Most interesting UFO incidents thread

[tsig]

What, exactly, are you claiming dont' exist? Sounds like "alien craft", but I guess not?




Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence. The lack of any coelacanths convinced a lot of people they were extinct. Oops!

The lack of any alien craft in the entire universe is consistent with rare earth hypothesis: such craft don't exist because intelligent aliens don't exist.

"Science was wrong once so my woo is true" is a tired old gambit.

 

[tsig]

The point was not that they never existed, but that absence of evidence of any LIVING coelacanths convinced just about everyone they were extinct. One of the biggest epistemological problems people have is jumping to conclusions over an absence of evidence.

Yes finding a living coelacanth convinced people they weren't extinct so all you have to do is produce an alien ship and you will convince us.

 

[OCaptain]

Yeah. Never ask statisticians to speculate about anything like this.

It's just not in their wheelhouse. The tools they use are just too limited.

There is no shoehorn that exists that will allow their toolsets to work a conversation like the OP seems to want.

Just sayin'.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I don't know enough about ufology. I suspect all the cases can be chalked up to hallucinations, lies, mistakes, etc. However, that many people reporting strange things in the sky, makes me wonder a little.

Then if you don't know enough about Ufology, your statements about UFOs being potentially alien craft are ill-informed and are based more on belief than careful examination of facts.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The latter may be true but the former is wrong. I doubt your friends/family ask you for corroborating evidence when you recount the events of the day. No, you expect to be believed on anecdotal testimony alone. Perfectly acceptable. You would be insulted if you told your doctor you were allergic to sulfa-based medicines and he demanded to run a test to verify.

This is a case of two different types of anecdotes. One is an individual reporting something normal/mundane. In the case of UFO reports describing exotic craft or abductions, the claims require more evidence to verify. One could compare it to you telling your doctor that you are allergic to all medications, and not just specific kinds, which is something he might find hard to believe.

 

[Fudbucker]

OK, here's what you do. Go to the science forum and post: "Since there's zero evidence of intelligent aliens, we should assume they don't exist".

 

[Akhenaten]

OK, here's what you do. Go to the science forum and post: "Since there's zero evidence of intelligent aliens, we should assume they don't exist".

Why?

 

[Tomtomkent]

OK, here's what you do. Go to the science forum and post: "Since there's zero evidence of intelligent aliens, we should assume they don't exist".

That is called a straw man.

It is an argument nobody has made in this thread, that you find easier to argue against than the one being made.

The possibility and probability of intelligent life existing somewhere in the universe at some point in time has been discussed.

What is being denied is that there is any evidence to assume UFOs represent this intelligent life in any way mean or form, and the factors that make our ever meeting intelligent life from another star system unlikely.

So here is what you do Fudbucker: You try and stick to the argument being made, and do not resort to trying to cram words into other peoples mouths so that they are easier for you to be snide about.

The furthest you can reasonably infer from the arguments made here would to be read them as "The chances of us ever gaining evidence of intelligent life should it exist somewhere in the cosmos other than Earth is low enough to be improbable," or "There is no evidence any experience recounted on Earth is due to alien life forms visiting from another world".

I am fairly confident that were I to post those in the Science Forum (and I will open a thread there shortly)there will be little controversy.

 

[Fudbucker]

Uhhh... did you miss these?

Alien craft have never been shown to exist, there is 0 evidence for them so the default position is that they do not exist... until some evidence shows that they do.

and...

You're being silly. If there is no evidence for the existence of something, the default position is that the something does not exist.

There's no evidence for the existence of alien life (or alien craft). Therefore...the default position is intelligent alien life doesn't exist???

Do you agree with this or not? ^^

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uhhh... did you miss these?



There's no evidence for the existence of alien life (or alien craft). Therefore...the default position is intelligent alien life doesn't exist???

Do you agree with this or not? ^^

As it has been explained to you already, we are talking about aliens visiting this planet and flying around in Alien Space Ships.

The fallacy that you are using is called "strawman". Can you at least make an effort to address what is actually being discussed?

 

[Fudbucker]

As it has been explained to you already, we are talking about aliens visiting this planet and flying around in Alien Space Ships.

The fallacy that you are using is called "strawman". Can you at least make an effort to address what is actually being discussed?

No, it's not a strawman when you directly quote a person. A general espitemological point was being made:

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, the default position is that the something does not exist.

This is wrong, don't you agree?

 

[Akhenaten]

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, the default position is that the something does not exist.

This is wrong, don't you agree?

No, it's not wrong.

What would be wrong would be to have a default position that without evidence to the contrary, everything exists.

But we're wandering right off the topic here.

 

[GeeMack]

This is wrong, don't you agree?

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, the default position is that the something does not exist. Sounds quite reasonable. That's how science and critical thinking works. It certainly isn't reasonable to live one's life as if all things exist even though we lack any evidence for their existence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, it's not a strawman when you directly quote a person. A general espitemological point was being made:

This is wrong, don't you agree?

Why would anyone agree with it? Alien craft haven't ever been shown to exist here. If you disagree with that, you'll need to provide evidence for alien craft existing here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There's evidence, just not good evidence. Testimony is evidence.

Can you give an example of testimonial evidence as it relates to alien space ships?

I don't know enough about ufology.

You know there's evidence but you can't give an example of it? On what then do you base your belief that there is evidence of alien space ships flying in our skies?

 

[Fudbucker]

You know there's evidence but you can't give an example of it? On what then do you base your belief that there is evidence of alien space ships flying in our skies?

Where did I ever claim this?

 

[Fudbucker]

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, the default position is that the something does not exist. Sounds quite reasonable. That's how science and critical thinking works. It certainly isn't reasonable to live one's life as if all things exist even though we lack any evidence for their existence.

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[RoboTimbo]

Where did I ever claim this?

It was in my post that you quoted. It looks like this:

There's evidence, just not good evidence. Testimony is evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Perhaps you need an example of why what you call an argument from ignorance is no such thing. It is a null hypothosis.

For the sake of argument let us assume you are right and the default possition is not to assume something does not exist until you have either evidence or a compelling reason to believe otherwise, and that any claim "x does not exist just because I don't have any evidence" is an argument from ignorance.

I will make three statements. Disprove them with out relying on what you call an argument from ignorance:

1) "Ghosts" are fleeting glimpses into alternate realities.
2) At least three users of this forum are aspects of a very complex computer programme, that is capable of falsifying Ip addresses, ISP records and even CCTV footage, receipts, and all possible digital records of a "real" person so any investigation you make short of meeting the person will produce all the evidence you would expect of a human.
3) Angels exist. They serve the creator of the universe in a form that does not directly connect with "reality" unless they wish to do so. They are beings of pure thought and metaphysical powers who communicate through psychic means and absolutely no form of human technology can ever detect them, therefore they can never be shown not to exist and must be assumed to exist.

 

[Fudbucker]

Perhaps you need an example of why what you call an argument from ignorance is no such thing. It is a null hypothosis.

No.

"As an example scenario is of a man sitting in a warehouse with a tin roof and when he hears no sound of raindrops, he assumes that it is not raining, without looking outside for any evidence of rain.[5] Here ignorance about a particular form of evidence for rain (the noise) is used to assume a lack of rain; but the conclusion may fail if it is raining so softly that no noise is heard by the man.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The man in the warehouse might as well be the posters here claiming "there's no evidence of aliens, so we should assume they don't exist".

Also: "science is saying in the absence of evidence, we must withhold judgment"- Carl Sagan.

For the sake of argument let us assume you are right and the default possition is not to assume something does not exist until you have either evidence or a compelling reason to believe otherwise, and that any claim "x does not exist just because I don't have any evidence" is an argument from ignorance.

LOL, for the sake of argument? Seriously?

I will make three statements. Disprove them with out relying on what you call an argument from ignorance:

1) "Ghosts" are fleeting glimpses into alternate realities.

We've done exhaustive searches for ghosts and paranormal activities and come up empty every time. Also, claims of ghost sightings are never reproducible and often fraudulent. Therefore, we have good reason to reject the existence of ghosts.

2) At least three users of this forum are aspects of a very complex computer programme, that is capable of falsifying Ip addresses, ISP records and even CCTV footage, receipts, and all possible digital records of a "real" person so any investigation you make short of meeting the person will produce all the evidence you would expect of a human.

Are the programs doing the postings? If so, the claim can be rejected because that would exceed the limits of where computers are at, at the moment.

However, I wouldn't put it past someone to create just such a program as the one you describe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_poker_players

If you claimed that Tsig was one of the programs in question, I would actually find that somewhat believable.

Angels exist. They serve the creator of the universe in a form that does not directly connect with "reality" unless they wish to do so. They are beings of pure thought and metaphysical powers who communicate through psychic means and absolutely no form of human technology can ever detect them, therefore they can never be shown not to exist and must be assumed to exist.

That doesn't follow. At best, they "must be assumed to POSSIBLY exist".