UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2015, 10:21 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2015 10:27 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 10:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Look up argument from ignorance on wikipedia. It is exactly as how I described. You are making that fallacy.

No, it isn't, and no, I'm not.

The argument from ignorance, and I am quoting the source you gave here, "asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

Which is not what you said.

(09-09-2015 08:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It essentially boils down to this:

"if a proposition has not been proven true, then it cannot be considered true and is thus must be considered false"

The inclusion of the word "considered" is the key point here. I have at no point said that it has definitively been proven that aliens have never visited Earth.

I have stated that there is no evidence supporting the idea of aliens having visited Earth, and so the assertion must be considered false, which is true.

The distinction is critical, and is characteristic of your issues with the finer details of logic. Define your terms and know what the ideas you are attempting to use actually mean before posting, or we're never going to get anywhere.

Or are you going to argue that assertions which have no supporting evidence should be considered anything other than false?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
09-09-2015, 10:23 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 09:54 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Monty Python expressed it best in the famous Galaxy Song, when they said that the speed of light is the fastest speed there is. Let me repeat: The speed of light is the fastest speed there is. There is no such thing as "faster than light." The phrase "faster than light" is as meaningless as the phrase "three divided by zero." Grammatically, it seems to mean something, but it has no meaning, because there is no such thing as division by zero and there is no such thing as "faster than light."

Period.

The speed of light only applies to information traveling through space. Objects can move away from each other faster than the speed of light because the space between them is expanding faster than the speed of light.

And then there are those pesky tachyons that gave the Romulans so much trouble.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 10:36 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2015 10:46 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 10:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 10:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Look up argument from ignorance on wikipedia. It is exactly as how I described. You are making that fallacy.

No, it isn't, and no, I'm not.

The argument from ignorance, and I am quoting the source you gave here, "asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false."

Which is not what you said.

(09-09-2015 08:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It essentially boils down to this:

"if a proposition has not been proven true, then it cannot be considered true and is thus must be considered false"

The inclusion of the word "considered" is the key point here. I have at no point said that it has definitively been proven that aliens have never visited Earth.

I have stated that there is no evidence supporting the idea of aliens having visited Earth, and so the assertion must be considered false, which is true.

The distinction is critical, and is characteristic of your issues with the finer details of logic. Define your terms and know what the ideas you are attempting to use actually mean before posting, or we're never going to get anywhere.

You didn't read the entire wiki article then.

You believe that if there is a logical alternative explanation, then something isn't proven to be true. Well guess what. It is possible the speed of light(actually the permeability and permiittivity of free space) is not constant. Yet you believe it be constant(I presume).

It is possible that photons are emitted at a random speed yet by pure happenstance alone, every photon we have ever observed has traveled at the same speed. Improbable....yes....but still a logically possibility.

Now there is a certain probability that the speed of light is constant. We don't know that probability so lets call it X. If the speed of light in a vacuum is constant X=1. If the speed of light in a vacuum turns out to be random, X=0.

Every time we observe a photon traveling through a vacuum and measure it at the same speed as the last photon we measured, while never having measured photons at a different speeds, X moves closer to 1. We have made so many observations that most people believe X in this circumstance is essentially 1.

But by your thinking the belief that the speed of light is constant cannot be considered true because all the other possible explanations haven't yet been disproven. Since those alternative explanations could account for our observations there really isn't any evidence the speed of light is constant.

This is a fallacy of ignorance and you are making it with UFOs and with the Quantum mechanics. Hopefully this (purposely ridiculous) example will make it clear that the kind of thinking you are employing is fallacious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 10:49 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 10:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You believe that if there is a logical alternative explanation, then something isn't proven to be true.

Well, yes. That's rather what "there is another logical explanation which fits the evidence" means.

(09-09-2015 10:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  But by your thinking the belief that the speed of light is constant cannot be true because all the other possible explanations haven't yet been disproven.

Equivocating fallaciously again.

"There is no other logical explanation which fits the evidence" is not equivalent to "literally every other posited explanation has been actively proven false".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 10:53 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 10:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 09:19 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That is how it works, yes.

This isn't a fallacy. The concept of the burden of proof is central to logic and rationality.

Look up argument from ignorance on wikipedia. It is exactly as how I described. You are making that fallacy.

So then according to Blowjob's logic, saying there are no pink sparkly unicorns because there is no evidence for pink sparkly unicorns, amounts to the argumentum ad ignorantium. What a fucking idiot.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-09-2015, 12:36 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2015 11:13 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 07:45 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 07:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  How is this, exactly, different from the God of the Gaps?

Because it makes no positive claims, and uses cohesive reasoning to support the postulation.

Cohesive reasoning? Fair enough, provided you acknowledge your two entirely unevidenced assumptions.

But until those are given evidence, it's still in the same category of sloppy thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 01:48 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 10:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 10:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Look up argument from ignorance on wikipedia. It is exactly as how I described. You are making that fallacy.

So then according to Blowjob's logic, saying there are no pink sparkly unicorns because there is no evidence for pink sparkly unicorns, amounts to the argumentum ad ignorantium. What a fucking idiot.

I forgive you for calling me a fucking idiot.

I've notice that nobody really engages in conversations with you on this forum. Sure they might respond to you now and then....but they don't really engage you. You're like the little kid who so desperately wants to be part of the conversation the adults are having that you lash out with these annoying interjections. I'd simply just ignore you but in a silly childish way, you're too damn cute. I've always had a special place in my heart for runts of the litter. You'll always be that runt Bucky.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 01:52 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 12:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:24 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Why are they bunk?

Because they are invariably baseless speculation.

Pick a case and show me why.

I need to know specifics.

If you are making the assertion that they are bunk, then specifics will help greatly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 01:55 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 12:34 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:27 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Prove it.

No this is your job. When you make an assertion, such as "Aliens exist", it is then up to you to prove that assertion.

Are you simply advertising a movie featuring alien conspiracy theorists, or are you in fact telling us aliens exist?

If the latter, you have to prove it. If the former, thanks for letting us know about the film.
I am fully aware of where the burden of proof lies. A worthless comment was made so I played back.

Let me make it clear that I cannot prove with 100% certainty anything to anyone. I am simply putting forth the available evidence that shows that the UFO phenomenon should be taken seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 01:59 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 01:52 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because they are invariably baseless speculation.

Pick a case and show me why.

I need to know specifics.

If you are making the assertion that they are bunk, then specifics will help greatly.

Its bunk because it is possible things other than aliens could explain the cases. So any evidence you have really isn't evidence for aliens.

His thinking is errant. Evidence doesn't cease to be evidence because of some possible ambiguities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: