UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I agree that the first is worse than the second. But the second is still an implicit accusation of lying, which is uncool by its nature. I'd be inclined to reply "I wouldn't have written it if I didn't think it was true."

    Perhaps the best way to handle is is to say "I don't think that's right, because...".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,796
    Agree.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I'd say the mods do a good job with banning obvious trolls. MR isn't a troll, though. lol I suppose the term ''troll'' can be subjective, but to most, it's this:

    Internet troll - Wikipedia

    You know he's not a troll, he just infuriates you because he posts his opinions at times, as facts. Or he wants you to take the evidence more seriously.

    It all winds back to my original question, why does this sub-forum exist? If you are expecting MR to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt to back up his ideas about space aliens, it's not going to happen. Because there isn't any “proof” other than eyewitness accounts, fuzzy pics, grainy videos, which we could take a deeper dive into what those witnesses are actually alleging/reporting, and go from there. Maybe allowing MR to explain why he believes what he does, understanding that it’s potentially subjective, would be a step in the right direction.

    This sub-forum is a little off the beaten path. But, there is a way to “get along” without destroying the integrity of the thread discussion. At least I’d like to think so.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,796
    I'm appointing Wegs as Ambassador of Courtesy. From this point forward, ask yourself "Would Wegs say this...". If not, rephrase.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,300
    Okay. I'd agree.
    Okay, so it's "reliable most of the time, more often than not." I would concur. This is also consistent with your answer to #1.

    First, you seem to be saying: "if we can rely on it then we can/should rely on it, but if we can't then we shouldn't." So maybe some clarification by you is needed, as I'm sure you didn't intend such a vaccuous truism, and something no more insightful than saying "that animal over there is an elephant, unless it isn't".
    Second, you're not actually answering the question. The question was, to effect that: IF it was totally reliable, does that mean we could always rely on it. This isn't a question about whether you think it IS totally reliable or not, but IF IT WAS.

    As a question, however, it is just a matter of linguistics: if something is "totally reliable" then that means, by definition, that it can be relied upon. It's what the words mean.

    Your point regarding not being able to escape from reliance on perception I will get to at the end.
    Again, this is just the rather vacuuous "we shouldn't rely on it if it isn't reliable".
    The question is really just an extension of #1. If perception is fallible it means that it is sometimes incorrect. If we know something is sometimes incorrect then we can not, rationally, have full confidence that it is correct. Thus we can not always rely on it being correct.

    Noone is saying that human perception is not central to human cognition. It's just a question of whether it is fallible or not, whether one can rely on what they perceive all of the time, etc.
    Science works by seeking to eliminate much of the individual's errors in perception. But even something perceived by everyone as being X could in fact be something else. This is because of the way our brain actually processes what it perceives. We have optical illusions precisely because of this, precisely because our brain interprets things in certain ways that are different to how they actually are. We can understand those illusions, we can show that they are illusions, but we will still be tricked by them.
    Now, the majority of the time... the vast majority of the time... what we perceive is sufficiently accurate to allow us to live our practical lives. Much of this will come from repetitive perception of the same thing, where we have reference for what it is we are perceiving (such that our brain will be able to fill in any gaps with something pretty darn close to what is actually there). But, every now and then, we come across something that is different to anything we have perceived, and our brain will struggle. It will fill in the blanks with whatever it can to make sense of it.
    So, yes, perception is not "totally reliable", and can not "always" be relied upon. 99.999% of the time it may be sufficient for practical purposes, though.

    The important question, though, is not the black and white of whether perception is wholly infallible, but to what degree, if any, it can or should be dismissed. Are we to throw baby out with the bathwater? Is anyone even suggesting that that happen?
     
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,300
    Curtsey??
    That's a bit sexist, isn't it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,796
    Spell check error, since changed. I intended to type "courtesy".
     
    Sarkus likes this.
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Virtual curtseying ... that could become a thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    @ Dave - do you really see MR as a troll? I guess the word is subjective, but my idea of a troll is someone who instigates for the sheer pleasure of riling everyone up in a thread, or someone who posts inflammatory remarks for kicks, or someone who argues a point, but never yields.

    I'm genuinely curious, how others define that term. I don't see MR as a troll - he has posted information that could be construed as inaccurate, but he really holds onto these beliefs and opinions, so maybe there's a reason. I've actually envisioned this section/thread topic to be more about understanding why people believe in space aliens or Big Foot, etc...not necessarily that such ''believers'' are going to convince me to change my thinking.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,796
    I think the word "troll" is overused by those (in general) trying to stifle dissent. You can either address someone's question or just dismiss them as a "troll". The latter is the easier approach.

    I think it's better not to call someone a "troll" or a "liar" and just deal honestly with what they are saying without the personal attack.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,894
    There's a range between 'sometimes trolls' and 'is a troll'.
    Looking at the definition you have posted, I would say MR is guilty of all of those at one time or another. Not all the time, but enough certainly that I have lost patience. I don't think he 'is a troll'; I think his frustration drives him to bad behavior.

    But everyone has their limit.
    If your best friend slept with only one of your last ten boyfriends, is that OK? Or would they have to sleep with most of them before you lost trust and patience?

    If an opinion or belief is based on a flagrant dismissal of the very sciences critical to analysis of the subject, how much merit should it be given? How much screen space before it erodes the very discourse?


    That would be a good thread, although I suspect members have been primed to see such discussions as a potential trap, in that members may find themselves having to defend their beliefs against scrutiny.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,894
    Anyway, I'm bored of this discussion about MR. I'll call out ignorance and anti-science denial as I encounter it, and will raise it to the level of moderation if it interferes with constructive discourse.

    Is it ironic that, despite all this side discussion from and about myself and MR, I'm virtually the only one who contributed some on-topic analysis of the most recent video submitted by MR?

    If this is a quote from the interview:
    then how do we reconcile that with the video?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What does that tell us about this witness' account? How much does it degrade our confidence in the rest of the account?
    • None?
    • A little?
    • A lot?
    • All of it?

    What does it tell us about eyewitness accounts in general, when we otherwise don't know the particular faculties of the witness?
    • Does it tell us that this witness is an outlier, and that all other witnesses are perfectly trustworthy?
    • Does it tell us that - all other things being equal - we just don't know what the reliability of a given witness is?
    • Should we optimistically assume any given witness is entirely reliable unless shown otherwise?
    • Should we pessimistically assume any given witness is not entirely reliable unless shown otherwise?
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,252
    Yazata,
    You don't have to guess, though. Helpfully, I posted on why the alternative fora were created just yesterday, in this very thread. Perhaps you should read what I wrote, because your guess is incorrect.
    One third correct. Yes, they were about removing them from the science discussion. But that was already happening anyway, long before the Fringe fora were created. Mixing science and pseudoscience together as if they are on a equal footing would be very much against this site's original (and continuing) aims and ethos.

    As for suppression, the creation of the Fringe subforums provided a new dedicated space for discussion of particular topics. That is the opposite of suppression.

    As for open-minded free-wheeling discussion of edgy topics, the Fringe fora are what our members make them. If the discussions aren't free-wheeling enough for your liking, maybe you should post some free-wheeling stuff and encourage others to join in.

    You speak as if "free-wheeling" discussions of UFOs, ghosts and monsters are being censored here. They are not. You're reading a subforum created specifically to host those discussions, among others. Magical Realists' crazy ideas about advanced aquatic species aren't censored. You can find some of that right in this very thread, free for all to peruse at their leisure.
    We regularly have such discussions. If you want to discuss that in more detail, a more appropriate place to do so would be in the Site Feedback or Open Government forum. In my opinion, those subforums are under-utilised; I'm not sure why. A lot of people seem to want to whinge and moan rather than putting forward positive proposals for change, or even starting a constructive discussion. It's almost like a learned helplessness - like they think they just have to put up with things as they are and that change is impossible. For some more extreme cases, the attitude seems to come along with a sense of paranoia or persecution complex.
    Attacked? What form did this "attack" on you take?

    Have the skeptics here not agreed with you on many occasions that there are unsolved UFOs cases in which it seems likely that "something was physically there", but we don't yet know what it was?

    It's not really viable for you to keep pretending that this hasn't happened here. When you do so, you're no longer discussing things in good faith.
    That's not a difference between you and the skeptics. The skeptics here are equally happy saying they (we) don't know and assuming agnostic positions with regards to metaphysics and all that.

    I get it that, for some reason, you want to try to drive a wedge between yourself and the "skeptics" you have decided to go to war against, for whatever reason. The truth is, though, that you and them are not very far apart at all when it comes to the matter of UFOs.
    I think you might be regarding any difference of opinion as an "attack". Does it make you feel uncomfortable when somebody disagrees with you? Is it possible that they could be right? Could something somebody else says ever change your mind? That's what open-minded inquiry is supposed to entail, remember.
    Unfortunately, in this thread, we have at least one dishonest interlocutor. That tends to muddy the waters for everybody else. People tend to get upset when people they are having a conversation with are not open and honest about things. That's when things can get personal.

    I agree with you, of course, that in an ideal world it would be much better to stick to discussing the thread topic, without interpersonal factors getting in the way. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world.
    That's either an olive branch or an accusation. I'm not quite sure which.
    Again, we do not live in an ideal world. We have little choice but to deal with the immaturity as it arises, if we do not want to exclude people on the basis of immaturity.
    I agree. However, I think you're probably thinking about how Magical Realist has been treated here recently. You seem to put the onus of interacting with Magical Realist almost entirely on his opponents, while simultaneously being willing to overlook his poor behaviour which has on more than one occasion extended as far as telling deliberate and knowing lies, sometimes about other participants here.

    It is not wrong to call out sub-par behaviours and dishonest tactics. Truth matters. A person might feel "insulted" or upset when they are caught out in a lie, for instance, but that doesn't mean we should not expose the lie, just to spare the liar's feelings. Other people are involved. Others may suffer from believing the lie.

    Magical Realist has not been bullied into silence. He is right here, posting his usual free-wheeling nonsense (and don't mistake that for open-mindedness).

    I agree that it is almost always more productive to target the behaviour rather than the person. I take some care to make sure I do that. I do not believe I have ever told Magical Realist "You are a liar". I have told him "You knowingly posted a lie, there, and that is very poor form." On the other hand, just recently, as you may have noticed, MR has called both DaveC and myself "liar". In both cases, his specific accusations were exposed as false. Yet you are still willing to give him more or less a free pass. (Why?)
    Worthy sentiments. However, you yourself seem to have taken some degree of personal offence at the "skeptical line" on UFOs. Perhaps we all have room for improvement.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2022
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,503
    What other inaccuracies/errors do you see in comparing Mariana's account with the video footage?
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,894
    Nothing to say about the given example?

    Because if your answer to this:

    What does that tell us about this witness' account? How much does it degrade our confidence in the rest of the account?


    were to be
    • All of it
    Then we'd need to look no further.
     
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,503
    So you're ready to dismiss his whole account based on this one discrepancy of size/distance? That seems rather biased and dogmatic.
     
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    It doesn’t completely disqualify the witness’ claim, but it’s fair to say that their credibility went down a peg or two. The measurements were clearly off, but my expectations aren't all that high for these types of claims, meaning that I don't expect Sci-Forums level analysis.

    That said, the video seems a little hoaxsy, to me. Is that a word? Hoaxsy? Like, those ''flying objects'' could have been anything, and it struck me how they didn't move apart from each other the entire time. As though they were specks of dust or something on a lens, and somehow, the specks were made to look like flying objects in the sky. That's a little out there, I know.

    I've stated before in this thread that the main reason to believe the eyewitness accounts related to the ''tic tac'' flying object initially reported by military personnel, would be that they see more flying objects and unusual occurrences than the average human, and I'm not alone in that thinking. Many skeptics give that one some consideration. Nothing has been concluded other than it's still considered ''unidentifiable,'' but that is a step towards genuine analysis and not dismissing the account. Also, it's a positive step in determining what qualifies as a convincing witness.

    It does matter who is reporting these claims, in my opinion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2022
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Somewhere between option #3 and #4 for me.
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,796
    There are thousands of airline pilots in the air all the time, much more than military pilots. You have a very small number of military pilots who say they don't know what it was.

    I would give a military pilot more weight if they were actually closing in on the UFO and getting video just like they would in a dogfight. Surely someone by this time should have gotten a close-up picture of a spacecraft, IMO.
     
    wegs likes this.
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Yea, that’s true, too. It’s definitely strange that none of these witnesses offer clear videos or pics! Like I shared a few pages back, that article about the airplane mechanic who randomly “stole” a plane, threatening to crash it into a local Walmart…social media blew up with tons of clear pics. If I saw a UFO, I’d be sure to take a pic of it as usually my phone is near me.

    That has become more mysterious than the UFO claims, themselves. lol
     
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    It is now ✅

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.

Share This Page