Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Trent Wray]

The 'objects in queston' only exist in your brain. You do understand this, right? We have no evidence for these 'objects,' only your word.

I know I'm jumping in the middle of an discussion I'm not a part of, but I wanted to add 2 cents, and also ask a question as this discussion might be a good example of something.

First) I have no opinion one way or another on UFO sightings. In other words, I don't know if they're man-made and/or optical illusions, or craft from "another place" or whatever. But twice I have seen what I thought were UFO's ---
The first one was at night as I was riding my bike and a group of lights over head appeared to be weaving in and out of each other as they flew in a straight line. I immediately stopped my bike and watched them as the hair on the back of my neck stood up. As I watched more closely, I realized they were a group of three P-51 Mustang style planes flying in formation, but not in a steady way ... thus their lights seemed to give the impression of expanding and weaving.
The second was a very strange object in a dusk sky which MADE NO NOISE and was flying in very odd patterns, it's lights further enhancing the effect. It wasn't straight, and it wasn't merely east/west etc. After watching it for about ten minutes, I finally made out a propeller and realized it was a normal aircraft and the pilot was doing aerial stunt style maneuvers. And even though it was a prop craft, it made no noise whatsover. At times, the plane appeared to go in one direction and almost stop in mid-air as it went up and went another direction ... but it was all a trick of my eyes based on POV.
So even though I'm not opposed to the ideas behind UFO's, in those two experiences, I saw some "classic" tell-tale signs and they did in fact turn out to be slow flying prop planes. I think part of it is we are so used to seeing jet planes these days and thinking in terms of that kind of speed and linear style pattern trails that to see prop planes at night doing strange maneuvers is counterintuitive.

Second) Is there a difference to "skeptics" in general between a)exploring evidence one thinks they have before tossing it out completely and/or b)viewing evidence in the light of it being a "burden of proof" for a claim. In other words, is there a difference between seeking for answers and the method used to seek --- between refuting a claim and scrutinizing a claim? It seems, so far in my experience here in a short couple of weeks, that often times a decision is already made in either case, and exploration verses final judgement are one and the same. I'm not trying to poke a beehive or open up a can o'worms ... it's just my op. But I am asking in a general sense, because I'm realizing that I don't understand the concept of "skeptic" and the general view on phenomena and how it's examined overall, and that's what I'm trying to learn

Thanx!

 

[realpaladin]

I suggested that earlier, hallucinations are common in people who have survived a trauma. KotA by his own admission in another thread was in a serious car crash and severely injured

try getting him to acknowledge that
he won't

Hey, I remember that thread as well, I think it was on the Google Maps artefacts...

 

[carlitos]

But I am asking in a general sense, because I'm realizing that I don't understand the concept of "skeptic" and the general view on phenomena and how it's examined overall, and that's what I'm trying to learn

I don't even know that I'm a skeptic, but "King of The Americas" says that he saw something. There is no RADAR or photographic evidence presented. That's why I was clarifying that these objects only exist in his memory. He won't even acknowledge this fact, let alone try to reason how these memories might be flawed, or something other than UFO-type stuff.

Anyway, that's why I wrote the passage that you quoted. My mind is only made up about how to think, and not much else

 

[RoboTimbo]

But I am asking in a general sense, because I'm realizing that I don't understand the concept of "skeptic" and the general view on phenomena and how it's examined overall, and that's what I'm trying to learn

Thanx!

Probably a topic for another thread but replace the word "skeptic" with "critical thinking" and see what happens. For some reason "skeptic" seems to have a polarizing effect on people and they immediatly jump to thinking "cynic" or "denier".

Would it be thinking critically to take an anecdote from someone as evidence that objects can defy the laws of physics?

 

[Marduk]

Second) Is there a difference to "skeptics" in general between a)exploring evidence one thinks they have before tossing it out completely and/or b)viewing evidence in the light of it being a "burden of proof" for a claim. In other words, is there a difference between seeking for answers and the method used to seek --- between refuting a claim and scrutinizing a claim? It seems, so far in my experience here in a short couple of weeks, that often times a decision is already made in either case, and exploration verses final judgement are one and the same. I'm not trying to poke a beehive or open up a can o'worms ... it's just my op. But I am asking in a general sense, because I'm realizing that I don't understand the concept of "skeptic" and the general view on phenomena and how it's examined overall, and that's what I'm trying to learn

Thanx!

try this thread, there are 101 pages showing that the credibility ball is definitely in the sceptics court

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156375

 

[King of the Americas]

Just a hint, you should not be talking about logical fallacies, when you post an argument from incredulity like this:



OK, let me just see if I can summarize where you are coming from in my POV.

• You think* that you saw objects perform maneuvers that would kill human pilots.
• You can't think of a mundane explanation.
• Therefore, there is "something" "up there" that isn't "us."

Is that right?

* I know that you know that you saw something. But, unless you recorded it on video, the only evidence is in your brain. Correct?

Also, see here.

So, I am not allowed to use an accurate defense argument, because you think my argument are incredulous? That's interesting...

-TWO of us saw objects perform amazing maneuvers, that would indeed be impossible for human pilots to withstand.
-To date, no mundane explanation I have been offered 'matches' what we saw
-UNTIL an explanation of a mundane nature is present, I have no choice but to conclude "something else".

I DO agree however, that the evidence is 'mine', and not admissible for distribution.

I've never suffered a psychotic break nor hallucinated before or since, and neither had my co-witness. It is unlikely that we both did so, yielding the exact same experience, at exactly the same time.

 

[carlitos]

UNTIL an explanation of a mundane nature is present, I have no choice but to conclude "something else".

Wrong. First you rule out mundane, then you start thinking of "something else." You are doing it wrong. Having looked back at the thread, I don't suspect that you realize this.

It is unlikely that we both did so, yielding the exact same experience, at exactly the same time.

Also wrong. See here or here, just for example.

 

[King of the Americas]

The 'objects in queston' only exist in your brain. You do understand this, right? We have no evidence for these 'objects,' only your word.

The objects in question existed. The only thing in my brain, at present, are electrical impulses...'memories' of the event.

Agreed, in this case, all that you have is my word that I am being truthful.

MY conclusions don't require your believing me.

 

[Marduk]

-TWO of us saw objects perform amazing maneuvers, that would indeed be impossible for human pilots to withstand.

ahh, here you go again with the "extra" witness, I notice you only trot him out when youre up against it.

-To date, no mundane explanation I have been offered 'matches' what we saw

you have been offered several mundane explanations and discounted all of them without any thought.

-UNTIL an explanation of a mundane nature is present, I have no choice but to conclude "something else".

translates as, you will always conclude "aliens from another dimension" because you think it makes you special

the irony is that it just makes you woo, which isnt very special at all

 

[King of the Americas]

...

While no one in the history of the planet has ever encountered an intelligent species with more advanced technology than ours, ...

Please allow me to correct you: "no one in the history of the planet has ever 'COLLECTED CONCRETE PROOF' that an intelligent species with more advanced technology than ours, exists"

I have never suffered an injury or condition that would cause me & my buddy to hallucinate simultaneously in the exact same manner.

This is unlikely to be the cause of our experience.

 

[King of the Americas]

Which mundane explanations are you willing to entertain...

...

Would you like to hear about the Campeche UFOs?

One that 'fits' what I saw.

Campeche UFO's...? Sure I've got time, spew away...

 

[carlitos]

The objects in question existed.

You have no evidence other than your memory.
Your 'objects,' by your own admission, defied the laws of physics.
You have no proof for any "objects."

The only thing in my brain, at present, are electrical impulses...'memories' of the event.

You have been given many, many explanations as to how your memory may be inaccurate.

Agreed, in this case, all that you have is my word that I am being truthful.

I believe that you are 'truthful;' I just don't have any evidence for aliens or whatever.

MY conclusions don't require your believing me.

Nope. You may not see the connection, but both buddhists and jews think that they are right. And they don't require that I believe them, either.

"no one in the history of the planet has ever 'COLLECTED CONCRETE PROOF' that an intelligent species with more advanced technology than ours, exists"

And yet the wikipedia link I posted cites 16 known, proven cases of mass hysteria. Isn't that interesting.

 

[King of the Americas]

Are you sure? I found Googling at least 4 electrical models...

And there's always the mundane explanations:

- You are trolling.

- You are lying.

- You mistook a dream for a memory.

Those images don't look anything like what I saw...of course I haven't seen them in action... Buy them, fly them, video tape them, present the clips here, and I'll tell you if they are a match.

-I am not trolling

-I am not lying

-My friend and I did not have the exact same dream, that we both mistook for a memory.

 

[carlitos]

Why don't you write down "exactly" what you saw, and separately, your friend writes down "exactly" what he remembers seeing. Maybe draw a picture. Then post both here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

One that 'fits' what I saw.

The one I provided above with the RC plane. Were you incorrect about RC planes flying at night?

Campeche UFO's...? Sure I've got time, spew away...

Settle down, dude. Nobody is attacking you.

 

[carlitos]

Apropos of nothing, here are a couple hundred at least 86 optical illusions and visual phenomena.

 

[King of the Americas]

I'd like to thank you guys for your interest in this thread and my recollection(s).

However, I am finding that with every post, I am merely repeating the same answers to the same queries, for 22 pages now...

With that, I'm going to again attempt to excuse myself from this discussion. I'll peak back in now and then, and if there is anything 'new', I'll offer a retort.

Until then, I wish all of you well.

 

[carlitos]

While you're away, you could read the "New Testament writers told the truth" and the "UFOs, the research, the evidence" topics and think about how yours is different.

ETA - or the bigfoot threads.

Here's a BIG hint.

 

[Ravenwood]

I've flown remote controlled planes, and seen hundreds of them, in all sizes and shapes. They aren't flown at night or in rural areas, and are noisy. These were not. Please refrain from suggesting I said anything about "aliens", as I've never said any such thing.

I have noted the difference(s) between the mundane, and what I saw. To date, NONE have been close. I'll happily compare the details of another explanation, if you'd provide one.

And INDEED, I am well aware that my perception isn't evidence, 'to you'.

My experience flying a Zagi tells me that you are mistaken. I have on-board LEDs for night flying AND I fly in rural areas (Haiku, Polipoli & Hana) and it is not noisy. In fact, it HAS been mistaken by people for a UFO...Heck, people have mistaken my Fokker DR. I for a real plane when it is in the air...
http://www.zagi.com/index.php?main_...id=183&zenid=d9b61a3ffc9b9a6292a85d1fc0a2f305

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'd like to thank you guys for your interest in this thread and my recollection(s).

However, I am finding that with every post, I am merely repeating the same answers to the same queries, for 22 pages now...

With that, I'm going to again attempt to excuse myself from this discussion. I'll peak back in now and then, and if there is anything 'new', I'll offer a retort.

Until then, I wish all of you well.

You're excused, you've played your part well.