UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 12:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Neither the part where you can't substantiate your claims nor the part where you get pissy when called on it is bullshit.

You see, your problem is this:

(11-09-2015 12:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "I don't know therefore I do" is a goddamn awful argument when theists try it, and it's a goddamn awful argument when Free tries it.

While ignoring my truthful position of:

Quote:I do not conclude that alien visitations are factual, but only postulate the possibility."

Therefore, when I say that "someone" is misrepresenting my position, it can be demonstrated as factual, and thereby that person can rightfully be categorized as being "intellectually dishonest."

Wouldn't you agree?

Big Grin

As has been explained to you repeatedly, a lack of knowledge is not grounds for just making shit up. To even claim something as a possibility requires its own substantiation.
"I don't know, therefore it's possible" is not an argument either.
"I don't know, therefore it's possible, therefore I know what's most probable" is not an argument either.

Do you want me to go find examples of you disingenuously equivocating between certainty and possibility?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 01:09 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 12:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The weaknesses in eyewitness testimony are well-documented, yet you seem to gloss them over, so folks are making sure that the point is made.


What you, and those folks are "glossing over" is your intentional misrepresentation of eyewitness testimony in this discussion. Your post above may be true with a single witness, or maybe even two or three, but it doesn't hold an ounce of water when 12 or more witnesses all point to the exact same thing.

So, please make a point that I do in fact acknowledge the possible weakness of a singular eyewitness, or even two or three- but do NOT use that to misrepresent my position on this issue when I am clearly stating 12 or more eyewitnesses all pointing to the same thing.

We all know and understand how a large number of eyewitnesses who were not predisposed to expecting something to happen would increase a judge's confidence in the claim of truth, as opposed to a decreased measure of confidence if there was only one eyewitness.

Denying this makes anybody look fucking retarded, and if I continue to see this misrepresentation, I will call out whoever does it as being "fucking retarded."

Big Grin

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
11-09-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Free said something in another thread recently that I think demonstrates the core of the issue here:
(10-09-2015 04:15 PM)Free Wrote:  I'm a "need to know" kind of guy. I will postulate any conceivable idea in an effort to get feedback off of those who have more education than me, all because not knowing drives me up the fucking wall.

The last time we went down this UFO rabbit-hole it was the same thing. The idea that we can recognize that there is an unknown and not feel compelled to assume one possible answer until a better one comes along appears to be anathema to Free.
(28-11-2014 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  All I am looking for is the best possible explanation, and considering the fact that UFOs definitely exist and many of the ones that displayed characteristics similar to the O'Hare incident were classified as "unknown" by leading government officials who have the capability to identify virtually all known aircraft, and considering what the possibilities are with the known universe, then the possibility of it being alien life is very real.

Feeling the need to know the answer is very normal but can also be very misleading. Getting comfortable with "I don't know" is a useful trait to nurture.

UFOs are, by definition, unidentified. Assuming any answer as being more plausible than others makes no sense to me until reliable evidence is found. Eyewitness accounts of something the witness didn't recognize and doesn't comprehend are bound to be distorted and unreliable. They may be interesting, and may justify further investigation, but they aren't a solid footing for reaching conclusions.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
11-09-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:09 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The weaknesses in eyewitness testimony are well-documented, yet you seem to gloss them over, so folks are making sure that the point is made.


What you, and those folks are "glossing over" is your intentional misrepresentation of eyewitness testimony in this discussion. Your post above may be true with a single witness, or maybe even two or three, but it doesn't hold an ounce of water when 12 or more witnesses all point to the exact same thing.

So, please make a point that I do in fact acknowledge the possible weakness of a singular eyewitness, or even two or three- but do NOT use that to misrepresent my position on this issue when I am clearly stating 12 or more eyewitnesses all pointing to the same thing.

We all know and understand how a large number of eyewitnesses who were not predisposed to expecting something to happen would increase a judge's confidence in the claim of truth, as opposed to a decreased measure of confidence if there was only one eyewitness.

Denying this makes anybody look fucking retarded, and if I continue to see this misrepresentation, I will call out whoever does it as being "fucking retarded."

Big Grin

You clearly don't accept extraordinary eyewitness claims in any other contexts, Free - do you want the examples again? But when it comes to a tiny handful of people in a single unsubstantiated incident, where every piece of evidence that should otherwise be expected is mysteriously absent, you buy into them to the hilt, because it affirms your pet theory.

That you do not apply consistent standards of skepticism is your problem, not ours.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-09-2015, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 01:22 PM by cjlr.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
To wit -
(11-09-2015 01:09 PM)Free Wrote:  We all know and understand how a large number of eyewitnesses who were not predisposed to expecting something to happen would increase a judge's confidence in the claim of truth, as opposed to a decreased measure of confidence if there was only one eyewitness.

Denying this makes anybody look fucking retarded, and if I continue to see this misrepresentation, I will call out whoever does it as being "fucking retarded."

That is not actually true, and you should really know it by now.

How many does it take before denying something becomes "fucking retarded", Free?

This many?

This is literally a textbook appeal to popularity.
(hint: that's a fallacy)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 01:21 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:09 PM)Free Wrote:  What you, and those folks are "glossing over" is your intentional misrepresentation of eyewitness testimony in this discussion. Your post above may be true with a single witness, or maybe even two or three, but it doesn't hold an ounce of water when 12 or more witnesses all point to the exact same thing.

So, please make a point that I do in fact acknowledge the possible weakness of a singular eyewitness, or even two or three- but do NOT use that to misrepresent my position on this issue when I am clearly stating 12 or more eyewitnesses all pointing to the same thing.

We all know and understand how a large number of eyewitnesses who were not predisposed to expecting something to happen would increase a judge's confidence in the claim of truth, as opposed to a decreased measure of confidence if there was only one eyewitness.

Denying this makes anybody look fucking retarded, and if I continue to see this misrepresentation, I will call out whoever does it as being "fucking retarded."

Big Grin

You clearly don't accept extraordinary eyewitness claims in any other contexts, Free - do you want the examples again? But when it comes to a tiny handful of people in a single unsubstantiated incident, where every piece of evidence that should otherwise be expected is mysteriously absent, you buy into them to the hilt, because it affirms your pet theory.

That you do not apply consistent standards of skepticism is your problem, not ours.

Again, I do not see anything extraordinary with the claim of:

"12 credible people (and dozens more), very experienced with various aircraft, all described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made, and in which it performed far beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible by human standards."

So what is so extraordinary about that?

Big Grin

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
11-09-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To wit -
(11-09-2015 01:09 PM)Free Wrote:  We all know and understand how a large number of eyewitnesses who were not predisposed to expecting something to happen would increase a judge's confidence in the claim of truth, as opposed to a decreased measure of confidence if there was only one eyewitness.

Denying this makes anybody look fucking retarded, and if I continue to see this misrepresentation, I will call out whoever does it as being "fucking retarded."

That is not actually true, and you should really know it by now.

How many does it take before denying something becomes "fucking retarded", Free?

This many?

This is literally a textbook appeal to popularity.
(hint: that's a fallacy)

Tell me what's the difference here:

"12 people, not predisposed to expect something to happen ..."

verses ...

"The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the lady who had appeared to them several times would perform a great miracle in a field near Fátima called Cova da Iria."

So ... tell me what's wrong with your comparison here? You're a smart guy ...

Big Grin

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
11-09-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Again, I do not see anything extraordinary with the claim of:

"12 credible people (and dozens more), very experienced with various aircraft, all described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made, and in which it performed far beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible by human standards."

So what is so extraordinary about that?

Nothing. It's just circular.

You are assuming their credibility when establishing it is your whole goal.

"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
11-09-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:21 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You clearly don't accept extraordinary eyewitness claims in any other contexts, Free - do you want the examples again? But when it comes to a tiny handful of people in a single unsubstantiated incident, where every piece of evidence that should otherwise be expected is mysteriously absent, you buy into them to the hilt, because it affirms your pet theory.

That you do not apply consistent standards of skepticism is your problem, not ours.

Again, I do not see anything extraordinary with the claim of:

"12 credible people (and dozens more), very experienced with various aircraft, all described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made, and in which it performed far beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible by human standards."

So what is so extraordinary about that?

Big Grin

"and dozens more" is unattested. But, conveniently, none of them had any recording devices...

To even say "described an aircraft" is presuppositional and thus extraordinary - you'd have to establish that first, which you can't.

"not ... man-made" is extraordinary.

"beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible" is extraordinary.
(and, obviously, a compound presupposition)

People agreeing on their subjective experience does not make it true. People making a claim does not make it true. In no other context do you accept such pathetic standards of proof.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-09-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Again, I do not see anything extraordinary with the claim of:

"12 credible people (and dozens more), very experienced with various aircraft, all described an aircraft as being something they could not identify as being man-made, and in which it performed far beyond any performance level any of them deemed possible by human standards."

So what is so extraordinary about that?

Nothing. It's just circular.

You are assuming their credibility when establishing it is your whole goal.

"If it were true then it would explain itself, therefore it's true".

He's simply not rational on the subject. Good luck getting him to admit that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: