Archer:
First off, before we apply the concept to ufology, let's examine your assertion that you can't give credence to something just because it's not something else.
Not only is your assertion illogical, it is also untrue. Logic dictates that if something is not a part of one set, then it cannot be something within that same set. Therefore it must be something else...[snipped a hilarious analogy]
You'll have to do better than that. Your affirmations carry no weight with me. If you want to label what I write as “illogical” then you'll have to stick to critiquing what I actually wrote, it had nothing to do with anything being confined to the same “set.” I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I wasn't clear enough and get back to this in a minute. First I wanted to say that you cracked me up with that analogy of yours. While I appreciate the time and effort you invested to educate me about panning for gold (among other things) it was a fool's errand as far as this topic goes. You see, as
Stray Cat already touched on, folks panning for gold
know what gold looks like. Do you know what an ET craft looks like? See the difference? Anyway…
One can't give credence to something (ET craft) just because it's not something else (a plane), is that better?
The ‘U’ designation already establishes that what was supposedly witnessed didn't appear to be a familiar object to the observer(s) so telling me it's not a plane or whatever “mundane” alternative you can think of based on the literal acceptance of an anecdotal report is a waste of everyone's time. Obviously Joe Sixpack isn’t going to call MUFON if he thought he saw a plane, is he? You can't give credence to an object being something (ET craft) just because you decided to non-critically hitch your wagon to Mr. Sixpack’s anecdotal account and overlook the fact that he could have misinterpreted what he saw. Hell, maybe it wasn't a plane but what you fail to see is that the ‘U’ isn't confined to extraterrestrial possibilities only and actually includes the very real possibility that Joe is fibbing, delusional, or human enough to make any number of errors in observation. This failure to respect the ‘U’ and consider
all possibilities is all that you and other saucer-enablers seem to do. What we get from you is a narrow 'addition by subtraction' approach not to speculate, which would be OK, but to affirm that the
only logical conclusion would be accept that it
had to be ET dickering around. That's not a genuinely logical approach at all. Neither is the folly of 'ruling in’ something you can't know anything about - like hypothetical ET.
Lastly, we have the process of Deductive Reasoning:[snipped another definition link]...Consequently your assertion that such thinking does not represent critical thought is in error. The process is widely used and recognized. It may or may not provide proof, but that isn't rellevant to the point you had made. It is still most certainly a form of critical thinking. Therefore when it is being used, regardless of the subject matter, it cannot be maintained that mere "non-critical acceptance" is taking place.
If you don't agree, please state your reasons.
I have no problem with 'Deductive Reasoning per se and knew what the term meant just like I knew what “unidentified” meant before you showed up. My problems aren't with the meanings of various words, they are with
your various arguments
here. Notice how I underlined
your and
here? Think you can stick to the topic and make your own argument without a dictionary and/or definition link, or is that asking too much?
You can never sell the notion that your posting here reflects critical thinking when your own words betray you time and again
ufology. It’s that simple. You can’t “deductively reason” ET into existence in our skies with certainty, yet that is what you're trying to sell me here. You accept anecdote, more often than not in an uncritical manner, as sufficient “evidence” for your beliefs and naively think that flawed approach should work for everyone. You also appear to confuse self-rationalization with “reasoning,” that explains why you seem to think your lame affirmations here (UFOs
are alien craft, so and so is “illogical,”
this word really means
that, etc) are sufficient for whatever it is you are proposing. I almost fell out of my chair the first time I read what works for you regarding the premise that some UFOs are alien craft. Yesterday I even gave you a hint on how to snap out of rushing to judgment on that score when I brought up how you and other saucer-believers couldn’t tell us what planet they come from. I wanted you to really think about the ramifications of that. Guess that good-intentioned seed didn’t take root, did it?
