• 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.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
FlashKittie.jpg
 
Stray Cat,
I love the art, but you have the "its" problem.

(on edit - apologies if you were being ironicles)
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
ufol, you can quibble the odd hundred metres, but do you understand why this is irrelevant when the firefly hypothesis is still plausible? ... bla bla bla
Click to expand...


Tauri:

Whether or not you were there doesn't justify changing people's stories around to suit yourself. Why? Because no futhering of truth can be attained by fabricating your own evidence.

It is fair minded to either accept a story for the sake of inquiry and discussion or simply reserve judgement. If you accept the story for the sake of inquiry and discussion, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask people how they are so certain of what they saw, how they judged the distances and so on, and look for clues within their stories.

If they are unsure of why they believe some particular aspect, then it's fair to propose something else that is possible and fits the story. But as soon as you start injecting your own assumptions into things people are sure about and have good reasons for being sure about, then you are injecting your own bias and your skepticism becomes useless.

Simply put, if you choose to examine a case, you need to establish the key factors and find logical counters to the reasons people give you, not change their stories to suit yourself.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
folo:
There is no "case." Please look at the thread title. Evidence - got any?
Click to expand...


Carlitos:

Please give us your definition of evidence. I provided one from an independent dictionary and it was simply mocked. So let's have it. What do you define as "evidence". Provide your references.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Tauri:

Whether or not you were there doesn't justify changing people's stories around to suit yourself. Why? Because no futhering of truth can be attained by fabricating your own evidence.
Click to expand...
I can only assume that you are talking to yourself here.

It is fair minded to either accept a story for the sake of inquiry and discussion or simply reserve judgement. If you accept the story for the sake of inquiry and discussion, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask people how they are so certain of what they saw, how they judged the distances and so on, and look for clues within their stories.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. It would be folly to accept an extraordinary claim when the only evidence that someone has of that claim is the claim itself.

If they are unsure of why they believe some particular aspect, then it's fair to propose something else that is possible and fits the story. But as soon as you start injecting your own assumptions into things people are sure about and have good reasons for being sure about, then you are injecting your own bias and your skepticism becomes useless.
Click to expand...
We've been asking those questions and your story has evolved over time. Why would you ever think it would be prudent to reserve judgment on an extraordinary claim based on a changing claim which the claimant wishes was evidence for itself and the only arguments have been textbook fallacies?

Simply put, if you choose to examine a case, you need to establish the key factors and find logical counters to the reasons people give you, not change their stories to suit yourself.
Click to expand...
The claimant with the extraordinary claim needs to find extraordinary evidence to support that claim. The claimant also needs to ensure that he isn't dishonest in his answers and that his story is internally consistent and unchanging.
 
RoboTimbo said:
I can only assume that you are talking to yourself here.

No, you are incorrect. It would be folly to accept an extraordinary claim when the only evidence that someone has of that claim is the claim itself.

We've been asking those questions and your story has evolved over time. Why would you ever think it would be prudent to reserve judgment on an extraordinary claim based on a changing claim which the claimant wishes was evidence for itself and the only arguments have been textbook fallacies?

The claimant with the extraordinary claim needs to find extraordinary evidence to support that claim. The claimant also needs to ensure that he isn't dishonest in his answers and that his story is internally consistent and unchanging.
Click to expand...


Timbo:

You've missed the entire point, misrepresented my position, and offered up your usual offhanded judgmental biased opinons and proclaimations. Try again.
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

Please give us your definition of evidence. I provided one from an independent disctionary and it was simply mocked. So let's have it. What do you define as "evidence". Provide your references.
Click to expand...

Only a dishonest coward that argues semantics instead of facts would require this. No thanks.

ETA - disctionary? Freudian slip much?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Timbo:

You've missed the entire point, misrepresented my position, and offered up your usual offhanded judgmental biased opinons and proclaimations. Try again.
Click to expand...

olog,

You have failed to comprehend something as simple as the null hypothesis which has been explained to you many, many times. There is no surprise that my points flew right over your head like a firefly.
 
carlitos said:
Only a dishonest coward that argues semantics instead of facts would require this. No thanks.
Click to expand...


Carlitos:

So your response is to project your own fear of playing fair onto me by name calling and refusing to define what you ask for. Typical tactics for the skeptics here. Do you act this way in real life too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom