UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Your post was not ignored, because it doesn't answer the question.

Yes, it does, in fact. And you ignored this explanation. But, for the sake of completeness, and because you have demonstrated superbly well at this point that you are both too thick and too arrogant to actually go back and figure that out, I will give it again.

(15-09-2015 07:44 AM)Free Wrote:  But you said, "No," to the question of "is what scientists observe- what they witness with their eyes; what they "eyewitness"- is anecdotal evidence?

Because it isn't. You are playing meaningless word games.

Scientific evidence does not rely on the word of the scientists involved, as I have previously explained. The data is quantified, verified, and testable. We know that it's true because we can show it to be true. You cannot do this for any of the anecdotes you are so desperately trying to push.

The difference, in fact, is that one has evidence to support it, while the other does not.

And no, your playing word games does not change this. Yes, you have to use your eyes to see things. No, this does not reduce everything in the world to anecdotes. Suggesting that it does is incredibly silly, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of everything to do with the word "evidence".

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
15-09-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Just answer yes or no to my question so we all know where you stand.

Literally everyone in this thread will answer "no" to that question.

Except you, of course, and perhaps JonMJ33 - but then, you have both already demonstrated that you are quite silly.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
15-09-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  So now, let's see how many of you Bandwagon bastards has got the stones to admit you were wrong about anecdotal evidence. I want a direct "yes" or "no" answer to that question above.

Let me see a show of hands children! What did you learn about anecdotal evidence today? How does it feel to be cornered into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position?

Popcorn

You are literally so stupid that you think this is a knock-down argument. You've done it repeatedly throughout the thread too. Do you *really* think you're "winning". You're about as sane as this guy:

[Image: charlie-sheen-two-and-a-half-men-couldnt...153585.jpg]

You are fucking cornered so hard you don't know how to answer that question without demonstrating how much of a fucking hypocrite and a liar you actually are.

You're non-answer demonstrates it conclusively, because you don't have the balls to answer it.

No go run somewhere to save face. Or Throw a few ad hominems at me to make yourself feel better. Or obfuscate the subject matter in some desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable.

But your little bandwagon has been systematically destroyed with one single, exceptionally simple, question.

[Image: wagonbroken.jpg]

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
15-09-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you now saying that what scientists observe- what they witness with their eyes; what they "eyewitness"- is anecdotal evidence?

Science has peer review built into the entire process. One unreviewed paper published in a shitty journal will not carry much weight, even after review a paper is possible to challenge. Many people have been caught falsifying observations before as well. That's why reproducibility and physical evidence is part of science. So that if one is suspicious one can go back and check oneself. Your faith based crap is nowhere near to that standard of evidence.

Anecdotes can show that maybe something interesting is there, but by themselves they show nothing more than that maybe something is worth investigating. No matter how many more anecdotes you gather, they remain anecdotes.

As an example, bigfoot or Loch ness monsters are sighted regularly, yet they still aren't taken seriously by anyone. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, *as strong as your shitty alien crap*, but none of it is strong enough that anyone except an idiot is gonna claim on the strength of that evidence alone that bigfoot exists.

If for example I have seen a bigfoot, am I gonna still doubt? Of *course* the fuck I am. Humans are notoriously bad at forming correct conclusions from observations, that's *why* we have peer review.

Scientific observations are not anecdotal evidence. They can be independently verified. A scientific paper whose observations are not confirmed carries a lot less weight and may be in the worst case thrown out. Or for example when there was that furor over faster than light neutrinos, further analysis may show that there was experimental error, which is why the observations are not confirmed.

You follow? Peer *fucking* review. It's not a difficult concept, except for twits who wish science didn't work that way.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
15-09-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 08:03 AM)Free Wrote:  You are fucking cornered so hard you don't know how to answer that question without demonstrating how much of a fucking hypocrite and a liar you actually are.

You're non-answer demonstrates it conclusively, because you don't have the balls to answer it.

No go run somewhere to save face. Or Throw a few ad hominems at me to make yourself feel better. Or obfuscate the subject matter in some desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable.

But your little bandwagon has been systematically destroyed with one single, exceptionally simple, question.

You are delusional.

"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
15-09-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:55 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 07:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Your post was not ignored, because it doesn't answer the question.

Yes, it does, in fact. And you ignored this explanation. But, for the sake of completeness, and because you have demonstrated superbly well at this point that you are both too thick and too arrogant to actually go back and figure that out, I will give it again.

(15-09-2015 07:44 AM)Free Wrote:  But you said, "No," to the question of "is what scientists observe- what they witness with their eyes; what they "eyewitness"- is anecdotal evidence?

Because it isn't. You are playing meaningless word games.

Scientific evidence does not rely on the word of the scientists involved, as I have previously explained. The data is quantified, verified, and testable. We know that it's true because we can show it to be true. You cannot do this for any of the anecdotes you are so desperately trying to push.

The difference, in fact, is that one has evidence to support it, while the other does not.

And no, your playing word games does not change this. Yes, you have to use your eyes to see things. No, this does not reduce everything in the world to anecdotes. Suggesting that it does is incredibly silly, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of everything to do with the word "evidence".

You've been already proven to be a hypocrite and a liar, no matter how much you try to deny it.

Your intellect, or lack thereof, can no longer be trusted.

You are quite done here, dude.

Bowing

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
15-09-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 08:03 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you now saying that what scientists observe- what they witness with their eyes; what they "eyewitness"- is anecdotal evidence?

Science has peer review built into the entire process. One unreviewed paper published in a shitty journal will not carry much weight, even after review a paper is possible to challenge. Many people have been caught falsifying observations before as well. That's why reproducibility and physical evidence is part of science. So that if one is suspicious one can go back and check oneself. Your faith based crap is nowhere near to that standard of evidence.

Anecdotes can show that maybe something interesting is there, but by themselves they show nothing more than that maybe something is worth investigating. No matter how many more anecdotes you gather, they remain anecdotes.

As an example, bigfoot or Loch ness monsters are sighted regularly, yet they still aren't taken seriously by anyone. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, *as strong as your shitty alien crap*, but none of it is strong enough that anyone except an idiot is gonna claim on the strength of that evidence alone that bigfoot exists.

If for example I have seen a bigfoot, am I gonna still doubt? Of *course* the fuck I am. Humans are notoriously bad at forming correct conclusions from observations, that's *why* we have peer review.

Scientific observations are not anecdotal evidence. They can be independently verified. A scientific paper whose observations are not confirmed carries a lot less weight and may be in the worst case thrown out. Or for example when there was that furor over faster than light neutrinos, further analysis may show that there was experimental error, which is why the observations are not confirmed.

You follow? Peer *fucking* review. It's not a difficult concept, except for twits who wish science didn't work that way.

Just, you know, "yes or no" to the question please.

Drinking Beverage

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
15-09-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  You've been already proven to be a hypocrite and a liar, no matter how much you try to deny it.

Ignoring the people who take the time to point out your stupidity will not make you any less so.

"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
15-09-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Free I'm confused (sorry If I'm not getting something here) if I test the ph of a liquid and the litmus paper turns red does my assertion that the liquid is acidic qualify as anecdotal evidence ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 08:03 AM)Free Wrote:  No go run somewhere to save face. Or Throw a few ad hominems at me to make yourself feel better. Or obfuscate the subject matter in some desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable.
Nah, mate. Ad homs are where I insinuate shit about your character to avoid answering. There's no need to *insinuate* anything about you, and if I don't answer any random shitty question of yours it's 'cos I'm bored. Not 'cos I can't. On the other hand, you've repeatedly called people stupid and yet... you are still so desperate to convince us.

Quote:But your little bandwagon has been systematically destroyed with one single, exceptionally simple, question.
You keep using that word "bandwagon" but I don't particularly give a shit. You're an idiot and it's a public service to alert you to this fact.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: