Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[King of the Americas]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Really?

I thought the mere fact that we DON'T have TONS of 'perfect, high resolution videos and photographs', IS evidence that maybe they can detect and avoid such things.

---

I am a hunter, and I want to photograph deer with my game-cam. I see tracks leading to an oak tree, so I put the cam on the trunk. But when I go back, I find no fresh tracks, and thus no pics. So, I take the camera off, find a new tree w/tracks around it, and reset the camera.

A week later, no pics or tracks.

What am I doing wrong?

(*Answers- A.) I am imaging the tracks, there are no deer. B.) The deer can smell my tracks and or see a 'foreign object' in their feeding area. C.) Insert Planet X option here.)

 

[BlackKat]

...
I thought the mere fact that we DON'T have TONS of 'perfect, high resolution videos and photographs', IS evidence that maybe they can detect and avoid such things.
...

Not likely. Photographs and video are passive and have no emissions to detect.
Now using a flash on the other hand...
Check out this nifty anti-paparazzi device in development:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/celebrity-shielding-flashgun-handbag-defeats-paparazzi/

 

[King of the Americas]

Nah. See, there's definitely something up there - planes, weather balloons, strange clouds, birds. That requires no proof. It's claiming that the "something" is aliens that needs proof.



No, it isn't. It's a policy that only accepts scientifically-verified evidence. There is a huge difference between rejecting ALL evidence and rejecting evidence that is unverified.



Probably, as there are still too many options available just from having the video. It could be technical error, a weird shadow, ball lightning, whatever. It is much more likely that it is one of these things than aliens.



You have to prove this truth. That's the whole point of the burden of proof.

First, I never claimed "alien". Have you even read my argument(s)?

Second, you clearly missed my point with the burden of proof thing.

O.J. stabbed those two people to death, period. The problem was that the burden of proof was high enough, that the Prosecution failed to make it. This doesn't mean ANYTHING, in truth and reality!

So too, is the 'skeptical' burden of proof, TOO HIGH...so much so that it has blinded you to a truth .

Lower your standards of evidence. There's a reality you're missing.

 

[King of the Americas]

Not likely. Photographs and video are passive and have no emissions to detect.
Now using a flash on the other hand...
Check out this nifty anti-paparazzi device in development:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/celebrity-shielding-flashgun-handbag-defeats-paparazzi/

That's kinda funny...

Don't ALL of the reports include, "...well there was this bright light, see..."

---

ETA: Have you ever seen objects through a FLIR camera? Several of our attack helicopters have different 'filters' pilots can utilize, who's to say someone isn't even better at such detection methods?

 

[Nonpareil]

First, I never claimed "alien". Have you even read my argument(s)?

You never specifically claim alien, but you leave little doubt that that is what you are arguing for. That or some secret military super-awesome-fighter-jet-of-win. Either one works.

Second, you clearly missed my point with the burden of proof thing.

O.J. stabbed those two people to death, period. The problem was that the burden of proof was high enough, that the Prosecution failed to make it. This doesn't mean ANYTHING, in truth and reality!

Uh, yeah, it does. It means that he got off scot-free. But that isn't the point. You're right. Whether or not something is proven to the satisfaction of one group of people does not affect its truth or falsity. But then, there's the reverse of that as well.

So too, is the 'skeptical' burden of proof, TOO HIGH...so much so that it has blinded you to a truth .

What truth? If you aren't claiming aliens here, I don't know what you're doing.

Lower your standards of evidence. There's a reality you're missing.

Raise yours. There's a REAL reality you're missing.

 

[King of the Americas]

You never specifically claim alien, but you leave little doubt that that is what you are arguing for.

What truth? If you aren't claiming aliens here, I don't know what you're doing.

Raise yours. There's a REAL reality you're missing.

So, clearly you haven't read my arguments...

MY claim is that 'they' are locals, who've always been here, but that they aren't 'us' AND that they are better, more evolved, more capable. People HAVE seen 'things' up there, for millennia. People have drawn this on cave walls, in paintings, and in every form of media you can possibly imagine.

Your REAL reality/impossible burden of proof standards, let a murder walk free...

 

[Correa Neto]

Maybe I am a psychic...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5182999&postcount=274

...snip...
They will ask for special pledges such as keeping an open mind, suspending disbelief and set yourself free from the chains imposed by mainstream science.
...snip...
This is the very last ditch- the ultimate special pledge. I know X is true because I experienced it and I can't possibly be wrong.
...snip...
The emotional attachment to certain data points (a given sighting, a given picture) or speculations (aliens, hidden civilization, etc.) is just too big for some people. They just can't let it go. The easy escape route? Blame it on skeptics. Complain about how close-minded they are, how their belief system avoids them from accepting the reality. Its easier than presenting reliable evidence, its easier to blame someone else.

Yep, either I am a psychic or the behavior of many a proponent is quite predictable.

There's that razor... What's the name? O something... OJ? OG? No, no, it was OC something...

 

[Marduk]

So, clearly you haven't read my arguments...

MY claim is that 'they' are locals, who've always been here, but that they aren't 'us' AND that they are better, more evolved, more capable. People HAVE seen 'things' up there, for millennia. People have drawn this on cave walls, in paintings, and in every form of media you can possibly imagine.

Your REAL reality/impossible burden of proof standards, let a murder walk free...

still lying then

 

[Nonpareil]

So, clearly you haven't read my arguments...

MY claim is that 'they' are locals, who've always been here, but that they aren't 'us' AND that they are better, more evolved, more capable.

We have different definitions of "alien", then, because I knew that this is what you were arguing. I just thought that "alien" was a term sufficient to describe what you were babbling about.

*shrugs*

Whatever. Point is, I do understand your arguments.

People HAVE seen 'things' up there, for millennia. People have drawn this on cave walls, in paintings, and in every form of media you can possibly imagine.

Yep. So? It's just caveman science fiction.

Your REAL reality/impossible burden of proof standards, let a murder walk free...

Argument ad hominem, guilt by association, poisoning the well.

Yes, O.J. Simpson was let free because the evidence failed to meet the burden of proof. But this is not because the concept of burden of proof is faulty. It is because not all the evidence was available at the time. Without the DNA evidence that only became available once the trial was over, the jury could not convict him, since, judging by the evidence available at the time, there was a good chance that he was innocent.

 

[King of the Americas]

still lying then

And I'm glad to hear that you still think YOU are infallible, in manners of artistic interpretation.

 

[Nonpareil]

and i'm glad to hear that you still think you are infallible, in manners of artistic interpretation.

IRONY!

Srsly

 

[King of the Americas]

We have different definitions of "alien",

Argument ad hominem, guilt by association, poisoning the well.

Yes, O.J. Simpson was let free because the evidence failed to meet the burden of proof. But this is not because the concept of burden of proof is faulty. It is because not all the evidence was available at the time. Without the DNA evidence that only became available once the trial was over, the jury could not convict him, since, judging by the evidence available at the time, there was a good chance that he was innocent.

I see no evidence that we need them to BE "alien"/capable of interstellar travel. I think that skeptics attempt to require this, in light of the fact that 'they' DO appear in the earliest diaries of history, seems contradictory. They've been 'here' as long as we have, they are no more alien than we are...

We have high criminal court standards to protect innocent people. AS A RESULT, some truly guilty people get off scot free.

Your standards 'allow' you to dismiss mountains of evidence, and as a result, you miss a truth.

When the Rules of Evidence lead to findings inconsistent with reality, then the Rules should be amended.

 

[Nonpareil]

I see no evidence that we need them to BE "alien"/capable of interstellar travel. I think that skeptics attempt to require this, in light of the fact that 'they' DO appear in the earliest diaries of history, seems contradictory. They've been 'here' as long as we have, they are no more alien than we are...

Bare assertion.

And no, no one "requires" that they be extraterrestrial aliens. You really aren't the first person to come up with this "native aliens" idea. And you haven't added anything new to the field.

We have high criminal court standards to protect innocent people. AS A RESULT, some truly guilty people get off scot free.

Yes, but if the court standards were lowered, even more innocent people would be convicted.

Your standards 'allow' you to dismiss mountains of evidence, and as a result, you miss a truth.

My standards allow me to dismiss unverified evidence. So far, this is all you have presented, and so all your argument has been dismissed. Your standards, meanwhile, allow you to accept anything as evidence, and so you see truth where there is none.

When the Rules of Evidence lead to findings inconsistent with reality, then the Rules should be amended.

Your argument for this represents on the O.J. case, where you have misunderstood/misrepresented my argument. So I'm going to say it again, very simply:

- The burden of proof must be met before a person can be convicted of murder; otherwise you may be convicting an innocent man.
- The burden of proof was not met in the O.J. case.
- This is not the fault of the standards required for proof. Not all the evidence was available at the time, and so the burden of proof was not met when the ruling was made.
- The burden of proof has, subsequently, been made. Everyone now knows that O.J. is guilty, because we have evidence now that we didn't have then.
- O.J. would be sitting in prison right now if it weren't for the fact that the Bill of Rights protects citizens from double jeopardy. It is not that the burden of proof is flawed, but rather that the evidence available at the time was incomplete coupled with the fact that he cannot be brought back to trial for the same crime.

 

[King of the Americas]

- The burden of proof must be met before skeptics will accept that we are not alone; otherwise we might be making a mistake that leads to...?
- The burden of proof is not met in the U.F.O. case.
- This is not the fault of the standards required for proof. Not all the evidence is satisfactory, and so the burden of proof was not now met.
- The burden of proof may, subsequently, be changed. Everyone might someday know that we aren't alone, because we'll have or accept evidence that we didn't have or refused to hear before.

 

[Nonpareil]

- The burden of proof must be met before skeptics will accept that we are not alone; otherwise we might be making a mistake that leads to...?

Thinking that we aren't alone when we actually are.

- The burden of proof is not met in the U.F.O. case.
- This is not the fault of the standards required for proof. Not all the evidence is satisfactory, and so the burden of proof was not now met.

Yep, sounds right.

- The burden of proof may, subsequently, be changed. Everyone might someday know that we aren't alone, because we'll have or accept evidence that we didn't have or refused to hear before.

WHOA there, pardner! The burden of proof doesn't change. The requirements necessary to prove that there are aliens (extra- or intra-terrestrial) stay the same. It's just the amount of evidence that changes.

 

[King of the Americas]

Thinking that we aren't alone when we actually are.

Yep, sounds right.

WHOA there, pardner! The burden of proof doesn't change. The requirements necessary to prove that there are aliens (extra- or intra-terrestrial) stay the same. It's just the amount of evidence that changes.

Did you notice the similarities between my last post, and yours?

I transposed U.F.O's for O.J.

Until you change the rules of evidence, and or accept other evidence, the verdict will remain the same.

The level of evidence has only 'mounted', you're just blind to it.

 

[Correa Neto]

I say courts tend to be -or potentially are- more subject to errors than scientific peer-rewied journals.

Every now and then someone says we should decrease evidence quality standards for their own pet beliefs down to court standards and give eyewitness reports a higher credibility. In our current legal system, according to these claims and reasonings, its all it takes to put someone in jail or worse.

Now, this completely ignores the facts that hard, scientific data will in theory beat anecdotal evidence in court and that at court, emotional appeals and weaseling of the law code carefull law interpretation are powerfull weapons. Weapons capable of changing the ballance and invalidating hard data.

Now KotA wants to lower the standards even more!

OK. I am in telepathic contact with Ashtar Sheran from planet Ummo. He says there are no hidden civilizations on Earth. All "real" UFO sightings are from alien ships, both from the good (like the good-looking folks from the Pleiades) and the bad guys (like the ugly greys and reptiloids). Following your logic, you should take my fully anecdotal evidence (I can also provide pictures of Ashtar Sheran's ships and even pics of the aliens themselves if I have enough motivation) and conclude -or at least take seriously in to account- based on the compelling evidence I provided, that your UFOs-from-unknown-terrestrial-civilizations pet speculation must be thrown in the garbage bin.

 

[Stray Cat]

The level of evidence has only 'mounted', you're just blind to it.

An increasing pile of unverified evidence is even worse than only one piece of unverified evidence!
It shows a consistent failure on behalf of those who collect the evidence... A failure which has been going on for 50 years.

 

[Stray Cat]

Now, this completely ignores the facts that hard, scientific data will in theory beat anecdotal evidence in court and that at court, emotional appeals and weaseling of the law code carefull law interpretation are powerfull weapons. Weapons capable of changing the ballance and invalidating hard data.

The law states that to convict, you have to be "beyond reasonable doubt"
The way I see it, there is plenty enough 'doubt' in UFO reports to return an 'open verdict'

The UFO phenomenon deserves research even if only from a psychological/sociological POV.
And constant scientific/critical research because if anyone is daft enough to reach to concrete conclusion (which no one here has) that Aliens are not and will never travel here and make themselves known to us... they are in the same category as the blind faith UFO believers.

 

[Nonpareil]

Did you notice the similarities between my last post, and yours?

I transposed U.F.O's for O.J.

Yes, I noticed the similarity. I just didn't comment on it.

Until you change the rules of evidence, and or accept other evidence, the verdict will remain the same.

Yeah. But the rules of evidence are not going to change; I don't set them. The second part is right though. If you can bring in more, better evidence, you can influence us. Until then, the verdict will stay the same.

The level of evidence has only 'mounted', you're just blind to it.

Yes, the number of unverified photos, videos and anecdotes has increased. But 0 + 0 still equals 0.