Skepticism is for cowards that wait behind a rock for the storm to finish . Skepticism are people that have no Trust . If the whole world were sceptics we were NEVER advance. Skepticism Cant survive infront of FAITH ! and FAITH is what made the Human Evolution . I love you all people ! <3
My impression is that faith is not just faith, but that faith is faith HAD IN some belief being correct (and not even necessarily any particularly religious belief, but any sort of belief at all). If that is so, then faith may be held in an idea being correct, even if the idea itself is actually NOT correct.
So, for example, a child might have faith in the belief that a parent had not misled him or her, when - in fact - the parent had indeed misled that child. Or, the same child might have faith in the belief that a parent had not misled him or her, when - in fact - the parent HAD not misled him or her. Both of those would count as the child having had faith.
It further seems to me that even if you (for example) have faith in any idea being correct you ALSO ARE SKEPTICAL in regard to the opposite of that same belief being correct instead.
You claimed that, "Skepticism Cant survive in front of faith!" But, that does not mean that skepticism cannot survive right alongside of faith.
You stated that, "Skepticism are people that have no Trust."
It is just as possible to trust individuals who are telling lies and/or disinformation as is it to trust individuals who are instead telling any truth. It seems to me that having trust is, therefore - in and of itself - neither a positive nor a negative thing for anyone to do.
Skepticism is healthy . To give your self the chanse to find the anser according to you and not just because half the world says so. To much why creates a Prison that u can't escape from ... what if there is no anser to your why ? what would u do then hehe... Just live and enjoy ... after all the reason u made this video is because you love Skepticism . so u are after a Feeling your self :)
Be careful however when discussing UFO and Extraterrestrial.
UFO merely means Unidentified Flying Object, and the classification for UFO sightings does not presuppose anything 'extraterrestrial', merely that some thing has been seen which cannot be identified.
In fact, as you know UFO's are documented on video, but there is nothing about these sightings which indicates that they're extraterrestrial and not just something in the earth's atmosphere
Mate, you are so wrong. Its frustrating because you're clearly not open to believing in something you dont have the capacity to experience. Its an inferiority complex. Spiritual Science is becoming very articulate these days and that gotta conflict with you science logic. Science was so sure that it would explain everything of existence, but it just made the universe appear more magical and unbelievable.. I say this as an ex true atheist. iv had the exact mentality as you.. rabbit hole goes deep
@Tripbag says the tard clarifying a month old post, posted by someone else. By the look of your channel you dont know shit anyways so i forgive you for your ignorant insult. And you had the nerve to tell this dude he has an overinflated ego, while bein an arrogant douche sack, yourself. Dont go pickin fights unless youve got a point to make. Unless you enjoy bein a dick. P.s. Synthetic Beats are for turds. Learn a fuckin instrument like a real musician
@jdogsful, says the infantile "tard" ignoring the facts as they are presented to him. Synthetic beats are for people who can play instruments and enjoy experimenting beyond the means that pent up little fairies like yourself want to box themselves into, based on media propagated prejudices. Myself and other skeptics are telling you that you are wrong, but you ignore it. This shows your lack of true skepticism, & that you actually made this video to make yourself seem smart; not answer questions
@Tripbag mate, youre a pretentious wanker that thinks being a skeptic somehow makes you intelligent. you and other skeptics tell us we're wrong? And what im saying is what the fuck would you know? Its only useful being a skeptic until skepticism begins to require me to disbelieve my own experiences and realisations. but then im not a skeptic, im ignorant. Like you.. Its you people that are ignoring what we are sayin. Not us ignoring science. Oh, and i didnt make even this video, dumbshit.
@jdogsful, well if I was to answer your question and inform you of my mental prowess, I would just come off as pretentious again. I'll let my words speak for themselves; plus, you sure read into things deeply, don't you? Disbelieving (meaning: always questioning) your own experience is only rational, jackass. You have proven yourself ignorant on the grounds that you seek to discredit me on, due to your narrow view. If you were to do drugs and still believe your every experience, then argue me.
@jdogsful, plus, memory is a form of experience. Memory must always be called into question. If you believe your memory wholeheartedly - without questioning yourself, then you are completely lost.
@Tripbag yes, fuckhead, i do read into things deeply. Youre an arrogant, ignorant fuck that doesnt even know how ignorant he really is. you are every thing you are sayin that other people are. and thats why you say it. I bet youve never tested any scientific theories, you jus believe what youre told. And you think youre a skeptic. science has been wrong so often its embarrassing. You are nothing like the scientific minds we admire. youre more like the cathothics that slow progress
@Tripbag And music is supposed to be art, not repetitive, familiar shit. Youre not an artist, youre a fuckin technician. I bet youve never had an original thought, just regurgitate smarter peoples hard work. real musicians dont waste their time with artificial beats when they can play music. unless they lazy and talentless. "tard". now fuck off and stop bothering me for no good fuckin reason.
@jdogsful, wow - have you heard any of my music? You are getting way off topic here, and further proving your willfully ignorant nature.
I work with all audio - instruments, foley art, sound design, analog, and digital. Unless you have seen my entire portfolio, I suggest you stop filling in the blanks based on your silly views. I can guarantee that you enjoy alot of electronic music - but you seem to be under the impression that all electronica has a four to the floor kick drum and repeats...
@jdogsful, and did you just insult me for being unoriginal when you posted this video as your own? I don't see a reference as to who the creator of the video is - you hack.
@jdogsful, P.S. I've studied the sciences at McMaster University, but found their lab work to be stifling: I prefer research at my own pace. This is because of something you are finally correct about: being bound by current scientific process slows down progress - scientists of today will be the philosophers of tomorrow. I have done much experimentation since my leaving the official "scientific community" - I just don't quite think you care for skepticism at all: you assume more than you doubt.
On the quest for spiritual evolution?Figured out that most information out there is recycling the same words?psychic awakening, precognition, mind powers, it all exists.THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM It is time to lift the veil.
"Why" does not imply skepticism as much as it does the opposite: it implies more of a "there must be an answer for this" attitude. Silence or scoffing more implies skepticism: More the "you've got to be kidding" thing. "Why?" implies there are reasons...somewhere.
@proffromgview nay nay. scoffing implies cynicism. why implies that there is a reason behind something. it means that orthodoxy isn't good enough. the answer may be, as you implied, no answer for something- but you have to first ask why. here is an example:
homeopathy works. (why?) because like cures like (wtf are you talking about) i don't know.
@TheEarthAbides Sorry, I disagree. I teach philosophy at a liberal arts college and the simple question "Why?" does not imply skepticism, unless the observer of the questioner (in this instance, you) reads that into it (as you are). "Why?" merely asks a question, and it can imply that the questioner is not satisfied with the current state of affairs or earlier answers, but it does not necessarily imply cynicism. Two-year-olds are not cynics.
@proffromgview #1 you didn't read what I wrote correctly. You get a C- for that. i corrected you when you said that scoffing is more akin to skepticism, i said it is more akin to cynicism.
You are picking on a minor part of my video... i started the vid off by introducing the concept of questioning what might be considered the status quo. just as Dorothy peeked behind the curtain. I see how just asking "why?" doesn't mean you are thinking like a skeptic, but it was used as a starting place-
@TheEarthAbides a "minor part?" You lead with it! It is in our nature to question the status quo and such a statement is remarkable only for being unremarkable. Scientists, infants, boys, even freshman philosophy students like yourself ALL question the "status quo." Someone who really knows philosophy and has made some strides toward creating an integrated worldview would not make the errors you have. Thus I suspect youth in your case. But do learn how to craft an argument and present it.
@TheEarthAbides, nobody can be "picking on" a specific part of a video production. You are using this term because you identify with something you have created, and feel as though he is picking on you. He isn't picking on you; he is correcting your mistake, and also pointed out with distinct accuracy that you have a shitty attitude. I will expand on that, and point out that you have an overinflated ego, and don't know what you are talking about.
It seems to me that the question of "Why?" may be indicative of skepticism in certain cases.
If someone were to ask - for instance, "Why should I do that," then that would not necessarily mean the person was presuming that he or she really SHOULD do that. It could instead be that the person's reason for asking that question was due to his or her feeling skeptical in regard to the claim that he or she should do that.
In other words, the asking of "Why" may - in some cases - simply be a modified way of asking, "For what - if any - reason...," because whoever is asking the question does not necessarily presume there to be any reason why.
If I were to ask you "Why?", then I might just be asking you that in order to get you to present to me whatever YOU believe to be why. I would not necessarily being doing that while also holding belief of there being any such why. I could ask you the question of "Why?" (in order to get you to present what you believe to be why) while being undecided myself - in regard to belief as to whether there is any why.
If I wanted to hear or read from Joe Schmoe what was his explanation of his own perspective on any particular 'why' question, then - it seems to me - that here is only one person who it would make sense for me to ask that question of , and that one person is Joe Schmoe.
1) A very young child may be naturally inquisitive, but non-stop asking question, just because it is a way for young children to get a reaction is far a good example of being naturally skeptic.
2)A Pepsi challenge is not a way to find truth. Truth is not a matter of popularity. The truth is still the truth even it only one person believes it.
3) @4:50 How do you know that the people conducing scientific experiments have not become corrupt or have a hidden agenda? Like making money from vaccines.
@MooseEatsBear are you referring to the three comments left by sablechicken? i didn't answer them, not only because they were nonsensical, but because i answered them in the video. his questions don't align properly with what I said in the first place. not only that, but since i had earlier encountered him in regards to Noah's flood, I know that he is not a reasonable person, so there really is no point in trying to engage him in what is obviously a waste of time. it's not a red herring.
@TheEarthAbides Sorry, I just finished listening to a skeptical podcast about logical fallacies. I was applying it very loosely in this situation. Trust me, I think it's nonsensical as well.
Kind of interesting, but the original Skeptics, such as Pyrrho, Socrates and their two schools of followers, were not aware of the scientific method. Probablism didn't come much later with Descartes. Skepticism can exist independent of the scientific method. Being a physicist, I can say there is no scientific truth, there is only scientific abstraction, and this abstraction can actually be indistinguishable from other abstractions. Some examples are gauge theories and Bohm's quantum mechanics.
@AbsoluteJake Hi Jake, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I know there isn't a grand truth, as you said there is only scientific abstraction. But, as far as we humans can understand reality, is there really any difference in this context?
when judging a claim like homeopathy which is contrary to many systems and theories, we can be highly skeptical of its claims. what are we comparing with gauge theories and Bohms mechanics? or have i missed something?
@AbsoluteJake Hey Jake, I'm hoping to hear back from you. I understand that science is an abstraction and if the predictions correlate with nature, that it's (plausible) or whatever word youw ant to substitute there for what laymen would call a "truth". but what did you mean when you said a scientific abstraction is indistinguishable from other abstractions?
@TheEarthAbides Thanks for reminding me! I have been busy with work as usual. But David Bohm developed a different interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from Heisenberg and Shrodinger, but yet gives the same results. And gauge theories are different ways to mathematically write electric and magnetic energies but give the same results. What is important about these if you can write the same physical phenomena in different mathematical ways, it yields slightly different interpretations.
@AbsoluteJake A lot of our words such as force, energy, potential, have rigid mathematical definitions in physics. But when the mathematics can very, it makes these words mean different things. It can be bizarre but that is why there has been some reluctance to accept quantum mechanics. But what many physicists have come to understand is that the scientific method does not necessarily yield in truth, but is a way of seeking. Which is why many of them say science is human abstraction of reality.
The scientific method is an excellent tool, but not universally applicable. We do not use it in math. Unique historical events are scientifically untestable because they are not repeatable. No amount of verification can establish the truth of a hypothesis since alternatess can yield the same predictions. Prior probability reflects what we already believe. We can rationally CHOOSE to commit to a position if there is no contradiction. It is best to be open to what is not contradictory.
@dfpolis Math still makes independently verifiable predictions though. It's not like Mathematics is purely philosophical it really does correlate to the natural world.
Historical accounts are verified and plausible as much as possible. Sure they may not be truly accurate, but since we can't ever know for sure, they must at least correspond with reality as much as possible, and they can be falsified with new information.
what we "already believe" is tethered to reality through many references.
@TheEarthAbides Mathematical method of is not based on prediction and verification. It often claims an exactness no possible measurement could verify. It is arrived at by abstracting concepts from reality in the same way as perennial philosophy, then using the concepts to make postulates and deductions.
Much of philosophy does the same.
You admit the history uses a different method -- my point.
Beliefs are not deductions and so make prior probability subjective. You need to be more critical.
@dfpolis I am trying to be as critical as I can. Let me see if I understand you. You are trying to use Math & His. as examples that the scientific method is not universally applicable. From this you attempt to induce that Prior Probability (PP) merely reflects our subjective beliefs, rendering either the entire concept flawed, or just as it applies to Math & History? If I'm correct, which do you mean?
@TheEarthAbides Two separate points here: (1) The scientific method is not universal. (2) Prior probability is totally subjective. The SM is hypothetico-deductive. We make a hypothesis, deduce a prediction and test it. That is NOT the method of either math or hist.
Probability reflects ignorance. Being ignorant of a reason to prefer one outcome, we give all the same weight. In PP the weights are based solely on feelings, not logic. We feel that something is untrue, so we reject it a priori.
@dfpolis 1) agreed. second point, not so. prior probability leverages the scientific consensus, which is based on the breadth of scientific study. probability reflects acquired knowledge to the contrary. eg, homeopathy claims & practice are entirely contrary to everything we know about chemistry, biology quantum physics, you name it. the probability of it being (true) is not likely. you can't point to history as a way of advancing homeopathic none sense. it's like saying G. Washington was an elf
@TheEarthAbides The scientific consensus has no cogency beyond the data supporting it. The consensus was that (1) Reynolds was wrong on pipe flow -- vs turbulent flow; (2) Wegener was wrong on continental drift; (3) all physical processes are predictable in principle -- vs. QM; (4) That long-range weather prediction was just a matter of time -- vs. chaos theory. (5) that gradualism was true in geology and evolution -- vs astronomical catastrophes and punctuated evolution. It is herd mentality.
@dfpolis science is a work in progress. the points you raised were (correct) because of the quality of data required to change the orthodoxy, not because they appealed to math & history & scientific errors. My video is about the absence of such data. if an alt. theory is proposed, & we don't have good data, what should we do? well, lets see what the scientific / medical body says about it. if the alt. theory is in contradiction to this, and without data, we should be very skeptical of it.
@TheEarthAbides My point is that consensus without data is the basis of prior probability. It is purely the result of a subjective herd mentality. When we don't have data to decide the matter, the rational response is to be open to every logically possible alternative, not to fall back on what the herd thinks. Thus, there is no rational basis for prior probability.
@dfpolis PART 1: I think you are selling it short. What you are saying is that the sum of acquired knowledge is not a legitimate primer when weighing the likelihood of a claim that is in contrast to (known) reality. You call it herd mentality, but it's what got us this far, it's what our predictions have shown us, it's the nature of reality as we know it. In your view, every single study has to start from scratch, with no scale to determine what is likely vs unlikely, skeptical vs not.
@TheEarthAbides No, I am not selling our accumulated knowledge short. I use it logically, avoiding the group-think (aka prior probability) you are proposing. We know that some hypotheses are falsified. We know that others are confirmed over some range of variables. Beyond that, we do not know what is possible or impossible. Empiricists suspend judgment until there is relevant data, and don't make a priori assumptions. That is gullibility not skepticism.
@TheEarthAbides Philosophy has the job of investigating the methods applied by the sciences. That does not enslave the other sciences to phil. It only places those who do not pay attention to it at risk of doing bad science.
@dfpolis right. in no way do i think science is a slave to philosophy. that is the argument that alt. medicine proponents use to try and legitimize their position.
H , cool video Ive made some skeptical videos debunking Muslims on cosmology, evolution, naturopaths on vaccines etc. Just click on my name to check them out if you can . Thanks. Phil
The scientific method is not the best means of discerning reality. Can you prove thought by the scientific method? Can you prove by the scientific method that the scientific method is reliable?
Okay, I went over your video again and I now understand what you're saying (that science is not the only, but the strongest means.) My apologies, I shouldn't have made assumptions.
In respect to UFO's we do have evidence; visual documentation, radar confirmation, credible witness testimony. Whether it is extra terrestrial or not is where we suffer from lack of evidence, but never the less we have solid evidence of flying objects that are unidentifiable. Now as science is subject to gatekeepers that define consensus, this evidence alone, never mind the evidence that they might be extra-terrestrial is supressed and mocked as an area of study.
The point being we shouldn't allow the model on which you define scepticism to close our minds to things science has not yet welcomed into its community.
@Gunt78 I understand what you are trying to say, but you are making an error. The gatekeeping nature of Science is proof. without proof you can't say for sure that something is X. Now, although there have been unidentified flying objects captured on blurry grainy footage, you can't claim they are anything. but, based on what I was saying in the video, use Occam's razor and the most likely explanation is the most probable. could it be a lens flair, or a highly evolved alien...
@TheEarthAbides you are demonstrating your ignorance regarding the phenomena. As i previously stated there have been events that fulfil the requirements of good evidence, multiple credible eye witness accounts, physical verification i.e radar confirmation and a record of the event i.e video. Try a search on mexico ufo air force for one example.. Governments around the world are disclosing previously secret files that confirm the existence of unidentified flying objects.
Unidentified being the operative word. There is not a lack of evidence that UFO's exist more a lack of evidence on what they actually are. You should watch the documentary Out of the Blue. It is a real eye opener.
@Gunt78 What does "a real eye opener" mean to you when you make the suggestion that somone watch a video with a very obvious, but unsubstantiated bias towards believing in "aliens"? It sounds to me like offering a conclusion without or prior to, the evidence.
@Gunt78 No, I am sorry, but eye witness testimony has been demonstrated to be extremely unreliable, so much so, that criminal cases have been overturned with DNA analysis after convictions had been made based on such poor evidence. Not all evidence is the same and science seeks to secure the very best BEFORE accepting a conclusion of fact.
@Gunt78 If I claimed to have discovred a cure for cancer and I offered to sell it to your poor sick Mom for more than she could afford, would you expect more than testimonials? Come on pal, give me a break. Of ocurse you would expect, and rightly so, that empirical evidence would demonstrate the efficacy of this new treatment BEFORE claiming that it was responsible for any benefits. Try SCIENCE education.
@Gunt78 No there have no been sufficently robust "events", obviously first and foremost because nothing has ever been verified as irrefutable evidence. Blurry photos, videos that are of dubious nature, eye witness testimony that ahas been shown repeatedly to be unreliable. Where is the piece of evidence where everybody would say, "Yup, that flying saucer material is not what we can make"? No physical evidence, not a single bolt, has ever been found. WHY is that? THAT is the EVIDENCE.
@Gunt78 What do you suggest, based on the evidence that is available? If it were up to you, and you had unlimited resources, how would you change the way in which this is dealt with? I suspect that you would make an announcment?? And what would you say if you were in possession of that authority that would make any difference to your argument?
@TheSkepticUn Yes I am aware of the issues regarding eye witness testimony. However, this does not mean eye witness testimony is to be disregarded. It should be assessed by; who is providing the testimony, the number of people reporting it, is it backed up by a physical confirmation, such as radar and is there a visual record of the event. Some sightings fulfil this criterion.
Military personnel are considered to be some of the most credible witnesses particularly the air force, as they have the best knowledge of the skies. Radar confirmation proves that what is witnessed has a physical presence and the video recording reinforces the event.
In respect of a documentary that is biased toward the existence of UFO’s there is no such thing as objectivity everything is subjective. The mainstream news media and science communities approach to the subject has previously held a “sceptical” bias to the subject. It has been dismissive and mocking, whilst the political establishment has actively suppressed information. So a film that has a pro-bias is necessary to counter balance this bias.
It is rather narrow minded of you to immediately dismiss the evidence within a film without even watching it on the basis that it is biased. Watch the film and then critique it. How can you argue on a subject when you don’t know the content of your opponent’s arguments? How do you know the film is making unsubstantiated claims? Because mainstream science and the media haven’t been making a song and dance about it?
You talk about being sceptical but I don’t think you are that sceptical. You are quite content to accept the mainstream opinion and version of events. Which is strange considering the mainstream is being constantly proved to be unreliable and deceptive.
Many of the great scientific discoveries have been made by people sceptical of mainstream conventional wisdom, theorising in opposition receiving fierce resistance and ostracisation for their questioning of the norm and upsetting the “scientific” establishment. They have pursued these “unscientific” beliefs and consequently revolutionised the field. The true sceptics are those that question conventional wisdom.
Perceiving science as the objective pursuit of truth is flawed. Nothing is objective everything human beings do and perceive is subject to the filtering and inherent bias of the human mind. What drives humanity? The pursuit of power. Therefore science is a servant of power and is subjected to the bias of power. Science often starts with a theory and then seeks to prove that theory.
However, that becomes difficult when the evidence for that theory is actively suppressed because it upsets the balance of power. The central narrative to human existence has been the battle between oppressed and oppressor. Every tool man creates has the power to liberate or oppress. History tells us that we invariably use them to oppress. Therefore science has to be assessed with this truth in mind.
@Gunt78 when you say "mainstream opinion" I think instead we can call this the most plausible explanation. In other words Occam's razor.
If a bunch of testimonies come in, & a radar blip confirms the witnesses saw (something) the most plausible explanation is almost always the right one.
Another problem with your explanation is that it requires a HUGE conspiracy which should be an indication you are wrong. all it would take is one video, IN FOCUS, of a space ship to destroy this massive cover up
@TheEarthAbides The point with genuine UFO sightings is there isn't a plausible explanation. The operative word is unidentified as in there isn't any plausible explanations for the event.
There are video's of "spaceships" in focus. The problem is video and photographic evidence alone is not enough especially in today's age where anybody can be an SFX artist. Also many of the objects don't resemble craft as we know it. Like I've said watch the film "Out of the Blue"
Also, what makes you think "HUGE" conspiracies don't exist? History is riddled with conspiracies. Our establishment is scared shit less of them, they are the biggest conspiracy theorists of us all. Why do you think we have, a "legal" system, prisons and why do you think they are in the process of setting up the most sophisticated surveillance system man has ever known! Most of the latter half of the 20th century was driven by the fear of conspiracy, a conspiracy so big it included millions
millions of people all over the world, that diabolical threat communism. Apparently there is a huge conspiracy in Iran right now. Insiders say he's trying to develop nuclear weapons so as to wipe Israel off the map!
@Gunt78 You live for conspiracies. Enough already. What do you do, connect every unimaginable piece of information that you feel fits for the reason that it is part of a conspiracy? Ya, sure.
@TheEarthAbides The HUGE conspiracy works both ways on this point. Either there is a conspiracy by the establishment to cover up the UFO phenomenon. Or there is a conspiracy involving astronauts, high ranking military officials, governmental official’s, lawyers and scientists claiming there is a UFO phenomenon. Either way you are choosing to believe a conspiracy. As one side has to be lying.
@TheSkepticUn which conspiracies? The communist threat of the 20th century? Iran trying to build a bomb and wipe Israel off the face of the map? The threat of an insidious group of Muslims wanting to destroy us and all our freedoms?
@Gunt78 communism exists, muslim anti-semitism exists, nuclear weapons exist, iran has admitted to wanting nuclear power, where is the conspiracy here?
if you want to talk about a conspiracy, talk about watergate and how people TALKED and Nixon was caught in the lie.and that was a small conspiracy involving what, a hundred people at most?
@TheEarthAbides For clarification a conspiracy is: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful/harmful act. In reference to the conspiracies previously cited; Iran, Communism, Islamic terrorism – they are all conspiracies. I don’t quite understand why you would say they are not. Firstly Communism was presented as huge conspiracy by an opposing nation to enslave people under a totalitarian government.
Do you know anything about the McCarthy era and the Reds under the bed scare? He accused the soviets of secretly attempting to infiltrate America and take it over from within. That’s a conspiracy. In respect of Iran yes they have said they want to pursue nuclear power. They say it’s for peaceful purposes. The West and in particular America says; no they are lying it’s for military purposes. Therefore America is pushing a conspiracy theory.
Islamic terrorism does exist, agreed. We are told there is a global network that includes thousands of people that are meeting in secret to perform unlawful/harmful acts - a conspiracy.My point is to say that something is in-probable because it would require a huge amount of people to keep a secret and people are not capable of that is demonstrably false.
The mafia wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t need courts of law if people were not able to keep secrets and truth was always obvious and exposed. We are willing to accept conspiracies exist so long as the finger is being pointed at an officially sanctioned enemy. We are quite happy to accuse other establishments of enslaving their own people through communism and Islam but somehow we believe our own establishment would never dream of doing such a thing.
@Gunt78 How about you crack open one of those big books called DICTIONARIES and fasten yourself to the definition of "conspiracy" before your next magic carpet ride? Don't forget your meds.
@Gunt78 You are a nut. You've lost your credibility with your previous comments. You do not know what a frigging conspiracy and yet this is what delimits your thinking. You confuse "secret plots" with political ideologies. Sorry, but you need an education.
@TheSkepticUn What are you talking about? Political ideologies breed conspiracies. Its the political ideology of Islamic extremism that drives muslim's to conspire to commit acts of terror. It was the leftist political ideologies that drove Bill Ayers and the weatherman underground to commit acts of terror. It was the neo-liberal ideologies that drove the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments in Latin America.
It was the communist political ideology that drove McCarthy to accuse everyone, other than his mother, of being part of a communist conspiracy to overthrow the government. I think its you that needs an education. Enough with the name calling. Its childish, suggests a lack of intelligence and a weak argument.
@TheSkepticUn : ) your entire argument has rested on Name-calling. This a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief on its own merits. It's pretty crude and intelligent grown ups can see straight through it. Bye Bye small child.
@Gunt78 You have presented absolutely no new evidence. There is no more to say to you. You can believe anything you wish, and you can believe very hard if you wish, but there is nothing that this will do to expand the lack of physical evidence. As for your conspiracy theories, you need to look up what a "conspiracy" is becuase you are not using the word correctly.
@TheSkepticUn Do you actually read my posts? If so, prove you actually understand them by actually making reference to them. Demonstrate why what I'm referring to as conspiracy is in fact wrong. I'll help you out: "A conspiracy is: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful/harmful act"
@Gunt78 i think you are misusing the concept as well.
conspiracy's exist. we know this. BUT - to appeal to a conspiracy theory is weak because anyone can use that as an argument for their lack of evidence. ALSO, the problem with appealing to a large conspiracy is that it becomes highly unlikely given the amount of people involved who all must keep quiet. not only that, but the ALIENS would need to be involved in it as well. it's so unlikely it's laughable & doesn't provide any evidence at all!
@TheEarthAbides where am I mis-using the concept? Make reference to my arguments. All you are doing is repeating what you said before. I've not been trying to prove the ufo phenomenon is Alien just that it exists and that to say conspiracies are improbable because it requires lots of people to keep a secret is demonstrably false. Address my points and back up your assertions.
@Gunt78 You are refusing to use "conspiracy" in the way the dictionary defines it, but rather you are using it for purposes that suite your deluded mind. You confuse fact with fiction. That is delusional thinking. Flying saucers have never flown over the White House, sorry, but that is a messed up mind talking.
@TheSkepticUn You also are using a straw man technique because you don't have an argument. Your argument consists of you telling me I'm wrong without providing any evidence or explanation as to why I'm wrong. Where have I confused fact with fiction? How have I confused the use of the word conspiracy? Were you not taught how to write and debate at school? All I'm seeing is the crude use of propaganda techniques: repetition, name-calling and straw-man.
Again, you are using terms that you simply do not understand the definition of. The term, "straw man" refers to something that someone has created that is false. Since you are accusing me of this, you are making the claim that I have done so. I have never made the claim, you have. Not only is it you who is in the position of creating a "straw man" argument, but you are the one who shoulder's the burden of proof for providing the evidence for you claim that flying saucers exist.
@TheSkepticUn A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
You have taken my argument that the UFO phenomenon is real and repeatedly misrepresented it as a an argument that the UFO phenomenon is extra terrestrial. A perfect example of straw man. Particularly as we had moved on from UFO's to a general discussion about the concept of conspiracy.
@Gunt78 Again, you are using terms that you simply do not understand the definition of. The term, "straw man" refers to something that someone has created that is false. Since you are accusing me of this, you are making the claim that I have done so. I have never made the claim, you have. Not only is it you who is in the position of creating a "straw man" argument, but you are the one who shoulder's the burden of proof for providing the evidence for you claim that flying saucers exist.
@Gunt78 Again, you are using terms that you simply do not understand the definition of. The term, "straw man" refers to something that someone has created that is false. Since you are accusing me of this, you are making the claim that I have done so. I have never made the claim, you have. Not only is it you who is in the position of creating a "straw man" argument, but you are the one who shoulder's the burden of proof for providing the evidence for you claim that flying saucers exist.
@Gunt78 dude, there isn't enough allotted characters in this message window to sight all of your misguided usage of the concept of a conspiracy theory. i'll tell you this, conspiracy aside, if 5% of all UFO sightings come back as genuinely unaccountable, how on earth do you make the leap to saying it's an advanced technology from a life form traveler from light years away? it is the exact same fallacy as saying, GOD created all life on earth since we can't prove otherwise. it's bogus man.
@TheEarthAbides I've managed to present a detailed argument with plenty of support for my assertions. You keep going back to the UFO thing and I think we had moved on from their. Again you don't seem to be reading my posts and you are forcing me to repeat myself: I never said they were alien just that the phenomenon is real and unexplained! You are using this straw-man technique to avoid addressing the specific points I made because you don't have a coherent argument.
@Gunt78 if it appears that both TheSkepticUn and I are using "staw men" techniques, i think it's because YOU haven't presented yourself properly. If I said "Alien" instead of saying a UFO Phenomenon, I don't see the difference when my entire point hasn't changed, which is this, Just because an aircraft can't be accounted for doesn't give it positive evidence for something else. All it becomes in an unaccounted for aircraft, the "phenomena" is man-made. it's imagination run wild.
@TheEarthAbides I've been perfectly clear in my arguments. What you have just argued hasn't been clear. Now you are saying all UFO activity can be explained as "man made." I would like to know what your foundation for your knowledge on the UFO phenomenon is? Have you studied it? Can you make any references on the subject?
@Gunt78 This is getting to the meat of your misunderstanding. you said, "Have you studied it? Can you make any references on the subject?"
So, have I studied WHAT exactly? there is nothing to study! this is my point. the "phenomenon" you sight is a 5% unaccounted for aircraft. In my video I said testimonial evidence is the worst form of evidence, I also mentioned Occam's Razor, the simplest answer tends to be the right one. Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
so given that testimonial evidence sucks, and all we have are unaccounted for aircraft, what is the most likely explanation?
is it:
A) it was some unaccounted for human aircraft / satellite
or
B) A huge multi level government cover up is hiding the existence of highly evolved, highly intelligent space travelers from another galaxy who also agree to hide their existence from the general population, except for a few incidences where they hover above a city...
@TheEarthAbides Again you misrepresent my argument. All I am saying is something exists that defies conventional scientific explanation and you've still not answered my question.
Who says there is nothing to study? What are your sources? How have you arrived at this conclusion? Why should I take your word for it?
@Gunt78 I don't believe i'm misrepresenting your argument, i'm just following it to its logical conclusion. you said "phenomenon" i expanded on that.
All your "argument" amounts to is an argument from ignorance.
think about it. here are the facts:
something was seen in the sky.
that's it. those are the facts. everything else is conjecture built on testimonial evidence. that's it, that is the whole entire body of UFO knowledge.
I simply apply Occam's razor to it and NOT add assumptions.
@Gunt78 What are you talking about? YOU are the one making the claim YOU need to supply facts.
What are you calling my facts? It was you who said the 5% thing about unidentified aircraft.
All i said is that just because the aircraft is unidentified doesn't mean it's OK to assume it's extraterrestrial in nature, to do that violates Occam's razor and requires extraordinary evidence. what's the problem here?
@Gunt78 You just keep circling about, but there is still no more evidence to your agument. You repeat this same deluded, uneducated, paranoid conspiracy theory, but it never comes to any fruition. You demonstrate a near absolute lack of education in science and a total ability to remain consistent in offering logical arguments. You are truly like exchanging with someone who considers himself an expert with only a high school diploma. Wow!
@Gunt78 Again, the burden of proof lies at the feet of those who make the claims. The onus of this is not the audience. If you actually had any education in science at all, you would appreciate that discovery would never be possible were scientists to be faced with your backward facing logic. If I claim I have a magic pill that will cure cancer, then I must provide the evidence that supports the efficacy of this treatment. Your logic fails you altogether. EDUCATION matters.
@Gunt78 When you make the statement, "All I am saying is something exists that defies conventional scientific explanation and you've still not answered my question". You must prove the existance of the "something" before you take your argument further, and you have not. The "something" that you refer to is simply "unidentified", but nothing more. The validity of your arguement is limited to this piece and you have not proven that there is anything to it of substance. Claims are only claims.
@Gunt78 If there was any physical evidence that could be used to study the validity of UFO's, then you would have some basis for what you are saying, but there has NEVER been demonstrated any physical evidence. You use the term "straw man" incorrectly. I am not the one making the claims, you are. I have only said that there is no evidence for an extraterrestrial explanation, so the burden of proof is on you to provide. You are avoiding this and therefore construct your "straw man". SKULE!
@Gunt78 You have not provided the evidence that would ever, and has never, been sufficent for the claims you have made. You are simply repeating the same claims over and over. This is delusional and illogical to continue to make the same argument and yet somehow to expect a different outcome.
@Gunt78 Enough with the deluded conspiracy theories already. Really, this garbage is so tired, and so infantile. There is no evidence for the conspiracies or that aliens have crashed or buzzed over, etc. etc. etc.
@Gunt78 It's called, "science", and quite obviously, you know absolutely nothing about science. You know NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE and yet here you are trying to make a case where science is required. If not science, then what are you using to examine the phenomenon?
@Gunt78 If a pilot found himself in the position of having to choose between what he believed to be his radar telling him that a mountain was approaching and his vision was obscured, he might have to choose between two versions, and sometimes he might be right, other times wrong. My point is that neither radar or vision are infallible.
@TheSkepticUn agreed. Which is why radar + multiple credible witnesses + video confirmation amounts to reasonable evidence. You are showing a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. The ex governmental official Nick Pope who worked investigating the phenomenon has said 5% of the cases he investigated were genuine. France has made the same claims. Do some research instead of operating from your own closed minded bias.
@TheSkepticUn Instead of mud slinging why don’t you try having a rational discussion and address the points I’ve made. Your reaction is the typically conditioned response of someone scared and defensive of people that question the status quo.
@Gunt78 The reason conspiracy theories might work is because so many people just like you have absolutley no education in scinece with which to discern fact from fiction. Add onto that varying degrees of mental illness, and poof!, another conspiracy is born onto the Earth.
@Gunt78 Sorry, but that is simply not the level of evidence that is required. No, you are showing a complete lack of sanity. You are a paranoid and deluded conspiracy theorist who should be on meds rather than typing frantically trying to 'spread the word'. Have you ever wondered what people do when they actually bother to get a real education in science (for example)?
@Gunt78 If "Nick Pope" said that 5% of the cases were genuine - all that amounts to is that he was able to rule out authorized commercial and military aircraft. it doesn't mean that the UFO was an alien. you need positive evidence for that-
@Gunt78 when you start talking about conspiracy theories you sort of lose the argument right off the bat. You could use them for every wacky argument, they are unproven and cheap. The larger the conspiracy the more people need to keep their moths shut - and in this day of easily disseminated information that would be impossible. It would be on wiki leaks before you knew it.
think f it this way, aliens traveled light years to hover over mexico, leave radar blips and blurry footage?
are the aliens in on the conspiracy too? did they agree NOT to land their ship in the middle of the super bowl, or to allow of any good footage to be filmed. Did the aliens fuck up royally when they left radar "evidence"?
do they not have the capability to avoid our primitive radar tracking? did the US military find a way to communicate with them and let them in on the conspiracy BEFORE the aliens communicated with anyone else?
@TheEarthAbides Now you are asking em to speculate theorise. I wasn't trying to prove they are aliens I was merely trying to establish that the phenomenon exists and we don't have an explanation for it yet. We are waiting for science to catch up.
@Gunt78 No one that any of the evidence should be disregarded, but if that is all there is, without physical evidence, then no, the risk of being wrong requires a much higher quality of evidence than this. You cannot just announce to the world, that...that what? That somebody claims they've seen something?? What more could be said without the proof for what you are claiming?
@Gunt78 That is simply not sufficent. We would not accept that level of evidence in any situation where the risk of harm of being wrong is high. It is no different than in situations of health care and I have offered that perspective to you but again, you seem to be unable to appreciate this. I suspect that you simply do not possess the education or the professional experience in scientific research or in clinical practice of dealing with such situations. You are incorrect in your logic.
Nice
bighrabovsky 4 months ago
Well thought out, just wish they taught skeptism/critical thinking in schools, even science needs more critical thinking...eg supersymmetry
CorkSkeptics 4 months ago
Skepticism is for cowards that wait behind a rock for the storm to finish . Skepticism are people that have no Trust . If the whole world were sceptics we were NEVER advance. Skepticism Cant survive infront of FAITH ! and FAITH is what made the Human Evolution . I love you all people ! <3
andragon333 6 months ago
@andragon333
My impression is that faith is not just faith, but that faith is faith HAD IN some belief being correct (and not even necessarily any particularly religious belief, but any sort of belief at all). If that is so, then faith may be held in an idea being correct, even if the idea itself is actually NOT correct.
MENCADO 1 month ago
@andragon333
So, for example, a child might have faith in the belief that a parent had not misled him or her, when - in fact - the parent had indeed misled that child. Or, the same child might have faith in the belief that a parent had not misled him or her, when - in fact - the parent HAD not misled him or her. Both of those would count as the child having had faith.
MENCADO 1 month ago
@andragon333
It further seems to me that even if you (for example) have faith in any idea being correct you ALSO ARE SKEPTICAL in regard to the opposite of that same belief being correct instead.
You claimed that, "Skepticism Cant survive in front of faith!" But, that does not mean that skepticism cannot survive right alongside of faith.
MENCADO 1 month ago
@andragon333
You stated that, "Skepticism are people that have no Trust."
It is just as possible to trust individuals who are telling lies and/or disinformation as is it to trust individuals who are instead telling any truth. It seems to me that having trust is, therefore - in and of itself - neither a positive nor a negative thing for anyone to do.
MENCADO 1 month ago
Skepticism is healthy . To give your self the chanse to find the anser according to you and not just because half the world says so. To much why creates a Prison that u can't escape from ... what if there is no anser to your why ? what would u do then hehe... Just live and enjoy ... after all the reason u made this video is because you love Skepticism . so u are after a Feeling your self :)
andragon333 6 months ago
The earth abides I like your thinking.
peterb1968 6 months ago 2
I agree with all of your claims in this video.
Be careful however when discussing UFO and Extraterrestrial.
UFO merely means Unidentified Flying Object, and the classification for UFO sightings does not presuppose anything 'extraterrestrial', merely that some thing has been seen which cannot be identified.
In fact, as you know UFO's are documented on video, but there is nothing about these sightings which indicates that they're extraterrestrial and not just something in the earth's atmosphere
yadsik 7 months ago
Mate, you are so wrong. Its frustrating because you're clearly not open to believing in something you dont have the capacity to experience. Its an inferiority complex. Spiritual Science is becoming very articulate these days and that gotta conflict with you science logic. Science was so sure that it would explain everything of existence, but it just made the universe appear more magical and unbelievable.. I say this as an ex true atheist. iv had the exact mentality as you.. rabbit hole goes deep
jdogsful 8 months ago
@jdogsful, you are an idiot
Tripbag 8 months ago
@Tripbag says the tard clarifying a month old post, posted by someone else. By the look of your channel you dont know shit anyways so i forgive you for your ignorant insult. And you had the nerve to tell this dude he has an overinflated ego, while bein an arrogant douche sack, yourself. Dont go pickin fights unless youve got a point to make. Unless you enjoy bein a dick. P.s. Synthetic Beats are for turds. Learn a fuckin instrument like a real musician
jdogsful 8 months ago
@jdogsful, says the infantile "tard" ignoring the facts as they are presented to him. Synthetic beats are for people who can play instruments and enjoy experimenting beyond the means that pent up little fairies like yourself want to box themselves into, based on media propagated prejudices. Myself and other skeptics are telling you that you are wrong, but you ignore it. This shows your lack of true skepticism, & that you actually made this video to make yourself seem smart; not answer questions
Tripbag 8 months ago
@Tripbag mate, youre a pretentious wanker that thinks being a skeptic somehow makes you intelligent. you and other skeptics tell us we're wrong? And what im saying is what the fuck would you know? Its only useful being a skeptic until skepticism begins to require me to disbelieve my own experiences and realisations. but then im not a skeptic, im ignorant. Like you.. Its you people that are ignoring what we are sayin. Not us ignoring science. Oh, and i didnt make even this video, dumbshit.
jdogsful 8 months ago
@jdogsful, well if I was to answer your question and inform you of my mental prowess, I would just come off as pretentious again. I'll let my words speak for themselves; plus, you sure read into things deeply, don't you? Disbelieving (meaning: always questioning) your own experience is only rational, jackass. You have proven yourself ignorant on the grounds that you seek to discredit me on, due to your narrow view. If you were to do drugs and still believe your every experience, then argue me.
Tripbag 8 months ago
@jdogsful, plus, memory is a form of experience. Memory must always be called into question. If you believe your memory wholeheartedly - without questioning yourself, then you are completely lost.
Tripbag 8 months ago
@Tripbag yes, fuckhead, i do read into things deeply. Youre an arrogant, ignorant fuck that doesnt even know how ignorant he really is. you are every thing you are sayin that other people are. and thats why you say it. I bet youve never tested any scientific theories, you jus believe what youre told. And you think youre a skeptic. science has been wrong so often its embarrassing. You are nothing like the scientific minds we admire. youre more like the cathothics that slow progress
jdogsful 8 months ago
@Tripbag And music is supposed to be art, not repetitive, familiar shit. Youre not an artist, youre a fuckin technician. I bet youve never had an original thought, just regurgitate smarter peoples hard work. real musicians dont waste their time with artificial beats when they can play music. unless they lazy and talentless. "tard". now fuck off and stop bothering me for no good fuckin reason.
jdogsful 8 months ago
@jdogsful, wow - have you heard any of my music? You are getting way off topic here, and further proving your willfully ignorant nature.
I work with all audio - instruments, foley art, sound design, analog, and digital. Unless you have seen my entire portfolio, I suggest you stop filling in the blanks based on your silly views. I can guarantee that you enjoy alot of electronic music - but you seem to be under the impression that all electronica has a four to the floor kick drum and repeats...
Tripbag 8 months ago
@jdogsful, and did you just insult me for being unoriginal when you posted this video as your own? I don't see a reference as to who the creator of the video is - you hack.
Tripbag 8 months ago
@jdogsful, you aren't a skeptic, you are a debater, an an irrational fool
Tripbag 8 months ago
@jdogsful, P.S. I've studied the sciences at McMaster University, but found their lab work to be stifling: I prefer research at my own pace. This is because of something you are finally correct about: being bound by current scientific process slows down progress - scientists of today will be the philosophers of tomorrow. I have done much experimentation since my leaving the official "scientific community" - I just don't quite think you care for skepticism at all: you assume more than you doubt.
Tripbag 8 months ago
I love how you proclaim yourself as an "Ex true atheist" while you claim that others don't know what they are doing.
You can't be an "Ex True Atheist" you piece of shit.
You're saying "I am a True Catholic that doesn't believe in Jesus" - you fucking moron
Tripbag 8 months ago
Nice discussion :D I like how it clarifies skepticism and how it changes for better or worse as we grow up.
KarBytes 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On the quest for spiritual evolution?Figured out that most information out there is recycling the same words?psychic awakening, precognition, mind powers, it all exists.THE-HIDDEN-SPIRITdotCOM It is time to lift the veil.
MaryTibbetts1 11 months ago
"Why" does not imply skepticism as much as it does the opposite: it implies more of a "there must be an answer for this" attitude. Silence or scoffing more implies skepticism: More the "you've got to be kidding" thing. "Why?" implies there are reasons...somewhere.
proffromgview 11 months ago
@proffromgview nay nay. scoffing implies cynicism. why implies that there is a reason behind something. it means that orthodoxy isn't good enough. the answer may be, as you implied, no answer for something- but you have to first ask why. here is an example:
homeopathy works. (why?) because like cures like (wtf are you talking about) i don't know.
see how that works? any other questions?
TheEarthAbides 11 months ago
@TheEarthAbides Sorry, I disagree. I teach philosophy at a liberal arts college and the simple question "Why?" does not imply skepticism, unless the observer of the questioner (in this instance, you) reads that into it (as you are). "Why?" merely asks a question, and it can imply that the questioner is not satisfied with the current state of affairs or earlier answers, but it does not necessarily imply cynicism. Two-year-olds are not cynics.
I would also lose the attitude....
proffromgview 11 months ago
@proffromgview #1 you didn't read what I wrote correctly. You get a C- for that. i corrected you when you said that scoffing is more akin to skepticism, i said it is more akin to cynicism.
You are picking on a minor part of my video... i started the vid off by introducing the concept of questioning what might be considered the status quo. just as Dorothy peeked behind the curtain. I see how just asking "why?" doesn't mean you are thinking like a skeptic, but it was used as a starting place-
TheEarthAbides 11 months ago
@TheEarthAbides a "minor part?" You lead with it! It is in our nature to question the status quo and such a statement is remarkable only for being unremarkable. Scientists, infants, boys, even freshman philosophy students like yourself ALL question the "status quo." Someone who really knows philosophy and has made some strides toward creating an integrated worldview would not make the errors you have. Thus I suspect youth in your case. But do learn how to craft an argument and present it.
proffromgview 11 months ago
@TheEarthAbides, nobody can be "picking on" a specific part of a video production. You are using this term because you identify with something you have created, and feel as though he is picking on you. He isn't picking on you; he is correcting your mistake, and also pointed out with distinct accuracy that you have a shitty attitude. I will expand on that, and point out that you have an overinflated ego, and don't know what you are talking about.
Tripbag 8 months ago
@proffromgview
It seems to me that the question of "Why?" may be indicative of skepticism in certain cases.
If someone were to ask - for instance, "Why should I do that," then that would not necessarily mean the person was presuming that he or she really SHOULD do that. It could instead be that the person's reason for asking that question was due to his or her feeling skeptical in regard to the claim that he or she should do that.
MENCADO 9 months ago
@proffromgview
In other words, the asking of "Why" may - in some cases - simply be a modified way of asking, "For what - if any - reason...," because whoever is asking the question does not necessarily presume there to be any reason why.
MENCADO 9 months ago
@proffromgview
If I were to ask you "Why?", then I might just be asking you that in order to get you to present to me whatever YOU believe to be why. I would not necessarily being doing that while also holding belief of there being any such why. I could ask you the question of "Why?" (in order to get you to present what you believe to be why) while being undecided myself - in regard to belief as to whether there is any why.
MENCADO 1 month ago
@MENCADO ask why to more than one person
sidfuckcheese4 3 weeks ago
@sidfuckcheese4
If I wanted to hear or read from Joe Schmoe what was his explanation of his own perspective on any particular 'why' question, then - it seems to me - that here is only one person who it would make sense for me to ask that question of , and that one person is Joe Schmoe.
MENCADO 3 weeks ago
Great video friend.
kailabreece 1 year ago
@kailabreece thanks!
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
Thank you TheEarthAbides for this video. You helped me better understand skepticism and write a better report on Skepticism:D merci
Battersby15 1 year ago
Comment removed
Battersby15 1 year ago
Comment removed
Battersby15 1 year ago
1) A very young child may be naturally inquisitive, but non-stop asking question, just because it is a way for young children to get a reaction is far a good example of being naturally skeptic.
2)A Pepsi challenge is not a way to find truth. Truth is not a matter of popularity. The truth is still the truth even it only one person believes it.
3) @4:50 How do you know that the people conducing scientific experiments have not become corrupt or have a hidden agenda? Like making money from vaccines.
sablechicken 1 year ago
@sablechicken aren't you the guy who thinks Noah's flood was a true story?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Be careful. That was an Red Herring fallacy. Challenge his argument, don't run away from it.
MooseEatsBear 1 year ago
@MooseEatsBear are you referring to the three comments left by sablechicken? i didn't answer them, not only because they were nonsensical, but because i answered them in the video. his questions don't align properly with what I said in the first place. not only that, but since i had earlier encountered him in regards to Noah's flood, I know that he is not a reasonable person, so there really is no point in trying to engage him in what is obviously a waste of time. it's not a red herring.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Sorry, I just finished listening to a skeptical podcast about logical fallacies. I was applying it very loosely in this situation. Trust me, I think it's nonsensical as well.
MooseEatsBear 1 year ago
@MooseEatsBear hey, good man!
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
Kind of interesting, but the original Skeptics, such as Pyrrho, Socrates and their two schools of followers, were not aware of the scientific method. Probablism didn't come much later with Descartes. Skepticism can exist independent of the scientific method. Being a physicist, I can say there is no scientific truth, there is only scientific abstraction, and this abstraction can actually be indistinguishable from other abstractions. Some examples are gauge theories and Bohm's quantum mechanics.
AbsoluteJake 1 year ago
@AbsoluteJake Hi Jake, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I know there isn't a grand truth, as you said there is only scientific abstraction. But, as far as we humans can understand reality, is there really any difference in this context?
when judging a claim like homeopathy which is contrary to many systems and theories, we can be highly skeptical of its claims. what are we comparing with gauge theories and Bohms mechanics? or have i missed something?
maybe elaborate a bit more
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@AbsoluteJake Hey Jake, I'm hoping to hear back from you. I understand that science is an abstraction and if the predictions correlate with nature, that it's (plausible) or whatever word youw ant to substitute there for what laymen would call a "truth". but what did you mean when you said a scientific abstraction is indistinguishable from other abstractions?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Thanks for reminding me! I have been busy with work as usual. But David Bohm developed a different interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from Heisenberg and Shrodinger, but yet gives the same results. And gauge theories are different ways to mathematically write electric and magnetic energies but give the same results. What is important about these if you can write the same physical phenomena in different mathematical ways, it yields slightly different interpretations.
AbsoluteJake 1 year ago
@AbsoluteJake A lot of our words such as force, energy, potential, have rigid mathematical definitions in physics. But when the mathematics can very, it makes these words mean different things. It can be bizarre but that is why there has been some reluctance to accept quantum mechanics. But what many physicists have come to understand is that the scientific method does not necessarily yield in truth, but is a way of seeking. Which is why many of them say science is human abstraction of reality.
AbsoluteJake 1 year ago
The scientific method is an excellent tool, but not universally applicable. We do not use it in math. Unique historical events are scientifically untestable because they are not repeatable. No amount of verification can establish the truth of a hypothesis since alternatess can yield the same predictions. Prior probability reflects what we already believe. We can rationally CHOOSE to commit to a position if there is no contradiction. It is best to be open to what is not contradictory.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis Math still makes independently verifiable predictions though. It's not like Mathematics is purely philosophical it really does correlate to the natural world.
Historical accounts are verified and plausible as much as possible. Sure they may not be truly accurate, but since we can't ever know for sure, they must at least correspond with reality as much as possible, and they can be falsified with new information.
what we "already believe" is tethered to reality through many references.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Mathematical method of is not based on prediction and verification. It often claims an exactness no possible measurement could verify. It is arrived at by abstracting concepts from reality in the same way as perennial philosophy, then using the concepts to make postulates and deductions.
Much of philosophy does the same.
You admit the history uses a different method -- my point.
Beliefs are not deductions and so make prior probability subjective. You need to be more critical.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis I am trying to be as critical as I can. Let me see if I understand you. You are trying to use Math & His. as examples that the scientific method is not universally applicable. From this you attempt to induce that Prior Probability (PP) merely reflects our subjective beliefs, rendering either the entire concept flawed, or just as it applies to Math & History? If I'm correct, which do you mean?
PP for math & history is subjective?
PP is totally subjective?
Science is slave to philosophy?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Two separate points here: (1) The scientific method is not universal. (2) Prior probability is totally subjective. The SM is hypothetico-deductive. We make a hypothesis, deduce a prediction and test it. That is NOT the method of either math or hist.
Probability reflects ignorance. Being ignorant of a reason to prefer one outcome, we give all the same weight. In PP the weights are based solely on feelings, not logic. We feel that something is untrue, so we reject it a priori.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis 1) agreed. second point, not so. prior probability leverages the scientific consensus, which is based on the breadth of scientific study. probability reflects acquired knowledge to the contrary. eg, homeopathy claims & practice are entirely contrary to everything we know about chemistry, biology quantum physics, you name it. the probability of it being (true) is not likely. you can't point to history as a way of advancing homeopathic none sense. it's like saying G. Washington was an elf
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides The scientific consensus has no cogency beyond the data supporting it. The consensus was that (1) Reynolds was wrong on pipe flow -- vs turbulent flow; (2) Wegener was wrong on continental drift; (3) all physical processes are predictable in principle -- vs. QM; (4) That long-range weather prediction was just a matter of time -- vs. chaos theory. (5) that gradualism was true in geology and evolution -- vs astronomical catastrophes and punctuated evolution. It is herd mentality.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis science is a work in progress. the points you raised were (correct) because of the quality of data required to change the orthodoxy, not because they appealed to math & history & scientific errors. My video is about the absence of such data. if an alt. theory is proposed, & we don't have good data, what should we do? well, lets see what the scientific / medical body says about it. if the alt. theory is in contradiction to this, and without data, we should be very skeptical of it.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides My point is that consensus without data is the basis of prior probability. It is purely the result of a subjective herd mentality. When we don't have data to decide the matter, the rational response is to be open to every logically possible alternative, not to fall back on what the herd thinks. Thus, there is no rational basis for prior probability.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis PART 1: I think you are selling it short. What you are saying is that the sum of acquired knowledge is not a legitimate primer when weighing the likelihood of a claim that is in contrast to (known) reality. You call it herd mentality, but it's what got us this far, it's what our predictions have shown us, it's the nature of reality as we know it. In your view, every single study has to start from scratch, with no scale to determine what is likely vs unlikely, skeptical vs not.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides No, I am not selling our accumulated knowledge short. I use it logically, avoiding the group-think (aka prior probability) you are proposing. We know that some hypotheses are falsified. We know that others are confirmed over some range of variables. Beyond that, we do not know what is possible or impossible. Empiricists suspend judgment until there is relevant data, and don't make a priori assumptions. That is gullibility not skepticism.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Philosophy has the job of investigating the methods applied by the sciences. That does not enslave the other sciences to phil. It only places those who do not pay attention to it at risk of doing bad science.
dfpolis 1 year ago
@dfpolis right. in no way do i think science is a slave to philosophy. that is the argument that alt. medicine proponents use to try and legitimize their position.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
H , cool video Ive made some skeptical videos debunking Muslims on cosmology, evolution, naturopaths on vaccines etc. Just click on my name to check them out if you can . Thanks. Phil
skydivephil 1 year ago
Comment removed
Davotheledge 1 year ago
The scientific method is not the best means of discerning reality. Can you prove thought by the scientific method? Can you prove by the scientific method that the scientific method is reliable?
Davotheledge 1 year ago
@Davotheledge are you serious?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
Comment removed
Davotheledge 1 year ago
(Sorry, don't know if I'm posting this in the right spot), but:
Of course I'm being serious. Most of the things we believe can't be proven by the scientific method.
Davotheledge 1 year ago
Okay, I went over your video again and I now understand what you're saying (that science is not the only, but the strongest means.) My apologies, I shouldn't have made assumptions.
Davotheledge 1 year ago
Comment removed
Davotheledge 1 year ago
In respect to UFO's we do have evidence; visual documentation, radar confirmation, credible witness testimony. Whether it is extra terrestrial or not is where we suffer from lack of evidence, but never the less we have solid evidence of flying objects that are unidentifiable. Now as science is subject to gatekeepers that define consensus, this evidence alone, never mind the evidence that they might be extra-terrestrial is supressed and mocked as an area of study.
Gunt78 1 year ago
The point being we shouldn't allow the model on which you define scepticism to close our minds to things science has not yet welcomed into its community.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 I understand what you are trying to say, but you are making an error. The gatekeeping nature of Science is proof. without proof you can't say for sure that something is X. Now, although there have been unidentified flying objects captured on blurry grainy footage, you can't claim they are anything. but, based on what I was saying in the video, use Occam's razor and the most likely explanation is the most probable. could it be a lens flair, or a highly evolved alien...
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides you are demonstrating your ignorance regarding the phenomena. As i previously stated there have been events that fulfil the requirements of good evidence, multiple credible eye witness accounts, physical verification i.e radar confirmation and a record of the event i.e video. Try a search on mexico ufo air force for one example.. Governments around the world are disclosing previously secret files that confirm the existence of unidentified flying objects.
Gunt78 1 year ago
Unidentified being the operative word. There is not a lack of evidence that UFO's exist more a lack of evidence on what they actually are. You should watch the documentary Out of the Blue. It is a real eye opener.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 What does "a real eye opener" mean to you when you make the suggestion that somone watch a video with a very obvious, but unsubstantiated bias towards believing in "aliens"? It sounds to me like offering a conclusion without or prior to, the evidence.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 The lack of evidence is that UFO's are something more than identified, so yes, that is correct. But nothing more than that.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 No, I am sorry, but eye witness testimony has been demonstrated to be extremely unreliable, so much so, that criminal cases have been overturned with DNA analysis after convictions had been made based on such poor evidence. Not all evidence is the same and science seeks to secure the very best BEFORE accepting a conclusion of fact.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 If I claimed to have discovred a cure for cancer and I offered to sell it to your poor sick Mom for more than she could afford, would you expect more than testimonials? Come on pal, give me a break. Of ocurse you would expect, and rightly so, that empirical evidence would demonstrate the efficacy of this new treatment BEFORE claiming that it was responsible for any benefits. Try SCIENCE education.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 No there have no been sufficently robust "events", obviously first and foremost because nothing has ever been verified as irrefutable evidence. Blurry photos, videos that are of dubious nature, eye witness testimony that ahas been shown repeatedly to be unreliable. Where is the piece of evidence where everybody would say, "Yup, that flying saucer material is not what we can make"? No physical evidence, not a single bolt, has ever been found. WHY is that? THAT is the EVIDENCE.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 What do you suggest, based on the evidence that is available? If it were up to you, and you had unlimited resources, how would you change the way in which this is dealt with? I suspect that you would make an announcment?? And what would you say if you were in possession of that authority that would make any difference to your argument?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Not good enough to conclude anything other than claims get made. Yes, "unidentified", but anything more, not way.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn Yes I am aware of the issues regarding eye witness testimony. However, this does not mean eye witness testimony is to be disregarded. It should be assessed by; who is providing the testimony, the number of people reporting it, is it backed up by a physical confirmation, such as radar and is there a visual record of the event. Some sightings fulfil this criterion.
Gunt78 1 year ago
Military personnel are considered to be some of the most credible witnesses particularly the air force, as they have the best knowledge of the skies. Radar confirmation proves that what is witnessed has a physical presence and the video recording reinforces the event.
Gunt78 1 year ago
In respect of a documentary that is biased toward the existence of UFO’s there is no such thing as objectivity everything is subjective. The mainstream news media and science communities approach to the subject has previously held a “sceptical” bias to the subject. It has been dismissive and mocking, whilst the political establishment has actively suppressed information. So a film that has a pro-bias is necessary to counter balance this bias.
Gunt78 1 year ago
It is rather narrow minded of you to immediately dismiss the evidence within a film without even watching it on the basis that it is biased. Watch the film and then critique it. How can you argue on a subject when you don’t know the content of your opponent’s arguments? How do you know the film is making unsubstantiated claims? Because mainstream science and the media haven’t been making a song and dance about it?
Gunt78 1 year ago
You talk about being sceptical but I don’t think you are that sceptical. You are quite content to accept the mainstream opinion and version of events. Which is strange considering the mainstream is being constantly proved to be unreliable and deceptive.
Gunt78 1 year ago
Many of the great scientific discoveries have been made by people sceptical of mainstream conventional wisdom, theorising in opposition receiving fierce resistance and ostracisation for their questioning of the norm and upsetting the “scientific” establishment. They have pursued these “unscientific” beliefs and consequently revolutionised the field. The true sceptics are those that question conventional wisdom.
Gunt78 1 year ago
Perceiving science as the objective pursuit of truth is flawed. Nothing is objective everything human beings do and perceive is subject to the filtering and inherent bias of the human mind. What drives humanity? The pursuit of power. Therefore science is a servant of power and is subjected to the bias of power. Science often starts with a theory and then seeks to prove that theory.
Gunt78 1 year ago
However, that becomes difficult when the evidence for that theory is actively suppressed because it upsets the balance of power. The central narrative to human existence has been the battle between oppressed and oppressor. Every tool man creates has the power to liberate or oppress. History tells us that we invariably use them to oppress. Therefore science has to be assessed with this truth in mind.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 when you say "mainstream opinion" I think instead we can call this the most plausible explanation. In other words Occam's razor.
If a bunch of testimonies come in, & a radar blip confirms the witnesses saw (something) the most plausible explanation is almost always the right one.
Another problem with your explanation is that it requires a HUGE conspiracy which should be an indication you are wrong. all it would take is one video, IN FOCUS, of a space ship to destroy this massive cover up
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides The point with genuine UFO sightings is there isn't a plausible explanation. The operative word is unidentified as in there isn't any plausible explanations for the event.
There are video's of "spaceships" in focus. The problem is video and photographic evidence alone is not enough especially in today's age where anybody can be an SFX artist. Also many of the objects don't resemble craft as we know it. Like I've said watch the film "Out of the Blue"
Gunt78 1 year ago
Also, what makes you think "HUGE" conspiracies don't exist? History is riddled with conspiracies. Our establishment is scared shit less of them, they are the biggest conspiracy theorists of us all. Why do you think we have, a "legal" system, prisons and why do you think they are in the process of setting up the most sophisticated surveillance system man has ever known! Most of the latter half of the 20th century was driven by the fear of conspiracy, a conspiracy so big it included millions
Gunt78 1 year ago
millions of people all over the world, that diabolical threat communism. Apparently there is a huge conspiracy in Iran right now. Insiders say he's trying to develop nuclear weapons so as to wipe Israel off the map!
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You live for conspiracies. Enough already. What do you do, connect every unimaginable piece of information that you feel fits for the reason that it is part of a conspiracy? Ya, sure.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Evidence for the conspiracies BEFORE we all run into our bomb shelters. You are quite the kook, eh?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides The HUGE conspiracy works both ways on this point. Either there is a conspiracy by the establishment to cover up the UFO phenomenon. Or there is a conspiracy involving astronauts, high ranking military officials, governmental official’s, lawyers and scientists claiming there is a UFO phenomenon. Either way you are choosing to believe a conspiracy. As one side has to be lying.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Do you have any evidence for all these conspiracies? You sound quite deluded.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn which conspiracies? The communist threat of the 20th century? Iran trying to build a bomb and wipe Israel off the face of the map? The threat of an insidious group of Muslims wanting to destroy us and all our freedoms?
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You are a NUT!
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 communism exists, muslim anti-semitism exists, nuclear weapons exist, iran has admitted to wanting nuclear power, where is the conspiracy here?
if you want to talk about a conspiracy, talk about watergate and how people TALKED and Nixon was caught in the lie.and that was a small conspiracy involving what, a hundred people at most?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides For clarification a conspiracy is: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful/harmful act. In reference to the conspiracies previously cited; Iran, Communism, Islamic terrorism – they are all conspiracies. I don’t quite understand why you would say they are not. Firstly Communism was presented as huge conspiracy by an opposing nation to enslave people under a totalitarian government.
Gunt78 1 year ago
Do you know anything about the McCarthy era and the Reds under the bed scare? He accused the soviets of secretly attempting to infiltrate America and take it over from within. That’s a conspiracy. In respect of Iran yes they have said they want to pursue nuclear power. They say it’s for peaceful purposes. The West and in particular America says; no they are lying it’s for military purposes. Therefore America is pushing a conspiracy theory.
Gunt78 1 year ago
Islamic terrorism does exist, agreed. We are told there is a global network that includes thousands of people that are meeting in secret to perform unlawful/harmful acts - a conspiracy.My point is to say that something is in-probable because it would require a huge amount of people to keep a secret and people are not capable of that is demonstrably false.
Gunt78 1 year ago
The mafia wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t need courts of law if people were not able to keep secrets and truth was always obvious and exposed. We are willing to accept conspiracies exist so long as the finger is being pointed at an officially sanctioned enemy. We are quite happy to accuse other establishments of enslaving their own people through communism and Islam but somehow we believe our own establishment would never dream of doing such a thing.
Gunt78 1 year ago
That's because our leaders are squeaky clean and never lie to us right?
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 How about you crack open one of those big books called DICTIONARIES and fasten yourself to the definition of "conspiracy" before your next magic carpet ride? Don't forget your meds.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You are a nut. You've lost your credibility with your previous comments. You do not know what a frigging conspiracy and yet this is what delimits your thinking. You confuse "secret plots" with political ideologies. Sorry, but you need an education.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn What are you talking about? Political ideologies breed conspiracies. Its the political ideology of Islamic extremism that drives muslim's to conspire to commit acts of terror. It was the leftist political ideologies that drove Bill Ayers and the weatherman underground to commit acts of terror. It was the neo-liberal ideologies that drove the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments in Latin America.
Gunt78 1 year ago
It was the communist political ideology that drove McCarthy to accuse everyone, other than his mother, of being part of a communist conspiracy to overthrow the government. I think its you that needs an education. Enough with the name calling. Its childish, suggests a lack of intelligence and a weak argument.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Whacko......you don't deserve more.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn Owned... Bye bye
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You are a whacko!
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs, Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs!
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn : ) your entire argument has rested on Name-calling. This a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief on its own merits. It's pretty crude and intelligent grown ups can see straight through it. Bye Bye small child.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You are a NUT!
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You have presented absolutely no new evidence. There is no more to say to you. You can believe anything you wish, and you can believe very hard if you wish, but there is nothing that this will do to expand the lack of physical evidence. As for your conspiracy theories, you need to look up what a "conspiracy" is becuase you are not using the word correctly.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn Do you actually read my posts? If so, prove you actually understand them by actually making reference to them. Demonstrate why what I'm referring to as conspiracy is in fact wrong. I'll help you out: "A conspiracy is: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful/harmful act"
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 i think you are misusing the concept as well.
conspiracy's exist. we know this. BUT - to appeal to a conspiracy theory is weak because anyone can use that as an argument for their lack of evidence. ALSO, the problem with appealing to a large conspiracy is that it becomes highly unlikely given the amount of people involved who all must keep quiet. not only that, but the ALIENS would need to be involved in it as well. it's so unlikely it's laughable & doesn't provide any evidence at all!
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides where am I mis-using the concept? Make reference to my arguments. All you are doing is repeating what you said before. I've not been trying to prove the ufo phenomenon is Alien just that it exists and that to say conspiracies are improbable because it requires lots of people to keep a secret is demonstrably false. Address my points and back up your assertions.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You are refusing to use "conspiracy" in the way the dictionary defines it, but rather you are using it for purposes that suite your deluded mind. You confuse fact with fiction. That is delusional thinking. Flying saucers have never flown over the White House, sorry, but that is a messed up mind talking.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn You also are using a straw man technique because you don't have an argument. Your argument consists of you telling me I'm wrong without providing any evidence or explanation as to why I'm wrong. Where have I confused fact with fiction? How have I confused the use of the word conspiracy? Were you not taught how to write and debate at school? All I'm seeing is the crude use of propaganda techniques: repetition, name-calling and straw-man.
Gunt78 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, you are using terms that you simply do not understand the definition of. The term, "straw man" refers to something that someone has created that is false. Since you are accusing me of this, you are making the claim that I have done so. I have never made the claim, you have. Not only is it you who is in the position of creating a "straw man" argument, but you are the one who shoulder's the burden of proof for providing the evidence for you claim that flying saucers exist.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Gunt78 1 year ago
You have taken my argument that the UFO phenomenon is real and repeatedly misrepresented it as a an argument that the UFO phenomenon is extra terrestrial. A perfect example of straw man. Particularly as we had moved on from UFO's to a general discussion about the concept of conspiracy.
Gunt78 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gunt78 Again, you are using terms that you simply do not understand the definition of. The term, "straw man" refers to something that someone has created that is false. Since you are accusing me of this, you are making the claim that I have done so. I have never made the claim, you have. Not only is it you who is in the position of creating a "straw man" argument, but you are the one who shoulder's the burden of proof for providing the evidence for you claim that flying saucers exist.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gunt78 Again, you are using terms that you simply do not understand the definition of. The term, "straw man" refers to something that someone has created that is false. Since you are accusing me of this, you are making the claim that I have done so. I have never made the claim, you have. Not only is it you who is in the position of creating a "straw man" argument, but you are the one who shoulder's the burden of proof for providing the evidence for you claim that flying saucers exist.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 dude, there isn't enough allotted characters in this message window to sight all of your misguided usage of the concept of a conspiracy theory. i'll tell you this, conspiracy aside, if 5% of all UFO sightings come back as genuinely unaccountable, how on earth do you make the leap to saying it's an advanced technology from a life form traveler from light years away? it is the exact same fallacy as saying, GOD created all life on earth since we can't prove otherwise. it's bogus man.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides I've managed to present a detailed argument with plenty of support for my assertions. You keep going back to the UFO thing and I think we had moved on from their. Again you don't seem to be reading my posts and you are forcing me to repeat myself: I never said they were alien just that the phenomenon is real and unexplained! You are using this straw-man technique to avoid addressing the specific points I made because you don't have a coherent argument.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 if it appears that both TheSkepticUn and I are using "staw men" techniques, i think it's because YOU haven't presented yourself properly. If I said "Alien" instead of saying a UFO Phenomenon, I don't see the difference when my entire point hasn't changed, which is this, Just because an aircraft can't be accounted for doesn't give it positive evidence for something else. All it becomes in an unaccounted for aircraft, the "phenomena" is man-made. it's imagination run wild.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides I've been perfectly clear in my arguments. What you have just argued hasn't been clear. Now you are saying all UFO activity can be explained as "man made." I would like to know what your foundation for your knowledge on the UFO phenomenon is? Have you studied it? Can you make any references on the subject?
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 This is getting to the meat of your misunderstanding. you said, "Have you studied it? Can you make any references on the subject?"
So, have I studied WHAT exactly? there is nothing to study! this is my point. the "phenomenon" you sight is a 5% unaccounted for aircraft. In my video I said testimonial evidence is the worst form of evidence, I also mentioned Occam's Razor, the simplest answer tends to be the right one. Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides continued...
so given that testimonial evidence sucks, and all we have are unaccounted for aircraft, what is the most likely explanation?
is it:
A) it was some unaccounted for human aircraft / satellite
or
B) A huge multi level government cover up is hiding the existence of highly evolved, highly intelligent space travelers from another galaxy who also agree to hide their existence from the general population, except for a few incidences where they hover above a city...
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Again you misrepresent my argument. All I am saying is something exists that defies conventional scientific explanation and you've still not answered my question.
Who says there is nothing to study? What are your sources? How have you arrived at this conclusion? Why should I take your word for it?
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 I don't believe i'm misrepresenting your argument, i'm just following it to its logical conclusion. you said "phenomenon" i expanded on that.
All your "argument" amounts to is an argument from ignorance.
think about it. here are the facts:
something was seen in the sky.
that's it. those are the facts. everything else is conjecture built on testimonial evidence. that's it, that is the whole entire body of UFO knowledge.
I simply apply Occam's razor to it and NOT add assumptions.
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Nope that still wasn't an answer to the question, I'm still hearing lots of repetition. What is your source for these facts?
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 What are you talking about? YOU are the one making the claim YOU need to supply facts.
What are you calling my facts? It was you who said the 5% thing about unidentified aircraft.
All i said is that just because the aircraft is unidentified doesn't mean it's OK to assume it's extraterrestrial in nature, to do that violates Occam's razor and requires extraordinary evidence. what's the problem here?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You just keep circling about, but there is still no more evidence to your agument. You repeat this same deluded, uneducated, paranoid conspiracy theory, but it never comes to any fruition. You demonstrate a near absolute lack of education in science and a total ability to remain consistent in offering logical arguments. You are truly like exchanging with someone who considers himself an expert with only a high school diploma. Wow!
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Again, the burden of proof lies at the feet of those who make the claims. The onus of this is not the audience. If you actually had any education in science at all, you would appreciate that discovery would never be possible were scientists to be faced with your backward facing logic. If I claim I have a magic pill that will cure cancer, then I must provide the evidence that supports the efficacy of this treatment. Your logic fails you altogether. EDUCATION matters.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 When you make the statement, "All I am saying is something exists that defies conventional scientific explanation and you've still not answered my question". You must prove the existance of the "something" before you take your argument further, and you have not. The "something" that you refer to is simply "unidentified", but nothing more. The validity of your arguement is limited to this piece and you have not proven that there is anything to it of substance. Claims are only claims.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 If there was any physical evidence that could be used to study the validity of UFO's, then you would have some basis for what you are saying, but there has NEVER been demonstrated any physical evidence. You use the term "straw man" incorrectly. I am not the one making the claims, you are. I have only said that there is no evidence for an extraterrestrial explanation, so the burden of proof is on you to provide. You are avoiding this and therefore construct your "straw man". SKULE!
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You have not provided the evidence that would ever, and has never, been sufficent for the claims you have made. You are simply repeating the same claims over and over. This is delusional and illogical to continue to make the same argument and yet somehow to expect a different outcome.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Enough with the deluded conspiracy theories already. Really, this garbage is so tired, and so infantile. There is no evidence for the conspiracies or that aliens have crashed or buzzed over, etc. etc. etc.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gunt78 It's called, "science", and quite obviously, you know absolutely nothing about science. You know NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE and yet here you are trying to make a case where science is required. If not science, then what are you using to examine the phenomenon?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 If a pilot found himself in the position of having to choose between what he believed to be his radar telling him that a mountain was approaching and his vision was obscured, he might have to choose between two versions, and sometimes he might be right, other times wrong. My point is that neither radar or vision are infallible.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn agreed. Which is why radar + multiple credible witnesses + video confirmation amounts to reasonable evidence. You are showing a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. The ex governmental official Nick Pope who worked investigating the phenomenon has said 5% of the cases he investigated were genuine. France has made the same claims. Do some research instead of operating from your own closed minded bias.
Gunt78 1 year ago
The reason conspiracies are so successful is because of people like you blindly accepting what they are told.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 You are a nut.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@TheSkepticUn Instead of mud slinging why don’t you try having a rational discussion and address the points I’ve made. Your reaction is the typically conditioned response of someone scared and defensive of people that question the status quo.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 The reason conspiracy theories might work is because so many people just like you have absolutley no education in scinece with which to discern fact from fiction. Add onto that varying degrees of mental illness, and poof!, another conspiracy is born onto the Earth.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Sorry, but that is simply not the level of evidence that is required. No, you are showing a complete lack of sanity. You are a paranoid and deluded conspiracy theorist who should be on meds rather than typing frantically trying to 'spread the word'. Have you ever wondered what people do when they actually bother to get a real education in science (for example)?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 If "Nick Pope" said that 5% of the cases were genuine - all that amounts to is that he was able to rule out authorized commercial and military aircraft. it doesn't mean that the UFO was an alien. you need positive evidence for that-
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gunt78 Sorry. Claims are not enough. How about enough with the conspiracies already, or is that all you have? YES in fact, that is all.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 So where is the physical confirmation?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
The radar confirmation
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 Confirming what?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 when you start talking about conspiracy theories you sort of lose the argument right off the bat. You could use them for every wacky argument, they are unproven and cheap. The larger the conspiracy the more people need to keep their moths shut - and in this day of easily disseminated information that would be impossible. It would be on wiki leaks before you knew it.
think f it this way, aliens traveled light years to hover over mexico, leave radar blips and blurry footage?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
ALSO-
are the aliens in on the conspiracy too? did they agree NOT to land their ship in the middle of the super bowl, or to allow of any good footage to be filmed. Did the aliens fuck up royally when they left radar "evidence"?
do they not have the capability to avoid our primitive radar tracking? did the US military find a way to communicate with them and let them in on the conspiracy BEFORE the aliens communicated with anyone else?
what difference would it make to the aliens?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
@TheEarthAbides Now you are asking em to speculate theorise. I wasn't trying to prove they are aliens I was merely trying to establish that the phenomenon exists and we don't have an explanation for it yet. We are waiting for science to catch up.
Gunt78 1 year ago
@Gunt78 No one that any of the evidence should be disregarded, but if that is all there is, without physical evidence, then no, the risk of being wrong requires a much higher quality of evidence than this. You cannot just announce to the world, that...that what? That somebody claims they've seen something?? What more could be said without the proof for what you are claiming?
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
@Gunt78 That is simply not sufficent. We would not accept that level of evidence in any situation where the risk of harm of being wrong is high. It is no different than in situations of health care and I have offered that perspective to you but again, you seem to be unable to appreciate this. I suspect that you simply do not possess the education or the professional experience in scientific research or in clinical practice of dealing with such situations. You are incorrect in your logic.
TheSkepticUn 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago