• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

Stray Cat said:
Got any links to verify what you've seen?

Maybe you've seen sceptics concluding that possible known phenomena haven't been ruled out... which is completely different.
Click to expand...
Message board posts aren't the sort of thing I commit to memory well enough to go back and be able to find them that, I suppose that also makes them the sort of thing I don't commit to memory well enough to keep it roughly accurate.

I've seen "official explanations" for UFO phenomenon from things like the air force and project blue book, but maybe you don't consider those true skeptics. According to an interview I saw once, the purpose of project bluebook was just to quiet down hysteria rather than find truth so they'd just give whatever explanation they think they could get away with. (I can't cite a TV show I don't remember the name of).

In general though, I see the whole UFO debate being "known explanation vs. extra-dimensional/terrestrialsomethingorother beings". I have seen a lack of mention of the middle ground between that like undiscovered meteorological/psychological/other natural phenomena. That's what gives me my impression; could you cite examples of people talking about that middle ground?
 
Pure Argent said:
...

I never questioned that the scout had seen artillery...


No, it didn't. Why must you continue to strawman?

Skepticism only says that it is possible that the reporter was mistaken, and that, unless the fish is actually found, we still don't have proof of its existence. It doesn't say that the reporter is crazy. It is when the reporter spends fifty years and thousands of dollars looking for this fish and keeps returning empty-handed, yet still maintains that he was entirely and absolutely correct that it crosses the line into crazy.

...
Click to expand...

You required 'verification' of your scout's report, before acting...you "skeptic". You WASTED a move.

Talk about attacking a strawman!

The scientist was RIGHT about glowing fish. You'd return full fisted with glowing fish, if you went looking today.
 
King of the Americas said:
The question is really, why should we disregard ALL the tales of 'heavenly agents'...?
Click to expand...

Because every time one of these tales is explained, the explanation is mundane. Chances are, the ones that are still unexplained will also have a mundane explanation, we just don't have the evidence to say which one.

It's not rational to ASSUME it must be something we can't understand.

"Don't know" <> "Can't understand"
 
Crocoshark said:
In general though, I see the whole UFO debate being "known explanation vs. extra-dimensional/terrestrialsomethingorother beings". I have seen a lack of mention of the middle ground between that like undiscovered meteorological/psychological/other natural phenomena. That's what gives me my impression; could you cite examples of people talking about that middle ground?
Click to expand...

There are eyewitness accounts of various phenomena that have been dismissed because they didn't fit scientific understanding. The one that pops to mind is rogue waves. Stories of waves a hundred feet high (or whatever the height was; well over the theoretical limit) were viewed as exaggerations until finally there was a confirmed sighting that could not be ignored. From this, scientists were forced to re-evaluate their understanding of how waves are formed and how big they can grow.

As usual in such cases, it turned out that their theories weren't wrong, just incomplete.

People often use stories like this to bolster their belief in fringe theories like alien visitation. The problem is, the gap between what was previously understood about waves and what was actually possible is small. Finding out that a wave can be twice as high as the models indicated isn't quite the paradigm shift as, say, finding out that aliens have figured out how to cross light-years of space and are flying around in our airspace, but for some reason are keeping quiet about it.
 
King of the Americas said:
You required 'verification' of your scout's report, before acting...you "skeptic". You WASTED a move.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as another "I didn't read your post, PA, and I'm just going to rattle on about what I imagine you said". I required verification because the scenario as I understood it allowed it.

Talk about attacking a strawman!
Click to expand...

Yes, I will talk about attacking a straw man, because that's exactly what you are doing here. You are still acting as though I required verification of the scout's report of artillery, when that was never the point of my response. I wanted verification that the artillery was undefended.

The scientist was RIGHT about glowing fish. You'd return full fisted with glowing fish, if you went looking today.
Click to expand...

And I never denied that, either, so you can stop repeating it like it actually makes a difference. Please try to read for comprehension rather than spouting nonsense. The fact that the scientist was right does not mean that his initial report was any more valid as evidence.

Crocoshark said:
I've seen "official explanations" for UFO phenomenon from things like the air force and project blue book, but maybe you don't consider those true skeptics.
Click to expand...

They might or might not be. It's irrelevant. You said:

The reason I say they're both losing is because neither are really bringing up things other then the false dichotomy of "aliens vs. something well known and understood"
Click to expand...

The Air Force giving a likely explanation for certain events is not evidence of a false dichotomy.

In general though, I see the whole UFO debate being "known explanation vs. extra-dimensional/terrestrialsomethingorother beings". I have seen a lack of mention of the middle ground between that like undiscovered meteorological/psychological/other natural phenomena.
Click to expand...

Because there's no more evidence for them than there is for the aliens. If you think it is an undiscovered meteorological phenomenon, you need evidence to support that.
 
King of the Americas said:
aggle-rithm said:
Because every time one of these tales is explained, the explanation is mundane.
Click to expand...
EVERY time...

Really?

You are sure about that?

I think that is a load of bull butter.
Click to expand...

RoboTimbo said:
Can you provide a link to one that was explained but wasn't mundane?
Click to expand...

aggle-rithm said:
Name one tale from ancient times that has been explained, and that explanation was not mundane.
Click to expand...


Count me in. When has one of these experiences/events been explained by something other than mundane? Have any that were explained ever turned out to be gods or spacelings or underworld humanoids?
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Someone witnessed a glowing fish, something completely unheard of and or 'alien' to them. Certainly no one had ever seen something like this first hand, much less recorded its existence. This lone witness held an accurate report of real creatures.

It would take years for him to be vindicated and were someone to claim they had seen glowing fish, a marine biologist might ask him to describe it, so that he could name it for him.

The REALITY is that these fish have probably existed for billions of years, only in the past 100 has anyone known of their existence. They existed BEFORE science recognized them, but the tip of the explorative sword held the truth the whole time.

We dismissed an account of truth regarding a new discovery, to our detriment.

---

*If a King, upon hearing of an approaching army, sent out a scout to bare witness to this invading army and what types of armaments they planned to employ, AND to take pictures.

The scout witnesses that the invaders have only a series of catapults, no calvary, archers, and only a few infantry men. Sadly all the pictures were lost, over-developed, rendered useless. The King has to develop a defense strategy and looks to his war counsel. The 'skeptics' argue that the scout COULD be wrong, that maybe he just didn't 'see' the calvary and archers, and that ANY defense plan should ignore any report of catapults without pictures of them. The scout himself argues that a small team of demolition assassins should be sent out to destroy the looming artillery...

Should the King take the word of a single man, or should the skeptical argument win the day? Should he send out a small demolition team, or empty out his own calvary and archers to make a full defense?

There is a war on, and every unit is invaluable...

'I' heed my scout's report.

Be as skeptical as you'd like. It won't deliver you timely truth.
Click to expand...

And your scout has been turned by the enemy and leads you to disaster.

I"d accept truth even if it was a bit late.
 
King of the Americas said:
I have seen aircraft fly, balloons launch, kites in flight, birds of every feather, and fireworks aplenty. I DON'T know what these were, but I know what they did.

For you to suggest that I had an isolated break with my senses, rather than witnessing the same thing hundreds of thousands of others have, shows a bias.

We can't ALL be having the same hallucination throughout time and around the world.
They exist.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
King of the Americas said:
So if it saves you time, AND demeans my actual stance then please...continue.

I don't know what it was. I only know my buddy and I witnessed something rather than nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, an out of this world experience with your buddy is a beautiful thing.
 
I'm skimming Ezekiel to see if he saw six at least seven lights making right turns, but in the first part he claims to have seen a 4 creatures with wheels instead. I'm wondering if towards the end of the book they start flashing blue and red, but I'm up to chapter 10 and all that has changed so far is that now it's a cherub instead of an ox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom