• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
John Albert said:
The thing is, you don't know that you've seen an alien craft; you just believe you did. You saw what you saw—whatever it was—and assumed it was an alien spacecraft, when the simple fact is you have no possible way of knowing that whatever you saw was alien, or even a "craft" as such.
Click to expand...


Actually I do know with as much certainty as is needed to make the determination. What I can't do is prove it to you, and we've been through that enough times already.
Click to expand...


NO, you don't. You just believe you do. There's no possible way for you to actually know what you're claiming to know.
 
ufology said:
<blather>

tau·tol·o·gy [taw tóll?jee] (plural tau·tol·o·gies) noun

1. LINGUISTICS redundancy: a redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence or idea using different words

2. instance of tautology: an instance of redundant repetition

3. LOGIC logical true proposition: a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true

Thanks for confirming.
Click to expand...


Yeah, confirming that tautology is in exactly the same drawer as 'unfalsifiable' and those really aren't the types of claims ( worthless ) that you want to be making.
 
ufology said:
Actually I do know I saw an alien craft.
Click to expand...


How do you know it wasn't a witch?


ufology said:
What I can't do is prove it to you, and we've been through that enough times already.
Click to expand...


How many is enough? It's obviously less than sufficient, but is it more than an extraordinary number of times?

It sounds like it might be approximately equal to 'plenty'.

Gosh, this semantic weaselry is hard.
 
Dave_4 said:
Akhenaten said:
Drivel, folo. Requiring a higher standard of evidence for something that's never been shown to exist than for something that's as common as dirt is not "pushing a bias onto the issue". <snip>
Click to expand...


Oh Pharaoh. Could we look at it this way? As an enormous number of sheds exist (how many millions?) there is an extraordinary amount of evidence for the existence of them. All we need now is the same sort of evidence for an alien ship.

Dave
Click to expand...


I don't think so because 'enormous' is too subjective and 'existence' doesn't have any objective meaning either.

Also, talking about the 'same' sort of evidence is introducing bias.
 
ufology said:
Q. You're saying that sufficiency may be different for different examples?
A. Yes. It was implied that the word "sufficient" is also subjective, however it's not unless one makes it so by adding something beyond what is needed, and merely because what is sufficient in one example isn't the same as for another another doesn't take any of that away. For example, what is sufficient water for one plant ( e.g. a cactus ) may not be sufficient water for another plant ( e.g. a water lily ). Both require sufficient water for survival yet both amounts are different.
Click to expand...


Since you sound more and more like DOC with every post . . .


SpecialPleading.jpg
 
ufology said:
Tauri

In your example above, you wouldn't need any greater evidence for cheese on the moon than cheese in your sandwich, all you would need is some actual moon cheese mmm ... cheese ... give me a tray of fresh cheese buns with butter and I'll agree with whatever you say.
Click to expand...
Really folo? To accept that I'd eaten a cheese sandwich for my lunch you wouldn't take my word for it unless I could show you some remnants of cheese made from the udders of a Earth-bound cow, at the bottom of my lunchbox; and similarly if I showed you that cheese and said it was moon cheese not Earth-cow cheese (because we all know the moon is made out of cheese :rolleyes:), and that I'd eaten my sandwich on the moon, you would believe me, straight up?

Just like that. No need for rocket, or to see my special pass to the Kennedy Space Center, or be amazed at my space suit? Really? :confused:

footnote: the moon is not made of cheese. If you re-read my post, carefully, you will see that wasn't the claim I was making in order to illustrate ECREE.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
Really folo? To accept that I'd eaten a cheese sandwich for my lunch you wouldn't take my word for it unless I could show you some remnants of cheese made from the udders of a Earth-bound cow, at the bottom of my lunchbox; and similarly if I showed you that cheese and said it was moon cheese not Earth-cow cheese (because we all know the moon is made out of cheese :rolleyes:), and that I'd eaten my sandwich on the moon, you would believe me, straight up?

Just like that. No need for rocket, or to see my special pass to the Kennedy Space Center, or be amazed at my space suit? Really? :confused:

footnote: the moon is not made of cheese. If you re-read my post, carefully, you will see that wasn't the claim I was making in order to illustrate ECREE.
Click to expand...


And if you go back and read my original post I had qualified it by saying that claims "requiring evidence" only require sufficient evidence. So for example if you had lost your lunch box and it looked like everyone else's except for your rather unique cheese sandwich inside, then the cheese sandwich might be sufficient evidence of your ownership.
 
John Albert said:
NO, you don't. You just believe you do. There's no possible way for you to actually know what you're claiming to know.
Click to expand...


Sure there is ... look up the definition of the word "know". What I can't do is prove to you that what I know is true.
 
ufology said:
And if you go back and read my original post I had qualified it by saying that claims "requiring evidence" only require sufficient evidence. So for example if you had lost your lunch box and it looked like everyone else's except for your rather unique cheese sandwich inside, then the cheese sandwich might be sufficient evidence of your ownership.
Click to expand...


You seem to be completely overlooking the Moon part of this whole cheese sammich example.
 
23_Tauri said:
:D

Don't know about you, but I'm waiting for a re-definition of the word 'cheese'....
Click to expand...
Well with the amount of weasel words he's using, perhaps instead of a lunchtime lunar cheese picnic, we could have used the example of Chelsea Weasel Cheese?

Weasel-Cheese-ad-1.jpg
 
ufology said:
A. This is not a "yes" or "no" issue because even though one claim may have more and/or better evidence than the other, both may still possess insufficient evidence to accept either claim, in which case we would be dealing with what seems to be the best choice between the two in terms of probabilities. So for example in the case of UFOs being alien craft or being witches, we have here a certain faction that considers both to be of equal probability based on the way they view evidence ... I present official USAF case studies and intelligence memos confirming radar/visual contact with a foreign craft unknown to human technology, while the pro-witch supporters produce mocking graphics and fake videos. You tell me who has the "better" evidence.
Click to expand...


Your opinion, as has been demonstrated numerous times within the past several pages of this thread alone, is based on a willful ignorance and intentionally dishonest assessment of the studies to which you refer. Consequently your opinion is completely without merit. Yes, you've failed again. And again, as much as you'd like to, you can't blame the skeptics.
 
ufology said:
Akhenaten said:
How do you know that what you saw wasn't a witch?
Click to expand...


How do you know you're not a witch? I'm sure you can prove it to us somehow right? I simply will not give an honest answer to a simple question. I won't, I won't, I won't!
Click to expand...


As a helpful cooperative skeptic I'm offering the above constructive contribution to the thread, the "Ufologese" to English translation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom