Consider history as a discipline of research. That is not a science – nor does it claim to be a science, yet it applies scientific methodology in its research.
Current best practices of history are conducted using the same methodology as sciences. Historians back up their claims with material evidence and don't promote the existence of events, objects, personages, or beings which are unsupported by material evidence.
Now if you're talking about quack historical practices that seek to establish versions of history without proper evidence, like Biblical archeology, "Christ myth" conspiracism, or Holocaust revisionism, then those fields are just as pseudoscientific as ufology.
No-one is talking about “proof” here
Are you really going to sit there and lie, when I already posted the quote along with a link to the original post to prove it?
Ufology stated that he wanted to apply
critical thinking to the discussion of UFOs, then he immediately stacked the deck with special pleadings and cherry-picked, vague redefinitions of "critical thinking" to inhibit the use of actual critical thinking.
The "proof" argument was one of yours, which I'll get to in a moment.
...we have a body of evidence (some anecdotal) but also radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence, that would suggest a real phenomenon (or phenomena).
None of which amounts to a hill of beans where serious study is concerned. The types of "evidence" you cite are all easily fabricated, counterfeited or misinterpreted. Your allegation of "trace evidence" of extraterrestrial origin is a lie. No such evidence exists.
No material evidence of ET has
ever been objectively judged by scientific analysis to be ET in origin. I am asking you politely now to please stop
restating this blatant lie over and over again.
One cannot talk about that evidence “bending the rules of science” unless you propose we know all the rules of science there is to know.
This is an
appeal to ignorance. "Not knowing everything" does not support the existence of objects for which no material evidence exists.
Perhaps UFOs operate within the laws of science but it is as Arther C. Clarke stated “ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”.
There is no evidence to believe that UFOs "operate" at all, Arthur C. Clarke notwithstanding. Misapplying a quote such as this to support your argument is an example of misleading
appeal to authority. The fact that Arthur C. Clarke made a statement about humans misunderstanding unfamiliar, advanced technology does not logically support your
appeal to ignorance (the position that because we don't know what they are, UFOs might therefore represent ET technology).
You say these type of things – these unfounded assertions - but you never get around to supporting them with logical argument or evidence. Do you believe that the mere statement of unfounded assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?
You're lying yet again. I supported my critiques of your and
ufology's arguments with logical reasoning and have even provided links to definitions of the fallacies right there in my posts.
So what is it about ufology’s arguments that are valid yet do not address the issue?
The arguments
ufology forwarded (that accurate measurement of dangerous forces is important for human safety, and that the pioneer spirit has produced positive discoveries) have absolutely nothing to do with the reasoning behind science relying on material evidence instead of mere stories and easily-hoaxed forms of documentation. It's a red herring, just like the "
Chewbacca Defense" from
South Park.
Once again, you say those things, but provide no logical or evidentiary support. . Do you believe that the mere statement of unfounded assertions will somehow magically confer veracity on them?
Don't you ever get tired of lying? Does honesty really mean so little to you? It's RIGHT F*ING THERE in my post above, along with links to the definitions of the fallacies you guys had committed. I can't believe you don't even bother to address the allegations I made, and instead resort to such despicably lazy and dishonest tactics.
The quote I cited was talking about ALL kinds of evidence – it is not limited merely to the physical. Perhaps you should read it over…?
I read it over, and it's still wrong. The blog post you quoted was discussing the measurable properties of physical evidence that can be objectively plotted and correlated with other bits of physical evidence. Insisting that the properties that make physical evidence stronger ought to be attributed to anecdotal evidence also, makes it a false comparison (apples and oranges).
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, no matter what it is being used to support. One just has to be aware of the pitfalls of relying on that type of evidence - in that it is particularly prone to error when compared to other types of evidence. However that does not mean we cannot assess such evidence for reliability and veracity.
With regard to anecdotal evidence, context is everything. So much so that anecdotal evidence is entirely useless in certain contexts, such as propping up a belief in some physical phenomenon which has never been objectively proven to exist. Anecdotal evidence has
no veracity in such cases.
“ If the critics are correct and that UFOs are merely misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (speed, shape, etc) between reports that have been identified as mundane objects and those reports that have not.”
If you say so, but the contention is that all reports are principally cause by misidentified mundane objects.
This is a
strawman argument. Nobody here has made this argument. You took a variety of plausible explanations for UFOs and eliminated all but the two that would most conveniently prove your point that ET is a valid hypothesis. This is a
false dichotomy that does not exist in real life, or in any arguments made by anyone around here. This is dishonest. I'm going to ask you now to please stop using this argument.
If that is the case, then there should be no difference between the groups on the defined characteristics. It’s not a hard concept to grasp surely?
Despite being a response to a disingenuous strawman argument, this is a false dichotomy as I pointed out above. Please stop using this dishonest approach. It's presumptuous, it's illogical, and even if it were possible to assess experimentally, it would prove nothing.
Moreover, independent studies have shown that the hoaxes, delusions, psychological effects, etc are an insignificant factor (between 1-2% of reports). (Optical illusions merely being one of the factors that cause misidentification).
Yeah I was going to get to this one eventually, but thanks for bringing it up. This is a
false attribution and a
misuse of statistics. You're citing statistics from a number of unrelated studies (that had actually produced varied results), without any indication as to how those numbers were arrived at. You state categorically that hoaxes and human cognitive error only account for a paltry 1% of all sightings, but there's no clarification as to how the researchers got to that conclusion. Please refrain from citing statistics as proof of anything without being prepared to back them up with adequate documentation showing the researchers' methodology.
I have proposed no explanation for UFOs, merely that they have no plausible mundane explanation (and are thus unknown). The ETH is however a plausible explanatory hypothesis because we have the circumstantial evidence
That alone is your own subjective opinion, and that's fine. You're entitled to believe whatever you choose to, and your reasons for believing it are your own. Just don't try to pass it off as objective reality because as far as science is concerned, there's no proof that ET life even exists at all, let alone the notion that they've ever visited Earth.
...suggesting this (ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent manoeuvres and associated beings) and there is nothing in science that would preclude it.
This is where your line of reasoning run off the rails. There is
no conclusive evidence at all for any "'nuts and bolts' craft, intelligent manoeuvres and associated beings." It just doesn't exist, and your
argument ad nauseum won't make it so. You can put on some ruby slippers and click your heels just so and repeat "'nuts and bolts' craft... 'nuts and bolts' craft... 'nuts and bolts' craft..." all day long and that won't change the fact that it's an unsupported assumption. Repeating it as if it is a fact is a lie, and I'm politely asking you to please refrain from using that tactic any more.
That does not mean it is the correct hypothesis, just another in a range of explanatory hypotheses.
It's not a valid hypothesis at all, because it's unfalsifiable and can't be proven.
You claim that ufology and I are not thinking critically. According to your own logic you then need to support that claim with evidence or logical argument.
I have provided logical explanations and links to definitions for clarification wherever I felt it was necessary. If you have any specific questions about my reasoning or identification of any of these fallacies, go ahead and ask.
In doing that you might like to address yourself to the replies in rebuttal that I have provided for your arguments above (but of course you won’t will you…).
Of course I will. I always strive to be an honest and responsible debater.
...we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence).
My statement is not an argument John Albert, it merely lists the types of evidence we have (multiple eyewitness is missing).
It is a claim made within the context of a debate, therefore it is by definition an
argument.
I refer you to my discussion above, where I already addressed this issue.
To clarify, everything you've cited is based on
unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence. Regardless how many people come forward with UFO stories, it won't change the fact that stories alone will never be sufficient to support claims of extraordinary phenomena for which no material evidence exists.
To date, we have no "'nuts and bolts' craft," no evidence of "intelligent control" mechanisms, and absolutely no evidence of "associated beings." All that stuff is speculation based on stories. Likewise, there is no "physical trace evidence" that has ever been reliably demonstrated to be ET in origin.
So,
Rramjet, repeating that mantra over and over again constitutes a
dishonest debating tactic in itself, so if you're really concerned with intellectual honesty you will please stop repeating that litany of lies
ad nauseum.
I was wondering when you would get around to the bullying ad hominem attacks…
I'll get to them. As I said before, I'm not even halfway through page 3 yet.
