That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2014, 11:18 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:53 AM)Free Wrote:  The analogy was virtually identical, referencing eyewitness reports. Regardless if it is deemed extraordinary or not, the point is clear that a judge does indeed consider eyewitness reports as evidence.

Again, no. The type of claim being made changes the level of evidence required.

And that eliminates eyewitness accounts as being deemed as evidence?

If the case went to court, do you think the judge would say something to the effect of, "No eyewitness accounts can be permitted in the case?"

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:20 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:18 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Again, no. The type of claim being made changes the level of evidence required.

And that eliminates eyewitness accounts as being deemed as evidence?

If the case went to court, do you think the judge would say something to the effect of, "No eyewitness accounts can be permitted in the case?"

The claim is extraordinary, the eyewitness testimony is not extraordinary evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:22 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Since both have no empirical evidence, then neither is conclusive. Both are plausible.

You do not understand the meaning of empirical evidence. Look it up.

"Verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

https://www.google.ca/search?q=empirical...2&ie=UTF-8

Have you seen the singularity or observed space expanding?

Blink

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2014 11:52 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:18 AM)Free Wrote:  And that eliminates eyewitness accounts as being deemed as evidence?

If the case went to court, do you think the judge would say something to the effect of, "No eyewitness accounts can be permitted in the case?"

The claim is extraordinary, the eyewitness testimony is not extraordinary evidence.

That did not answer my question, so I put it to you again.

If this UFO case went to court, do you think the judge would say something to the effect of, "No eyewitness accounts can be permitted in the case?"

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  The claim is extraordinary, the eyewitness testimony is not extraordinary evidence.

That did not answer my question, so I put it to you again.

If the case went to court, do you think the judge would say something to the effect of, "No eyewitness accounts can be permitted in the case?"

That's a strawman, no one is making a claim that eyewitness testimony is inadmissible. They are saying that the eyewitness testimony is not equivalent to the extraordinary nature of the claim. And its not.

And yes your analogy was terrible.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
28-11-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:51 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  That did not answer my question, so I put it to you again.

If the case went to court, do you think the judge would say something to the effect of, "No eyewitness accounts can be permitted in the case?"

That's a strawman, no one is making a claim that eyewitness testimony is inadmissible. They are saying that the eyewitness testimony is not equivalent to the extraordinary nature of the claim. And its not.

And yes your analogy was terrible.

Really?

Here's his statement:

Quote:Except that there is no evidence that what they saw was an aircraft. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692599

The O'Hare UFO incident has at least 12 eyewitnesses.

The issue is whether or not eyewitness testimony is considered to be evidence.

It's as simple as that.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:22 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  You do not understand the meaning of empirical evidence. Look it up.

"Verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

https://www.google.ca/search?q=empirical...2&ie=UTF-8

Have you seen the singularity or observed space expanding?

Blink

We observe cosmic redshift and cosmic microwave background. This is empirical evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-11-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  The claim is extraordinary, the eyewitness testimony is not extraordinary evidence.

That did not answer my question, so I put it to you again.

If this UFO case went to court, do you think the judge would say something to the effect of, "No eyewitness accounts can be permitted in the case?"

He would say they are insufficient.

Not all eyewitness testimony is equal.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:57 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:51 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  That's a strawman, no one is making a claim that eyewitness testimony is inadmissible. They are saying that the eyewitness testimony is not equivalent to the extraordinary nature of the claim. And its not.

And yes your analogy was terrible.

Really?

Here's his statement:

Quote:Except that there is no evidence that what they saw was an aircraft. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692599

The O'Hare UFO incident has at least 12 eyewitnesses.

The issue is whether or not eyewitness testimony is considered to be evidence.

It's as simple as that.

Drinking Beverage

There is no evidence that confirms their belief that what they saw was a vehicle.
It's as simple as that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 12:04 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(28-11-2014 11:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:22 AM)Free Wrote:  "Verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

https://www.google.ca/search?q=empirical...2&ie=UTF-8

Have you seen the singularity or observed space expanding?

Blink

We observe cosmic redshift and cosmic microwave background. This is empirical evidence.

It is empirical evidence of cosmic redshift and microwace background only.

The rest is theory, and I know you are smart enough to know that.

Concede this point or not?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: