The trap of dogmatic skepticism

[foghorn]

The question is this, are you willing to forgo the ingroup rewards of continuing to remain a loyal dogmatic skeptic here, or will you risk ridicule and insults and even being banned like I have, venture out and think for yourself, and examine the evidence with a truly unbiased and agnostic mind like Yazata has? The choice is yours. Come to the dark side Pinball!

Yeah, Pinball, what’s it’s going to be, the Jets or the Sharks.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's typically going to be a very individual matter, since the 'sufficiency' here typically means 'sufficient to persuade me'. And since that in turn is a personal/subjective matter, it will usually be a function of what our beliefs were going

I don't know why.

The rational approach is to simply align one's views with what evidence indicates.

See, while one might concede that there may be plenty of mysteries that are hard to explain with today's technology, there is still not one scrap of extant evidence among those mysteries that points toward an exotic explanation (i.e. that isn't someone's interpretation of sleed or shapes or somesuch).

Furthermore, it sure would be nice if you Enthusiasts (individually or collectively) actually came up with a theory that had some meat, rather than the usual "its a mystery".

I haven't the foggiest idea how any of you can criticize any skeptic for thinking there's no there there, when you have no theory yourselves. As long as you have no theory, then you can't discount the possibility that there's no theory necessary at all.

Which is why this thread is vacuous. What is it exactly that you're railing against. More to the point: what is it, specifically, you're fighting for acceptance of? What would it look like to have skeptics agree with you? What would they agree with?

It's like you're saying "We demand the right to have our mysteries. A pox on those who prefer a world where things can be explained."

 

[gmilam]

The difficulty there will be in quantifying the quality of evidence and in deciding what quantity/quality level constitutes "sufficient evidence". That's typically going to be a very individual matter, since the 'sufficiency' here typically means 'sufficient to persuade me'. And since that in turn is a personal/subjective matter, it will usually be a function of what our beliefs were going in. It will take a lot more to persuade somebody to accept the reality of something whose existence he/she doesn't already accept (for me, ghosts) than it will to persuade somebody of the reality of something that they already accept and perhaps expect.

I've been thinking about what it might take for me to take these types of sightings seriously.

First, let me preface by saying that I think it is extremely probable there is other life in the universe. We arose through natural processes, so there's no reason to assume that it can't happen elsewhere. But finding a life form capable of the technology to travel interstellar distances that exists in the same timeframe as us is like finding a needle in a haystack. I mean, we can't even travel to the next planet yet. We have to rely on someone finding us. As such, I find it unlikely that we are being visited by extraterrestrial beings.

So, short of me being the person who actually saw a ship land, It would probably take some sort of physical evidence for me to entertain the idea that we have been visited.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me summarize:

MR and Yazata: what, specifically is your theory to explain (whatever subset of UAP accounts suits you) and what evidence do you assert favours your theory over any of the others?

If you can't or won't answer that, then this thread is a mere deflection ploy.

 

[Magical Realist]

Furthermore, it sure would be nice if you Enthusiasts (individually or collectively) actually came up with a theory that had some meat, rather than the usual "its a mystery".

I haven't the foggiest idea how any of you can criticize any skeptic for thinking there's no there there, when you have no theory yourselves. As long as you have no theory, then you can't discount the possibility that there's no theory necessary at all.

Question: Has science ever discovered a phenomenon for which it has no theory or explanation yet?
It seems the history of scientific discovery is profuse with such events. Indeed even long before there was science humans observed all sorts of phenomena for which they had no explanation. And it wouldn't be very scientific afterall to deny a phenomenon exists simply because you have no theory to explain it now would it? That would be essentially the fallacy of incredulity:

"Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.​

Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.

Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time."---- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

 

[Magical Realist]

gmilam said: As such, I find it unlikely that we are being visited by extraterrestrial beings.

So do I. But I still know uaps to be a real and empirically confirmed phenomenon, in all of its crazy forms and baffling expressions. Can you see how that is possible?

 

[Yazata]

I've been thinking about what it might take for me to take these types of sightings seriously.

The mere fact that they appear to be attested by multiple trained observers, with radar and photographic corroboration, makes me take them seriously. The fact that similar events reportedly have happened thousands of miles and years apart, make me even more inclined to take them seriously.

First, let me preface by saying that I think it is extremely probable there is other life in the universe. We arose through natural processes, so there's no reason to assume that it can't happen elsewhere. But finding a life form capable of the technology to travel interstellar distances that exists in the same timeframe as us is like finding a needle in a haystack. I mean, we can't even travel to the next planet yet. We have to rely on someone finding us. As such, I find it unlikely that we are being visited by extraterrestrial beings.

Yes, I find that line of argument to be persuasive. My idea is that life is so incredibly complex (just look at any advanced cell and molecular biology text) that it is probably extremely fortuitous that it took off at all. Which suggests (to me, anyway) that life might be spread very thinly among the stars. Of course if we define life functionally (as I'm inclined to do) then there might be many ways to achieve similar functions (multiple realizability), so the probability might go up again as we admit the possibility of lifeforms very different biochemically from Earth life.

Then look at the history of life on Earth. The appearance of eukaryotes, the rise of multicellular organisms, the division between plants and animals. Life has been present on Earth for (it seems, we really don't know) for the better part of 4 billion years. The Cambrian explosion and the sudden as-yet-unexplained appearance of almost all animal body plans (arthropods, chordates, mollusks and a whole assortment of very different worms) about 500-600 million years ago. And human beings of whatever sort for maybe 1 million years. And modern technological civilization for less than 300 years. Once again, what appears to be a whole series of what might have been fortuitous events.

In other words, life might be spread very thinly through the stars. Perhaps >90% of the rare planets with life play host only to things analogous to Earth bacteria. And hardly any of the even more rare planets with more complex organisms will host intelligent life. And only a tiny number of those will host technologically advanced space-faring civilizations.

That's why I'm inclined to agree with you. But I also have to say that it's not something that I really know. It's just a speculative inference based on a tiny sample size of one.

There are other possibilities. Perhaps the universe is swarming with Von Neumann probes

Self-replicating spacecraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, short of me being the person who actually saw a ship land, It would probably take some sort of physical evidence for me to entertain the idea that we have been visited.

That's reasonable I guess.

The thing is, I don't want to let my own beliefs about how unlikely space-alien visitations might be (something I have no way of really knowing) bias me to the point where I just summarily dismiss the better attested and corroborated sighting reports just because I make the mistake of leaping to the conclusion that they can only have one explanation that I happen to not believe in. We have no real reason to assume that the UAP sightings must be alien spacecraft, apart from our own culture being a technological machine civilization interested in space. Conceivably whatever the UAPs turn out to be (assuming ex-hypothesi that they are anything extramundane) might be something quite unexpected and higherto unknown.

Some will hate me saying this, but we can't just dismiss the more problematic elements of a sighting report as presumptively false just because we don't have an explanation for it ready at hand that's consistent with our preexisting assumptions. There are times in life when we have to admit that we don't know what something is.

I see those moments potentially as occasions for learning and for growth.

 

[DaveC426913]

Some will hate me saying this, but we can't just dismiss the more problematic elements of a sighting report as presumptively false just because we don't have an explanation for it ready at hand that's consistent with our preexisting assumptions. There are times in life when we have to admit that we don't know what something is.

And where does thus take us? Say we were to grant that we don't know what something is, what's next that's different from what we are doing now?

It doesn't stop us skeptics from attempting to find answers through analysis. (Mostly what it seems to do is get Enthusiasts to beat up on skeptics who attempt to find answers through analysis. Tell me I am wrong.)

 

[Magical Realist]

It doesn't stop us skeptics from attempting to find answers through analysis.

Problem is dogmatic skeptics such as you aren't really objectively analyzing the phenomenon at all in a sincere attempt to understand it. You are only interested in debunking every uap sighting and so proving the phenomenon doesn't exist in accord with your prior belief that it is all woo and not to be taken seriously. It would be equivalent say to someone claiming they are analyzing the phenomenon of dark energy objectively when they are really trying to prove that dark energy doesn't exist at all. I suppose that's all well and good for someone who calls themselves a skeptic. But don't pretend you are contributing anything at all to the scientific investigation and theorization of the phenomenon itself. IOW, you can't really analyze and find answers about something you basically deny exists. Your agenda is always to debunk and deny, not understand and illuminate.

 

[gmilam]

Some will hate me saying this, but we can't just dismiss the more problematic elements of a sighting report as presumptively false just because we don't have an explanation for it ready at hand that's consistent with our preexisting assumptions. There are times in life when we have to admit that we don't know what something is.

I have no problem leaving something in the unknown category. I'm not the one claiming to know what these things are.

 

[gmilam]

So do I. But I still know uaps to be a real and empirically confirmed phenomenon, in all of its crazy forms and baffling expressions. Can you see how that is possible?

I've seen the crap you post as evidence of all sorts of stuff. You're pretty gullible or a troll - the verdict is still out. If you are truly that gullible, then yes, I see how you may believe that you know.

 

[Magical Realist]

I've seen the crap you post as evidence of all sorts of stuff. You're pretty gullible or a troll - the verdict is still out. If you are truly that gullible, then yes, I see how you may believe that you know.

So when the Pentagon's own AARO chief concludes after an extensive analysis of hundreds of uap videos and accounts that the most common profile for them are metallic spheres 1-4 meters in diameter that travel at speeds up to Mach 2, that "we see these all over the world", that they have no heat exhaust or apparent means of propulsion, and that they are seen making "very interesting maneuvers", would you say he is being gullible too? (See https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/post-3727174). Are all these recent reports and videos and recorded radar returns of uaps by trained US Navy personnel all "crap" too? How did you decide that?

 

[Yazata]

Let me summarize:

MR and Yazata: what, specifically is your theory to explain (whatever subset of UAP accounts suits you) and what evidence do you assert favours your theory over any of the others?

I can't speak for MR, but as for me, I don't currently have an explanation.

My assertion in these threads is merely that some of these sighting reports need to be taken seriously. When there are multiple trained observers and when their accounts are corroborated by radar and photographic evidence, and when these kind of events appear to have occurred on more than one occasion, then I personally think that there is good reason to believe that something extraordinary was physically happening.

I have speculated (largely to myself) about what it might be, but those are just wild-ass speculations until and unless more information becomes available.

So that's where we are currently at - we have good reason to believe that some kind of unknown physical phenomenon is occurring, but we won't know what it really is until we learn a lot more.

Which we will never do if we just dismiss the whole subject with a reflexive knee-jerk as "woo", based on our own preexisting beliefs and prejudices about the subject. I see that as anti-intellectual and it's what I believe the dogmatic skeptics are doing. (Of course, skeptics needn't be dogmatic and none should be.)

If you can't or won't answer that, then this thread is a mere deflection ploy.

"Deflection" from what?

The facts of reality are in no way dependent on our current ability to explain them. States of affairs just are.

Nor does our awareness of existing states of affairs seem to be dependent on our ability to explain them. If it were, we would be trapped in our little worldviews, unable to perceive anything new. (My dog lives successfully in the same reality that I do, but probably can't explain any of it.)

All of which presupposes that we have some understanding of what 'explanations' are. What are we doing when we explain something?

 

[Yazata]

And where does thus take us?

To recognition that a question very likely exists. An unknown, a mystery, call it what you will.

Say we were to grant that we don't know what something is, what's next that's different from what we are doing now?

What's next is to try to gather more information about the anomalous (in the sense of contrary to expectation) phenomenon.

It doesn't stop us skeptics from attempting to find answers through analysis.

It would seem to me that in order for 'analysis' to occur, we would need to avoid knee-jerk dismissals of the entire phenomenon. Biased and prejudicial words like 'woo' will have to go. Character assassination of those making the reports (or anyone taking the reports seriously) will have to stop.

(Mostly what it seems to do is get Enthusiasts to beat up on skeptics who attempt to find answers through analysis. Tell me I am wrong.)

You're wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't speak for MR, but as for me, I don't currently have an explanation.

Then you don't outright dismiss the possibility at least that one explanation is that these are not exotic causes.

Just like we dont know everything that sout there in the unverse, we still dont know everyithng here in the natural world. For all we know, there are unusual atmospheric or optical conditions that cause normal phenomena to be seen in unexpected ways. Applying your own medicine to you you can't dismiss that as a possibility.

My assertion in these threads is merely that some of these sighting reports need to be taken seriously.

What makes you think they aren't?

When there are multiple trained observers and when their accounts are corroborated by radar and photographic evidence, and when these kind of events appear to have occurred on more than one occasion, then I personally think that there is good reason to believe that something extraordinary was physically happening.

What more could be done?

I have speculated (largely to myself) about what it might be, but those are just wild-ass speculations until and unless more information becomes available.

Yes. As are the speculations of skeptics. You accept that, yes? We don't know that a given UAP account is mundane, but we can analyze it to find out what parts are at least within the boundaries of what we know to be possible. We just have a penchant for looking a lot closer than most Enthusiasts do. (Eg.: the actual parameters of the 'Go Fast' video)

So that's where we are currently at - we have good reason to believe that some kind of unknown physical phenomenon is occurring, but we won't know what it really is until we learn a lot more.

Granting that natural earthly explanations are still a possibility, yes?

If we dont know, then we (you) cant rule that that as a possibility.

Which we will never do if we just dismiss the whole subject with a reflexive knee-jerk as "woo",

Since at least one of our members makes no distinction betwen actually intriguing accounts and mere blobs of light**, it really falls to us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Your line of credible accounts may differ from ours but that's just a matter of degree is it not?

**That same member just recently linked to a whole bunch of pics that I'll wager you, like is, to consider mostly nonsense. Am I wrong?

based on our own preexisting beliefs and prejudices about the subject. I see that as anti-intellectual and it's what I believe the dogmatic skeptics are doing. (Of course, skeptics needn't be dogmatic and none should be.)

Still don't know why you make this claim. Let me ask: what would us NOT dismissing a claim look like to you? Are we not doing enough analysis? Or is it that you consider analysis to be the wrong direction to go? What more could we do?

"Deflection" from what?

From any attempt to actually try to solve any of these mysteries. With all due respect, you have a lot to say about what you think we're doing wrong, but you get pretty quiet when it comes to advancing any theories yourself and providing plausible paths through the available evidence to them. It is hard not to interpret that as a strong preference on your part to keep it all mysterious. Correct me if I'm wrong - but do so by telling me HOW you're trying to get to the bottom of it, and what it might look like if the rest of us went with you on that journey.

 

[Magical Realist]

Recent interview of Scientific Inquirer Magazine with investigative journalist, author, and ufo/uap researcher Leslie Kean.. It summarizes where we are in the recent flurry of uap reports by the US military and describes what eventually convinced her of the reality of the ufo/uap phenomenon. She also makes the distinction between the ET hypothesis and the uap phenomenon itself, which is something Yazata and myself as well as many ufologists strongly agree with. You can view episodes of the National Geographic TV series "UFOs Investigating The Unknown" here:

Conversations with Leslie Kean: Coming to terms with unidentified aerial phenomena and embracing the unknown. - Scientific Inquirer

The time has never been better for probing this uniquely American story, which also evokes some of the biggest questions concerning humanity: Why do we sometimes see things in the sky that no one can explain? What is known about these strange lights and objects? In light of new evidence and...

scientificinquirer.com

"The time has never been better for probing this uniquely American story, which also evokes some of the biggest questions concerning humanity: Why do we sometimes see things in the sky that no one can explain? What is known about these strange lights and objects?

In light of new evidence and disclosures about a secret Pentagon UFO program, we could be on the cusp of a paradigm shift! UFOs: INVESTIGATING THE UNKNOWN (premiers tonight on National Geographic Channel) digs into these new (and still developing) revelations while also weaving in the rich history of UFO cases in America that have permeated our culture, challenged the taboo, unsettled government officials, and forever changed the lives of the people directly involved. The five-part series takes full advantage of abundant archival material, eyewitness testimony, and compelling expert interviews to examine mystifying UFO encounters from the 1940s through the current day.

One of the key journalists who has brought new evidence to light is Leslie Kean. She set aside some time to discuss the documentary series and her work investigating unidentified aerial phenomena with SCINQ....."

 

[Sarkus]

"uniquely American story"??
And you take this seriously?

 

[gmilam]

To recognition that a question very likely exists. An unknown, a mystery, call it what you will.

We've already established the "U" stands for "Unidentified".

What's next is to try to gather more information about the anomalous (in the sense of contrary to expectation) phenomenon.

Without physical evidence, what more information can be gathered from a sighting?

 

[foghorn]

Dogmatic believer.
Back in 2017 Sweetpea asked Magical Realist about the pictures MR posts on the UAP thread.

I'm asking for evidence of why you think these ufo pictures you post, are time-travellers, interdimensionals and wotnot, not just your say-so of ''What else could they be?''

A Magical Realist "Fact" emerged in the reply (my bold below), also emerging was " there is no other explanation."

I already told you.The fact that they are technology far in advance of anything we humans have is evidence they are either from the future, or interdimensionals, or extraterrestrials. There is no other explanation. And the fact that you can't offer one proves it.

I assume Yazata agrees with Magical Realist's " there is no other explanation." ?

 

[DaveC426913]

So when the Pentagon's own AARO chief concludes after an extensive analysis of hundreds of uap videos and accounts that the most common profile for them are metallic spheres 1-4 meters in diameter that travel at speeds up to Mach 2, that "we see these all over the world", that they have no heat exhaust or apparent means of propulsion, and that they are seen making "very interesting maneuvers", would you say he is being gullible too? (See https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/post-3727174). Are all these recent reports and videos and recorded radar returns of uaps by trained US Navy personnel all "crap" too? How did you decide that?

Yes great idea, MR; let's keep quoting the AARO:

"All investigative efforts, at all levels of classification, concluded that most sightings were ordinary objects and phenomena and the result of misidentification."

"... it has found no evidence of alien technology in the skies, in space or crashed in the American desert."

The report also found “no empirical evidence” for claims that the government and private companies “have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology,”

In other words - while there appear to be a number of witness accounts that interpret and then conclude such things as "speeds up to mach 2" "no heat exhaust or apparent means of propulsion" and "making very interesting maneuvers" - the AARO has found no evidence that actually supports such witness interpretations as being due to anything exotic.