Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Frying Dutchmen]

It has also been shown that you ignore your senses at your own peril.

When where how?

 

[Mirrorglass]

It has also been shown that you ignore your senses at your own peril.

Really? References?

 

[Paul2]

It has also been shown that you ignore your senses at your own peril.

Ignore doesn't mean accept at face value.

 

[King of the Americas]

Really? References?

I'd reference you to the post that got me 'suspended'.

Were one, not you or anyone else in particular, to stand on a railroad track, and IGNORE that your senses are telling you that emanate death approaches...

It isn't going to end well for you.

Our senses help us interpret our world, and navigate it successfully. They CAN be trained and trusted.

That every skeptic demands we dismiss trained spotters, pilots, police and material witness reports as "flawed" or "inaccurate", to maintain their skepticism is crazy to me...

Ignore your senses at your peril 'I' say.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I'd reference you to the post that got me 'suspended'.

Were one, not you or anyone else in particular, were to stand on a railroad track, and IGNORE that your senses are telling you emanate death approaches...

It isn't going to end well for you.

Our senses help us interpret our world, and navigate it successfully. They CAN be trained and trusted.

That every skeptic demands we dismiss trained spotters, pilots, police and material witness reports as "flawed" or "inaccurate", to maintain their skepticism is crazy to me...

Ignore your senses at your peril 'I' say.

So what you are saying is that your sense are telling you an unidentified flying freight train is about the run the Earth over, and we need to start trusting you, or we'll be run over?

Well, I'm convinced.

By the way, have you remembered to pay attention to the sensation of cloth on your skin today?

 

[GeeMack]

That every skeptic demands we dismiss trained spotters, pilots, police and material witness reports as "flawed" or "inaccurate", to maintain their skepticism is crazy to me...

Those trained spotters, pilots, police, and material witnesses report seeing things that they aren't able to explain. Fact is, people make flawed and inaccurate observations all the time. As a semi professional magician with over 40 years experience I can attest to seeing first-hand thousands of people believing they saw something that they didn't really see. Maybe tens of thousands.

It's not the fact that witnesses believe they saw some particular thing or, in most cases, don't really know what they saw that skeptics dismiss. It's the UFO nutters' non-skeptical acceptance and silly interpretations of those reports, supported by nothing more than their ignorance, incredulity, and desperate desire for their fantasy to be real that gets dismissed. And that is the process of skepticism working properly.

 

[King of the Americas]

So what you are saying is that your sense are telling you an unidentified flying freight train is about the run the Earth over, and we need to start trusting you, or we'll be run over?

Well, I'm convinced.

By the way, have you remembered to pay attention to the sensation of cloth on your skin today?

No.

MY senses have told 'me' that there is something intelligent in our heavens, that isn't us. These U.F.O's are more capable that we are, technologically speaking.

I trust my eyes, and the reports of others who have seen similar object throughout the ages.

So, based on the reality I perceive, I accept that they ARE 'up there'.

Now, I'd like to know how to get them to come down.

 

[Paul2]

Our senses help us interpret our world, and navigate it successfully. They CAN be trained and trusted.

Sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong.

 

[Mirrorglass]

No.

MY senses have told 'me' that there is something intelligent in our heavens, that isn't us. These U.F.O's are more capable that we are, technologically speaking.

I trust my eyes, and the reports of others who have seen similar object throughout the ages.

So, based on the reality I perceive, I accept that they ARE 'up there'.

Now, I'd like to know how to get them to come down.

Well, if they're so far ahead of us in everything, I don't think there's much you can do to get them to do anything. They'll do whatever they want, and what they want is to never interact with humans in any way that isn't easily explained by natural phenomena and human fallibility. The sneaky bastards.

 

[Stray Cat]

That every skeptic demands we dismiss trained spotters, pilots, police and material witness reports as "flawed" or "inaccurate", to maintain their skepticism is crazy to me...

Apart from the obvious question of "where does one go to get trained to spot alien space craft?" No sceptic asks that we dismiss eye witness reports, but they quite rightly question the reliability of them because they simply can not be guaranteed as accurate.

I resist the temptation to make a quip about 'train spotters'

Ignore your senses at your peril 'I' say.

Yes, don't drive down a desert road on a hot day otherwise you may skid on the wet patches?

 

[King of the Americas]

Sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong.

Agreed.

So to say "ALL reports of intelligently piloted U.F.O.'s are indeed a failure of someone's senses" would be wrong at least half the time....

 

[King of the Americas]

Apart from the obvious question of "where does one go to get trained to spot alien space craft?" No sceptic asks that we dismiss eye witness reports, but they quite rightly question the reliability of them because they simply can not be guaranteed as accurate.

I resist the temptation to make a quip about 'train spotters'



Yes, don't drive down a desert road on a hot day otherwise you may skid on the wet patches?

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/HighwayMirageEPODusraedu.jpg[/qimg]

Ah to the 'untrained' eye, maybe?

Those DON'T look like wet patches to me.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Agreed.

So to say "ALL reports of intelligently piloted U.F.O.'s are indeed a failure of someone's senses" would be wrong at least half the time....

That does not follow. It's perfectly possible that you're wrong every time you think you see an UFO, but right every time you think you see, say, a tree.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Ah to the 'untrained' eye, maybe?

Those DON'T look like wet patches to me.

Then there is something wrong with your eyes, as that is what wet patches look like. That they are, in this case, an optical illusion, is irrelevant to that fact.

 

[King of the Americas]

... No sceptic asks that we dismiss eye witness reports, but they quite rightly question the reliability of them because they simply can not be guaranteed as accurate.

...

Rramjet has posted COUNTLESS reports and testimonies from eye witnesses from every rank, position and place imaginable to what end? Is it 'proof' or 'evidence' of an actual existence to skeptics...?

"Not without a body"...skeptics proclaim.

Astronauts, pilots, police, military officials, civilian elected leadership, and mere civilians alike have made reports, paintings, photographs, and video images of unexplained objects throughout the ages.

All so skeptics could arrive at "denial".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet has posted COUNTLESS reports and testimonies from eye witnesses from every rank, position and place imaginable to what end? Is it 'proof' or 'evidence' of an actual existence to skeptics...?

"Not without a body"...skeptics proclaim.

Astronauts, pilots, police, military officials, civilian elected leadership, and mere civilians alike have made reports, paintings, photographs, and video images of unexplained objects throughout the ages.

All so skeptics could arrive at "denial".

Perhaps you've never been introduced to Campeche? It's been a thorn in Rramjet's side for over a year.

 

[Stray Cat]

Rramjet has posted COUNTLESS reports and testimonies from eye witnesses from every rank, position and place imaginable to what end? Is it 'proof' or 'evidence' of an actual existence to skeptics...?

"Not without a body"...skeptics proclaim.

Astronauts, pilots, police, military officials, civilian elected leadership, and mere civilians alike have made reports, paintings, photographs, and video images of unexplained objects throughout the ages.

All so skeptics could arrive at "denial".

No actually, I think you'll find they did all that so that UFOlogists could arrive at "conclusion"
The fact that the flimsy, ambiguous, inaccurate and unreliable evidence does not weigh heavy enough for the solid conclusions often reached by UFOlogists seems lost on those who paint sceptics as closed minded.

 

[King of the Americas]

Perhaps you've never been introduced to Campeche? It's been a thorn in Rramjet's side for over a year.

Weakening someone's points or attempting to claim the findings are unimportant, is not proving someone wrong.

 

[King of the Americas]

That does not follow. It's perfectly possible that you're wrong every time you think you see an UFO, but right every time you think you see, say, a tree.

Where a child sees a monster's shadow on the wall, an adult will see a tree's shadow.

Experience being the great divider...

To the untrained eye, a falling star can be seen as a U.F.O., and so on.

That said, when a novice plane spotter and eager amateur astronomer reports that he and a friend both saw "star like object make right angle turns, while maintaining a constant speed", then I lean toward accepting the report of an actuality.

All of the reports can't bee 100% inaccurate.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Where a child sees a monster's shadow on the wall, an adult will see a tree's shadow.

Experience being the great divider...

To the untrained eye, a falling star can be seen as a U.F.O., and so on.

That said, when a novice plane spotter and eager amateur astronomer reports that he and a friend both saw "star like object make right angle turns, while maintaining a constant speed", then I lean toward accepting the report of an actuality.

All of the reports can't bee 100% inaccurate.

It's unlikely that they are. However, that does not mean they have anything to do with the aliens your religious views are based on. On what grounds can you say all those sightings weren't of fairies? That seems quite closed-minded of you. Or have you disproven the existence of fairies?