Yazata,
I note that you chose to post #6744 without addressing anything I put to you a few posts before that. Your ignoring my posts has become quite pointed of late. I am aware of what you're doing. The question is: why are you behaving this way? One possibility is that you'd rather pretend that I haven't challenged you, because that's easier than accepting that I might be right about things and that I might have made some fair criticisms of the position you have taken in this thread. Another possibility is that something in what I have posted to you has upset you on a personal level, and you feel that I have slighted you in an unfair and unfriendly way, such that you have therefore decided to cut off dialogue with me. Either way, I'm in the dark as to your motivations.
If I have offended you, then there's no way I can alter my behaviour without knowing what you think I did wrong. On the other hand, if you're merely copying Magical Realist's approach of pretending not to have seen posts that take issue with the opinions you have expressed, then I can continue to take you to task for being actively dishonest in being unwilling to address criticisms of the positions you have taken in the thread. It is not unreasonable for me to continue to point out where I think you are in error, and I will probably continue to do so, whether or not you respond.
It would be a pity to confirm that you are willing to follow Magical Realist's playbook of denial and pretense and intellectual dishonesty, merely to defend your belief that there are things "out there" which aren't explainable in my philosophy, or whatever. Personally, I would prefer to have an actual discussion with you, but we can do things whichever way you prefer. The ball's in your court.
So, some further comments...
And there's the fact that most of the argument for or against UFOs/UAPs isn't scientific argument at all.
There are certainly some aspects of this discussion that consider "hard data", if that's what you mean by "scientific argument". For instance, we have considered Mick West's analysis of the "tic tac" videos, in which West determined that the apparent manoeuvring of the "tic tacs" was
not particularly remarkable or "beyond the capabilities" of human-made aircraft (or even of regular old birds).
The science of human perception and its limitations has also been the subject of some of this discussion. We have also discussed, to some extent, scientific estimates of the probability that space aliens are currently visiting Earth in interstellar spaceships.
Physics may have some relevance to UAPs, in arguments about whether their observed behavior is consistent with known physics. But aeronautical engineering would be more relevant.
Aeronautical engineering is applied physics.
Physics would be relevant to arguments about radar anomalies, but consulting an experienced radar technician with years of experience using radars in various conditions might be more enlightening than consulting a physicist.
Yes. Interesting that nobody in this thread has presented any actual technical data on performance characteristics of the radar systems, or their typical reliability, yet. Is such data even available, publically?
Chemistry, biology, geology, even astronomy don't seem particularly useful when addressing UAPs.
Not until there's chemical, biological or geological evidence associate with UAPs. Obviously.
As for astronomy, it
does inform us as to unlikeliness of interstellar travellers - at least in the absence of as-yet-unknown technologies.
What this thread really needs is people conversant with the philosophy of science and with epistemology (the theory of knowledge). That's what these arguments are all about.
There are several people here - myself included - who are conversant with such things. You no longer want to engage with those people, most of the time, as far as I can tell. Maybe you believe you already have all the answers you want.
Of course that assumes the existence of anomalous observation reports that cry out for answers. Just acknowledging that initial starting point seems rather controversial here on sciforums.
That has never been controversial. It is assumed common ground for this thread.
I wrote quite a lengthy post addressed directly to you on essentially this topic, regarding your assertion that skeptics "want to dismiss" UAP reports without proper investigation, which is an error you are apparently both unwilling to admit and unwilling to correct. I don't know why that is.
The question that generates all the controversy in this thread is whether all of the identifications (there will almost certainly we a variety of explanations of different UAPs) would all fall into the realm of the "mundane" (familiar, everyday, uninteresting, "move on, nothing to see here") or whether a subset of them might prove to be extra-mundane (in the sense of something exciting, interesting and new).
This sounds like you're being deliberately non-specific, given our previous discussion of the word "mundane". Something exciting, interesting and new doesn't have to be supernatural, if that's what you mean by "extra-mundane". If that's not what you mean, then you probably ought to spell out what you mean more clearly.
True. Of course the "UAP enthusiasts" aren't the only ones who need to investigate the evidence with open minds and with a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Generally, though, it is the UAP enthusiasts who
don't investigate with open minds etc., as I'm sure you'll agree.
We simply don't know whether or not there is anything extra-mundane happening here. Assuming apriori that there is (as some of the enthusiasts do), represents no more a cognitive error than assuming apriori that there isn't.
But you agree that
both of those assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Right?
What both have in common is that
a priori assumption thingy. That's the mistake.
In reality neither the "UAP enthusiasts" or the "skeptics" have the answers at this point.
The "answer" if you're a True Believer would be to find convincing evidence in just
one case of something extraordinary. With thousands of cases to consider, you'd think the True Believers might have something better by now, don't you think?
The skeptics, of course, will never have the answer that you demand of them (us). I'll never be able to prove to you that there are no alien spaceships, even if that happens to be the case.
The True Believers have the easy job to convince you. Of the skeptics, you demand the impossible. Why do you pretend that the burden of proof is the same for both, then?
