UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  What we observe is evidence ... of what is.

It's evidence of *something*. That something may be lies on the part of the observer, incorrect interpretation, complete hallucination...

And yes, sometimes reality. But that's why it needs to be verifiable, because of all the other things it could be.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-09-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  As far as I am concerned, multiple eyewitness testimonies that all support the same claim are rightfully considered as "oral evidence" to generate and exponentially increase belief in the claim.

Wrong.

(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  It is evidence according to the legal definition

Worthless without verification, even in a courtroom setting.

(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  And ... it is also evidence to support scientific theories.

Wrong.

(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  What we observe is evidence ... of what is.

You are a very, very silly man.

"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
15-09-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  It's evidence of *something*. That something may be lies on the part of the observer, incorrect interpretation, complete hallucination...

And yes, sometimes reality. But that's why it needs to be verifiable, because of all the other things it could be.

Precisely.

Without verification, anecdotes are worthless.

"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, 09:54 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 09:18 AM)Free Wrote:  So here we are, all accepting the plausibility of the Big Bang based initially upon anecdotal evidence, and now upon other observations ... and yet we do not have any direct evidence of the singularity.

Isn't that interesting?

Drinking Beverage

No. Talking off the top of my head here, but IIRC Hubble's original observations lent credence to the theory but it was a long way from being accepted. Initially all that was observed was the red shift of galaxies. There was no need to force an interpretation on it. It later became clear that Big Bang was a good stab at a theory which fitted the evidence *and* explained a lot of other stuff as well. It's not based off one set of observations. The theory also *predicted* some stuff, like the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Where those predictions don't match with experiment is where the excitement is because that's where the theory may have to be modified. There are multiple versions of the Big Bang theory anyway, with differing models (such as inflation) for how the universe expands. It's not one monolithic faith based belief which cannot be modified and rests on shaky anecdotes for it's basis in reality.

Yet, it requires anecodtal evidence to generate belief in any and all claims, scientific or otherwise.

Without observation; without witnessing something, without the anecdotal evidence to generate belief, it is not possible to be motivated to confirm or deny the truth of any claim.

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
15-09-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  Without observation; without witnessing something, without the anecdotal evidence to generate belief, it is not possible to be motivated to confirm or deny the truth of any claim.

Being curious about something does not mean that you have evidence regarding what that thing actually is.

"Evidence" does not mean "something that makes you want to know more".

"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, 09:59 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:38 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  As far as I am concerned, multiple eyewitness testimonies that all support the same claim are rightfully considered as "oral evidence" to generate and exponentially increase belief in the claim.

Wrong.

(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  It is evidence according to the legal definition

Worthless without verification, even in a courtroom setting.

(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  And ... it is also evidence to support scientific theories.

Wrong.

(15-09-2015 09:34 AM)Free Wrote:  What we observe is evidence ... of what is.

You are a very, very silly man.

And you have conclusively been demonstrated as a liar.

It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what anybody thinks of me personally.

But at the end of the day, you're position on anecdotal evidence has been conclusively demonstrated to be absolutely 100% false.

And that bandwagon you are riding upon just continues to fall more and more apart.

[Image: il_570xN.412325496_7ykc.jpg]

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
15-09-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:59 AM)Free Wrote:  And you have conclusively been demonstrated as a liar.

It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what anybody thinks of me personally.

But at the end of the day, you're position on anecdotal evidence has been conclusively demonstrated to be absolutely 100% false.

And that bandwagon you are riding upon just continues to fall more and more apart.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you any more right, I'm afraid.

And you still don't understand what the bandwagon fallacy is.

"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, 10:08 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 10:03 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 09:59 AM)Free Wrote:  And you have conclusively been demonstrated as a liar.

It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what anybody thinks of me personally.

But at the end of the day, you're position on anecdotal evidence has been conclusively demonstrated to be absolutely 100% false.

And that bandwagon you are riding upon just continues to fall more and more apart.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you any more right, I'm afraid.

And you still don't understand what the bandwagon fallacy is.

The only reason i am repeating myself is so that the lurkers are fully aware that you have been outted as being intellectually dishonest. It is so obvious that the only reason you continue to deny my position on anecdotal evidence is because you are far too intellectually dishonest about it, and by no means do you want to display to others in the bandwagon any kind of weakness in your position, at all costs.

Oh but how your silly pride makes you stumble over the broken wheels of your bandwagon.

Drinking Beverage

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
15-09-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  Without observation; without witnessing something, without the anecdotal evidence to generate belief, it is not possible to be motivated to confirm or deny the truth of any claim.

Facepalm

And Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again. 500 witnesses saw him and even chatted to him after his death. Right there in the Bible, as unbiased a document as ever has been seen.

Sure, you've got a highly suspicious anecdote which generates interest in your claim. But you can't then *use* the anecdote to *verify* the claim.

Verifiable evidence means I must be able to verify it independently of you. If the only way to the truth is through you, then your evidence is not verifiable. At most one can say "the respected author Free claims that"... But it does not at all imply that I must accept your claim. Nor even if 500 respected authors claim X does X become true based on their say-so.

If a scientist published a paper, and I dispute his numbers, first I can ask for the raw data. If that looks legit then possibly I leave it at that, or possibly I dispute his interpretation. But if the raw data looks fudged then in the worst case I can redo the experiment. I can also check to look for e.g. misuse of statistics.

Your anecdotal evidence, it is not possible to do that with. So it's weaker. That's all there is to it. By its nature, it is not good evidence. You can say "Well *I* think aliens done it", but if I say "Well, why?" then either back it up with more than anecdotal evidence or don't get pissy that I don't accept your claim. I don't ask that you must retract your claim. Just that if you want me to believe it you must properly show that it's the best or even a plausible interpretation, which... requires more that dodgy anecdotes.

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
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
15-09-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 10:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  Without observation; without witnessing something, without the anecdotal evidence to generate belief, it is not possible to be motivated to confirm or deny the truth of any claim.

Facepalm

And Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again. 500 witnesses saw him and even chatted to him after his death. Right there in the Bible, as unbiased a document as ever has been seen.

Sure, you've got a highly suspicious anecdote which generates interest in your claim. But you can't then *use* the anecdote to *verify* the claim.

Verifiable evidence means I must be able to verify it independently of you. If the only way to the truth is through you, then your evidence is not verifiable. At most one can say "the respected author Free claims that"... But it does not at all imply that I must accept your claim. Nor even if 500 respected authors claim X does X become true based on their say-so.

If a scientist published a paper, and I dispute his numbers, first I can ask for the raw data. If that looks legit then possibly I leave it at that, or possibly I dispute his interpretation. But if the raw data looks fudged then in the worst case I can redo the experiment. I can also check to look for e.g. misuse of statistics.

Your anecdotal evidence, it is not possible to do that with. So it's weaker. That's all there is to it. By its nature, it is not good evidence. You can say "Well *I* think aliens done it", but if I say "Well, why?" then either back it up with more than anecdotal evidence or don't get pissy that I don't accept your claim. I don't ask that you must retract your claim. Just that if you want me to believe it you must properly show that it's the best or even a plausible interpretation, which... requires more that dodgy anecdotes.

Don't even try to obfuscate and strawman my position. It just makes you look even more stupid than you already are.

My position on anecdotal evidence is only that the belief in a claim increases exponentially when multiple eyewitnesses' testimony is corroborated. This is a no-brainer.

My entire point on this singular issue has been conclusively demonstrated, and it will be at anyone's own peril to sacrifice their personal integrity by denying this fact. Continuing to deny this fact no longer matters to me, because you cannot deny this with any degree of intellectual honesty.

So, if denying it is what you want to continue to do, help yourself.

Drinking Beverage

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: