That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 10:04 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:01 AM)Machias Wrote:  The truth of the O'Hare claims is not decidable by a court, so your argument is irrelevant.

Dude, how can you miss the fact that we are using analogies? Consider

Bad analogies don't help and often mislead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 10:14 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 10:06 AM)Machias Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:04 AM)Free Wrote:  Dude, how can you miss the fact that we are using analogies? Consider

Bad analogies don't help and often mislead.

No support for your position?

I see you didn't read the thread.

Carry on. Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 10:14 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:06 AM)Machias Wrote:  Bad analogies don't help and often mislead.

No support for your position?

I see you didn't read the thread.

Carry on. Thumbsup

The support is in the post - the analogy of a court proceeding is not applicable to determining scientific fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 10:45 AM)Machias Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:14 AM)Free Wrote:  No support for your position?

I see you didn't read the thread.

Carry on. Thumbsup

The support is in the post - the analogy of a court proceeding is not applicable to determining scientific fact.

Scientific fact has nothing to do with the analogy. The discussion is all about the validity of the analogy, and nothing to do with the scientific method.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 10:57 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 11:06 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 12:33 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The point stands however, your analogy was not analogous in any way. Eye witness testimony is accepted in courts, but it's not accepted in scientific investigation. So when Chas says they have no evidence to support their claims he is in fact right, because the claim it's self is not evidence for the claim.

⇧Truly I think this is the crux of why this analogy breaks down.

Below is the gist and obstacles of your argument as I understand it:

1. A physical manifestation of an object without physical, scientific proof (eyewitness accounts do not qualify as scientific proof as both Chas and Whiskey explain above).
2. Said object operated by non-human beings.
3. Said object appearing to defy conventional laws of physics.

The event can be sliced and diced in a myriad of ways but in the end there still exists no tangible scientific proof that a craft piloted by extraterrestrials flew and hovered over O’Hare and then zipped off through the clouds defying known laws of physics.

I suspect that the universe harbors countless other life-forms form bacteria to sentient beings however, to this date, we have no scientific evidence for it. I think without it all we have is supposition, conjecture and hypotheses and we’re left with only the following unanswerable question; “I wonder what those twelve people saw?”

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
11-12-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 10:47 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:45 AM)Machias Wrote:  The support is in the post - the analogy of a court proceeding is not applicable to determining scientific fact.

Scientific fact has nothing to do with the analogy. The discussion is all about the validity of the analogy, and nothing to do with the scientific method.

Then what is the point of your crappy analogy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 11:01 AM)Machias Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Scientific fact has nothing to do with the analogy. The discussion is all about the validity of the analogy, and nothing to do with the scientific method.

Then what is the point of your crappy analogy?

You keep saying "crappy" without justifying why it is crappy. If you think I am going to write a 10 page essay on why it's not "crappy" just because you think it is, you are out of luck.

Again, the point is to demonstrate whether or not BOTH analogies are valid.

This conversation with you looks like it is headed for a degree of tediousness that will undoubtedly render it pointless.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 11:21 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 11:25 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 10:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 12:33 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The point stands however, your analogy was not analogous in any way. Eye witness testimony is accepted in courts, but it's not accepted in scientific investigation. So when Chas says they have no evidence to support their claims he is in fact right, because the claim it's self is not evidence for the claim.

⇧Truly I think this is the crux of why this analogy breaks down.

Below is the gist and obstacles of your argument as I understand it:

1. A physical manifestation of an object without physical, scientific proof (eyewitness accounts do not qualify as scientific proof as both Chas and Whiskey explain above).
2. Said object operated by non-human beings.
3. Said object appearing to defy conventional laws of physics.

The event can be sliced and diced in a myriad of ways but in the end there still exists no tangible scientific proof that a craft piloted by extraterrestrials flew and hovered over O’Hare and then zipped off through the clouds defying known laws of physics.

I suspect that the universe harbors countless other life-forms form bacteria to sentient beings however, to this date, we have no scientific evidence for it. I think without it all we have is supposition, conjecture and hypotheses and we’re left with only the following unanswerable question; “I wonder what those twelve people saw?”

The introduction of some kind of need of the scientific method into the trial scenario is a demand for new and greater evidence.

In other trials, the scientific method is not a demand. So why are we introducing it into this hypothetical scenario?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 11:13 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 11:01 AM)Machias Wrote:  Then what is the point of your crappy analogy?

You keep saying "crappy" without justifying why it is crappy. If you think I am going to write a 10 page essay on why it's not "crappy" just because you think it is, you are out of luck.

Again, the point is to demonstrate whether or not BOTH analogies are valid.

This conversation with you looks like it is headed for a degree of tediousness that will undoubtedly render it pointless.

Try addressing why your analogy is even applicable to the issue. It does not appear that anyone here agrees that it is an appropriate or useful analogy, but you just keep repeating that it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 11:23 AM)Machias Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 11:13 AM)Free Wrote:  You keep saying "crappy" without justifying why it is crappy. If you think I am going to write a 10 page essay on why it's not "crappy" just because you think it is, you are out of luck.

Again, the point is to demonstrate whether or not BOTH analogies are valid.

This conversation with you looks like it is headed for a degree of tediousness that will undoubtedly render it pointless.

Try addressing why your analogy is even applicable to the issue. It does not appear that anyone here agrees that it is an appropriate or useful analogy, but you just keep repeating that it is.

That's been done already. Comparisons have been made, and I am now awaiting a response as to why those comparisons are false, true, or simply disagreed with.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: