Yeah I figured about as much, but I thought “what the heck?” at least someone else might see how specious Rory’s source of skeptical knowledge is.

Bear in mind, he still won’t answer your questions, just repeat the same sequence of opinion/random quoting/vitriol/martyrdom as is his custom.

My apologies for not responding earlier, but I was busy with work.

I asked you Rory (just in case you come back here) two very simple questions that should have taken just a few sentences each to answer. Remember?

1) What is this “more substantial evidence” that you claim exists?
Result: No answer, just more empty accusations.

2) What would it reasonably take you to convince you that you are wrong? (This should have been the easiest one to answer.)
Result: Another failure to answer.

In fact I’ve noticed that the easiest way to tell a real skeptic from an actual pseudo-skeptic (as you seems to be Rory) is to ask that question. Because an irrational believer will rarely consider the possibility that they actually might be wrong, even when deluding themselves that they are being skeptical. Time and again supporters of an irrational position never seem to be able to answer that question. Not anti-vaxers, YECs, nor monster/ghost “hunters”, and others that “play” at skepticism, while decrying the close-mindedness of those that demand reasonable arguments and evidence for their claims.

BTW any other ET worshipers out there please feel free to answer my question #2 as well. IMO it’s the most important question any true skeptic can ask themselves.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Instead of a couple of simple answers, we got pages of projection and empty accusations designed to apparently maintain your own psychological defense mechanisms in the face of conflicting logic and evidence. Your responses are so far off the mark and lacking in specifics that it seems almost like you’ve been trying to reply to another blog altogether. You have no trouble throwing around accusations, but seem curiously lacking in specifics.

Also, instead of actually arguing your position, you just cite other people’s articles as some sort of gospel without making a compelling case of your own. Hardly a means of creating a compelling argument. Instead you come off like a cult member telling us that your guru/prophet told you that so-and-so is a bad person and shouldn’t be listened to without a compelling reason as to why, or like a Creationist citing a quote from another Creationist as though it was independent objective evidence of the veracity of Genesis.

For example in your post at #180 and #181 you cite a post by “Indigo Child” that is full of fallacies and demonstrably false assumptions in order to make your case. The only reason I can think of why you would do so (assuming that you’re not just trolling) is that you never even bothered to look critically at “Indigo Child”‘s post.
Such as….
“1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists..”
Indigo must have an interesting concept of “proof”. Funny how once again no actual credible examples are ever cited, just again the baseless assertion that it MUST be true. Is Indigo the source for your “more substantial evidence” assertion earlier? Or do both of you just makeup the assertion, as most defenders of the irrational do? Funny how they are always proclaiming that the really good evidence will be here soon! Just you wait!

“The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact.”
Really? 100%?
Is that for all planets, even ones like Jupiter, Venus, or the dwarf-planet Pluto?
How about some of the giant exoplanets found in extremely close orbit to their stars?

Indigo again leaves out specifics, but lets be generous and assume that he/she meant “Earth-like” somewhere in there. Funny how again there is nothing actually backing up the assertion. While science may at this time (arguably) conclude that it’s likely that many Earth-like planets may have developed life that doesn’t mean that it’s 100% of them. In fact any reputable researcher in such fields will tell you that we don’t actually know how likely it is, but it’s probably at best a little under 100%, even assuming just “Earth-like” planets.

Either way it’s still not an “empirical fact” unless we actually have a way to study every such planet. Has that been done recently? Maybe special knowledge from the aliens?

“Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here.”
“Straw-man argument”, he/she means there apparently. The skeptical position is that it’s most likely difficult and expensive to get to Earth therefore it’s unlikely/improbable for aliens to have traveled here, not that it’s impossible. But as usual the believers misrepresent what the skeptical position really so to try and spin their own position as being more reasonable than it actually is. In fact this was already explained to you repeatedly in just this very thread, Rory.

BTW the low probability of aliens visiting is doubly so for for the sake of barnstorming and proctological exams.

And no…assuming that maybe aliens have an deep cultural interest in the human colon is not a justifiable assumption. Nor does it save Indigo from the problems of adding one baseless assumption on top of another (and another assumption, and another assumption,and another assumption,……. ad nauseam). Do you really not see a problem with such a line of “reasoning”?

“All observations made in science are effects only, not causes.”
That must come as a surprise to all the real scientists out there. Like say studying that a virus causes a particular disease. I love it when people that clearly have trouble with basic critical thinking try to pontificate on how real scientists should do their job. Especially those that don’t seem to understand the meaning of “empirical” as shown above.

“There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.”
1) Indigo hasn’t yet proven that there actually are any ETs at all, even if we all agree that they are possible.
2) Indigo has yet do demonstrate that such a phenomena is possible.
Therefore it is unjustified in concluding that as a given as the basis for the alien visitation believer’s position. See stacking one baseless assumption on to another, above.

“Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.

Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.”
Yet another FAIL for the blue sub-adult, yet he/she was sooooo close that time!
While I have no problem with reviewing each claim individual he/she seems to have missed the point.

I suspect that Indigo is misrepresenting an argument similar to what I directed at you earlier, Rory. The point is that if these other positions are flawed due to their failures to follow logic or provide credible evidence, then other positions that also fail to follow logic or provide credible evidence are also similarly flawed unless they correct those errors/shortcomings.

For example… If someone claims that “1 + 1 = 47″ and is obviously wrong, do we really need to take seriously a claim from someone else that “1 + 1 = 32″ when they can’t provide a logical reason to make that claim either?

“The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms.”
I find it rather telling Rory that your “skeptic” chooses to make an argument from a re-imagining of a scene in a fictional movie (one with plot holes big enough for Jupiter to safely orbit through) where the audience conveniently already “knows” what happened in the story.

So this is the kind of person you listen to for pointers on skepticism, Rory? Really?
It is like you are listing to Kent Hovind for advice on paleontology, or Charles Manson for lessons in ethics.

My grain of salt has been calibrated by a certified lab. I can produce the certification papers if asked. Thanks.

Richard (159) said:

Furthermore, it is hypocritical (and quite frankly nutty) to deny your “critical thinking” the benefit of understanding the grave importance of how we, as a society, determine whether the testimony of a person is believable (via one’s criminal record, reputation, resume, character witnesses, etc.), and yet apply the scientific method so freely and solely as if it is the edifice of truth on this subject, and only it shall set it free (sounds an awful lot like religion to me).

The situations are in no way parallel.

In a court of law, there is always evidence other than eyewitness testimony. For example, a case will never get to court if there is no physical evidence that a crime has occurred in the first place.

Then, of course, we know that some human or other perpetrated the crime, so the investigation is centred on who did it (and, typically, on how they did it, which often feeds back into finding out who did it). In these cases the fact that a crime has occurred is demonstrated at the outset and is therefore a “given”.

In the case of UFOs, you have no evidence that – to stretch the analogy – a crime has occurred in the first place. Our starting point is not that a crime has occurred (analogous to the witnessing of an unknown phenomenon); instead it is that we don’t know whether or not a crime has occurred (or an unknown phenomenon has been witnessed). Therefore, instead of using eyewitness accounts to narrow down the list of suspects, we must first establish whether or not a crime has occurred. The eyewitness accounts are not sufficient to do this – in law or in science.

You are taking as a given that an unknown phenomenon has been witnessed.

The UFO phenomenon, whatever its true nature may be, has been established as a REAL one by shutting down international airports and showing up on RADAR, as two examples.

So, are you saying that the shutting down of an airport proves that an unknown phenomenon has been witnessed? On what basis, and by what chain of reasoning?

Again, many things show up on radar (even if you type it in all-caps). Are you saying that you can absolutely rule out all known phenomena that might show up as a radar return and therefore the radar return is evidence of an unknown phenomenon? Or do you consider it possible that radar operators do not know absolutely everything about what known phenomena* can cause radar returns, whether common or uncommon?

*I use the term “known phenomena” to indicate phenomena that are known to humanity in a general sense, not necessarily known to each and every individual radar operator.

Thus far the scientific method has failed to provide enough answers.

Thus far the scientific method provides us with the only answer that is justifiable: The available evidence does not support the assumption that a new phenomenon has been witnessed.

But is your grain of salt calibrated and validated as a measuring tool??

Seems likely.

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/why-you-cant-believe-anyone-who-says-they-know-the-size-and-distance-of-a-ufo/

I’m looking forward to the telepathic press conference, myself. Excuse me whilst I send my thoughts into the void…

@ Richard

Don’t waste any more of your time. I can see that they are already name-calling and describing you as a nut…

Hey, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

such is the animal that you are dealing with and their insulting mode of non-debate and non-discussion.

Hah! And you have yet to make any real effort to address the very first argument against your position. How can you ever be certain that an “eyewitness” was not mistaken? Simple answer – you cannot.

They are to a large extent ego driven addicts to their own beliefs and cannot see past what they have been indoctrinated to accept.

More projection.

I have stated what it would take to convince me (a) that UFOs are alien spaceships, or (b) that there is really something behind UFOs to investigate (that might or might not be alien spaceships).

What would it take to convince you that your acceptance of “UFOs = alien spaceships” as a plausible hypothesis is simply irrational and unjustifiable?

Alternatively, following Zetetic’s analogy, what would it take to convince you that Santa Claus is real?

You are only going to become a target for the mob to single you out for further attack in ever greater hostility, accompanied by the usual name-calling and ridicule.

Well, if you stick your head above the parapet . . .

But seriously, ROry, if you’re going to make accusations, it comes across as more effective if you back them up with specific citations.

Where has any sceptic in this thread been aggressive or bullying?

The one-lines from those not currently involved will soon be made about you in very unflattering ways. They actually think that they are intelligent and astute when making these comments – little do they know.

Hey, at least I know what little I don’t know. Whereas you seem unaware of your own ignorance of critical thought and rational debate.

Nothing that you have said has been the least bit convincing. UFOnuts are so labelled for a good reason. As the self-appointed UFOnut defender, you are allowing the UFOnut position a credence that it has not earned.

This is their known mode of operation and soon they will be competing with each other to have a go at you. Hopefully this post might deter some, but I would not bet on it.

Irrelevant.

Their manners, inability to study the subject they pontificate on, their self-righteous attitude and arrogance, their failure to research or investigate the other side of their own argument sums them up very well. They are perfectly well defined in my previous posts.

What, you mean your previous posts that were so vague they could refer to anyone? Those same posts that could equally be referring to an entirely different discussion forum?

It seems to me that you were so convinced that you could not possibly be wrong that you view robust refutation of your illogical position as a personal attack. Sadly, that’s your problem, nit mine.

You, OTOH, have referred vaguely to “strong evidence” that UFOs are certainly worth investigating, and you have made oblique criticisms of other commenters’ manners, yet you do not support any of these claims with actual evidence. How sad that you do not understand the first thing about supporting a claim with data.

Yeah! What (s)he said!

Typical behavior! I’m going off in a huff and I’ll never be back!

Well, not until my next comment, anyway.

My reference would be to “some” of those that I was involved with

That would be me! Woo (woo) -hoo!

I think he might actually have been referring to me in this thread.

It’s so hard to tell, as he has’t really mastered the concept of quoting, nor of referring to comments by comment number (date and time is a much more fiddly parameter on which to search). Even asuming one finds the post to which he refers, one cannot know which part of it he found objectionable.

Rory has retreated to his cave, nesting down in stacks of comforting MUFON reports and the latest crop of nutter publications, fortifying himself against the evil skeptics who refuse to believe, waiting for the day – perhaps in another six months or so – when he can re-emerge and pounce on another of the good doctor’s posts, there to decree his views with renewed zeal, to brace himself for the inevitable attacks armed with pages of irrelevant quotes and youtube links and secure once again in the knowledge that the secrets of the universe are reserved for those of his mental status, and it’s such a burden, such a weight, such a pain…

My criticism of Phil Plait and the biased article he wrote still stands and is obvious to any one who even knows the basic facts that are available (without speculating as to the origin of these unexplained UFOs).

And your criticism appears to boil down to this:

“Waaaah! Nasty scientist wants me to back up my claims with evdience! Not fair! Waaah!”

Obviously, I’m grossly exaggerating for comedic effect, but the point remains the same.

You blather on about “facts” and “evidence” when all you have are unreliable eyewitness reports (and, no, it doesn’t matter who witness the light in the sky, humans are all fallable) and the odd vague and ambiguous photo or video. Oh, and some equally vague and ambiguous radar returns.

None of this is any use as evidence, especially if you want to make an extraordinary claim (i.e. that there is a completely new phenomenon at work).

Keep an open mind, but not so open that something important falls out.

Your starting point seems to be that humanity knows nothing of the universe at all, and that all possibilities are equally probable until they have been ruled out absolutely.

Rory (142) said:

“The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual’s actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

1. Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).

And do you have any specific examples of sceptics in this thread employing logical fallacies?

2. The assumption of facts (such as, stating theories determine phenomena).

Actually, all the sceptics who have posted in this thread have been stating and re-stating that there are too few facts on which to base any conclusion about the few still-unidentified UFO reports.

In the utter absence of reliable data, the only reasonable option is to assume the presence of known phenomena that have been misunderstood or mis-represented (almost certainly entirely innocently) by witnesses who are unfamiliar with those phenomena.

3. The obfuscation of facts.

Do you have any examples from this thread where sceptics have obfuscated?

4. The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.

Again, any examples?

As a defender of the UFOnuts, you are assuming something unjustifiable. Your assumption is that “alien spaceships” is just as plausible an explanation for unidentified sightings as erroneous reporting of phenomena that are known (but are unfamiliar to the observer who makes the report). You have repeatedly and persistently ignored this fact.

5. Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.

It depends on what you mean here. This sounds glib, but what does it actually mean? If it means we discard the key role that physical evidence plays in furthering humanity’s understanding of the universe, then of course we would object. Without reference to evidence, how can you tell that your ideas match reality? If, OTOH, you mean the overtunring of long-held conclusions, or the shift of a paradigm, then scientists thrive on this. However, they demand real, unambiguous evidence to do this.

6. Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and run on majority rule.

Heh. No. You’ve obviously never been to a scientific conference. Consensus is a slow and lumbering thing in science, and it usually follows about a decade behind the cutting edge.

Science depends on a preponderance of evidence. For example, the preponderance of evidence regarding the movement of continents leads us to the theory of plate tectonics.

7. Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.

Why should we tolerate conclusions that are no more than childish fantasy? Can you not understand being on the receiving end of hostility when you persistently ignore at least one of the most fundamental aspects of critical thinking? In your case, you completely ignore humanity’s existing knowledge of the universe at large, and our knowledge of human fallability. In so doing, you conclude that “alien spaceships” is as plausible an explanation for UFO reports as any other. But in fact the opposite is true – that explanation is many orders of magnitude less likely than that the observer failed to understand (or failed to accurately describe) what they saw. “Alien spaceships” is thus implausible as an explanation for UFO reports.

8. Instituting hurdles against new theories by “moving the goalposts”.

When has any sceptic in this thread done this?

9. Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.

There’s a difference between “unorthodox” and “ludicrous”. Go get yourself a dictionary. If your “unorthodox” theory had any supporting evidence at all, most of us would be delighted to investigate further.

10. Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.”

Heh. As I have said before, the details only matter if the means of acquiring them is reliable. If all you have is ambiguous eyewitness accounts and ambiguous radar returns, the details really don’t matter, because your starting point is unsound. Any claim you make on that basis is built on sand.

In the SCEPCOP forum, Steve Trueblue observed these five consistent patterns in pseudoskeptics:

“As a skilled observer you will also note that Pseudoskeptics:

1. Seldom, in fact almost never, ask questions, reflecting Zero Curiosity thus learning difficulties

And …?

Do you have examples of any sceptics in this thread who have not asked questions?

Come to think of it, do you have any examples of UFOnuts or UFOnut defenders who have answered questions posed to them?

2. Practice a very high level of self deception and mistakenly believe they can lie to adults as they did in childhood

This is only relevant if you can come up with examples where people have lied.

3. Display markedly deficient reading and comprehension skills

Hey, that’s . . . you!

4. Display inability to connect thoughts sequentially and plan an argument- often defeating their own case

Again, that’s the UFOnuts and the UFOnut defenders.

Most of the arguments you have made require that the people making UFO reports have reported with perfect accuracy. Knowing what we know of human perception, that is simply not credible.

5. Depend on bluster and bullying and name calling to make up for lack of argument content”

Where has any sceptic blustered or bullied in this thread?

As for the term “UFOnut”, I feel it is perfectly justified. When you demand that a ridiculous thing be considered as a plausible explanation, expect to be ridiculed.

In short, these pseudoskeptics are materialist fundamentalists driven by fanatical beliefs and views which they seek to proselytize to the world. Regardless of the facts and evidence, they always START and END with the following dogmatic positions:

* Paranormal claims are all bunk and cannot be true. There is no evidence for them.

None of the “evidence” presented for paranormal claims withstands any detailed scrutiny. In the case of UFOs being perhaps alien spaceships, there really isn’t any evidence that is worth considering, because it all requires that eyewitnesses report with perfect (or near-perfect) accuracy, despite the difficulties inherent in judging such factors as size, distance speed and so on.

* Conspiracies are all false. There is no evidence for them. Official sources are not to be questioned.

Do you have any evidence that any organisation is conducting a worldwide conspiracy to cover up the presence of alien spaceships? Official sources are only to be questioned if you have a good reason to question them. That they contradict your fantasies is not a good reason on its own.

* Anything that challenges the status quo and materialism is wrong and must be debunked.

Interesting choice of words here. It is only possible to debunk that which is bunk. Ergo, this comment is self-defeating. However, addressing its spirit rather than its letter: the status quo is forever changing as we learn more about the universe and how it works. However, there are some things that science has discovered in the last 200 years that are so firmly supported by evidence that they are accepted as fact – in the same way that we accept as fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. As for “challenges [to] materialism”, how do you suggest we go about increasing our understanding of the universe without reference to material evidence?

* Only natural materialistic explanations are acceptable. Paranormal ones are not.

This is phrased wrong. The only explanations that are accepted are those that are supported by evidence, or by reasonable extrapolations from what is already known. Anything that contradicts what is already known, or that demands assumptions that are unreasonable in the context of what is already known, must be supported by extraordinary evidence. In the case of UFOs, I have alluded several times to the kinds of evidence that would be required to either demonstrate that alien spaceships exist, or demonstrate that there is some new phenomenon worthy of investigation.

They begin with those precepts and always come back to them, regardless of the facts or evidence in any investigation or debate, EVERYTIME.

Where are your facts?

Where is your evidence?

Sorry, anecdotes don’t count. Never have, never will.

Fuzzy, ambiguous photos or video don’t count. Never have, never will.

Ambiguous radar returns don;t count. Never have, never will.

Where is your real evidence that UFO reports are something more than just the failure of someone to identify an unfamiliar phenomenon?

Aside from “some guy saw something he couldn;t identify”, what are the facts?

That’s one consistent thing you will notice about them. And they will resort to playing games, ridicule, denial, even deliberate distortion to maintain these core positions. That’s why they are not really capable of serious honest discussion. Instead, they play games and cheat at them in order to win. I’ve seen them do it time and time again. It doesn’t matter how much proof or evidence you have. All of that is irrelevant to them.

This paragraph describes the UFOnuts.

It doesn’t matter how often you point out that they have no evidence for alien spaceships, they repeatedly insist that their “expert witnesses” and “trained pilots” can never, ever be mistaken when observing a phenomenon with which they are unfamiliar. They then make the mistake of concluding that – if no-one can identify what was seen based on the little detail that can be gleaned from the reports, then it perforce must be alien spaceships or time travellers or something equally implausible. Because, of course, everyone who reports a UFO is a superhuman observer and simply cannot be mistaken.

They will never admit that they’ve lost, even though technically they have. When cornered by facts and reason, they resort to denial or ad hominem attacks. Or they even will spin your own arguments against you, without basis. It’s like winning a chess game against an opponent, and even though the rules say they are checkmated, they still refuse to admit defeat. That’s not fair, honest, or decent behavior.

So, Rory, this describes you to a T. Your position was checkmated before you even started. The UFOnuts really do deserve the ridicule that we sceptics heap upon them, but every argument they make and every conclusion they draw is built on sand – because they assume that the reports are all accurate, and they assume that “alien spaceships” is just as likely as any other explanation.

No. If ninety-whatever percent of UFO accounts have definitely been identified as mundane phenomena, then the most plausible explanation is that all UFO reports are mundane phenomena – it’s just that there’s a few reports for which the detail that would be required to make a reasonable identification is absent, too vague, or simply wrong. This lack of positive identification is certainly not evidence of some hitherto-unknown phenomenon.

In short (oops!), I think we can safely conclude that Rory’s references to “pseudosceptics” are not relevant to the thread.

. . . no amount of training will allow you to make use of information that does not exist.

I contend that you are wrong here: Richard and Rory seem to have made extensive use of information that does not exist!

The Black Cat: “It is mathematically impossible to judge distances at that range without either a some sort of sensor (which airliners do not normally carry) or an object of known distance to compare it to. Otherwise it is just a wild guess.”

What is your source for this information? Are you a pilot? This is just false.

If you want a specific source, try Principles of Neural Science by Kandel and Schwartz. The section on depth perception is on page 558 of the fourth edition, although it may be somewhere else in the fifth edition (look up “stereopsis” in the index) .

Specifically, it says that real depth perception, using the difference in what the two eyes are seeing, stops working by around 100 feet. It discusses the other cues humans can use to gauge depth, but none of them apply in the situation you described and in many other UFO cases. Specifically:

1) Familiarity with the size of an object: only works for objects we are familiar with
2) Occlusion (one object blocking another): only works when there is something of known distance in front of or behind the object, and that can only be used to establish the minimum and maximum range of the object, respectively, not the exact range.
3) Linear perspective (vanishing point): can only be used when there are known parallel lines in the environment, like roads or the edges of walls, that are right next to the object.
4) Size perspective (apparent size relative to an object of known distance): only works for objects we are familiar with.
5) Distribution of shadows and illumination: only works with objects we are familiar with
6) Apparent motion due to head movement (parallax): only works for objects that stay stationary relative to whatever movements you are making and when you can compare to a fixed object of known distance.

These are fundamental limits of physics, geometry, and human biology. There is no way to overcome these limitations through training or experience. You might be able to get better at judging parallax or the size of a familiar object, but that doesn’t help you when there are simply no cues available from which to judge the distance.

If you think that the pilot can accurately gauge depth at that range, you need to explain exactly what cues he can use to do so. Just asserting that he can do so is not sufficient, you need to explain specifically how.

And for the reasons I have just explained, “training” or “experience” are not explanations, since no amount of training will allow you to make use of information that does not exist. You would need to explain exactly what cues the training or experience is allowing the pilot make use of.

Yeah, I think you’re justified in your pessimism there

I suspect, if they answer at all, it will be a baseless assertion that pilots and other “expert” observers can judge distance, without actually explaining how they could accomplish this. I would be very surprised if they even acknowledge the existence of the fundamental limits of the human visual system that we have brought up.

I hope what has been written so far explains where most skeptics who have posted here are coming from. It’s based on the long experience of human beings trying to figure out how nature works. This is not some religious, knee-jerk, close-minded reaction.

If you’re going to base a belief or conclusion on some data, you better know how reliable that data is to begin with!!!

I really want to hear from Richard and Rory on the issues raised in this thread regarding judging distances.