Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Rramjet]

Science is a work in progress; this fact is misunderstood by many. Contrary to religion, there are few if any dogmas and everything is open for discussion. All it takes to create a big paradigm shift is data- reliable data- showing it is wrong.

Whooo boy! Have you a thing or two to learn about science! Dogmas abound! And which particular theory of paradigm shift do you suppose you might subscribe to... Popper, Lakatos, Marx...or perhaps it is Kuhn? Misunderstood? THAT is an understatement!

 

[SnidelyW]

Typing from a cell phone, so it'll have to be brief. I'll detail it later when I get a decent key board.
Science is a work in progress; this fact is misunderstood by many. Contrary to religion, there are few if any dogmas and everything is open for discussion. All it takes to create a big paradigm shift is data- reliable data- showing it is wrong. Science tests itself continuously, improving what can be improved and dumping what can not.
Thus, it may be "inconclusive" every now and then. It has to be.
But wait, there's more... That "know everything about nothing or nothing about everything" is real and bring sometimes two -or more- opposite views.
And yes, we are all human and sometimes emotion gets in the way of reason even in science.
But reliable evidence is reliable evidence (some may question its relevance to the case in question).
And to date, I am not aware of reliable evidence to back UFOs as the main UFOlogy speculations propose them to be:
Extraterrestrials
Beings from other universes
Hid
den civilizations
Secret tech (this may be the most likely explanation for some sightings, however)
Some sort of paranormal phenomena
As for wild speculations, well sometimes they show up in science (not as wil as in UFOlogy). But as soon as one is made, people go back to the available body of knowledge to search for backup. Now, where are the reliable data to back the UFOlogical speculations? And when present, what are they pointing towards?

I would posit one simple question.

Let's take a person from the year 1800. How would you explain to that person what a computer was without him knowing what plastic is?

He would certainly be skeptical of your explanation of what a computer could do. See my point?

 

[Tapio]

Oh, there's a whole philosophy section here. That's where the qualia and the objective x subjective nature of reality dicussions belong to.

I get your drift, thanks.

But I feel as long as the highlited part is in relation with the title of the thread and the OP (which it is in a most profound manner), we can allow a little overlap here and there, eh?

 

[Mira]

Belated reply to King

How I lean depends on each individual topic of discussion.

I believe the shroud of Turin is a forgery, a really good one, but a forgery.
I believe in global warming, due to 5 years of study.
Still sitting on the fence about aliens, bigfoot and all related topics.
I believe a few forms of what has been called here "woo" but I am willing to give it all a second look should more information come to light.

I could go on but you get the point. I try to be open minded about things, but I find that if the evidence is lacking, or going in too many directions(not cohesive), I will categorize it closed until further notice. But I keep my mind open because I like learning new things. I believe that the day you stop learning is the day you die.

Mira

 

[Marduk]

I would posit one simple question.

Let's take a person from the year 1800. How would you explain to that person what a computer was without him knowing what plastic is?

He would certainly be skeptical of your explanation of what a computer could do. See my point?

you dont have a point, thats a straw man argument,
you would at least require a time machine to implement it and time travel isn't currently possible.
a more effective argument would be to explain to an amish what a computer is and does and what plastic is. they wouldnt have any difficulty understanding at all
would they ?

 

[redlite]

Thread might be titled "Deniers vs. Skeptics vs. Knower's/Believers" as you would be just as skeptical of the non-proof of a denier as you would be of a believer. 'Just the facts, Mame' is the motto of the skeptic, too. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I don't like being thrown into the Denier fringe camp. They are just as capable of grand, sweeping assertions based on suppositions as much as the Believer is. Both are a bit annoying, sometimes.

 

[Babbylonian]

One of the things that bothers me about the leaps UFO "knowers" and "believers" make from Hanzo sword edge-thin evidence to their "knowledge/belief" is the pointlessness of it. What's the best case scenario when they're spreading their views? Presumably, it's that others will join them in their "knowledge/belief." So, what then? What's the useful, productive outcome (as typically found in real science) once we all jump on this bandwagon? Is it just so that when I look up in the sky and see something that seems strange I can smile knowingly and tell others that I saw those wacky aliens playing in their ship again?

 

[Rramjet]

One of the things that bothers me about the leaps UFO "knowers" and "believers" make from Hanzo sword edge-thin evidence to their "knowledge/belief" is the pointlessness of it. What's the best case scenario when they're spreading their views? Presumably, it's that others will join them in their "knowledge/belief." So, what then? What's the useful, productive outcome (as typically found in real science) once we all jump on this bandwagon? Is it just so that when I look up in the sky and see something that seems strange I can smile knowingly and tell others that I saw those wacky aliens playing in their ship again?

All scientific discoveries proceeded from humans pondering the nature of the unknown. If we had failed to explore the unknown, we would not have science at all. If you believe scientific examination of the unknown is "pointless" then you deny the great discoveries of science made to this date.

Once people begin to admit that there is something "UNKNOWN" going on, then we can develop research programs and peer review processes and knowledge based schemas to enable us to sort the false positive UFO sightings from the genuine article - sorting the "signal from the noise". AND THEN, with genuine sightings at our disposal, we might make some significant scientific breakthroughs. Science never got anywhere by sticking it's head in the sand and saying "No, no, it's impossible, therefore it cannot be!"

 

[Marduk]

unknown is not unidentified, and science preceeds via collection of empirical data, there isn't any empirical data for flying saucers

 

[Babbylonian]

Science never got anywhere by sticking it's head in the sand and saying "No, no, it's impossible, therefore it cannot be!"

Do you think that skeptics believe alien visitations are impossible? Most probably consider it "[highly] unlikely" but "impossible" is a big claim in and of itself. No, the contention of a skeptic is that a claim - particularly one that is improbable and inconsistent with existing knowledge - must be proven before it can be believed. Of course, once it's proven "belief" becomes irrelevant. I don't "believe" that water begins turning to steam when its temperature is raised, especially to and beyond its boiling point; I don't have to since it can be easily demonstrated again and again.

So, again I ask, if one can't prove the reality of alien/non-human-piloted UFOs, what's the practical reason to believe it? It can't be a desire to spur scientific research into the subject since scientists typically study actual phenomena. Given that they can't disprove the testimony of someone who says "I saw it[/them]!" there's nothing to study - apart from the psychological/sociological implications of a belief in alien visitations. The most a scientist could reasonably expected to do is look at good evidence if it's ever presented to them. THEN, if the evidence really is good, they can start looking at the problem more systematically.

 

[RoboTimbo]

alien does NOT = non-human

No one here is suggesting "alien". I am merely saying they demonstrated ability beyond ours. Thus the only thing I know is that it WASN'T ours.

Nonfactual conclusions...?

Like the proposal that it was a "craft"...?

Why do you think aliens have abilities beyond ours rather than thinking that you may not be aware of all that humans are capable of?

 

[SnidelyW]

you dont have a point, thats a straw man argument,
you would at least require a time machine to implement it and time travel isn't currently possible.
a more effective argument would be to explain to an amish what a computer is and does and what plastic is. they wouldnt have any difficulty understanding at all
would they ?

I used 1800 arbitrarily to represent a person who has no knowledge of the concept of plastic, no exposure to plastic, and not even an understanding of oil, to make the plastic.

The Amish are exposed to plastics every day they go into town to purchase items, and in fact use plastics in everyday life, as a component of the mandatory reflectors on the back of their buggies, to cite one example.

The concept I was referring to was that science must have a reference point somewhere, but if we cannot imagine that reference point, then following the science will be virtually impossible, whatever the subject matter.

If the science cannot even be realized, doesn't that mean that skeptics require believers to take the leap beyond and do some serious speculation?

 

[Rramjet]

unknown is not unidentified, and science preceeds via collection of empirical data, there isn't any empirical data for flying saucers

I think you mean "proceeds" surely... and...

Unknown = unidentified... and ...

“Empiric, a. & n. Based, acting, on observation & experiment, not on theory.”
(The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English)

Empirical: (adjective)
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone, often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical)

Soon I hope people might begin to learn what science is - and what science is not...

 

[Rramjet]

Do you think that skeptics believe alien visitations are impossible? Most probably consider it "[highly] unlikely" but "impossible" is a big claim in and of itself.

I have yet to meet a skeptic (read debunker) who has argued the case for aliens – yet clearly on reading your statement they accept the possibility. If they accept the possibility then they must have a REASON for doing so. What is that reason Babbylonian?

No, the contention of a skeptic is that a claim - particularly one that is improbable and inconsistent with existing knowledge - must be proven before it can be believed.

But this is NOT a skeptical position. There are too many value judgements in your “claim” for it to be truly a skeptical position. For example the term “improbable”… do you “know” the odds of aliens existing? You seem to imply that you do.

You also state “inconsistent with existing knowledge”. What knowledge is it that you are referring to Babbylonian? Point it out to me.

Moreover, what constitutes proof? You have not defined the term at all.

Your position is NOT skeptical Babbylonian, it IS merely a value judgement belief that is based neither on evidence nor theory.

Of course, once it's proven "belief" becomes irrelevant.

Based on the empirical evidence presented above, I believe you may be incorrect.

I don't "believe" that water begins turning to steam when its temperature is raised, especially to and beyond its boiling point; I don't have to since it can be easily demonstrated again and again.

You obviously haven’t heard of the phenomenon of “sublimation”.

So, again I ask, if one can't prove the reality of alien/non-human-piloted UFOs, what's the practical reason to believe it?

How do you know we “can’t prove the reality of alien/non-human-piloted UFOs”? (you also confabulate two separate concepts…). On what evidence do you base that value judgement?

It can't be a desire to spur scientific research into the subject since scientists typically study actual phenomena.

Obviously never heard of String Theory either…

Given that they can't disprove the testimony of someone who says "I saw it[/them]!" there's nothing to study - apart from the psychological/sociological implications of a belief in alien visitations.

If I agreed with your contention (which I do not – but for the sake of brevity) - even THAT is worthy of study is it not…

The most a scientist could reasonably expected to do is look at good evidence if it's ever presented to them. THEN, if the evidence really is good, they can start looking at the problem more systematically.

And at last we come to the heart of the matter. Systematic, peer-reviewed, scientific research. A beautiful thing if ever endorsed.

 

[Marduk]

I think you mean "proceeds" surely... and...

No I meant precedes, until you have some evidence you can't proceed and you don't have any evidence do you, if you did you'd post it.

Soon I hope people might begin to learn what science is - and what science is not...

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

see the problem with U.F.Os is they never get past the observation stage. There certainly is no identification,no description no experiemental investigation and can be no theoretical explanation of phenomena when the only evidence of said phenomena is unidentified.
some people might do well to learn what something is before creating straw man arguments about what they think it is

 

[Marduk]

If the science cannot even be realized, doesn't that mean that skeptics require believers to take the leap beyond and do some serious speculation?

no, it means that skeptics require evidence where believers just require imagination. science is not founded upon imagination, unless its theoretical, and even then the theoretical needs a hypothesis which cannot be achieved without evidence

see the problem you have ?

no evidence that can be evaluated scientifically

 

[GeeMack]

For example the term "improbable"... do you "know" the odds of aliens existing? You seem to imply that you do.

You also state "inconsistent with existing knowledge". What knowledge is it that you are referring to Babbylonian? Point it out to me.

Hey, Rramjet, since you found many ways to weasel away from answering this in another thread, and never could muster the courage or honesty to actually bring yourself to answering it there, and since you're mentioning a relevant topic here, how about you try one more time to answer this...

[...] in real numbers, how many of those previously unidentified sky sightings, after they were identified, turned out to be alien space craft? Real numbers, now, not some evasive vague reply belittling skeptics for wrecking your fantasy. Have there been 43 alien space craft identified? 12? 236? Just exactly how many?

And given your propensity to misread what people write, if you need your high school English teacher to go over it with you again, you know, so you can sort out my word "identified" for your several misunderstandings of the term, you just go ahead and get the help you need.

 

[truethat]

I would just suggest that witnesses to unusual phenomena should remember:

"I can't explain that" does NOT equal "That can't be explained."
"It looks to me like a real alien craft" does NOT equal "It is a real alien craft."
"I have no alternative interpretation" does NOT equal "There is no alternative interpretation."

this

 

[Babbylonian]

I have yet to meet a skeptic (read debunker) who has argued the case for aliens – yet clearly on reading your statement they accept the possibility. If they accept the possibility then they must have a REASON for doing so. What is that reason Babbylonian?

If you mean a skeptic arguing the case for extraterrestrials in general as opposed to extraterrestrials buzzing around our planet in mostly undetectable spacecraft, I'm certain you could find many skeptics willing to entertain the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. It's nothing I would rule out, particularly since there's already a 100% chance of life we would consider intelligent existing in the universe.

But this is NOT a skeptical position. There are too many value judgements in your “claim” for it to be truly a skeptical position. For example the term “improbable”… do you “know” the odds of aliens existing? You seem to imply that you do.

The fact that alien spacecraft so far seem to be detectable only by those willing to accept little to no evidence to sustain their belief leads me to believe that their existence on/near our planet is improbable. No crashes, no detection of their signals, no concrete evidence of any kind? "Improbable" is my way of allowing for the remote possibility while not calling people outright liars and/or nutbars.

You also state “inconsistent with existing knowledge”. What knowledge is it that you are referring to Babbylonian? Point it out to me.

I'm referring to the fact that our science hasn't detected a hint of an extraterrestrial intelligence.

Moreover, what constitutes proof? You have not defined the term at all.

I really don't need to. The burden of proof isn't mine.

Your position is NOT skeptical Babbylonian, it IS merely a value judgement belief that is based neither on evidence nor theory.

It's based on a lack of evidence. I don't need to go out and disprove cockamamie theories.

Based on the empirical evidence presented above, I believe you may be incorrect.

Bolding mine. Ha.

You obviously haven’t heard of the phenomenon of “sublimation”.

I'm sorry. Are you telling me that water (a liquid) doesn't turn to steam when its temperature rises high enough? Or, are you bringing up a separate chemical process to muddy the waters and make yourself feel smart?

How do you know we “can’t prove the reality of alien/non-human-piloted UFOs”? (you also confabulate two separate concepts…). On what evidence do you base that value judgement?

Maybe I was unclear, maybe you're purposely misinterpreting me. Would changing the word "you" to "proponents of the theory of alien visitations" and adding the words "right now" help?

Obviously never heard of String Theory either…

I have, actually. The thing is, string theory is an attempt to explain actual phenomena. Again, this is what scientists do.

If I agreed with your contention (which I do not – but for the sake of brevity) - even THAT is worthy of study is it not…

It is. Any two people can find something to agree on!

And at last we come to the heart of the matter. Systematic, peer-reviewed, scientific research. A beautiful thing if ever endorsed.

I do endorse it, as do most of the folks I've read on this forum. However, I do not endorse diverting resources to a systematic investigation of a phenomenon no one has yet been able to conclusively prove is real. It wastes time and energy better used elsewhere.

 

[Akhenaten]

Does Art imitate Reality, or is it the other way around?

A bit of both I reckon mate. You seem to have a decent handle on the right mix.

Go you.


Cheers,

Dave