He also conflates belief with facts. This is generally known as magical thinking; the approach that "if you believe something strongly enough it becomes real." And while that works for religion it does not work for science.
Skeptics have already made their minds up about UAPs
- Thread starter Yazata
- Start date
I don't know, Bill, did you miss the last eight months↗?
How about the last couple years? Try it this way: As a dispute against crackpottery came to a head, earlier this year, the potsherd requiring a scientific definition of beauty was part of the argument against crackpottery. And, sure, whatever, but the would-be good fight not only participates in crackpottery, they've also borrowed the phrase, "the Big Lie".
There's actually a lot going on, Bill, and sure, maybe it's not apparent to your superficial politic, but it can be very informing to actually pay attention to other people's priorities. And sometimes those only emerge to visibility because, apparently, they must. It can be subtle, as such: To fix the problem, we must know what it is; thus, I might wonder why someone asking me to fix a problem would so disdain a diagnosis of the actual problem. And, sure, many people are impatient, and just want what they want, and right now, but there is also the point that solutions are not so particular, i.e., they have other effects.
The complication isn't so much that people don't want to think about those effects, but, rather, the effects might also disrupt them. That's always been the complication. Or, at least, we have ten to fifteen years of practice at this part.
But, yeah, priorities.
• • •
It's a house specialty. Long story.
But, does he want to prove anything to anyone here or is he just sharing? I don’t think MR is trying to convince anyone to believe what he does but on a science forum, he should expect criticism.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I wouldn't either. But it is kind of apt, since the foundations of mathematics are probably just as murky as the nature of UFOs/UAPs. How do we know that 2+2=4? What kind of fact is it? (Perhaps one that might cause materialists a bit of heartburn.) How is its truth justified? Yes, it works, so there's the 'indespensability argument'. But that doesn't really answer the questions of what kind of reality mathematical facts have or how we know about those facts. (If facts they are. I'm a bit of a mathematical Platonist in that regard.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine–Putnam_indispensability_argument
The thing is, nobody really knows what the facts (in the sense of objective realities) are in the case of UFOs/UAPs. All we have are beliefs and hypotheses about their nature. We do have all kinds of observation reports which are facts in their own way, but it isn't entirely clear what they tell us about the nature and reality of the underlying phenomenon.
I think that one place where MR gets the 'skeptics' backs up is how he takes the observation reports more seriously than they do. If somebody says an object moved in such a way, he takes that as evidence that it really moved in that way. If an observer says that it appeared metallic, he takes it as evidence it was metallic.
I see nothing wrong with that. It's certainly as justifiable as simply assuming that for some reason the observation report must be an error.
Perhaps we need to be more clear about the distinction between facts, belief and hypothesis.
Facts in the sense I am using it here are objective realities.
belief then is what is asserted to be true about those facts, about that objective reality. (Or a mental state that motivates one to make such assertions, or something.) People often use phrases like "I'm just stating the facts" but literally that's impossible. The individual is simply stating what he/she believes about the facts. (That's the human condition.) That belief might be well justified or not justified at all. Knowledge is a subset of belief, consisting of those beliefs that are both true (something that can't be directly known) and suitably well justified (which opens a big can of worms).
hypothesis is a speculation about what the facts might be. It isn't an assertion of truth, but rather of possibility. I personally think that while we should be circumspect about what we assert to be true, we can be much freer in asserting what we think might be true.
What MR seems to me to do is propose hypotheses (very unwelcome hypotheses) about 'fringe' phenomena. His hypotheses might actually be more consistent with the obervation reports than the more dismissive hypotheses of the 'skeptics'. Which is why they seem to always be in such a rush to discredit the observation reports, I guess.
But while I have no objection to creativity in framing hypotheses, I do think that we need to seek out justification before we adopt the belief that they are true. ('Might be true' is a different matter than 'is true'.)
A few corrections.
If, as seems to be the case, Tiassa agrees with me that it is not appropriate at this time to throw Magical Realist out, it would be more honourable to acknowledge that there is consensus on this matter, rather than to pretend there is any meaningful difference of opinion on this matter of moderation. But, as noted, Tiassa is not an honourable man.
Magical Realist did not reply to indicate a change of preference. The default, then, is to continue with business as usual.
This is a lie.
It should go without saying that if you're the moderator of an internet forum, you're expected to do the job of a moderator. If you can't, or won't, the honourable thing to do would be to resign. However, as we know, Tiassa is not an honourable man.
So, after all that bluster, Tiassa concludes that there is no need to take any action regarding Magical Realist. Or, at least, he has invented another excuse for himself to continue to take no action, as usual. As predicted.
Readers should note carefully that I have at no point advocated throwing anybody out of sciforums arbitrarily or for personal satisfaction.
If, as seems to be the case, Tiassa agrees with me that it is not appropriate at this time to throw Magical Realist out, it would be more honourable to acknowledge that there is consensus on this matter, rather than to pretend there is any meaningful difference of opinion on this matter of moderation. But, as noted, Tiassa is not an honourable man.
As always, Tiassa is free to quote anything from me that appears on the public forums, in accordance with our site posting guidelines. I expect that any quotes will come with spin and lies, as is usual from this dishonest man.
Last edited:
Tiassa is clearly trying to imply that, in some past private message to him, I "disdained discussion of intellectual dishonesty", but that he is prevented from presenting the important evidence of my disdain because I will not allow it.
There is nothing to be gained from my giving permission for Tiassa to publish any private communications from myself to him, since he will only use them to construct further lies. The lie I already pointed out is one for which no smoking gun could be found in any case. Tiassa will not be able to produce any quote from me that says "I disdain discussion of intellectual dishonesty." The most he will do is to insinuate and seek to imply and try to put spin on something (irrelevant to this) that I might have written in confidence to him years ago.
He is a hate-filled little man looking for anything he thinks he can use as ammunition. This man has no honour. Note carefully what he does not do. He makes no attempt to defend his own actions. Instead, he seeks to divert attention away from himself, to make this about me.
There is nothing to be gained from my giving permission for Tiassa to publish any private communications from myself to him, since he will only use them to construct further lies. The lie I already pointed out is one for which no smoking gun could be found in any case. Tiassa will not be able to produce any quote from me that says "I disdain discussion of intellectual dishonesty." The most he will do is to insinuate and seek to imply and try to put spin on something (irrelevant to this) that I might have written in confidence to him years ago.
He is a hate-filled little man looking for anything he thinks he can use as ammunition. This man has no honour. Note carefully what he does not do. He makes no attempt to defend his own actions. Instead, he seeks to divert attention away from himself, to make this about me.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah there we go. We members can't even have our own bitch-fest in peace without the moderator politics elephant barging its way into the room.
This feud is consuming the site thread by thread.
Well, I would believe that he just wants to share if he didn't take any disagreement so personally. I am sure you have seen the threads where he posts something, and then within ten posts is trading insults with someone who disagreed with his conclusions.
No, I didn't. There was a lot of petty bickering between you, the other mods, MR, TonyYuan and a bunch of other posters. Some of it amusing, most of it quite boring.
If you think that means that people take this forum more seriously than, say, the Israeli-Hamas war, you have a vastly overinflated sense of the importance of this forum.
But if this forum is your only contact with other people, I could see how you might think that. For most of us it is very much not.
Apparently, you did.
Uh, no, Bill, that's not quite the point.
• • •
See, that doesn't even make sense. You need to stop making stuff up, Dave.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Remembering now fondly the days when I used to close threads (at a now-defunct science forum) that had become shrines to bickering, like this one. One litmus test we used to use was to see if the bickering had devolved into meta-bickering: people were bickering about the quality of the bickering rather than the topic in the title. Relentlessly circling back on the previous bickering and restating the same grievances in novel ways.
I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here, am just a newbie passing through, but....geez.
When the dispute involves forum staff, that can be a bad sign. Mommy and Daddy are fighting again! (huddles in closet with favorite stuffed animal)
I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here, am just a newbie passing through, but....geez.
When the dispute involves forum staff, that can be a bad sign. Mommy and Daddy are fighting again! (huddles in closet with favorite stuffed animal)
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
For the record, I really hate being the object of such controversy and bickering in this forum. I am really quite the opposite of a troll. I don't like the spotlight. I just like posting interesting things and having civilized conversation about them. If you don't agree with them that's fine. I'm not going to attack and flame you for it.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You posted something to me that irritated me. Kind of implied the opposite of the person that I am.
It is easily forgotten though if you acknowledge that. Not anything as grandiose as an apology but maybe you were mistaken and used poor terminology?
It takes a lot of class to show humility and when it comes your way it is impressive.
Your and James feud runs deep. Have a think about a resolution is my advice. The VAT made a good point.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
As a semi nubie
You equate the murkiness of such mathematics to the murkiness of the nature of UFOs/UAPs?? We know that 2+2=4 because they are analytic truths. That is, truth by definition. It is no murkier than the fact that triangles have 3 sides, or pi is a transcendental number.
There is also the matter of proof for mathematics (see Prinicipia Mathematica - Whitehead and Russell), and while I accept that these are "truths" based upon being consistent to their logic, that logic corresponds to reality and our definitions thereof. I.e. if you have two (and only two) apples in one hand and two (and only two) in the other, you really do have four apples. By definition and by consistent internal logic. There is little to be murky about - although I accept that there is always the question of how we know that we know these things etc.
But to draw a comparison from this to the murkiness of the nature of UFOs/UAPs seems to be committing the fallacy of equivalence. For the latter there is no definition, no consistency of logic etc. There is data regarding what is subjectively considered a UFO/UAP, and there is guesswork that follows from that. There is no proof akin to Principia Mathematica, there is no constant confirmation by reality of the conclusions.
It's not your positioning on UFOs/UAPs I'm taking issue with, of course, just your comparison of its murkiness to that of mathematics. Which really does seem bizarre. I'm sure (or at least hope) you've equated the two for shock factor, to try to be extreme to make a point, rather than because you actually believe it, but I'm not sure it does you any favours in this regard. Or maybe I have misunderstood your point.
Perhaps you could be so gracious as to explain to me why DaveC426913 thinks my pointing to his thread↑ equals "the moderator politics elephant barging its way into the room".
Thanks.
Agreed. All of this to say, MR posts in the appropriate sub-forum, “On the Fringe.” It’s a science forum but this section was designed to have more relaxed discussions (I’m assuming?), on matters that are speculative, in nature. I don’t think we need to have a cookie cutter approach to how we discuss ghosts, Bigfoot and UFO’s, with the understanding that there should be some agreed-upon standard we need to follow, otherwise “anything goes,” and that’s not quite what we’re after, either.
I’ve never considered MR to be a troll in the slightest. Because his thinking is unconventional, the science community has branded him a “heretic” of sorts, which honestly has nothing to do with the slow down of traffic here. We need the push and pull, that’s what makes any forum worth visiting, and less of an echo chamber. I feel like this topic should be pinned somewhere in this sub-forum, we’ve been at this a while. It could serve as a public service announcement. lol
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Gaslighting. Seriously.
I think that comes right before the "I am rubber, you are glue. Words bounce off me and stick to you." gambit in the moderator tool box.
Grow up.
Last edited: