Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

King of the Americas said:
I am proposing that a skeptic would refuse to accept their own experiences, if there was no evidence to back it up...
Click to expand...
Most would at least realise that a personal experience is not enough to convince anyone else.

King of the Americas said:
"What you are saying happened is impossible, therefore you didn't SEE what you claim to have seen. It was a delusion."
Click to expand...
And is a reasonable POV in relation to physical evidence available at this time. However your inclusion of the word 'delusion' isn't really accurate. There are many different reasons why an eye witness can report things inaccurately.
 
Tapio said:
This is interesting to me. I think focusing a bit on this might help us all out. Could you elaborate on where you draw the line with credible/non-credible in the case of UFO sightings?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

...

...maybe.

I guess I would give less credibility to someone less capable of making an accurate description...

They wear glasses, but didn't have them at the time. They were drunk or on drugs. OR if they were indeed a mental patient who has suffered psychotic breaks in the past...

Their testimony would not be 'as' compelling, or not as credible.

I'd have trouble dismissing any 'case', regardless of how unbelievable sounding, if the witness was credible or there was corroboration.
 
King of the Americas said:
...

...maybe.

I guess I would give less credibility to someone less capable of making an accurate description...

They wear glasses, but didn't have them at the time. They were drunk or on drugs. OR if they were indeed a mental patient who has suffered psychotic breaks in the past...

Their testimony would not be 'as' compelling, or not as credible.

I'd have trouble dismissing any 'case', regardless of how unbelievable sounding, if the witness was credible or there was corroboration.
Click to expand...

Do you assign more credibility to police officers and those who don't have an obvious motivation?
 
King of the Americas said:
I would consider one's background as well as their motive, when weighing someone's account.
Click to expand...


And how exactly do you obtain this information, in order to consider it?

Does every UFO report come with a notarised background check and the signed Mission Statement of the reporter? Can we see some of these?

No comments about the F22 video?
 
King of the Americas said:
I would consider one's background as well as their motive, when weighing someone's account.
Click to expand...

see thats wrong, someone does not suddenly become more credible when they put on a uniform, or if they have no motive, or if they have a background of reliability. Everyone of the witnesses being human are confined by human understanding, our minds do this as part of out fight or flight mechanism,
For instance if you are awoken at night by a crash from the kitchen, most people don't think "aha, the colander fell over", they think "Burglar" or "ghost" or "earthquake", the odds on the mundane explanation are far higher yet our minds throw rationale out in favour of a more unlikely explanation as a need to investigate danger, this is a function of our evolution,
back in the day when you heard quiet footsteps at the entrance to the cave, its wasn't always uncle Ug looking out for panthers, sometimes it was a panther looking in for uncle Ug
:p
 
Akhenaten said:
And how exactly do you obtain this information, in order to consider it?

Does every UFO report come with a notarised background check and the signed Mission Statement of the reporter? Can we see some of these?

No comments about the F22 video?
Click to expand...

My computer turned it into something unrecognizable. But I do know about the Rapture's directional exhaust. So, when is the last time there were "7" in the air over the Red River?

Who doesn't investigate a source before giving it credence?
 
King of the Americas said:
Who doesn't investigate a source before giving it credence?
Click to expand...

This actually is a valid comment for this silly discussion. And so far, no one has produced a witness that was credible for any event that defied mundane explanation. Not a single CREDIBLE person has ever stated that they saw something that COULD NOT be explained by the mundane.

(it's no sillier than the rest of this "argue without evidence" thread).
 
King of the Americas said:
I would consider one's background as well as their motive, when weighing someone's account.
Click to expand...

So you simply assign credibility using subjective criteria? And then you judge whether testimony is reliable or not based on that? Is there any point where you use objective criteria?

Wouldn't you be concerned about someone's bias creeping into their decision about someone's credibility since it is so subjective?
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
So you simply assign credibility using subjective criteria? And then you judge whether testimony is reliable or not based on that? Is there any point where you use objective criteria?

Wouldn't you be concerned about someone's bias creeping into their decision about someone's credibility since it is so subjective?
Click to expand...

I find that 'physical ability' and 'credibility' go hand in hand. The more physically equipped and practiced you are, the 'better' you are at something.

Some bias is always going to creep in, and should be accounted for.
 
LissaLysikan said:
This actually is a valid comment for this silly discussion. And so far, no one has produced a witness that was credible for any event that defied mundane explanation. Not a single CREDIBLE person has ever stated that they saw something that COULD NOT be explained by the mundane.

(it's no sillier than the rest of this "argue without evidence" thread).
Click to expand...

Please define what you deem to be a credible source?
 
King of the Americas said:
My computer turned it into something unrecognizable. But I do know about the Rapture's directional exhaust. So, when is the last time there were "7" in the air over the Red River?
Click to expand...

So it's your computer that is transforming things into UFOs. Hmm.

Still, I must admit, the .wmv format is pretty new, so maybe your OS can't handle them.

Rapture?????? Your Freudian slip is showing.

Anyways, they always fly around in groups of seven. I saw it on TV once.


King of the Americas said:
Who doesn't investigate a source before giving it credence?
Click to expand...


Nobody doesn't, but mostly only always sometimes..
 
Akhenaten said:
So it's your computer that is transforming things into UFOs. Hmm.

Still, I must admit, the .wmv format is pretty new, so maybe your OS can't handle them.

Rapture?????? Your Freudian slip is showing.

Anyways, they always fly around in groups of seven. I saw it on TV once.


Nobody doesn't, but mostly only always sometimes..
Click to expand...

Crappy mac spellcheck...

Rather than turn it into a video, it turned it into a text document filled with a bunch of unreadable forms and figures.

Can "Raptors" combine to form one entity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom