Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Why would any "debate rules" apply to a discussion thread? Are there rules now for having a discussion?
Last edited:
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Why would any "debate rules" apply to a discussion thread? Are there rules now for having a discussion?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps.
But from my vantage point, it's more about a crew of loud-mouthed and abusive movement-"skeptics" who come into every discussion of unknown phenomena like the UFO debate with their conclusions already formed, having already decided in their own minds what is and isn't what they call "woo". (A word seemingly of their own invention, signifying an object of their intellectual disbelief and emotional disdain, a target of their abuse.)
The difficulty is that they have made these decisions about what can and can't exist in reality before discussion even starts. So their self-appointed mission in these discussions is to shut up and suppress any idea of what's possible that's even a little broader than theirs. They sometimes do that as rudely and abusively as possible, behavior that they believe is justified by their own subjective sense of self-righteousness.
It's ironic that in this day and age when "diversity" has become a shibboleth, that intellectual diversity, diversity of opinion, is so poorly tolerated.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes.
Don't lie.
That's less of a 'discussion' rule and more of a 'don't be an asshole in life' rule.
I don't need to say how alarming it is that you have to ask.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So ... "Our opponents are being loud and mean, therefore that makes it OK to post lies."
Is that the take away Yazata?
How would that do as the byline on the UFO hunting industry at-large?
UFOLOGY
Skeptics are mean, so it's OK to tell lies.
Mom: "Bobby, Billy: split the cake evenly between you."
Bobby: "We should split it half and half."
Billy: "No, I deserve the whole cake!"
Mom: "All right. You're both right. Bobby gets one quarter and Billy gets three quarters!"
Last edited:
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Debate or discussion with a liar is the same, a waste of time.
CERN was built cause people really don't want to know.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
"The explanation"?? What MR didn't quote were some remarks about "ordinary bioluminescent surface phenomena". I don't think that anyone has questioned the existence of "ordinary bioluminescent surface phenomena". MR hasn't. I haven't. The question is how one moves from "ordinary bioluminescent surface phenomena" to the observed light-wheels. We haven't even determined that the light-wheel phenomenon is the result of bioluminesence. I tossed out an alternative light-scattering hypothesis in a post up above. To my knowledge no 'crucial experiment' has ever been conducted to decide what's really happening.
The text that MR didn't quote goes on to say:
"Less common are balls of light and long worm-like shapes seen glowing underwater, as described by Thor Heyerdahl in his 1947 Kon-Tiki voyage: these have been attributed to shoals or large single fish moving among the luminous organisms."
Once again, a speculative attribution. It's plausible I think, but it needs testing though, before it becomes "the explanation" for the 'ball' and 'worm' sightings.
The unquoted text continues by saying this: "But the large rings and wheels appear more rarely, and their cause remains undetermined." That is entirely consistent with MR's (and my) assertion that there really is an unexplained mystery here.
So what are we to call dismissal of the words "... and their cause remains undetermined"? If the cause is still undetermined it's still mysterious, seems to me.
Drawing a distinction between "interesting natural phenomenon" and "this is a mystery" might be problematic. What are the implicit boundaries and limits of the phrase "natural phenomenon" that are being assumed there? It would seem to exclude the supernatural (whatever that means), the divine or the miraculous, I guess. But I don't think anyone has proposed that the light wheels are one of those things.
Must "interesting natural phenomenon" exclude anything that lies outside the "skeptic's" current knowledge and stock of explanatory principles? Or could it, just possibly, be something new and unexpected? Is there anything new in reality left for us to learn, or is our current understanding of what's happening all that can intelligently be said ?
I consider MR a longtime friend and I'd like to think the same of you too Dave. We've been posting back and forth for a long time, years.
You still need to make a convincing argument that MR "lied". The text that he didn't quote was some background material about the nature of bioluminescence that isn't in dispute, along with a remark by the author that the nature of the light-wheels still remains unexplained.
I would much prefer if the topic of discussion remained UFOs and by extension the undersea light-wheels which may or may not be related.
We shouldn't try to divert the thread towards angry ad-hominem moral condemnations of participants on the board who introduce ideas that we find unwelcome.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
For me, that word implies some element of respect. You can demonstrate that by stopping continually misrepresenting my position - and by proxy, the position of skeptics - when it comes to foregone conclusions.
I believe I have treated you with respect. You hold views that are different from mine, yet at no time have you (with the notable exception the above) been dishonest or otherwise argued in bad faith.
I think that shows that I am not against the UFO enthusiast* stance, I am only against bad or dishonest argument.
*BTW, I stopped using the phrase "UFO Believer" quite some time ago because I consider it a derisive term. I am not critical of the community; I am critical of individuals who demonstrate bad faith discussion and poor logic. I came up with "UFO enthusiast" and use it as what I hope is seen as a neutral term.
Background material? Background material??
It completely changes the nature of the article! It's the only the paragraph that explains the very source of the light patterns that are the crux of the article.
"We saw this dark round object hovering in the sky overhead, waving a beam of energy around!
I mean, it was hovering above the helicopter pad, shining its searchlight, but...
...it remained there for several minutes before taking off toward the horizon like it was piloted!"
Yazata: "The part about it being a helicopter is background material and doesn't really affect the story. There really is a mystery here."
It's lying. You can't handwave that away as "unwelcome".
That you would try to speaks to your ethical compass as well. You might want to walk that back a little.
It wasn't an accident that that one paragraph was omitted; it was calculated. It increased the mystery aspect of MR's retelling of the article while removing the one element that had anything resembling a part of an explanation.
What's the title of this thread Yazata? It's Explanations. MR is not contributing constructively, he's contributing destructively. By telling lies. In this case, a deliberate, calculating lie of omission.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Oh here we go. Now Yazata is a liar too! lol
Last edited:
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Don't worry, Yazata will get a ''Get out of jail free'' card too.
What do you think about CERN?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Wrong! I quoted the paragraph that mentioned a number of explanations of the phenomenon:
"But the huge rings and wheels appear more rarely, and their cause remains undetermined. Some have connected the pulsating signal-like patterns to the communications devices on ships and submarines, but lightwheel reports pre-date radar and sonar, even radio. Others have attributed the patterns to whale communication, tectonic movement, geomagnetic pulses from the earth's core or, more fancifully, to the beacons of a great submarine civilisation. We can guess, but we just don't know. Awe-inspiring and beautiful, unfilmed and unphotographed, the lightwheels remain an unfathomable mystery."
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The article:
We saw this dark round object hovering in the sky overhead, waving a beam of energy around!
I mean, it was hovering above the helicopter pad, shining its searchlight, but...
...it remained there for several minutes before taking off toward the horizon like maybe it was piloted!
MR:
'We saw this dark round object hovering in the sky overhead, waving a beam of energy around!
...it remained there for several minutes before taking off toward the horizon like maybe it was piloted!
A lie of omission is a lie.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The thing in the Guardian begins by saying this: "It's often said that we know outer space better than the depths of our own oceans. Certainly they're home to some little-understood natural phenomena, of which none is more dazzling than the lightwheels." That seems to the the essay's thesis statement, that the ocean still contains "little-understood natural phenomena" and that the light-wheels will serve as the author's example of one of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/apr/01/farout
The author seems to be good about introducing each of his paragraphs with a thesis sentence. The second paragraph begins, "These spectacular submarine lightshows range in size from a few metres across to filling the entire visible ocean with phosphorescent colour." Then he goes on to describe them.
The third paragraph is a single sentence saying that the British Met Office has collected reports for more than a century, but no expeditions have been sent out to study the wheels.
The fourth paragraph begins, "Ordinary bioluminescent surface phenomena are seen most often in warmer waters like the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea." Then it goes on to give some background material on "ordinary bioluminescent surface phenomena".
The fifth paragraph contrasts the wheels with these ordinary bioluminescent phenomena: "But the huge rings and wheels appear more rarely, and their cause remains undetermined." Then the author goes on to list some explanatory hypotheses that have been proposed, all speculative and some rather exotic. And the author concludes the fifth paragraph with what seems to be his conclusion for his whole essay by saying (highlighting by me): "We can guess, but we just don't know. Awe-inspiring and beautiful, unfilmed and unphotographed, the lightwheels remain an unfathomable mystery."
Last edited:
On what basis?
Have you somehow established that light wheels must have an intelligent origin? Where's your evidence for that?
So it's a cause, but not the sole cause, now?
Hey, you're the cut-and-paste-videos guy. Do you have a video of one of these light wheel things that we can look at?
Or just neighbouring plankton banging into one another. Or something. Think Mexican wave, maybe?
But you just said it is a cause. ???
Why can't it explain the "lightwheel phenomena"? You haven't given any reason, as far as I have seen.
Last edited:
foghorn:
Here's what I wrote immediately following what you quoted from me:
I don't much appreciate my words being deliberately taken out of context. Please don't do that sort of thing again.
Why did you try to misrepresent me there, especially after a post about lying by omission?
Here's what I wrote immediately following what you quoted from me:
None of the rules here are set in stone. We even have an "Open Government" forum where members can suggest changes, amendments, deletions, substitutions etc. to the site rules. From time to time, we have put things to a general vote of our members and have made significant changes in light of the results of the vote.
Your version reads like I just make up the rules to suit myself.
I don't much appreciate my words being deliberately taken out of context. Please don't do that sort of thing again.
Yazata:
While you are careful not to name specific skeptics, lest you be shown to be unable to provide any evidence for you false claim, it is quite clear that you are aware that the skeptics here, on sciforums - including myself and DaveC for example - do not approach the UFO question having made decisions on what can and can't exist in reality. You know this for sure because we have told you how we approach this stuff. Not just once, either. Enough times for you to have been able to process what we told you.
Why, then, are you motivated to keep telling this lie you tell?
You ought to realise that you're just providing one more example of a dishonest UFO enthusiast. You're one more data point in support of what DaveC posted about UFO believers telling lies.
Don't you feel at all embarrassed or uncomfortable when you keep getting caught out in the same lie? In fact, I think you do feel just a trifle ashamed of yourself. You're no longer able to look me in the eye (figuratively speaking) and tell your big lie, any more. But I guess you're still hoping that you can dupe some other readers.
And you question whether the disdain that skeptics have for UFO believers who get caught out telling lies is justified? Really? Is that the message you're trying to put out, all the while telling lies yourself?
What happened to you, man?
If telling the lie causes a twinge in your conscience, Yazata, there are a number of possible solutions. One is you ignore your conscience and battle on. Another is you give up on trying to act morally and dedicate yourself to the lie. A much better and more moral course of action is to stop telling lies; if you do that, you might feel better about yourself and salvage the shreds of your conscience.
Of course, you can also try to assuage your guilty feelings by shooting the messenger. That's not working so well for you, though, if you ask me.
That last statement has become your personal equivalent of Trump's Big Lie.
While you are careful not to name specific skeptics, lest you be shown to be unable to provide any evidence for you false claim, it is quite clear that you are aware that the skeptics here, on sciforums - including myself and DaveC for example - do not approach the UFO question having made decisions on what can and can't exist in reality. You know this for sure because we have told you how we approach this stuff. Not just once, either. Enough times for you to have been able to process what we told you.
Why, then, are you motivated to keep telling this lie you tell?
You ought to realise that you're just providing one more example of a dishonest UFO enthusiast. You're one more data point in support of what DaveC posted about UFO believers telling lies.
Don't you feel at all embarrassed or uncomfortable when you keep getting caught out in the same lie? In fact, I think you do feel just a trifle ashamed of yourself. You're no longer able to look me in the eye (figuratively speaking) and tell your big lie, any more. But I guess you're still hoping that you can dupe some other readers.
And you question whether the disdain that skeptics have for UFO believers who get caught out telling lies is justified? Really? Is that the message you're trying to put out, all the while telling lies yourself?
What happened to you, man?
Sucks to get caught out over and over again in a lie, doesn't it?
If telling the lie causes a twinge in your conscience, Yazata, there are a number of possible solutions. One is you ignore your conscience and battle on. Another is you give up on trying to act morally and dedicate yourself to the lie. A much better and more moral course of action is to stop telling lies; if you do that, you might feel better about yourself and salvage the shreds of your conscience.
Of course, you can also try to assuage your guilty feelings by shooting the messenger. That's not working so well for you, though, if you ask me.
Attempting to dress up lying as a positive act that encourages "diversity" is intellectually dishonest. You ought to know better.
Last edited:
Yes. And you applaud it. No surprises there.
The real mystery is why somebody like Yazata, who used to have some integrity, decided to hitch his wagon to yours.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
For the record, I did not accuse Yazata of lying or being a liar. I observed him enabling your lies. To-wit:
[MR is] lying. You [Yazata] can't handwave that [lying] away as "unwelcome".
That you would try to [handwave away MR's lie] speaks to your ethical compass as well. You might want to walk that back a little.
IOW, Yazata's ethical compass is in question when he enables a lie by pretending a lie is not a lie but just a ... differing opinion - and something to be rued as getting lost.
To untangle that: Yazata's post is tantamount saying he'd like to return to a time when people could lie and get away with it. Which is probably not what he wants to put out there next to his name - which is why I suggested he might want to walk it back.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't acknowledge that what you insist was a lie was in fact a lie. Nor do I believe that you have made a convincing case that it was. Certainly nothing convincing to me.
All I see are attempts to divert a good thread away from intelligent discussion of interesting and puzzling phenomena towards highly emotional personal attacks on board participants.
That's not very helpful or productive.
Last edited: