 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
