UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 10:20 AM)Free Wrote:  And what is "X" specifically?

Any given thing that the argument in question wishes to present as evidence.

(27-09-2015 10:20 AM)Free Wrote:  Does X specifically and conclusively PROVE that the Big Bang happened?

Still irrelevant.

Stop trying to derail the conversation. It has been pointed out many times why this is a completely unimportant question.

(27-09-2015 10:20 AM)Free Wrote:  But ... without anecdotes- without at first there being an eyewitness observation, and without that eyewitness observation being passed along by either word of mouth or a paper- NOTHING IN SCIENCE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

And this still does not make anecdotes evidence.

You really don't seem to understand what either of those words mean.

"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
27-09-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 10:47 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 10:20 AM)Free Wrote:  Does X specifically and conclusively PROVE that the Big Bang happened?

Still irrelevant.

Stop trying to derail the conversation. It has been pointed out many times why this is a completely unimportant question.

Do you think I am going to let you get away with a red herring accusation that I am trying to derail the topic? Do you seriously think so?

No. I will not let you get away with that at all.

You said that the evidence is verified. I am pinpointing you directly to what does it specifically verify and whether or not your "X" provides conclusive evidence that the Big Bang happened.

And that is directly relevant to your claim of verified.

So answer the fucking question.

Quote:
(27-09-2015 10:20 AM)Free Wrote:  But ... without anecdotes- without at first there being an eyewitness observation, and without that eyewitness observation being passed along by either word of mouth or a paper- NOTHING IN SCIENCE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

And this still does not make anecdotes evidence.

You really don't seem to understand what either of those words mean.

You keep insisting this, but I keep correcting you.

The reality is that you are simply refusing to acknowledge that anecdotes are in fact evidences used to increase belief in one thing or another. You are displaying even more "denialism."

And again, since you refuse to acknowledge that fact ... you are still the fucking liar I proved you to be many many pages ago.

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
27-09-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  Do you think I am going to let you get away with a red herring accusation that I am trying to derail the topic? Do you seriously think so?

No. Because it's not a red herring.

(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  You said that the evidence is verified. I am pinpointing you directly to what does it specifically verify

In the case of the Big Bang theory, things like galaxies moving away, the cosmic background radiation, and so on have all been verified as true.

(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  and whether or not your "X" provides conclusive evidence that the Big Bang happened.

Conclusive is irrelevant. It is evidence.

You're the one who keeps trying to make this a discussion of epistemology rather than proof. Or do you claim that the only possible evidence that something is true is definitive?

(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:And this still does not make anecdotes evidence.

You really don't seem to understand what either of those words mean.

You keep insisting this, but I keep correcting you.

No. You keep repeating the same already-refuted nonsense and claiming that it's a rebuttal.

There is a difference.

(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  The reality is that you are simply refusing to acknowledge that anecdotes are in fact evidences used to increase belief in one thing or another.

"Evidence" does not mean "something that increases belief". Belief is subjective. Belief is irrelevant.

Actual evidence is anything that logically supports a given proposition.

Anecdotes do not.

"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
27-09-2015, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2015 11:50 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 11:21 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  Do you think I am going to let you get away with a red herring accusation that I am trying to derail the topic? Do you seriously think so?

No. Because it's not a red herring.

Yeah it was. And you demonstrate that yourself by actually responding to my question in your post below. So if it wasn't relevant, how then are you responding to it within the context of my question?

Quote:
(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  You said that the evidence is verified. I am pinpointing you directly to what does it specifically verify

In the case of the Big Bang theory, things like galaxies moving away, the cosmic background radiation, and so on have all been verified as true.

Verified as "true" in confirming the existence of the Big Bang?

Quote:
(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  and whether or not your "X" provides conclusive evidence that the Big Bang happened.

Conclusive is irrelevant. It is evidence.

It is evidence yes, but evidence of what? The Big Bang?

Quote:You're the one who keeps trying to make this a discussion of epistemology rather than proof. Or do you claim that the only possible evidence that something is true is definitive?

No, that is what YOU have been claiming when you say that historical UFO data, photos, and eyewitness testimonies cannot be considered as supporting evidence to generate belief in alien visitation.

Since that is your standard of proof, we can use it against you and say that you, personally, are not able to consider that galaxies moving away, the cosmic background radiation et al can in any way be used as evidence to support belief in Big Bang theory.

Quote:
(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  You keep insisting this, but I keep correcting you.

No. You keep repeating the same already-refuted nonsense and claiming that it's a rebuttal.

There is a difference.

You haven't refuted anything, and numerous times I have supplied evidence to support my position, while NOT ONCE have you ever supplied anything other than your own brain-dead fucking assertions.

There's a fucking reason why it's called anecdotal evidence, idiot. It is used in science, in trials, and in any other situations where testimony is required.

Quote:
(27-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  The reality is that you are simply refusing to acknowledge that anecdotes are in fact evidences used to increase belief in one thing or another.

"Evidence" does not mean "something that increases belief". Belief is subjective. Belief is irrelevant.

Actual evidence is anything that logically supports a given proposition.

Anecdotes do not.

Like who the fuck are you to tell anybody whether or not evidence cannot be something used to increase belief in something? You don't think a murder weapon being presented in court will increase believability in a crime? You don't think anecdotal testimony against a witness will increase believability in his guilt? You don't think the evidence of cosmic background radiation when added to the Big Bang theory increases the level of belief in the Big Bang theory?

The more fucking evidence supplied, the greater the belief. That's how it works dude, get over it.

You seem to be hopelessly stuck on one single definition of the word "anecdotal," and just can't past the concept that it has many different definitions depending on how it is used.

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
27-09-2015, 12:21 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
At work.

Okay.... once more from the top.

To FREE;

First comment/point;

Yes, I do think (Use of the word 'Believe' would fit) that there is/probably life existing some where else in the galaxy.

Are we of an accord on that point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 12:21 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Okay.... once more from the top.

To FREE;

First comment/point;

Yes, I do think (Use of the word 'Believe' would fit) that there is/probably life existing some where else in the galaxy.

Are we of an accord on that point?

Of course. Also, most scientists also agree. Almost everybody in this topic also agrees.

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
27-09-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 12:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 12:21 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Okay.... once more from the top.

To FREE;

First comment/point;

Yes, I do think (Use of the word 'Believe' would fit) that there is/probably life existing some where else in the galaxy.

Are we of an accord on that point?

Of course. Also, most scientists also agree. Almost everybody in this topic also agrees.

At work.

Wish I had more time/keyboard for better post.

Second point;

So.... you do under stand that the problems for something being 'Over there' to get to here? (Or vise-versa)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 12:47 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 12:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Of course. Also, most scientists also agree. Almost everybody in this topic also agrees.

At work.

Wish I had more time/keyboard for better post.

Second point;

So.... you do under stand that the problems for something being 'Over there' to get to here? (Or vise-versa)

Yes, according to the current state of human knowledge and technology it would appear from the human perspective that there would be a problem in travelling from one star system to another.

But if intelligent alien life does exist, we cannot compare their intelligence or possible technology to what we, as humans, currently have or understand.

In other words, we cannot speak of the possible technologies an intelligent alien civilization could possibly have, because we can in no way humanize them to our level of knowledge and technology.

If it is possible that intelligent alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, then it is equally possible that they may have solved the problem of travelling between star systems.

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
27-09-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
At work.

Okay, slow down FREE.

So, you're acknowledging the problems.

You're agreeing that it is a potentially massive undertaking to 'sail' the gulf of void between the stars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 01:00 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Okay, slow down FREE.

So, you're acknowledging the problems.

You're agreeing that it is a potentially massive undertaking to 'sail' the gulf of void between the stars.

For humans, yes it is.

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: