Here is your big failure. It is so big it is incomprehensible to me how you miss it, but I see you have missed it in every post so far.
Every single one of us has said it IS a UFO.
Some have offered possibilities, but NO ONE has offered to change it to an IFO.
NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON IN THIS THREAD HAS DENIED IT IS A UFO.
It IS a UFO. It will REMAIN a UFO for eternity, regardless of all else (barring the invention of time travel).
Righhhht… Yeah…ooookay…. Sure…have it your way…. All that argument about blimps was…merely a word game… playing with semantics for the sheer and bloody minded hell of it then? (shrugs)… well, at least we have the positive admission that “EVERY single one of us has said it is a UFO” Now while that is plainly and in itself demonstrably a false assertion… I’ll be big enough to let it slide…(and of course by “it” you mean the Rogue River UFO).
Therefore my contention that UFOs exist has then been verified by the evidence presented in the Rogue River case.
… this is the part that gets you labeled a liar.
No one has said it is a blimp. Some have said it COULD be a blimp, which means that it is possibly mundane. Some have extended themselves far enough to say probably a blimp. NONE have said definitely a blimp.
Oookayyyy… sure… Then NONE have said definitely a blimp” (again technically incorrect) BUT they sure as hell implied that was what they BELIEVED it was… and the whole tenor of the argument played out exactly as I stated… but again I’ll be big enough not to need to argue the technicalities and let that slide also…there are bigger fish to fry.
I stated:
And then, if I say, well you really have to show me direct evidence for your contention, the debunker says, “Oh no, it is plausible, that’s all, the burden of proof is on you to show how it could NOT have been that mundane explanation…and THEN of course we are back into the illogical position described above in the burden of proof. One strict standard of evidence for me (having to prove BOTH the positive and the negative), another for them (having to prove nothing at all).
And you replied:
They are correct - to accept an extraordinary theory one would require an extraordinary evidence, to accept an ordinary theory one only needs an ordinary evidence. Simple, grade school scientific method.
I guess this is my fault. I assumed people knew about logical forms. But guess I forget that I have had the benefit of formal training. I can only conclude that people just can’t grasp the concepts without that benefit of formal training. Pity – because this is supposed to be a skeptical forum supposedly aimed at critical thinking…
A small lesson might then be in order and might illuminate what I mean about the burden of proof (and please I AM trying to be genuine and non-condescending here):
If I make an assertion that X is true, do you, as a critical thinker, take my word for it? No of course not. I could be a complete nutter making wild claims. You therefore demand some kind of verification that X is indeed true. You would be remiss if you did not. In short you demand to see the evidence that X is true. Entirely a reasonable proposition. Agreed?
Now, You make the assertion that Y is true. As a critical thinker, do I take your word for it. No, of course not. You could be a complete nutter making wild claims. I therefore demand some kind of verification that Y is indeed true. I would be remiss if I did not. In short I demand to see the evidence that Y is true. Again, an entirely reasonable proposition. Agreed?
Now, no matter WHAT X or Y represents, the same logical rules should apply. For imagine if the same rules did NOT apply. Why then we have entered a world where logical forms no longer apply, and rules are simply made up on the whim of the person to suit the circumstance and belief of the moment. All rational inquiry is lost to us.
Further, your claim might seem perfectly ordinary and mundane to you, but if ANY person considers it to be extraordinary, then you MUST provide proof of that claim. ANY claim must be supported by evidence, no matter WHAT the claim represents. Either the evidence is there to support that claim, or it is not. I simply does NOT matter whether the claim is extra-ordinary, mundane, stupid, simple…whatever, the same formal requirements apply to each claim equally.
This whole matter of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is an irrational trick, invented to distract people from rational, critical thinking. It is an anathema to scientific inquiry. The matter is really quite simple. Either a claim can be supported by the evidence, or it cannot.
I stated also:
There is also the physics is dead argument. Where the debunker claims “aliens” are impossible because physics precludes such journeys through space. This IS of course simply stating that no new breakthroughs in physics are possible that might allow just that to occur. Which is again an illogical proposition.
And you replied:
Bringing magic into the argument doesn't advance your position. There ARE limitations to how far our physics can be "wrong" and still yield the experimental results that they do. Magic is outside those limits.
Again a small (!) lesson in logical form and rational inquiry might help you out here.
Imagine we lived in the 1800s. I hypothesise (note not claim – merely suppose) to you that there are objects on earth that, when you rotate them through 720 degrees, they return to their original position. You would have said I was completely insane. You would have contended that physics simply does NOT allow such a thing. You would refer me to the comprehensive and scientifically verified works of Newton.
What if I then argued that your denial of such things precludes advances in physics that would show that such things are indeed possible.
Of course, by your logic, you would contend I was invoking “magic” and that such a thing does NOT advance my position.
Then Lo…a century later we discover quarks and also discover that at least some of these strange objects do indeed exhibit such properties. I am proven RIGHT.
Now. Apply that to my hypothesis that it is possible that advances in physics might show us a way to travel interstellar distances.
You claim that is impossible because physics precludes it. Your argument (as it was in the 1800s) is that I am invoking “magic”. Not at all, I am merely stating that YOU cannot claim to know what advances might come in the future.
And please note carefully, I am merely hypothesising, supposing, asking what if? And that IS an entirely legitimate scientific pursuit. You on the other hand are stating a categorical: “Science precludes that” – when you actually do NOT know if it is possible or not.
Now, I can see how you might object… If we cannot rule things OUT using current science, then we cannot advance our knowledge, for then “anything goes” and we cannot say with certainty that a proposition is not applicable to a given situation.
However, that is precisely why science is investigative. We test hypotheses, over and over, not trusting the single observation, BECAUSE of the possibility that indeed “anything goes” and even after we have tested and retested we can NEVER be 100% certain that something in the future might present an example that contradicts ALL our investigative attempts and we have to start over with a new hypothesis. And that has happened SO many times throughout history it is a wonder we think that science has any value at all! But THAT is the nature of science. THAT IS just the way of things. That is the way it IS.
Just because we don’t like the way it is, does not mean we cannot learn to live with it. Just because we do not like the way it IS, does not mean we have to shoot the messenger when he/she points out that that IS the way it is. And just because we do not like the way it is, does not mean that the logic of the messenger pointing it out to us incorrect. No…we just have to learn to live with it.
THIS part is why I am still reading - I want to see your evidence that "aliens" of any sort is a plausible explanation. If you can show evidence that these aliens exist, then your alternative becomes worthy of consideration. If you can't, then the mundane must remain the "most likely" (not definitive) explanation. Without evidence that such aliens even exist, anything other than a mundane explanation requires extraordinary evidence, which so far has not been produced.
I am not committed to any theory here - I like the idea of aliens (although I would prefer they be faeries, but I'll take what I can get). I just need to see some reason to think they exist. My head likes to invent enough stuff on its own without me falling for stuff someone else's invented.
Now we are getting somewhere. I fully appreciate your hanging in this far. Indeed I applaud your tenacity and your obvious reading through of my logic and trying to come to grips with it. Thank you. I could of course object to your value judgements – and there will come a time when I MUST dispel certain fallacies behind including terms like “most likely” – but now is NOT the time or place. It will come up when I present the evidence and that will be time enough.
Now. Apparently the link I provided did not work. I have NO idea why. It is the same link I reposted that DOES work. Just in case, I’ll post it here again.
Trans en Provence UFO (8 Jan 1981)
(
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1981.htm)
). I think continuously misrepresenting other people's point of view is exceptionally rude. I guess it's easy to be cool when you're making up what other people are saying so you can shoot down strawmen.
