 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 12:25, Warp wrote:
> Every "unexplained" phenomenon is taken as evidence of UFOs, the main
> argument being that it's unexplained.
Well, technically, that makes perfect sense.
What doesn't make sense would be "Every unexplained phenomenon is taken as
evidence of alien space ships." :-) That's why I hate when people say "UFO"
and mean "alien space ship."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 22:43, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are
> suspicious, and can't be explained
Good so far...
> but the logical conclusions are this and that... etc.
If they can't be explained, how can you call your conclusions "logical"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much anyone
> who believes something.
vi is clearly superior to emacs in most ways.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 10:43 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 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.
Suspicious doesn't mean wandering off the deep end into things for which
there *isn't* any logical conclusion though. And, the fact is, nothing
implies that alien space craft is a logical conclusion, for any of it.
Heck, one of the guys that writes some of those UFO books (and even
coauthored some, apparently), and thinks Lazard is real, comes into the
place where I work all the time. The guy is frakking crazier than the
Rorschach character in the movie Watchmen. There is literally nothing
the guy talks about that isn't part of some "conspiracy", and he thinks
*everyone else* is nuts for not seeing it. So... seriously, I have some
experience with the sort of people that actually write about UFOs, and
think that quantum levitation, space ships, crash sites, etc. are all
"real". They are classic cranks - if one implausible things is true, so
must 500 other equally implausible things, including the contradictory ones.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> What doesn't make sense would be "Every unexplained phenomenon is taken as
> evidence of alien space ships." :-) That's why I hate when people say "UFO"
> and mean "alien space ship."
Sometimes you just have to accept colloquialisms even when they are
*technically* inaccurate.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:00:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> The major problem with ufologists and new age hippies is that they
>> *want*
>> to believe their superstitions and unjustified hypotheses even if that
>> means discarding completely plausible (and even fully demonstrable)
>> natural earthly explanations.
>
> It's even more involved than that - humans by their very nature are
> cognitively predisposed to accept as fact things that reinforce their
> beliefs, and to reject as being false things that challenge their beliefs.
>
Which is, of course, the problem with memory recall. Merely trying to
recall a memory has the effect of amplifying connections and
associations that reflect "prior" experience, and emotional attachments,
while undermining connections that do not, even if those less desirable
connections are the "correct" ones.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 11:09 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And that isn't just
>> opinion, its an entire field, called neuroscience.
>
> In which you're an expert? I doubt it.
Don't need to be. I know people that are. I have read things on the
subject, often, and none of it suggests, at all, that the sort of purely
anecdotal details behind 99% of the UFO phenomena is worth jack with
respect to it constituting "evidence" of anything at all.
> I also doubt you have watched the
> series and verified the facts, I haven't verified all of them but the
> some main characters. Lazard worked at a secret facility but that's it,
> serious UFOlogists reject him as they have tried to verify his claims
> with him, he just wants the attention; his car has a plate MJ-1, if your
> life is in danger from Gov threats you're going to be announcing you
> worked at Majestic? lol what a joke. He even breaks the law selling
> illegal radioactive isotopes from time to time when he should be hiding.
>
> You don't know everyone on Earth and what they do or not to affirm they
> ALL embellish, if a memory is strong enough you don't need to is always
> fresh for some reason even 40+ years I know this because I have met
> people that over time have said the same stories WITHOUT embellishment.
> Check the series and then make conclusions, you'll see now you're
> assuming too much.
I have watched several series of the sort, and yeah, some places, and
even people, are verifiable, sort of. The problem is, so are places and
even people in the Bible, and its almost as silly to suggest that the
otherwise completely unsupportable assertions about UFOs and alien
bodies make *any* more sense than unsupported claims about the fall of
the walls of Jericho, or the even more idiotic claims about Exodus
(hint, in the later case the ***only*** evidence of anyone Semitic in
the area is from hundreds of years too early, and it was a group that
pushed out the locals, and for a time ***ruled*** Egypt, before being
ousted again, not slaves), etc.
The facts of places and people do not directly support, without other
evidence, of which there isn't any, the contentions of "what" happened,
or "what" they actually saw. And, again, since all you have it witness
testimony, and the vast majority of that has been established decades
*after* the events, its completely unreliable, nor is it even possible
at this point, with *any* technique you might imagine trying, to verify
which bits are merely things they imagined, and which ones they actually
witnessed. Human memory isn't a hard drive, or a photograph. Its more
like a bloody warehouse full of "parts" of photographs, and bits of
recorded media, with bits of string running between the filing cabinets,
to indicate, more or less, which one's relate to each other. If a string
slips, or gets connected wrong, or even you look in the wrong drawer,
the result is a complete bloody disaster.
The brain was never meant to be precise. It does you *no* good to be
afraid of one specific cat, if its more efficient to only remember size,
color, general shape, and big teeth, and put all that together into
some, "Big scary things to avoid", file. That you run across the same
cat and "recognize" it as the same thing is almost incidental. You could
just as easily run across a bear, and become convinced, by the same
memory, that it was a bear the first time too. Precisions isn't
something it does. With something like, "Yep, I definitely saw some
strange material I had never seen before.", there is *nothing* there to
build a conclusion from that excluded "space aliens", from "weather
balloons", for someone that sees it, as long as there is, then, or at
some point later, sufficient cause to conclude that "space aliens" is a
plausible source. And, its all down hill from there, as they say.
Same goes, even more so, for all the nuts since, that spend their time
"looking for" phenomena, every damn one of which either thinks UFOs
might exist, or do, or are intentionally looking for them, etc. Where is
there, "Its big and has teeth", memory going to take them, to swamp gas,
or military flairs, or alien space ships? Their going to look at the
damn bear, and assume that its been one, all along.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:10:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much
>> anyone who believes something. It's people who "believe" in climate
>> change.
>
> I really hope that wasn't meant to imply that you oppose the concept
> of
> climate change.
My inclusion/exclusion of topics has nothing to do with my position on
those claims. :)
> (I agree that you shouldn't believe scientific claims just because
> they
> say so, but instead you should understand where those claims are coming
> from and what their justification is, as well as understand how the
> scientific method works and why it's different from superstition and
> conspiracy theories. It's just that I'm not sure what you meant by the
> above quote.)
There are those who believe in climate change not because they've applied
any rigor to it, but they have a "sense" that it's true even though they
haven't studied it personally. They "take it on faith" that the science/
scientists who support their point of view have done their homework.
That's no different than believing in UFOs because MUFON exists and they
say UFOs are real.
(Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day that
I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
unidentified. ;) )
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:50:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 11:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much
>> anyone who believes something.
>
> vi is clearly superior to emacs in most ways.
LOL
I agree. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day that
> I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
> unidentified. ;) )
I remember the story of one lady who got on a jury after being asked if she
believed in UFOs and she said no. Later, she got kicked off the jury for
having firm convictions in aliens. Her excuse for lying? "I was asked if I
believe in UFOs, and no, I believe they've been identified as alien space
craft." :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 13:56, Warp wrote:
> Sometimes you just have to accept colloquialisms even when they are
> *technically* inaccurate.
I know that. Unfortunately, I believe the people promoting the idea of alien
space craft are intentionally calling them "UFOs" instead of "flying
saucers" because it eliminates the only non-biased term to refer to the
topic at hand.
I.e., I dislike people calling space ships "UFOs" for the same reason I
dislike people saying "Evolution is only a theory": because they're doing it
on purpose to simply muddle the conversation to the point where you can no
longer debate clearly.
Not that I think that's what you were doing. I was more just making a
humorous observation. Not unlike a comment string I saw once that went
something like
1) We should all just switch to solar power.
2) And who will pay for that? Solar cells don't grow on trees, you know.
3) Well, technically....
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:54:45 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day
>> that I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
>> unidentified. ;) )
>
> I remember the story of one lady who got on a jury after being asked if
> she believed in UFOs and she said no. Later, she got kicked off the jury
> for having firm convictions in aliens. Her excuse for lying? "I was
> asked if I believe in UFOs, and no, I believe they've been identified as
> alien space craft." :-)
Interesting - but what was the case about?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Or
>
> There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
>
> Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167
Possibility yes, logic indicates is not probable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 22:43, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are
>> suspicious, and can't be explained
>
> Good so far...
>
>> but the logical conclusions are this and that... etc.
>
> If they can't be explained, how can you call your conclusions "logical"?
Well all the recollection of testimonials, scientific testing of samples
taken on sites and ufologist analysis, some ufologists with a background
of decades and they having normal jobs, so I assume you don't hire crazy
people so I think they reasoning is sound, they don't do it for a
living, they are thinking normal people that dedicate their time and
resources to find out the truth of course they must get money from their
help but I doubt is big. Ufologists are far more scientific than you
might think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see what you mean and a "crazy" person obsessed is different from a
respected ufologist, check the series, is not like that at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fair enough, I've even seen such particles in space videos in YouTube
and even teenagers can say is not UFOs, so with all the technology &
knowledge available now is not easy to fool people, those video are
obvious hoaxes and ufologist know better than that.
The ufologist in the series are not newage hippies, you write out of
ignorance again, you try to demonstrate they're a bunch of delusional
losers when you haven't even see much evidence of the series or other
ufologists research, you are referencing to some bad experiences you had
in the past, with an obvious bias to avoid what I tried to show you.
> When you say "you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing what
> you want to see, science and nothings else", it certainly sounds like you
> adamantly want me to accept what you believe.
That is your opinion not reality, is also reality that you like science
a lot and you're not willing to see things any other way with the same
attitude: "Give me facts or give me death!", that's what I meant. I like
Astrophysics too and some day UFO & astrophysics probably will be the
same, but OK you don't want to have anything to do with UFO/ghost/etc I
respect your opinion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
:) well I meant if possible, why not? let's do it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
yeah, you know every possible outcome and you know everything there is
to it and for a fact you can demonstrate there can't be anything else,
sure... your opinion hardly could be more biased, but OK, I see now how
difficult is to reason when the people don't want to and find some
intellectual pretext to not do so. But is your opinion and I respect it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/10/2011 7:06 AM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> so I assume you don't hire crazy people
I'm gobsmacked that anyone who has ever worked can say that. The last
job I was on there were at least two fully paid up members the raving
loony party, who needed minders when they went out and one that was so
delusional she regularly dined with the Princess Royal and her family.
Being crazy dies not bar you from holding down a job.
> so I think they reasoning is sound
I don't think that yours is.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 23:31, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> :) well I meant if possible, why not? let's do it.
The "let's do it" part is difficult if we don't even think it's possible.
"Hey, if it's possible to fly by flapping your arms, why not? Let's do it!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 23:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well all the recollection of testimonials, scientific testing of samples
> taken on sites and ufologist analysis,
Here's the thing. You call people who believe in ufo's and study them
believing them to be alien space ships "ufologists". However, there are
hundreds of times as many people who study UFOs and come to the conclusion
that they are mundane.
It's like seeing 1000's of fakes scammed "crying statue" and "bleeding
painting" type religious miracles, and listening only to the people who
think they're probably all true.
I.e., by not calling (say) air force investigators who come to the
conclusion that those lights are actually russian fighter jets "ufologists",
you are of course amplifying how much evidence you think they have.
> they having normal jobs, so I assume you don't hire crazy people
We have people here who believe the universe is a dream, who believe
Mohammad flew into the air on a flying horse, who believe Jesus is an outer
space alien, who believe that space aliens came millions of years ago to get
sealed into a volcano to watch movies, and who believe people are made out
of dust magicked to life. Yet these are all perfectly sane people, other
than their religious convictions, holding normal jobs.
> so I think they reasoning is sound,
This is argument from authority. "They seem like nice people, so they must
be right." That isn't how it works.
> Ufologists are far more scientific than you might think.
I think you don't understand how science works. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 21:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Interesting - but what was the case about?
I don't remember. Something where believing in UFOs was relevant. Maybe
something like an air force pilot in trouble for having leaked classified
information by telling someone where he was when he saw space ships or
something?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 23:26, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> when you haven't even see much evidence of the series or other ufologists
> research, you are referencing to some bad experiences you had in the past,
> with an obvious bias to avoid what I tried to show you.
"You disagree with me, so you must be delusional or you just don't
understand yet." You don't believe in Jesus because you just haven't
understood the Bible. Nobody disagrees with Objectivism who doesn't have
misconceptions about what it says.
A classic meme-protection technique. Learn to recognize it in yourself and
others, and you'll have a more open mind.
For all your complaints along this line, you seem closed to the possibility
that people here *have* looked at what your "ufologists" have said and come
to the conclusion that they're incorrect.
> That is your opinion not reality, is also reality that you like science a
> lot and you're not willing to see things any other way with the same
> attitude: "Give me facts or give me death!", that's what I meant.
And what's wrong with saying "you're making shit up, please provide a scrap
of evidence that you might be right"?
> but OK you don't want to have anything to do with UFO/ghost/etc I respect
> your opinion.
So what does alien space ships have to do with ghosts? Other than there's no
actual evidence for either one?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:06:31 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Ufologists are far more scientific than you might think.
They're plagued by confirmation bias. I spent a fair amount of time in
my misspent youth reading a lot about UFOs and came to the conclusion
quickly that ALL of it was nothing more than people who wanted to believe
extraterrestrials visit Earth regularly trying to prove that their
beliefs are true.
It's complete bunk.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's complete bunk.
So, say you. Earthling!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:16:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's complete bunk.
>
> So, say you. Earthling!
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/10/2011 6:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:16:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> It's complete bunk.
>>
>> So, say you. Earthling!
>
> LOL
The old ones are the best ones.
Unless *'The Old Ones'* are really evil.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:24:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/10/2011 6:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:16:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> It's complete bunk.
>>>
>>> So, say you. Earthling!
>>
>> LOL
>
> The old ones are the best ones.
> Unless *'The Old Ones'* are really evil.
So say we all. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I.e., by not calling (say) air force investigators who come to the
> conclusion that those lights are actually russian fighter jets "ufologists",
> you are of course amplifying how much evidence you think they have.
The military is biased and has their own agenda, and thus naturally they
cannot be trusted! If a member of the military denies that a phenomenon is
an alien spaceship, that's actually convincing evidence that it *was* an
alien spaceship.
(Of course if a member of the military claims that it *was* an alien
spaceship, he is immediately a trustworthy reliable source of inside
information. Only those members of the military who deny it are unreliable.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There are those who believe in climate change not because they've applied
> any rigor to it, but they have a "sense" that it's true even though they
> haven't studied it personally. They "take it on faith" that the science/
> scientists who support their point of view have done their homework.
To be fair, in subjects that I understand very little about (if anything
at all) I'm prone to believing the scientific community (especially if it's
widely accepted) a lot more easily than anybody else. The reason is that
I know (at least a bit) how science works and why it's more reliable than
other forms of "investigation". Hence if two differing claims are made
about an obscure subject, I find science's claim more reliable by default.
So far I have had very few disappointments with this (if at all).
All the disappointments have been on the other direction.
> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day that
> I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
> unidentified. ;) )
As I commented in another post, sometimes we should just accept
colloquialisms as they are, even if they are technically speaking incorrect.
Language changes and fighting against it is not very useful.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> you like science
> a lot and you're not willing to see things any other way with the same
> attitude
Incorrect. I am willing to see things in alternative ways. What you don't
seem to understand is that I'm not willing to *accept* things without
proper evidence and reliable scientific scrutiny. There's a big difference.
Open-mindedness does not mean "accept alternatives as plausible". It means
"don't reject alternatives without having at least scrutinized them". I have,
and I have not found enough convincing evidence, and neither has the
scientific community. I do put a lot of weight on the opinion of the
scientific community as a whole because I know how it works (and I know
that they can do a lot better of a job than I can with my limited knowledge
and resources).
It's the ufologists (and other pseudoscientists) who are closed-minded.
They reject natural earthly explanations outright. Moreover, if something
has no explanation (eg. because we cannot go back in time and measure the
one-time phenomenon properly), they will automatically consider it plausible
that it was something from another planet. That's an argument from ignorance,
and it's a fallacy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 13:56, Warp wrote:
> > Sometimes you just have to accept colloquialisms even when they are
> > *technically* inaccurate.
> I know that. Unfortunately, I believe the people promoting the idea of alien
> space craft are intentionally calling them "UFOs" instead of "flying
> saucers" because it eliminates the only non-biased term to refer to the
> topic at hand.
> I.e., I dislike people calling space ships "UFOs" for the same reason I
> dislike people saying "Evolution is only a theory": because they're doing it
> on purpose to simply muddle the conversation to the point where you can no
> longer debate clearly.
Maybe *some* people do that. However, the vast majority of people simply
use "ufo" as a short-hand for "a spaceship from another planet", and it's
a very widespread meaning. So widespread, that its original meaning is
basically completely lost. Thus it's not a good idea to use the term "ufo"
when you don't mean "a spaceship from another planet". It will only cause
confusion.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:51:05 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There are those who believe in climate change not because they've
>> applied any rigor to it, but they have a "sense" that it's true even
>> though they haven't studied it personally. They "take it on faith"
>> that the science/ scientists who support their point of view have done
>> their homework.
>
> To be fair, in subjects that I understand very little about (if
> anything
> at all) I'm prone to believing the scientific community (especially if
> it's widely accepted) a lot more easily than anybody else. The reason is
> that I know (at least a bit) how science works and why it's more
> reliable than other forms of "investigation". Hence if two differing
> claims are made about an obscure subject, I find science's claim more
> reliable by default.
>
> So far I have had very few disappointments with this (if at all).
> All the disappointments have been on the other direction.
The thing is that there have been scientific studies done that show both
results. Some (on both side of the discussion) have been proven to be
incomplete, incorrect, or flat out wrong. That's why there's so much
noise made about "falsified data" on the side of the "pro-climate change"
group.
I just would note that I've not stated what my own belief on this subject
is in the above paragraph.
>> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day
>> that I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
>> unidentified. ;) )
>
> As I commented in another post, sometimes we should just accept
> colloquialisms as they are, even if they are technically speaking
> incorrect. Language changes and fighting against it is not very useful.
In this case, I agree, though "UFO" has come to mean "spaceship from
another world". But I still like playing games with literal meanings,
too, if only to make people think.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2011 10:16, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's complete bunk.
>
> So, say you. Earthling!
Say-a what you-a will, Monkey boy!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:06 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> On 10/25/2011 22:43, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are
>>> suspicious, and can't be explained
>>
>> Good so far...
>>
>>> but the logical conclusions are this and that... etc.
>>
>> If they can't be explained, how can you call your conclusions "logical"?
>
> Well all the recollection of testimonials, scientific testing of samples
> taken on sites and ufologist analysis, some ufologists with a background
> of decades and they having normal jobs, so I assume you don't hire crazy
> people so I think they reasoning is sound, they don't do it for a
> living, they are thinking normal people that dedicate their time and
> resources to find out the truth of course they must get money from their
> help but I doubt is big. Ufologists are far more scientific than you
> might think.
Otherwise sane people, with jobs, claim they *know* that the government
is intentionally producing "chemtrails", on the basis of finding
Aluminum in water (the single most common element on the damn planet,
along side Silicon). Just saying...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2011 1:44 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I.e., by not calling (say) air force investigators who come to the
>> conclusion that those lights are actually russian fighter jets "ufologists",
>> you are of course amplifying how much evidence you think they have.
>
> The military is biased and has their own agenda, and thus naturally they
> cannot be trusted! If a member of the military denies that a phenomenon is
> an alien spaceship, that's actually convincing evidence that it *was* an
> alien spaceship.
>
> (Of course if a member of the military claims that it *was* an alien
> spaceship, he is immediately a trustworthy reliable source of inside
> information. Only those members of the military who deny it are unreliable.)
>
Of course, the third, and more likely option, that they are both partly
lying to you, either the make sure, in case #1, that you don't hit on
what it actually *was*, and in case #2, that you will ignore what it
might be, in favor of the totally nuts, isn't even on the radar. The
best lie is the one where you tell the person the absolute truth, but
leave out critical details (such as what it really was, or any hint as
to what it was). The second best is to tell the persons precisely what
they are *sure* it is already.
Since its not plausible for the same person to claim both, at the same
time, unless they are a Republican politician, of course, you need two
different people, to present the apposing fictions. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:08 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I see what you mean and a "crazy" person obsessed is different from a
> respected ufologist, check the series, is not like that at all.
Believing only one implausible thing isn't any better, especially when
most of the foundations behind the idea you are pursuing come, directly
or indirectly, from the "crazy" people. It becomes a sort of cargo
cultism. It doesn't matter which tribe member first became convinced
that building runways and fake radio towers would bring back the
airplanes, now everyone is just *certain* that they are just not quite
getting it quite "right".
The people looking for Atlantis are similar. Its plausible that a whole
hell of a lot of stuff they are stumbling over, and following "may" lead
to artifacts of prior civilization, the problem is, Atlantis isn't going
to be that civilization. It is, and always has been, nothing but a
single mention in some old poem, and 100% of everything since is based
on the works of one total kook. Not one scrap of anything the man wrote
was researched by him personally, he didn't travel, didn't do
archeology, or so much as leave his house, except maybe to buy some new
book on speculative archeology, or mythology, which he used to create
his works. He just strung a mass of bits and pieces of half discovered
stuff together, and concluded it "pointed to" something that no other
record *anywhere* from ancient times even remotely suggests is real,
existed, or gives a name to.
He was Tolkien, before people knew that the sort of stuff Tolkien wrote
was "fiction", and everything we know about Atlantis, is pretty much
indistinguishable, in its reality, from Mordor.
Ufology is a crazy mix of stuff from people that fall into one of three
categories:
1. We think its something like what all the nuts prior to us claim.
2. We don't know, but sort of hope that some advanced civilization has
better science than us, so it *could be* something sort of like, #1,
only without the crazy.
3. We don't know at all, but we sure as hell don't trust anyone else to
figure it out, especially the military, government, or most scientists.
In short, even the relatively sane ones are still paranoid.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:10:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much
>>> anyone who believes something. It's people who "believe" in climate
>>> change.
>>
>> I really hope that wasn't meant to imply that you oppose the concept
>> of
>> climate change.
>
> My inclusion/exclusion of topics has nothing to do with my position on
> those claims. :)
>
>> (I agree that you shouldn't believe scientific claims just because
>> they
>> say so, but instead you should understand where those claims are coming
>> from and what their justification is, as well as understand how the
>> scientific method works and why it's different from superstition and
>> conspiracy theories. It's just that I'm not sure what you meant by the
>> above quote.)
>
> There are those who believe in climate change not because they've applied
> any rigor to it, but they have a "sense" that it's true even though they
> haven't studied it personally. They "take it on faith" that the science/
> scientists who support their point of view have done their homework.
>
> That's no different than believing in UFOs because MUFON exists and they
> say UFOs are real.
>
> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day that
> I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
> unidentified. ;) )
>
> Jim
Which is certainly true. But, the counter argument is that the guy that
stays on the plane, because he is sure that angels are carrying the
wings, will stay on the plane, while the guy that thinks they "zapped"
everyone, including the plane with an "anti-gravity ray", might just be
dumb enough to open the door and jump out. There may be no functional
difference between the two, but one has a bloody lot higher odds of
being right, or surviving, even if its by accident. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2011 2:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:51:05 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> There are those who believe in climate change not because they've
>>> applied any rigor to it, but they have a "sense" that it's true even
>>> though they haven't studied it personally. They "take it on faith"
>>> that the science/ scientists who support their point of view have done
>>> their homework.
>>
>> To be fair, in subjects that I understand very little about (if
>> anything
>> at all) I'm prone to believing the scientific community (especially if
>> it's widely accepted) a lot more easily than anybody else. The reason is
>> that I know (at least a bit) how science works and why it's more
>> reliable than other forms of "investigation". Hence if two differing
>> claims are made about an obscure subject, I find science's claim more
>> reliable by default.
>>
>> So far I have had very few disappointments with this (if at all).
>> All the disappointments have been on the other direction.
>
> The thing is that there have been scientific studies done that show both
> results. Some (on both side of the discussion) have been proven to be
> incomplete, incorrect, or flat out wrong. That's why there's so much
> noise made about "falsified data" on the side of the "pro-climate change"
> group.
>
Sadly, the whole "controversy" is pure bullshit, as is the "falsified
data". Yes, this happens. It happens among paid for shills, working for
places owned by people with clear agendas, who are, as has been said,
"have a hard time understanding something, when they are paid not to."
When there is a concerted effort to use the trappings of scientific
investigation to promote profit, or denial, and the general public is
actively discouraged from either knowing enough to tell the difference,
never mind how to tell the difference, its hardly surprising that public
trust is lost, and it becomes easier to confuse people with false
information.
In many case the "different studies produce opposite results"
unfortunately is a mix of bad studies (there are a whole hell of a lot
of those, especially among those trying to "prove" some seriously stupid
shit, or trying to use scientism to promote pseudoscience), there are
cases where they just failed to do a large enough sample size, of other
conditions distorted the result. And, unfortunately, especially in
medicinal research, there is a time limit between patent, production,
and pay off, which inherently biases the system to try to get positive
results, prove the medicine as soon as feasible, and make back the cost
of research, as quickly as feasible, before the patent runs out. This
means high cost, sometimes poor control in testing, or even cherry
picked data, in the sense of de-enphasizing data that implies possible
problems, combined with fast tracking of what "appears" to be a
successful product.
Usually this isn't critical, but with medicine often becoming more
precise, exacting, specific to conditions, and thus, prone to unknown
variables, or even hard to test for effects, in many cases, its creating
some big problems. However, in nearly every case where a failure has
arisen, there was prior evidence, in the studies, ignored or otherwise,
indicating that the problem *might* have existed. Thus its not a failure
of science, but a failure to "apply it" properly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:27:56 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Otherwise sane people, with jobs, claim they *know* that the government
> is intentionally producing "chemtrails", on the basis of finding
> Aluminum in water (the single most common element on the damn planet,
> along side Silicon). Just saying...
No, no, no, we all know it's because they've fluoridated the water. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:48:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Which is certainly true. But, the counter argument is that the guy that
> stays on the plane, because he is sure that angels are carrying the
> wings, will stay on the plane, while the guy that thinks they "zapped"
> everyone, including the plane with an "anti-gravity ray", might just be
> dumb enough to open the door and jump out. There may be no functional
> difference between the two, but one has a bloody lot higher odds of
> being right, or surviving, even if its by accident. lol
I'm not sure what this is in reference to from what I wrote.....?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:45 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> yeah, you know every possible outcome and you know everything there is
> to it and for a fact you can demonstrate there can't be anything else,
> sure... your opinion hardly could be more biased, but OK, I see now how
> difficult is to reason when the people don't want to and find some
> intellectual pretext to not do so. But is your opinion and I respect it.
Where is the evidence that aliens are a plausible explanation, at all.
We don't even know if "alien" is a coherent definition, or just a
anthropomorphic projection of the original meaning of "outsider" to some
non-existent thing from another planet. We simply don't know. The answer
to, "What is it?", is either, "something known", or "I don't know".
Unless you already have real, clear, evidence that space aliens are
real, or any of the other myriad supposed things they "might be", as
suggested by such UFOlogists, its no more a coherent, never mind
plausible, explanation than that its time travelers, ghosts, holograms,
pixies, or magic tea pots.
I don't have a damn clue, any more than they do, what the hell they are.
But I do bloody well know that I **don't** have a clue, and that there
is, therefor, no reason to pull some random science fiction term, from
Orwell and the like, out of my butt, and say, "I think this is a
reasonable thing for it to be." By that definition of "reasonable"
demons, ghosts, Ayakashi would have made just as much sense, a few
hundred years ago. And, there where lots of *examples* of prints,
mysterious burn marks, strange and spooking feelings, and people
claiming to have personally *seen* those things, at the time too, even
including, "artifacts", in some cases, "owned by them", which,
"disappeared", but where of, "unearthly origin", according to the people
that handled them.
I am not telling you what I know these things are. I am telling you why
its absurd to assume, just because a lot of people currently think its a
space ship, instead of a sky dragon, and find that more "scientific",
with no more evidence than was once used to *prove* the sky dragon, that
those people have any better idea what they are dealing with, or a more
plausible answer, without clear evidence, than a 10th century peasant,
who thought it was spirits, or a 15th century Japanese priest, who
thought he saw a demon lord menacing his village.
Having a more modern, "We haven't a damn clue, but this sounds good!",
version doesn't make it, or the witnesses, or the explanations, or the
vague and inconclusive "evidence" that you see with UFOs any more
reasonable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2011 10:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:27:56 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Otherwise sane people, with jobs, claim they *know* that the government
>> is intentionally producing "chemtrails", on the basis of finding
>> Aluminum in water (the single most common element on the damn planet,
>> along side Silicon). Just saying...
>
> No, no, no, we all know it's because they've fluoridated the water. ;)
>
> Jim
Oh god, maybe they are doing both!!! lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/27/2011 10:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:48:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Which is certainly true. But, the counter argument is that the guy that
>> stays on the plane, because he is sure that angels are carrying the
>> wings, will stay on the plane, while the guy that thinks they "zapped"
>> everyone, including the plane with an "anti-gravity ray", might just be
>> dumb enough to open the door and jump out. There may be no functional
>> difference between the two, but one has a bloody lot higher odds of
>> being right, or surviving, even if its by accident. lol
>
> I'm not sure what this is in reference to from what I wrote.....?
>
> Jim
Just saying, indirectly, that being right, for the wrong reasons, i.e.
belief in it, rather than knowing the facts, isn't *that* huge of a
problem, for the believer. They may be doing the right thing, for the
wrong reason, but they don't "step off the plane, in mid-flight", unlike
the twit that "believes" the exact opposite (such as believing that
climate is fake).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 11:45 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
....
>
> Having a more modern, "We haven't a damn clue, but this sounds good!",
> version doesn't make it, or the witnesses, or the explanations, or the
> vague and inconclusive "evidence" that you see with UFOs any more
> reasonable.
Do not scoff. UFOs ARE REAL AND MOVE AMONGST US.
I have proof. Indisputable simulated photographic evidence exists which
confirms that UFOs (the Uncultured Financially Obsessed) not only walk
unchallenged among the human population, but also control each and every one of
the shadowy clandestine societies that secretly run the world, including the
Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission and the British Dental Association.
Soon, I will begin to expose the Great UFO Conspiracy in a major mockumentary…
er… um… make that documentary report to be known as “Project Puce Book”. I am
looking for a few brave “researchers” willing to adopt the personae of
“respectable scholars and scientists” (not Tomato Men) and contribute “evidence”
to the site.
Be sure to include the secret code phrase, “the blue crow flies in square
circles at midnight” in your reply.
,sdrager tseB
Mike the Elder
P.S. Am I serious? Sort of… I’ve thought about making a parody site like this
for a while and might actually get to it if another person or two would like to
join in the fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:36:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Just saying, indirectly, that being right, for the wrong reasons, i.e.
> belief in it, rather than knowing the facts, isn't *that* huge of a
> problem, for the believer. They may be doing the right thing, for the
> wrong reason, but they don't "step off the plane, in mid-flight", unlike
> the twit that "believes" the exact opposite (such as believing that
> climate is fake).
OIC. The problem is that being right for the wrong reasons reinforces
superstitious beliefs and other cognitive errors.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
either way, they could be either denying or acknowledging that
unidentified flying objects were alien tech indeed. From Russia.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/28/2011 8:25 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:36:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Just saying, indirectly, that being right, for the wrong reasons, i.e.
>> belief in it, rather than knowing the facts, isn't *that* huge of a
>> problem, for the believer. They may be doing the right thing, for the
>> wrong reason, but they don't "step off the plane, in mid-flight", unlike
>> the twit that "believes" the exact opposite (such as believing that
>> climate is fake).
>
> OIC. The problem is that being right for the wrong reasons reinforces
> superstitious beliefs and other cognitive errors.
>
> Jim
Yeah. But, if your the guy trying to fix something, you can at least
work with it. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/10/2011 3:09 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 10:16, Stephen wrote:
>> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> It's complete bunk.
>>
>> So, say you. Earthling!
>
> Say-a what you-a will, Monkey boy!
>
So insults we trade, corporeal being.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 3:09 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 10/27/2011 10:16, Stephen wrote:
> >> On 27/10/2011 5:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>> It's complete bunk.
> >>
> >> So, say you. Earthling!
> >
> > Say-a what you-a will, Monkey boy!
> >
> So insults we trade, corporeal being.
Don't worry. When the New World Order is established by the One World
Government under the supervision of the reptilians, all such disagreements
will become obsolete.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
