantasy worlds", "useless ideas" and "alternative facts".

I would define a 'fact' as an objectively existing state of affairs. (I recall you agreeing with that in the past.) The problem that we human beings face is that none of us has privileged infallible access to what the facts are. All we have is our own beliefs about the facts, based on sense data, authority and on inference from those things in the light of what we already believe that we know. None of us have the proverbial God's-eye-view of reality.

So what you call "alternative facts" is really just another way of referring to differing beliefs about what the facts actually are. Those differences of opinion have been the human condition since the stone age, and they probably always will be. So we probably need to learn to tolerate intellectual diversity, not reflexively try seek to stamp it out so that only our own beliefs remain. (Yes, I'm reminded of religious missionaries.) The best we can do is provide our personal reasons for holding the beliefs that we do, try to be as persuasive as we can, and then let others make up their own minds.



Again, how do you know what is and isn't whatever you call "woo", if you haven't already formed a belief about it? And how can you pretend to enter into these discussions with an open mind, when you are already dismissing those who disagree with your own beliefs as "woo believers"?



The same thing can be said about his critics.

Not my experience on here.
Presenting evidence that is continuously ignored is disrespectful, wasting posters time.
MR has apparently posted on science threads?
Taken in concepts?
If that is the case these other excursions do not make sense.
Why be reasonable in one circumstance and impervious in another?

 

[DaveC426913]

For our discerning readers, Yazata asks great questions, giving us the chance to address them better than if they hadn't been raised.

He's just somebody who disagrees with you. You seem to be totally intolerant of that. Intead of agreeing to disagree, and ideally giving some reasons for your disagreement, you attack, insult and bully.

As a simplistic example: one does not say to a 5-year-old who claims 2+2=5 that 'we agree to disagree'.

The 5-year-old is not qualified to make informed statements about arthimetic; just as Magical Realist is not qualified (by his own repeated admissions and anti-stance) to make informed statements about science or analysis.

Do you really believe that you are somehow qualified to teach other people how to think? Pretty arrogant, don't you think?

It is not arrogant. It is what teachers do for the uneducated.

Magical Realist has declared multiple times that he is ignorant of most of the disciplines required for anomaly analysis. If he comes to a public discussion forum and asserts naive opinions that can't be supported, then he gets challenged and his ideas systematically dismantled.

If he is going to come back, he has an obligation to learn from those mistakes and learn how to support his assertions or withdraw them. If he just keeps beating the same ignorant drum then, at some point, he's no longer debating intelligently, he's just trolling.

And there you go. You seem to have already made up your mind about "fantasy worlds", "useless ideas" and "alternative facts".

Woo is not characterized by the thing being examined; it is characterized by the methods used to do the examining.

Again, how do you know what is and isn't whatever you call "woo", if you haven't already formed a belief about it? And how can you pretend to enter into these discussions with an open mind, when you are already dismissing those who disagree with your own beliefs as "woo believers"?

Because there are right ways to analyze phenomena and there are wrong ways to analyze phenomena.

Homeopathy, Bigfoot, paranormal communications, bug-eyed aliens and other similar claims don't stand up when subjected to scientific rigor, usually involving, but not limited to: independent third party analysis, double blind controlled studies, the Null Hypothesis, Occam's Razor, etc.

The insistence that they be accepted as fact, when they have not earned it, is what makes them woo. And those who do the insisting are doing so on their pre-existing beliefs and wishful thinking, not evidence. That's what puts the woo in woo.

 

[billvon]

Think of the idea that the world's burning down, and there are Nazis in Congress, but Magical Realist and Yazata, Write4U, or the departed Arfa Brane, are somehow the most dangerous thing going on, the foremost priority, the best and most important among the good fights.

Yes, the world is burning down. There are things we can do. But complaining that anyone thinks that MR is the most dangerous thing going on? No one has suggested that. No one has even implied that.

And blaming them for spending all this time and effort when there are more important things to do? Keep in mind that you write several thousand words a day, on average, that no one - or almost no one - reads. To take your own argument - given that the world is burning down, is the most important thing really to spend hours writing thousands of words a day that no one reads?

 

[wegs]

I wouldn’t use the 2+2=5 (or similar) argument when discussing UAP’s since UAP’s don’t fit a proper mold. Much of these UAP discussions are based on opinion and speculation as starting points, whereas we know that 2+2=4, and there won’t be disagreement on things we believe are objectively provable.

 

[billvon]

I wouldn’t use the 2+2=5 (or similar) argument when discussing UAP’s . . . .

Agreed. However, similar arguments have been made. For example, if a UFO enthusiast states that no US airborne vehicle has ever exceeded Mach 5, and therefore that thing that's going Mach 5 MUST be a UAP, they are factually wrong. That's not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wouldn’t use the 2+2=5 (or similar) argument when discussing UAP’s since UAP’s don’t fit a proper mold. Much of these UAP discussions are based on opinion and speculation as starting points, whereas we know that 2+2=4, and there won’t be disagreement on things we believe are objectively provable.

Or when MR says "has no wings and therefore can't be a jet", he is asserting something he has no business asserting.

He knows this. It has been refuted many times, but he is just trolling now.

 

[wegs]

Agreed. However, similar arguments have been made. For example, if a UFO enthusiast states that no US airborne vehicle has ever exceeded Mach 5, and therefore that thing that's going Mach 5 MUST be a UAP, they are factually wrong. That's not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of fact.

In this scenario, would it be because the enthusiast is unaware (so speaking out of ignorance) that there are US airborne vehicles that can go that speed or using the word “must?”

Two things can be true at the same time, so maybe both. lol

I agree with your point, though. Ignorance isn’t an excuse, and enthusiasts still need to be held to some agreed upon standard when evaluating alleged UAP sightings.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yazata said: Do you really believe that you are somehow qualified to teach other people how to think? Pretty arrogant, don't you think?

It's basically telling someone to think like I think so you will reach the same conclusion I reach. Because everyone knows the worse and most flamable sin one can commit on Sciforums is disagreeing with the administrator.

 

[Pinball1970]

It's basically telling someone to think like I think so you will reach the same conclusion I reach. Because everyone knows the worse and most flamable sin one can commit on Sciforums is disagreeing with the administrator.

Is that the way I interacted with you?

 

[Magical Realist]

Is that the way I interacted with you?

No.. you have been pretty kind to me. It's the others here that flame me to no end. James and his henchmen.

 

[DaveC426913]

My bold above.
Yeah, JR is not " qualified to teach 'critical thinking' classes"

As you have repeatedly and proudly admitted that you are ignorant of most the very disciplines required for analysis of these phenomena, it must follow that you are not qualified to judge what a knowledge-holder is and is not able to teach.

The five-year-old arithmetic-denier doesn't get to tell the math teacher that they aren't qualified.

You have deliberately and proudly put youself in the position of the 5-year-old math-denier every time you have declared you know nothing or care nothing about the scientific method, critical anlysis rational thinking, cognition, perception, memory or human motivations toward honesty and dishonesty. And also, everytime you deliberately trolled.

It's basically telling someone to think like I think so you will reach the same conclusion I reach. Because everyone knows the worse and most flamable sin one can commit on Sciforums is disagreeing with the administrator.

Nice try.

The biggest sin is to deliberately and repeatedly go against the core ethos of the site.

There are plenty of sites where you can express whatever opinions you want with zero support or critical thinking. You came here knowing what is expected here. That's on you.

No.. you have been pretty kind to me. It's the others here that flame me to no end. James and his henchmen.

You could always just stop trolling... Easy as pie.

Trolling is an odious behavior that every member has a right and responsibility to discourage.

 

[Pinball1970]

As you have repeatedly and proudly admitted that you are ignorant of most the very disciplines required for analysis of these phenomena, it must follow that you are not qualified to judge what a knowledge-holder is and is not able to teach.

The five-year-old arithmetic-denier doesn't get to tell the math teacher that they aren't qualified.

You have deliberately and proudly put youself in the position of the 5-year-old math-denier every time you have declared you know nothing or care nothing about the scientific method, critical anlysis rational thinking, cognition, perception, memory or human motivations toward honesty and dishonesty. And also, everytime you deliberately trolled.


Nice try.

The biggest sin is to deliberately and repeatedly go against the core ethos of the site.

There are plenty of sites where you can express whatever opinions you want with zero support or critical thinking. You came here knowing what is expected here. That's on you.



You could always just stop trolling... Easy as pie.

Trolling is an odious behavior that every member has a right and responsibility to discourage.

Can we stop this then ?

 

[Pinball1970]

No.. you have been pretty kind to me. It's the others here that flame me to no end. James and his henchmen.

Draw a line?

 

[DaveC426913]

Can we stop this then ?

When MR is not trolling I am as perfectly polite and helpful with him as anyone else on the site.

See the recent page of the BigFoot thread. He had a problem with posting a video. I fixed it for and with him.
See any other thread, say, in the physics or math fora. He has asked several questions about physics stuff. I am the first one to jump in and discuss it as long and as in-depth as anyone.

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/dark-energy-and-entropy.166012/

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-does-light-carry-heat.166144/

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/questions-about-light.166018/

I wish to - have always wished to - engage with MR in good faith. He often asks good questions.

 

[Pinball1970]

No.. you have been pretty kind to me. It's the others here that flame me to no end. James and his henchmen.

Dave is smart,

When MR is not trolling I am as perfectly polite and helpful with him as anyone else on the site.

See the last page of the BigFoot thread. He had a problem with posting a video. I fixed it for and with him.
See any other thread, say, in the physics or math fora. He has asked several questions about physics stuff. I am the first one to jump in and discuss it as long and as in-depth as anyone.
I wish to - have always wished to - engage with MR in good faith.

Yeah me too.
You are a contributing member to a strict site
Super smart.
However.
Let's draw a line.

I'm a tech, I employ what is known

 

[Pinball1970]

No.. you have been pretty kind to me. It's the others here that flame me to no end. James and his henchmen.

Let's draw a line

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's draw a line.

Let's.

I will attempt only address fresh, new lies, misinformation, trolls and irrationalities - if I see any. As is any member's right and responsibility.

 

[wegs]

I don’t see MR as a troll. I just don’t get that vibe. He is here for genuine discussion, I’ve always thought that. But, he irritates some of you because he conflates hearsay at times, with facts. Or maybe he just believes that hearsay should hold the same weight as tangible facts, when tangible evidence doesn’t exist. Okay.

But, he’s posting in the appropriate sections of the forum. Maybe it’s just me, and we’ve traveled over this same ground before, but I don’t see MR as a threat to the sight’s integrity because SF “needs” his vantage point in order to have opposing views. If the site were filled with hardcore skeptics, there’d be no discussion and the “On the Fringe” sub-forum would be pretty dead.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don’t see MR as a troll. I just don’t get that vibe. He is here for genuine discussion,

I'll address this, only because you brought it up.

These are just a very recent smattering of the things MR says that we know he does not believe but posts merely to be inflammatory.

... why would a man saying he saw bigfoot 27 times lie about that?

Scientists have their reputations to protect. If they get to be known as the crazy professor who collects bigfoot casts, it might not bode well for their career.

Despite James R hypothesizing about his intelligence, I do not believe MR is actually mentally damaged. He is trolling just to get a rise. He does not actually wonder why this professed Bigfoot hunter would lie, while at the same time professing that all scientists, as a category, are corrupt to the core of their chosen discipline.

Now, if we're going to draw a line under this, we sortta all gotta draw a line together, do we not?