On 10/23/2011 1:08 AM, Warp wrote:
>    When you encounter an extraordinary claim, investigate. And when
> investigating, avoid bias. Do not "investigate" only material that
> supports the claim. Also investigate serious material that discredits
> the claim. Search for debunking websites and consider what they are
> saying and why.
>
I will go one step beyond this and say, "If something seems to support 
the claim, but there is no link, article/page numbers, or other 
information that can be used to find the original source, which they 
claim supports them, find it anyway." Odds are, all too often, the 
original source either doesn't say what they claim, says something 
similar, but which does not come even close to supporting their 
contentions, or even completely, flat out, contradicts them. People who 
badly want something to be true, will grasp at any straw they can, and 
you can usually tell they are grasping straws, or either intentionally, 
or unintentionally, misrepresenting something, by, not merely failing 
to, refusing to link to the original source.

Then, of course, there are the delusional, who link to the source, fully 
certain that either you won't bother checking it, or that, when you do, 
you will agree with them (even when the article in question directly 
addresses claims like their own, and refutes them). In any case, never 
take the word of someone claiming things that don't fit the common view 
at face value. They might have a great idea, but they might also be a 
long standing nutcase, who mangles every paper they get their hands on, 
in an attempt to use even the words of people that undermine every claim 
they are making, in the very article being referenced. You can't be 
sure, unless you compare what is claimed *about* the article, with what 
it *actually* says. At least, not with any level of trust, especially 
when the claim is something that falls in the "fringe" zone, of theory, 
and gives skeptics a case of hives. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 10/23/2011 14:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> or even completely, flat out, contradicts them.

Like the people who quote the judge in the court case that said "the 16th 
amendment granted no new ability for the federal government to impose 
taxes." And then they dance all around saying "See? You don't need to pay 
taxes!"

The judge finished the sentence with "because the federal government already 
had and has always had the ability to impose income taxes. This amendment 
just (paraphrasing) adjusted how the accounting works."

People do the same thing with patents. "Look, a patent on peanut butter 
sandwiches! How stupid!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
>> useful
>> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
>
> Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
> idea of how to go about doing so?
>

You missed the point.

Post a reply to this message

Are you sure is me who is arguing out of ignorance? are you sure you 
have the last word on the subject because you know absolutely everything 
there is to know about it? Are you sure the life threatening experienced 
are not memorized efficiently for decades of some UFO interactions? Are 
you sure I'm a complete illiterate?

You should ask this questions before assuming, hence writing out of 
ignorance, about someone. take this also a s friendly advice.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Are you sure is me who is arguing out of ignorance? are you sure you 
> have the last word on the subject because you know absolutely everything 
> there is to know about it? Are you sure the life threatening experienced 
> are not memorized efficiently for decades of some UFO interactions? Are 
> you sure I'm a complete illiterate?

> You should ask this questions before assuming, hence writing out of 
> ignorance, about someone. take this also a s friendly advice.

  You clearly don't understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
It does not mean "you are an ignorant person, your argument is bollocks".

  "Argument from ignorance" is a form of argumentation where a positive
claim is drawn from something not having an explanation. For example,
a classic form of argument from ignorance is: "Science can't explain where
the universe came from. Thus it must have been created by God." In other
words, if something cannot be explained (by science in general or by the
person you are talking with in particular), that's taken as evidence for
the claim.

  You see this all the time in all kinds of situations, especially ufology.
Every "unexplained" phenomenon is taken as evidence of UFOs, the main
argument being that it's unexplained. Hence argument from ignorance.

  Of course this is a completely flawed argument. If something is unexplained,
then it is unexplained. Taking it as evidence of an explanation is flawed
argumentation. In fact, it's self-contradictory. It's basically saying
"this cannot be explained, thus it can be explained".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Well such a basic assumption is old and of course every one tries to 
avoid it and yes you don't know nor can't explain everything through 
science now, as are many thing in nature, nor you haven't seen how and 
what those cases are all about you're generalizing out of ignorance 
because you saw a few cases and wrongly assume situations will repeat 
the same for the most part. And because something can't be explained it 
doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open 
your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts 
or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing 
what you want to see, science and nothings else.

Post a reply to this message

Forgot to say, check the series 'UFO Files' and again, not everything is 
false not everyone/everything is true but some things are. Bob Lazard is 
a attention whore fake witness for example that does appear in the 
series but there are others that do offer truthful and objective 
indication of ET presence, I suggest you to re-read my post: 
news://news.povray.org:119/4e9f7644@news.povray.org you're assuming many 
wrongful things about my posts & myself when I explained how and why 
precisely to avoid people assuming things but you looks like you 
over-read it and did it anyway.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/25/2011 4:43 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well such a basic assumption is old and of course every one tries to
> avoid it and yes you don't know nor can't explain everything through
> science now, as are many thing in nature, nor you haven't seen how and
> what those cases are all about you're generalizing out of ignorance
> because you saw a few cases and wrongly assume situations will repeat
> the same for the most part. And because something can't be explained it
> doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
> your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
> or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
> what you want to see, science and nothings else.
Ugh.. Its the, "Different ways of knowing", argument, combined with what 
can best be called the, "If we keep doing it, maybe next time it will 
happen a different way!", argument, which most people would define as a 
sign of, if not potentially insanity, then at least extreme wishful 
thinking.

Here is a hint, every other "way of knowing" has been a dismal failure 
at providing explanations, facts, evidence, or anything that might 
otherwise result in progress towards doing anything useful with the 
"knowledge" thus produced. When someone can show *any* example to the 
contrary, which doesn't, at some point, rely on scientific experiment, 
repeatability, and elimination of other possible explanations *before* 
reaching something *usable*... well, then we will open our minds to the 
above "possibilities".

Now, I need to go and see if, this time, the pot I put on the stove 
freezes, instead of boiling. Apparently, I need to open my mind, and a 
few repeated cases of it boiling isn't sufficient reason to imagine that 
I know what will happen the next time.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/25/2011 4:53 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Forgot to say, check the series 'UFO Files' and again, not everything is
> false not everyone/everything is true but some things are. Bob Lazard is
> a attention whore fake witness for example that does appear in the
> series but there are others that do offer truthful and objective
> indication of ET presence, I suggest you to re-read my post:
> news://news.povray.org:119/4e9f7644@news.povray.org you're assuming many
> wrongful things about my posts & myself when I explained how and why
> precisely to avoid people assuming things but you looks like you
> over-read it and did it anyway.

Funny, given that Lazard is one of the few people that can even be 
proven, based on the evidence, to even exist, instead of having been 
made up, by among others, Lazard, in some cases, its hardly helping the 
argument to claim that he is less credible than people that there are no 
records of, outside of the claims made that they where in fact "at" 
various places, like Roswell.

The ones you can verify, you get so much contradictory details, that its 
hardly clear at all what they did see, report, etc., at the time, never 
mind years later, after they had plenty of time to embellish. And 
***everyone*** embellishes. There is no person on earth, with the 
possible exception of some people with near perfect photographic 
memories, who doesn't construct every detail of what happened to them 
10. 20, etc. years prior, out of fragments, complete with modifications, 
distortions, and misremembered details. At best, some of us have 
friends, neighbors, and relatives that are also there, and *they* offer 
versions that mostly coincide, to the result is "close" to the original. 
Divorce someone of anyone they can talk to about it, then leave them 
decades to only construct their own narrative of events, from their own 
faulty recollections, and I would be surprised if they remembered 
"anything" accurately, which they didn't have clear reason to recall.

We know that even the act of recalling an event both "strengthens" that 
memory, but alters it at the same time. If you haven't had a reason to 
recall it at all, for decades, what does that do to it, when you try to 
recover it? It certainly can't be trustworthy. And that isn't just 
opinion, its an entire field, called neuroscience.

Post a reply to this message

No is not like that at all, you think you know everything about it and 
you don't, also who said I was trying to be "useful" with this info? 
Being cynical and speaking out of ignorance won't help you either.

The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are 
suspicious, and can't be explained but the logical conclusions are this 
and that... etc.

People are so cynical because they like to be in their comfort zone, so 
be it.

Post a reply to this message