UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Resume]

The above adresses the arguer not the argument and presents no useful information at all while at the same time implying the arguer has some limited capacity for understanding. Such posts constitute subtle flames and do not contribute constructively to the discussion. Nor do they enhance the credibility of the skeptics who post them.

j.r.

In order to advance the argument, one must demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above adresses the arguer not the argument and presents no useful information at all while at the same time implying the arguer has some limited capacity for understanding.

The above has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Such posts constitute subtle flames and do not contribute constructively to the discussion.

What discussion would that be? The drivel about how made-up memories are the same as the self-correcting nature of science? The only thing that might be done constructively with that garbage would be to start a compost heap with it.

Nor do they enhance the credibility of the skeptics who post them.

As judged by whom? You?

That will be the day.

 

[Stray Cat]

We retreive lost memories and refresh our memories using our brains capacity to so on a regular basis.

And scientific studies (which have already been linked for you previously) conclude that, we're actually not very good at it.

Furthermore they are very often completely accurate.

No they aren't, (as shown by the scientific studies you've already been linked to previously)

So why does the above poster call it ridiculous?

Because it's a ridiculous and unsupported claim.
You can not use your memory to correct an incorrectly remembered event.

 

[ufology]

Project much?

No.
Without verification from external sources, you have no idea if your memory is accurate or not. This is not to say that it is always inaccurate, but there is no objective way to verify it's accuracy without external sources. If you have an inaccurate memory (say you misremember someone's name, that's not forget someone's name but have a distinct memory of it being a name which it isn't), there is nothing in your memory that you can reference to correct it. The only way to correct it is to wipe the incorrect memory when you actually physically find out what the person's name really is.


Again you misrepresent what is being said.
It's not mechanisms of science which are self correcting. It is the continual process of scientific method which in the long term corrects mistakes by excepting contrary evidence from other sources. It doesn't look inwards and correct itself, it looks outwards for contrary evidence.

So the above poster thinks people don't forget simple things like people's names, then try to remember them, and actually do remember them, perfectly accurately ... so of course his assertion is completely false because it happens all the time and it has probably happened to him and every reader of this thread and millions of other people. It's just plain self-evident.

As for misrepresenting science ... it wasn't me that made the statement that "science is self-correcting", it was someone else. I simply applied the same logic used to rebut my point about reconstructing memories to show how science corrects iteself by reconstructing experiments ... it's perfectly logical.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

We retreive lost memories and refresh our memories using our brains capacity to so on a regular basis.

The trouble is that those refreshed memories are apallingly inaccurate.

Your own misremembered campfire story is evidence of that.

Furthermore they are very often completely accurate.

Piffle.

So why does the above poster call it ridiculous?

Because it is.

Notice there are no reasons given. Only proclaimations of "bollocks" and deragatory labeling without any supporting rationale. The poster's comment is utterly worthless.

Bollocks.

 

[RoboTimbo]

We retreive lost memories and refresh our memories using our brains capacity to so on a regular basis. Furthermore they are very often completely accurate.

j.r.

OK, in these recent posts, I'll stand corrected on the word "some".

j.r.

...I've admitted my memory isn't perfect..

j.r.

LOL

 

[Akhenaten]

As for misrepresenting science ... it wasn't me that made the statement that "science is self-correcting", it was someone else.

Of course it was someone else. That's why nobody is disputing it.

I simply applied the same logic used to rebut my point about reconstructing memories to show how science corrects iteself by reconstructing experiments ... it's perfectly logical.

Logical in the same way that it's logical to conclude that apples and oranges are exactly alike because they both grow on trees.

 

[AdMan]

So the above poster thinks people don't forget simple things like people's names, then try to remember them, and actually do remember them, perfectly accurately ... so of course his assertion is completely false because it happens all the time and it has probably happened to him and every reader of this thread and millions of other people. It's just plain self-evident.

As for misrepresenting science ... it wasn't me that made the statement that "science is self-correcting", it was someone else. I simply applied the same logic used to rebut my point about reconstructing memories to show how science corrects iteself by reconstructing experiments ... it's perfectly logical.

j.r.

It is not perfectly logical. You are talking about remembering something you had forgotten. That is locating the memory again. It is not reconstructing the memory.

We do reconstruct memories, every time we recall them, but as mentioned that means we are molding the memories in our minds, adding noise, not correcting for errors.

Your equating this process with how science self-corrects through experimentation makes no sense.

 

[Resume]

So the above poster thinks people don't forget simple things like people's names

j.r.

Names? Versus a decades-old, late-night memory? Really?

 

[TjW]

Perhaps the self-corrector needs self-correcting?

 

[RoboTimbo]

relevant examples

j.r.

OK, in these recent posts, I'll stand corrected on the word "some".

j.r.

...I've admitted my memory isn't perfect..

j.r.

LOL again.

 

[Stray Cat]

So the above poster thinks people don't forget simple things like people's names, then try to remember them, and actually do remember them, perfectly accurately ... so of course his assertion is completely false because it happens all the time and it has probably happened to him and every reader of this thread and millions of other people. It's just plain self-evident.

Strawman... and a really big one at that, seeing as I even made a point of saying "that's not forget someone's name but have a distinct memory of it being a name which it isn't"

As we are talking about self correcting in that something is found to be wrong (not forgotten) and then put right.
It's completely different from something that was right and then forgotten and then remembered again.

As for misrepresenting science ... it wasn't me that made the statement that "science is self-correcting", it was someone else. I simply applied the same logic used to rebut my point about reconstructing memories to show how science corrects iteself by reconstructing experiments ... it's perfectly logical.

No it's not.
Science looks outwards for contrary evidence and when it's found, it corrects conclusions based upon outdated or inaccurate evidence.
Memory fumbles about in it's own circuitry and if it's faulty at source, it'll copy the faulty bits along with everything else and there's no way of telling it's faulty.

 

[ufology]

It is not perfectly logical. You are talking about remembering something you had forgotten. That is locating the memory again. It is not reconstructing the memory.

We do reconstruct memories, every time we recall them, but as mentioned that means we are molding the memories in our minds, adding noise, not correcting for errors.

Your equating this process with how science self-corrects through experimentation makes no sense.

The above poster has lost the context of the conversation. It was asserted that science is self correcting but memory isn't. However I gave examples of how memory is in-fact self-correcting by giving examples, including the automatic retreival of lost memories and ways of rebuilding memories and correcting errors. And I've gave an example of how certain forms of self correction, particularly reconstructing a memory from logical reasoning and investigation, is analagous to recreating a scientific experiment in order to correct for errors. In this context, contrary to what the above poster claims, I have made perfect sense ( figuratively ).

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above poster makes no useful commentary

<snip>

Who the hell are you addressing these comments to, exactly?

Are you of the opinion that there's an unseen horde of lurkers out here depending on you to give a blow-by-blow description of your own efforts to refute the arguments of the eebil sceptics?

I have some bad news for you.

 

[ufology]

Who the hell are you addressing these comments to, exactly?

Are you of the opinion that there's an unseen horde of lurkers out here depending on you to give a blow-by-blow description of your own efforts to refute the arguments of the eebil sceptics?

I have some bad news for you.

I am addressing my comments to the readers, some of whom may or may not be following the converstaion live, and who may run across it on some Internet search.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above poster has lost the context of the conversation.

Argumentum ex broken recordium is no way to go through life, son.

It was asserted that science is self correcting but memory isn't.

An assertion, one notes, that is heartily endorsed by everyone but the sole pseudoscientist involved in the discussion.

However I gave examples of how memory is in-fact self-correcting by giving examples, including the automatic retreival of lost memories and ways of rebuilding memories and correcting errors.

Rubbish.

And I offer no explanation for this remark because it's blindingly self-evident.

And I've gave an example of how certain forms of self correction, particularly reconstructing a memory from logical reasoning and investigation, is analagous to recreating a scientific experiment in order to correct for errors.

You've gave no such thing.

In this context, contrary to what the above poster claims, I have made perfect sense ( figuratively ).

Figurative bollocks.

 

[Akhenaten]

I am addressing my comments to the readers, some of whom may or may not be following the converstaion live, and who may run across it on some Internet search.

People who search for 'research + evidence + UFOs' are going to be disappointed, aren't they?

 

[AdMan]

Who the hell are you addressing these comments to, exactly?

Are you of the opinion that there's an unseen horde of lurkers out here depending on you to give a blow-by-blow description of your own efforts to refute the arguments of the eebil sceptics?

I have some bad news for you.

I am addressing my comments to the readers, some of whom may or may not be following the converstaion live, and who may run across it on some Internet search.

j.r.

I find this amusing too. Why don't you direct your answers to whoever is addressing you? It's bizarre.

And I have not lost the context of the conversation. I am pointing out how your points are illogical. Memory is not self-correcting in any way analogous to how science is. That you keep making this erroneous claim doesn't make it right. The above poster is wrong, anonymous Internet reader.

 

[John Albert]

How much of a mystery does one need? Sure it's an annecdote, but the sighting was moved over here from the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread ... so I never presented it as "proof" in the first place.

This is incorrect. You first posted about your sighting in this thread, not the "Knowers/Believers" thread.

Here's the first post where you ever mentioned your UFO sighting, right here in this thread, a little over a month ago on July 22nd, and here's the first post where you actually offered an account of your story, on July 23rd.

Your memory must be faultier than you remember, if you can't even recollect basic details of something that happened only a month ago.

That's only 38 days ago, and we're expected to trust your recall of events from over 36 years ago?

 

[Resume]

People who search for 'research + evidence + UFOs' are going to be disappointed, aren't they?

UFOs + fireflys on the other hand . . .