Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
And I asked you a direct question. Can you acknowledge it? At least on the thread if not here?
Skeptics have already made their minds up about UAPs
- Thread starter Yazata
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Are you going to acknowledge my post?
It is disrespectful to ignore it. I am trying my best to get an unbiased view.
Word to the wise: don't expect people to respond to you on your schedule. Repeating a response to a post only an hour after you first posted it, as if they have somehow disrespected you for not answering you within that hour, is unrealistic and unreasonable on your part.
Just saying.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
The post was Wednesday but it doesn't matter as he responded reasonably on that thread.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Don't know, possibly because we were discussing MR and it morphed into a you and James thing.
My advice not knowing all the details was to draw a line, or to discuss a line at least as continual bitching may not be great for the site.
I have another discussion with you on Johnson and Christianity which is interesting so hopefully I will see you back there.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
And Noted, I was a tad impatient.
wegs:
It's not MR's "unconventional thinking" that's a problem. In fact, I'd take issue with you in describing his thinking as "unconventional". My own impression is that he pretty much toes the "conventional" lines put out there by others in his pseudoscientific communities. He doesn't have original thoughts on UFOs, for instance. He just cuts and pastes things he's seen other people say. When it comes down to it, there's not a lot of thinking that goes on with him, as far as I can tell. He seems much more driven by emotion than thought.
But I digress. Where was I? Ah yes. It's not MR's unconventional thinking that's a problem. It's his generally dishonest approach to these conversations and his other trollish behaviours.
Speaking personally, I have very little interest in learning the specifics of what MR actually believes about UFOs, because by and large those specific beliefs are not supported by evidence. Super-advanced aquatic aliens who live at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, he says? I couldn't care less, until at least some evidence comes along to suggest (even obliquely) that such a thing is remotely plausible as an explanation for anything that has actually been observed.
Meanwhile, I don't believe a word of those protests from MR that he doesn't like being in the spotlight for his "unconventional thinking". I've seen this phase of MR's trolling act before.
Your assumption seems to be that "the science community" values "conventional thinking" and seeks to weed out "unconventional thinking". That's very far from an accurate description of how the science community actually works.
It's not MR's "unconventional thinking" that's a problem. In fact, I'd take issue with you in describing his thinking as "unconventional". My own impression is that he pretty much toes the "conventional" lines put out there by others in his pseudoscientific communities. He doesn't have original thoughts on UFOs, for instance. He just cuts and pastes things he's seen other people say. When it comes down to it, there's not a lot of thinking that goes on with him, as far as I can tell. He seems much more driven by emotion than thought.
But I digress. Where was I? Ah yes. It's not MR's unconventional thinking that's a problem. It's his generally dishonest approach to these conversations and his other trollish behaviours.
Speaking personally, I have very little interest in learning the specifics of what MR actually believes about UFOs, because by and large those specific beliefs are not supported by evidence. Super-advanced aquatic aliens who live at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, he says? I couldn't care less, until at least some evidence comes along to suggest (even obliquely) that such a thing is remotely plausible as an explanation for anything that has actually been observed.
Meanwhile, I don't believe a word of those protests from MR that he doesn't like being in the spotlight for his "unconventional thinking". I've seen this phase of MR's trolling act before.
Agreed. And given that this is a science forum, that agreed-upon standard is the scientific principle.
I don't think he is a troll either. He doesn't post here specifically to elicit a negative reaction, which is the hallmark of the troll. However, UFO's are something of his religion and he gets angry and defensive when people question his beliefs. That's also OK; people can be angry about whatever they like. However, he's not going to get the sort of "attaboys" he sometimes seems to want by pushing his beliefs over science.
Well, "heretic" in that he prefers belief over science, which again is OK. But in a place like this, that approach will earn him more "are you nuts?" replies than "attaboy" replies.
I would add that there are plenty of forums out there full of like-minded people who believe as he does - and if he is discouraged by the lack of "attaboys" here, those forums are a great option.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
My first three words in the words you posted were "I wouldn't either". So I'm not exactly 'equating' them.
I was just suggesting that statements of alleged mathematical truths aren't quite as certain and unproblematic as they might seem at first glance to be. All kinds foundational ontological and epistemological questions arise.
I agree that they are by and large very different kinds of issues than one encounters with the UFO/UAP phenomenon.
Perhaps, if we accept Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction. That's controversial. (Personally, I'm not sure what I think about that.)
But once we adopt our definitions (how much freedom do we have in choosing them? Does anything go?) we proceed to construct chains of logical inference (proofs) to infer the properties of our sets of definitions. And there seems to me to be some objectivity to this. We imagine that if tentacled aliens on Aldebaran adopt the same definitions, the conclusions of their proofs will be the same too. It's actually assumed by SETI types that mathematics might constitute a universal language shared by all sentient beings. We assume that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is the same for them as for us, and they will know the same pi value.
So it seems to me that we and the aliens aren't just freely inventing our respective mathematics, we are discovering formal structures and relationships that seem to me (and many others) to somehow be inherent in reality itself.
I think that Russell's logicist program, and Hilbert's formalist program more broadly, seem to presuppose logic and that it's somehow less problematic than mathematics. I'm not at all convinced that it's less problematic: So what is logic? How do humans know about logic? Why does physical reality seem to behave in accordance with logic? The success of mathematical physics certainly seems to suggest that it, and the logic upon which it is based, captures something of the underlying structure of reality itself.
https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/PhilMath.pdf
Clearly the foundations of mathematics case and the UFO/UAP cases raise different issues. But they both seem to me to be murky. The foundations of mathematics case perhaps even more so than the UFO/UAP case, because I think that it probably raises deeper and more fundamental issues.
Okay, "equating" isn't the right word, so "comparing them favourably" might be better. I get what you're saying, though, but I disagree with the effort to compare the "murkiness". It seems like an obvious category error.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Equating mathematics to UAPs is like comparing poetry to gas gangrene
Mathematics can represent things in the universe, it is the primary language of physics but it does not have to be, it is a thing in itself.
It is the pinnacle in terms of logic structure and above all rigour in all the sciences.
Did we invent or discover it? Depends on who you ask, even if they are mathematicians (I tried)
Perhaps we can start a thread on that.
It ain't no UAP though.
Agree with most of what you’re saying, but I’m thinking that MR’s interests fit quite well in the “On The Fringe” subforum. If he were posting about UAP’s under say “Astronomy,” that would be a violation of forum rules, and extremely troll-like behavior.
Why bother having a section though, to discuss ghosts, and UFO’s when we know before the discussions even begin, that following the scientific method will negate anything that MR posts? Point being that nothing MR posts can be repeatable, for example, so right there, the discussion is dead before it even gets off the ground. I’m not meaning to split hairs, but my take on this section is to allow for freer/casual discussion around conspiracies, pseudoscience, ghosts and so on.
If you look at the pinned post by James R in this specific section, it’s dripping with sarcasm. If I were a newbie, I wouldn’t take the “tin foil hat” topics here all that seriously, since James’ tongue in cheek post seems to infer the opposite. Seeing that this is a science forum first, I suppose this section is meant to sharpen the wit and debating skills of the scientific community, which is fine, too. But, for James to say that MR behaves like a troll doesn’t make sense given that he’s posting in a section that invites and encourages bizarre, pseudo-scientific topics.
Not sure MR is seeking “atta boys,” as much as he’s interested in discussing topics that don’t (yet) have definitive answers, in some cases.
Agreed! It's the perfect place for it.
Is that really true? I mean, you can easily have a scientific discussion about the Drake Equation and the theory of the Great Bottleneck as it applies to UFO's. You can talk about the possibility of something like the Alcubierre warp drive working. You can talk about observations of UFO's. You can talk about the capabilities of modern aircraft and spacecraft. None of those are negated by applying the scientific method.
It's only specific conclusions (i.e. "so it's ALIENS!") that are unsupportable.
I would also note that he is 100% free to post "SO IT'S ALIENS!" - but he will get replies stating that that's not supportable. If he's fine with that, then no problem. He often seems to take offense at such statements, though.
Why? I've seen UFO's - and those were never repeated. They could have been a lot of things. That doesn't mean the discussion is dead.
I would also point out that if MR claims about UFOs were "dead before they even got off the ground" we would not have threads with dozens of posts in them where he talks about UFO's. They seem to be quite active.
Agreed.
From what I have seen so far, he is not interested in discussing any possibilities or conclusions that differ significantly from his own. He tends to react angrily to any such conclusions. Which is also OK. But if it's really bothering him as much as it seems to, there are far better forums where he will not see such differing opinions.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
But I don't claim they are aliens. I merely submit that uaps are some sort of unknown phenomenon we have yet to understand. It is the assumption of a scientific mind that uaps present us with a mystery that presently defies explanation at the present time. Hence I am totally supportive of continued investigation and examination of the evidence. That's why I post these accounts. Because they provide evidence of the phenomenon that we can study and analyze. It's all in pursuit of the unknown and not the kneejerk dismissal of it as something mundane and not worth our attention.
I'm sure you have done, at least "alien" in the sense of not being of contemporary human origin.
This in itself seems to be jumping the gun, though. It might well be that they are known phenomenon that we do understand, but are simply not recognised as such - e.g. due to being an unsual example etc.
There is also a difference between "unknown phenomena we have yet to understand" and "known phenomenon we have yet to fully understand." UAPs are more likely, I'd wager, to fall into the latter. We might know about phenomenon X but not that it can manifest in manner Y, and Y might be interpreted by some as being a UAP, an "unknown phenomenon".
That's not the assumption of a scientific mind. It might well be the conclusion that the observation of the aerial phenomenon currently has no known explanation. There is no assumption.
A couple of points though. First is that you seem to assume that the cases you put forward are all such that "defy explanation at the present time", when many have been shown to have rather adequate explanations. Second, you also seem to assume that they are all evidence of a single phenomenon, such that you seem to want to claim that observation X of one UAP and observation Y of another UAP can be pooled together to come up with a single explanation for both. There is no evidence that the observations are linked. "UAP" is not a single phenomenon, but an umbrella term for any and all aerial phenomena that the user of the term considers to be unidentified.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
If one can lump together ALL ufos as craft, then by the same logic you get all uap are the same thing.
MRs own caps on "ALL"
MRs own caps on "ALL"
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I think we are justified, at least provisionally and until it is proven otherwise, that certain uaps are instances of the same thing. For instance, when the AARO office of the Pentagon reports that they are seeing the same type of things maneuvering in interesting ways, namely flying metallic spheres, all over the world, it makes sense that they are probably the same things. When the observed characteristics of the uap match what have been witnessed in other instances, it points to a common cause and phenomenon imo...
Last edited:
No, they are not. They are phenomena that we do not yet understand. Many may be known phenomena, and indeed many have been shown to be known phenomena (aircraft, satellites, meteors, weather balloons etc.) It is not supportable to claim they are the result of some unknown phenomenon, given that so many are the result of fairly pedestrian phenomena.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The moment we identify what a uap is it is no longer a uap. It becomes an identified aerial phenomena or iap. It can't be unidentified and identified at the same time. That's how I use the term uap, As something that remains unknown and yet to be identified. As a placeholder or variable for what is currently unknown to us as a species.
Last edited: