Am 26.09.2014 17:00, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that
> are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about
> them, but still many things without explanation,

Now /that/ is an "argument from ignorance": Jumping from the fact that 
there are still "many things without explanation" to the conclusion that 
therefore a given theory X (in this case, "there are aliens"), that 
would /happen/ to explain them, /must/ be true.

But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been 
confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to 
this date.

> and there is a
> plausible number of hundreds of intelligent species to be alive right
> now in the know Universe,

That is plausible indeed, some would even say almost inevitable, but 
those hundreds of intelligent species might still live the same isolated 
life as we do on our own planet.

In fact, the anthropic principle would suggest (albeit not necessarily 
imply) that if interstellar travel is feasible, we'll be the first 
species to do it. Otherwise, the dominant species on our planet 
(dominant to the extent that evidence would be everywhere) would 
probably not be humans but some extraterrestrial species already.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 17:10, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
>>
>> Saul.
>> You are overdoing it again.
>> A word to the wise ;-)
>
> He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)
>

I think so. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 17:23, clipka wrote:
> Hot-headed? Seriously?

Don't listen Saul. He is well noted for it. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
>> about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
>> political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
>> knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
>> relevant.
>
> I am, and ready many of the posts silently over time and checked that a
> good number of them are political-related and the rest pretty random, so
> I thought mine wouldn't be the exception but rather normal but
> interesting, maybe you should check the topics before making this such
> recommendation.

But you flooded the forum with them. That is not the best way to go 
about it.

I would post one and if there was no response. I might post another but 
after that. I would keep off the subject.
It would be obvious that it was not a topic of interest, here.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 18:48, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/09/2014 17:23, clipka wrote:
>> Hot-headed? Seriously?
>
> Don't listen Saul. He is well noted for it. ;-)

Shhhh! :-P

(But yeah, I did manage to get into some hot-headed discussions; I guess 
Warp can attest that right now I'm /not/ in hot-headed mode... Warp? You 
reading this? Help me out, for fuck's sake :-))

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2014 18:03, clipka wrote:
> (But yeah, I did manage to get into some hot-headed discussions;

Oh! Tell us more.
Because I was just fishing. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:26, schrieb Stephen:
> > On 26/09/2014 16:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> >> Hahaha, keep playing the fool
> >
> > Saul.
> > You are overdoing it again.
> > A word to the wise ;-)

> He met just the right person in Warp though; somebody had me pop corn ;-)

I have lately grown tired of that kind if quip, so please just skip it.
I don't really care if it's humorous or not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Hahaha, keep playing the fool

Why exactly should I, or anybody else for that matter, take you seriously
if this is the level of your discussion?

I asked you a pretty clear question, and rather than have an actual
discussion about it, you simply act like a really infantile smartass.

From your posts in the last few days you seem to want to give a very
intellectual picture of yourself, using seemingly fancy terms and
claiming to approach things in a logical and skeptical manner, yet
when someone critiques what you say, this is the level of discussion
to which you resort. That's not in any way intellectual or intelligent.
It's just childish.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2014 17:00, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> > news://news.povray.org:119/54256812@news.povray.org here I explain that
> > are not only theories. Aliens, can't be discarded, a lot of BS about
> > them, but still many things without explanation,

> Now /that/ is an "argument from ignorance": Jumping from the fact that 
> there are still "many things without explanation" to the conclusion that 
> therefore a given theory X (in this case, "there are aliens"), that 
> would /happen/ to explain them, /must/ be true.

I was going to point out how that is indeed a textbook example of
argument from ignorance, but you beat me to it.

I don't know what Saul thinks said term means (since he refuses to
tell), but it does indeed mean to take an unknown and take it as
supporting evidence for a claim.

One of the most typical and prevalent examples is making an argument
for the existence of God as: "Science can't explain where the Universe
came from." This kind of fallacious argumentation is surprisingly
common. Very similar arguments are very common among other woo fields
such as ufology and believers in ghosts/the supernatural (in fact,
I bet that if you made a google search for "unexplained", the vast
majority of hits will be about either of those subjects.)

"Argument from ignorance" does *not* mean something like "you are
just making that claim because you don't know enough about the
subject in question" (even though the fallacy is a bit unfortunately
named, and may give that impression).

> But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been 
> confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to 
> this date.

As the original discussion I was referring to in my previous post was
about the origin of life on Earth, while aliens cannot be definitively
discarded, it seems highly unlikely (and, ultimately, it just needlessly
shifts the question of the origin of life to another planet).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.09.2014 19:57, schrieb Warp:

> "Argument from ignorance" does *not* mean something like "you are
> just making that claim because you don't know enough about the
> subject in question" (even though the fallacy is a bit unfortunately
> named, and may give that impression).

I suspect that the original term, like many of the fallacies' names, was 
pure latin: "argumentum ab ignorantia", literally meaning "argument from 
non-knowledge", and that it was poorly "anglicanized" later.

Alternatively, it may have been "anglicanized" at a time when the 
meaning of "ignorance" was closer to the original latin word, rather 
than the "not knowing shit" meaning it seems to be used for nowadays.

>> But you're right indeed: Aliens can't be discarded. Nor have they been
>> confirmed to have set on this planet (or even come into its vicinity) to
>> this date.
>
> As the original discussion I was referring to in my previous post was
> about the origin of life on Earth, while aliens cannot be definitively
> discarded, it seems highly unlikely (and, ultimately, it just needlessly
> shifts the question of the origin of life to another planet).

That's indeed Occam's Razor at its best.

Post a reply to this message