Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Trent Wray]

My mind is only made up about how to think, and not much else

Excellent defining point

Probably a topic for another thread but replace the word "skeptic" with "critical thinking" and see what happens. For some reason "skeptic" seems to have a polarizing effect on people and they immediatly jump to thinking "cynic" or "denier".

Yeah I'm beginning to see it does have a polarizing effect ... good advice actually

Would it be thinking critically to take an anecdote from someone as evidence that objects can defy the laws of physics?

i think it would as long as you don't stop the thinking at that point. if you take an anecdote for face value and exclaim "that's it! it must be that!" then that's not critical thinking. that's faith but if you explore into the anecdotal "Evidence" to see if there is more to it ... then that i think is critical thinking. if you find nothing beyond the anecdote --- no eyewitnesses, no radar, etc and so forth ... then it's up to you whether to trust the one and only witnessess anecdote as credible or not.

and that's a whole other matter ... and is largely dependent upon the circumstances and your personal biased towards the witness and the data, and whether or not you will give him "the benefit of the doubt" or not ... and your decision will either be based on subjective data and/or the lack of objective evidence to support the claim, etc etc blah blah

UNTIL an explanation of a mundane nature is present, I have no choice but to conclude "something else".

I DO agree however, that the evidence is 'mine', and not admissible for distribution.

Just out of curiosity ... but who or what took away your choice to conclude other options? Just curious in the psychological reasoning, not trying to push buttons.

BUT --- I see your location is in North Texas, and I live in Dallas. When did you see these objects (if you already posted that info, sorry)? The ones I saw were just this December near Rockwall, and this past summer in Richardson ... and the three that I saw flying in formation turned out to be headed for an airshow in Ft. Worth, it just so happened they were messing around at night.

Could this be the appropriate time frame for your sighting?

And just to say this almost pointlessly ... but that UFO sighting in Glen Rose awhile back that turned the area into a UFO haven or whatever? I was camping in Glen Rose the night before the big sighting. I was SOOOOOO upset I missed that sucker!

 

[RoboTimbo]

i think it would as long as you don't stop the thinking at that point. if you take an anecdote for face value and exclaim "that's it! it must be that!" then that's not critical thinking. that's faith but if you explore into the anecdotal "Evidence" to see if there is more to it ... then that i think is critical thinking. if you find nothing beyond the anecdote --- no eyewitnesses, no radar, etc and so forth ... then it's up to you whether to trust the one and only witnessess anecdote as credible or not.

and that's a whole other matter ... and is largely dependent upon the circumstances and your personal biased towards the witness and the data, and whether or not you will give him "the benefit of the doubt" or not ... and your decision will either be based on subjective data and/or the lack of objective evidence to support the claim, etc etc blah blah

You breezed right past the part about an anecdote being evidence that the laws of physics have been defied?

Let me ask again, Is it critical thinking to place enough credence in an anecdote that the laws of physics have been superceded that you now need to make a decision as to the veracity of the person telling the anecdote?

 

[GeeMack]

While you're away, you could read the "New Testament writers told the truth" and the "UFOs, the research, the evidence" topics and think about how yours is different.

ETA - or the bigfoot threads.

Here's a BIG hint.

Very similar to the argument from ignorance, which ironically enough, King of Americas has willfully chosen to ignore in favor of continuing to believe he saw aliens.

 

[King of the Americas]

Very similar to the argument from ignorance, which ironically enough, King of Americas has willfully chosen to ignore in favor of continuing to believe he saw aliens.

Hey GeeMack,

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, lack of civility.

I have REPEATEDLY said, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALIENS."

Just keep mis-characterizing me and my stance, it only makes YOU look like the ignorant one.

 

[Marduk]

Hey GeeMack,

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

I have REPEATEDLY said, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALIENS."

Just keep mis-characterizing me and my stance, it only makes YOU look like the ignorant one.

ok so youre saying that what you saw was non human, but not alien

that really doesn't leave anything else, anything non human by definition is Alien

Alien - belonging to a different country, race, or group.

perhaps you were thinking of extra terrestrials
as usual

anyway, everyone knows that you don't have a clue what you saw and haven't bothered to find out, you are a believer, not a knower

 

[GeeMack]

Hey GeeMack,

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

I have REPEATEDLY said, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALIENS."

Just keep mis-characterizing me and my stance, it only makes YOU look like the ignorant one.

I attack the argument, and you? Well... your argument is still an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

 

[carlitos]

OK, so I read through the thread, and you have said that "they" have superior technology to humans, "they" have an interest in studying humans, and you have hinted that "they" have some way to avoid detection by film.

If not "aliens," who are "they?" If you could avoid the shouting and stuff, that would be super.

ETA - "argument from incredulity / ignorance" is not an insult. It's an accurate representation of your argument.

 

[King of the Americas]

OK, so I read through the thread, and you have said that "they" have superior technology to humans, "they" have an interest in studying humans, and you have hinted that "they" have some way to avoid detection by film.

If not "aliens," who are "they?" If you could avoid the shouting and stuff, that would be super.

ETA - "argument from incredulity / ignorance" is not an insult. It's an accurate representation of your argument.

I do not know who or what 'they' are...

Saying I believe in aliens is a mis-characterization of my stance.

 

[carlitos]

OK, so not human, but not alien?

How you can make the logical leap from "I don't know who they are" to "they are capable of detecting and avoiding our detection efforts," or other assumptions? (ETA - It seems to me that...) You are just making up traits for "they" that fit with your story. This is the definition of 'god in the gaps' or sometimes 'argument from incredulity.'

 

[Blackwell]

I do not know who or what 'they' are...

Saying I believe in aliens is a mis-characterization of my stance.

Only if you think "alien" has to equal "extra-terrestrial." Haven't you said that your belief is that they are non-humans, from earth (possibly the oceans), that have been here all along?
I apologize in advance if this is a mischaracterization.

 

[King of the Americas]

Only if you think "alien" has to equal "extra-terrestrial." Haven't you said that your belief is that they are non-humans, from earth (possibly the oceans), that have been here all along?
I apologize in advance if this is a mischaracterization.

I dismiss the term "alien" because they have been 'here', or rather 'up there', for as long as we have had a written record.

The term "alien" means 'not from here'...so far as I know.

 

[Marduk]

I dismiss the term "alien" because they have been 'here', or rather 'up there', for as long as we have had a written record.

and yet in another thread when asked for supporting evidence for that claim you had nothing

The term "alien" means 'not from here'...so far as I know.

then you know nothing

when you start arbitrarily redefining well known words to suit your belief your belief becomes just a waste of everones time

 

[Blackwell]

I dismiss the term "alien" because they have been 'here', or rather 'up there', for as long as we have had a written record.

The term "alien" means 'not from here'...so far as I know.

Oh, OK. That does clear it up. So non-human, intelligent earth natives.

Have you dismissed dolphins with rocket packs?


ETA -- sorry, just a little joke with that last point. I was serious in my first paragraph. Just can't pass up a chance to be a smart-ass, though.

 

[Trent Wray]

You breezed right past the part about an anecdote being evidence that the laws of physics have been defied?

Let me ask again, Is it critical thinking to place enough credence in an anecdote that the laws of physics have been superceded that you now need to make a decision as to the veracity of the person telling the anecdote?

If someone makes an extraordinary claim like that ... i would say that if you choose to explore it further or not, you are still using critical thinking (that is, if you consider the lack of supportive evidence to verify the claim). BUT I think it is still using critical thinking to continue exploring the evidence, regardless of the claim .... because there might be something behind it. For example, people recently discovered the earth being round didn't defy the laws of science. Plus, detectives do it all the time ... you have to weed through the misperceptions to get to the truth in order to solve a crime. But just because someone's version of events maybe more dramatic or fantastical, doesn't mean they do not have something to offer as to a possible event that actually took place.

Case in point. One halloween past, we went all out decorating our house. We also got a bunch of shiny, helium balloons and tied glowsticks onto them and let them up into the air. For awhile, as you watched the wind blow them around at the different levels, they seemed to defy the laws of physics. My mother even commented as such. Now we knew exactly what was happening. A passerby might not have, but they could have said the same thing --- "That light up in the sky is defying the laws of physics!" From that, they would probably draw a conclusion: UFO, trick of the eyes, Halloween prop (considering the circumstances) .... etc etc. Regardless, one of the attributes of the "sighting" would seem to be something happening that was extraordinary.

So I still think it should be explored, if you desire to ... and that would still be using critical thinking.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have never suffered an injury or condition that would cause me & my buddy to hallucinate simultaneously in the exact same manner.

This is unlikely to be the cause of our experience.

A completely unknown non-human intelligence, living here on Earth with us, is MORE likely?

I'm really not sure I have words to respond to that.

 

[Marcus]

I do not know who or what 'they' are...

Saying I believe in aliens is a mis-characterization of my stance.

I'm a bit confused, how can you be a "knower" if you do not know? Did you mean you "know" that you saw something that you do not know what it was?

 

[GeeMack]

I'm a bit confused, how can you be a "knower" if you do not know? Did you mean you "know" that you saw something that you do not know what it was?

Correct. King of the Americas thinks he saw something he can't explain. He says he doesn't have the slightest idea what it was. He relies on an argument from ignorance to claim it wasn't human. And his continued refusal to accept the term "alien" to describe something that, by his own description, would be defined as alien, is flat out dishonest.

So King of the Americas, how about you give those aliens some kind of name. That way when you're talking about those aliens you think you saw, you don't have to keep up that silly non-human, non-alien, non-hallucination, non-delusion, non-gods, non-anything-anyone-suggests crap. The dishonesty of your argument is bordering on a flat out lie.

 

[carlitos]

Is the theory that these whatever-beings are living in between the human-occupied places, like in the middle of nowhere, on top of a mountain or under the sea?

Or is a situation where they are mixed in with our population centers, but we can't see them with our human eyes / cameraphones?

I'm being serious in asking, by the way.

 

[GeeMack]

Is the theory that these whatever-beings are living in between the human-occupied places, like in the middle of nowhere, on top of a mountain or under the sea?

Or is a situation where they are mixed in with our population centers, but we can't see them with our human eyes / cameraphones?

I'm being serious in asking, by the way.

Anywhere. Anywhere at all. But not from space. That would be just crazy man's talk. Oh, and don't ask anyone to be any more specific than an argument from ignorance. And for god's sake don't call them aliens!

 

[King of the Americas]

My apologies...

JREF members,

Please accept my humble apology for the lack of civility I presented yesterday with my retort to "GeeMack". Regardless of what lies are presented about me or my stance, I should NEVER sink to such levels.

No excuses, I was WRONG, and it will not happen again.

I hope you don't hold that outburst against me for too long, although admittedly I deserve to be punished, beaten, suspended, or banned altogether. There's simply no room here for such behavior.

I ask now for your forgiveness and a modicum of understanding.

Yours Truly,

-King of the Americas