UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

​

I'm not entirely sure, but I think 'toxic element' is a euphemism for either GeeMack or Akhenaten

With the way he plays fast and loose with the language in order to bolster his own arguments, even at the expense of honesty and reality, I'd guess "toxic" actually means something like "reality oriented".

 

[John Albert]

My Foogy, biscuit padlock countess the see you next tuesday crampon that doodles treble clef?

How dare you say that about my mother! Why I orghta...

 

[Rincewind]

Is there any word in the English language that means what it used to?
I'm genuinely losing track.

I suppose I should ask Mr Foogy;
My Foogy, biscuit padlock countess the see you next tuesday crampon that doodles treble clef?

Ha!

That's easy for you to say....

I think you're just being antipragmatic, myself..

 

[Akhenaten]



 

[John Albert]



[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ToxicElement.jpg[/qimg]​

Saw those guys open for the Bad Brains back in '86. They sucked ass.

 

[Archer17]

...My Foogy, biscuit padlock countess the see you next tuesday crampon that doodles treble clef?

That's a trick question, ain't it?

I don't believe this thread is still going. So, do we have a specific planet/realm/thesaurus with which to assign to the 'U' in UFO yet here or is it just an 'alien craft and leave it at that' kinda thing? If so I'm kinda not shocked.
I gotta admit, "extraordinary skepticism" has a ring to it...separates the wheat from the chaff (or the weed from the seeds for you heads out there). I'd like to think I'm an extraordinary person. I'm also a 'skeptic.' Do I dare hope I qualify?

Don't answer that.

 

[23_Tauri]



[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ToxicElement.jpg[/qimg]​

 

[Krikkiter]



[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ToxicElement.jpg[/qimg]​

I may well have a job for you! Outside of visual woo debunking that is.

 

[ufology]

Let me get this straight: you're saying that extraordinary claims ought to be treated with no greater skepticism or scrutiny than mundane claims?

Say two kids show up at school without their homework.

One of them tells the teacher, "I forgot to take my book home last night, so I didn't do my homework."

The other says, "a tyrannosaurus rex came into my room last night and ate my homework after I'd gone to bed."

Are you saying that in that case the teacher should accept both stories as equally honest accounts, and not make any more special inquiry into the one with the extraordinary claim?

Q. Let me get this straight: you're saying that extraordinary claims ought to be treated with no greater skepticism or scrutiny than mundane claims?
A. No. I'm saying that all claims that require evidence, including so-called extraordinary claims, only need sufficient evidence, and the the idea of requiring anything more such as "extraordinary evidence" only demonstrates a subjective bias.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Q. Let me get this straight: you're saying that extraordinary claims ought to be treated with no greater skepticism or scrutiny than mundane claims?
A. No. I'm saying that all claims that require evidence, including so-called extraordinary claims, only need sufficient evidence, and the the idea of requiring anything more such as "extraordinary evidence" only demonstrates a subjective bias.

Mr Ufology, your answer misses the very obvious point that what is deemed sufficient varies with the nature of the claim.

 

[Pixel42]

Ordinary claim: There's a shed at the bottom of my garden
Extraordinary claim: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for ordinary claim: the claimer's word
Sufficient evidence for extraordinary claim: A jar containing a captured fairy which I can examine at my leisure.

 

[Akhenaten]

Q. Let me get this straight: you're saying that extraordinary claims ought to be treated with no greater skepticism or scrutiny than mundane claims?
A. No. I'm saying that all claims that require evidence, including so-called extraordinary claims, only need sufficient evidence, and the the idea of requiring anything more such as "extraordinary evidence" only demonstrates a subjective bias.

*** TOXIC ELEMENT ALERT ***


Reposted for the hard of seeing.

In other weasel words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary.

my strikingness

For mundane claims:

sufficient evidence = mundane evidence​

For extraordinary claims:

sufficient evidence = extraordinary evidence.​

It's not that hard, folo, despite your (and Rramjet's before you) concerted attempts at obfuscation.

*** TOXIC ELEMENT ALERT ***

 

[Sideroxylon]

We have been going around in circles for a quite while with the same points being made and ignored, misunderstood and/or misrepresented by the ufologist.

 

[Akhenaten]

We have been going around in circles for a quite while with the same points being made and ignored, misunderstood and/or misrepresented by the ufologist.

I think it's because ufology and reality are a pair of those non-overlapping magisteria thingies.

 

[Correa Neto]

You know, toxic elements may be involved in many UFO sighting reports.
Under their influence, a firefly may become a spacecraft from beyond the borders of what we call nature...

 

[tsig]

That's a trick question, ain't it?

I don't believe this thread is still going. So, do we have a specific planet/realm/thesaurus with which to assign to the 'U' in UFO yet here or is it just an 'alien craft and leave it at that' kinda thing? If so I'm kinda not shocked.
I gotta admit, "extraordinary skepticism" has a ring to it...separates the wheat from the chaff (or the weed from the seeds for you heads out there). I'd like to think I'm an extraordinary person. I'm also a 'skeptic.' Do I dare hope I qualify?

Don't answer that.

The argument as I see it:

While each report of a UFO might have a mundane explanation the only explanation for all of them is OMGAliens.

 

[tsig]

We have been going around in circles for a quite while with the same points being made and ignored, misunderstood and/or misrepresented by the ufrologist.

That spelling looks closer to the truth.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Q. Let me get this straight: you're saying that extraordinary claims ought to be treated with no greater skepticism or scrutiny than mundane claims?
A. No. I'm saying that all claims that require evidence, including so-called extraordinary claims, only need sufficient evidence, and the the idea of requiring anything more such as "extraordinary evidence" only demonstrates a subjective bias.

Please answer this, uf:

So with all of the extraordinarily high quality witnesses to UFOs ( witches ) throughout history, and the fact that they've been proven in courts of law ( triers of fact ), do you believe in UFOs ( witches ) or not?

 

[GeeMack]

Q. Let me get this straight: you're saying that extraordinary claims ought to be treated with no greater skepticism or scrutiny than mundane claims?
A. No. I'm saying that all claims that require evidence, including so-called extraordinary claims, only need sufficient evidence, and the the idea of requiring anything more such as "extraordinary evidence" only demonstrates a subjective bias.

But... but... the problem with that*, as it relates to the topic under discussion in this thread, is this: You do not have evidence, sufficient or otherwise, to support your claim that some UFOs are alien craft. You do not have evidence, sufficient or otherwise, to support your claim of seeing an alien craft. All you have is incredulity and ignorance. Really.

You can't rationally claim that what you saw was an alien craft because you don't know what an alien craft looks like. And you know why that is? The answer can be easily found if you take the time to honestly and objectively answer this:

Of all the things ever seen, apparently flying, initially unidentified but eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of them turned out to be alien craft?​

That question, if the pseudoscience of "ufology" allows for the courage and objectivity to answer it honestly, will show you that with respect to your claims, you are wrong and the skeptics are right. I contend that the pseudoscience of "ufology" simply does not allow for that, and ignoring reality is pretty much an absolute requirement for keeping the faith in the "UFOs = alien craft" conjecture.


*Actually there are so many problems with that, well, in this world where reality exists out here in the open and fantasy exists only inside people's heads, there isn't really anything about it that isn't a problem.

 

[carlitos]

I don't believe this thread is still going.

Did you catch the new, DOC-style ground rules? It just gets more and more surreal.

EHocking,

Never seen it before ... on my screen it's not where that screenshot you have shows it should be unless I scroll up to the thread link first and click on it. But that's not my process and I doubt I'll start doing it. I get email updates with a preview and if it catches my attention I hit the link and it takes me directly to the post. So maybe I don't get all the alerts or the preview has some toxic element that causes me to simply delete it.

You're doing it wrong, Mr. Ufology. (ETA - ^6)

I don't check in here much, but when I do it is to find the ufologist using deception, very much like a magician.

Like a magician with ten thumbs.