- #596
Physics-Learner
- 297
- 0
my point was simple and clear.
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics-Learner said:my point was simple and clear.
Physics-Learner said:okay. first, let me state that i don't believe or disbelieve. i think the govt could keep the fact that of "real ets" hidden from the masses, if they wanted to. this would assume the "prime directive from star trek" that an alien does not want to interfere.
however, i do agree that the burden of proof is on the one stating that there are ets.
but the point i was making is that the whole topic is "highly speculative". so it is out of place to tell someone that they are going against the rules of the forum for being speculative.
in my book, that makes that person look biased in his "disbelief ".
personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.
Physics-Learner said:i think they are less susceptible. but if we were talking about 1 or 2 incidents and a handful of people, then i would probably not put much emphasis on it yet. but we are talking hundreds, and dozens of incidents. i simply can't just wipe it all away, just because it doesn't meet my previous thought patterns.
i don't think we can compare an event caused by a human versus one caused by an alien, in terms of people knowing about it.
i now have lots of doubt about the sincerity of the cseti group. but let's just take their one claim that many of these visits have been to disarm missiles, and such - that their major concern is us bringing weapons into space.
that being said, it is a small assumption to think that an alien race could keep itself hidden from the masses, and only target those areas of concern.
in fact, i think why it opens my "belief factor" is that it is not only possible, but i think possibly likely that an alien group might behave this way. of course, i realize that the ones making these claims also realize that it is going to seem like a likely type of behavior from an advanced civilization.
i consider myself to be on the fence, but still leaning towards there not being any et visitations. but it would no longer surprise me to find out that there have been.
for me, it would not really affect my life one way or the other. so unlike a lot of people and groups, i don't have any emotional/financial reasons to hope one way or the other.
although i figure it may be good for people in general, since they may have some sort of technology/medicine that could be helpful to us. and i am not scared, since i figure they could have already destroyed us, if that was their goal.
Physics-Learner said:i have posted on this thread quite a few times, earlier. i think i am familiar with many of the older posts to which you refer.
i simply don't buy the thought that hundreds of these military/high level people are simply all mistaken.
if it is untrue, i am much more likely to think that they currently have some sort of goal, and are simply lying.
so unless some new information comes to being, the whole issue simply rests on the back burner for me. AS OF YET, it is neither proved or disproved.
Physics-Learner said:because i always thought it was a bunch of nonsense, i really had no idea of any of the sorts of "visits".
i can't separate "the ranks" from my thought patterns. it does have a lot of meaning for me.
plus i had no previous thought that they could be concerned about our missiles and bringing our violence into space.
the combination of those 2 things seems like a very real and plausible explanation for et visitations that are not known to the public.
there is still no doubt in me that the vast majority of "sightings" are either hoaxes or something other than ets.
but when people at high level military bases talk about their incidents, i put a lot more stock in it.
and again, i am "not convinced" - but certainly more willing to be open-minded. LOL.
Physics-Learner said:well, at this point, i am somewhat disconnected, because i have no ability to shed any information one way or the other.
i think the prayer about change what you can, accept what you cant, and the wisdom to know the difference applies well for me in this situation.
Physics-Learner said:well, i am certainly still critical. however, i am at least open, now. where i really hadnt been before.
one thing i have found in my life, as i have matured - is that several times it has taken me awhile to become open-minded to things that eventually i found out to be true.
that in itself, was evidence that sometimes i was making conclusions too hastily.
Physics-Learner said:well, defining skeptical as having doubts, i guess i am skeptical about most things - LOL.
being raised catholic, i am now agnostic on the topic of the existence of god. however, i don't think there will ever be any information on that topic. if true, that means there will never be anything with which to base a conclusion.
with ets, we certainly have the possibility of finding out if there are any.
Wikipedia said:Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2] Usually meaning those who follow the evidence, versus those who are skeptical of the evidence (see:Denier) Skepticism is most controversial when it questions beliefs that are taken for granted by most of the population.
The word skepticism can characterise a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess.[4]
In religion, skepticism refers to 'doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).' (Merriam–Webster). Often skepticism is confused with agnosticism for the reason that the skeptic usually is also an agnostic.[citation needed]
In classical philosophy, skepticism' (or scepticism) is the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[5]
Physics-Learner said:one thing that may surprise you about me (from just reading these posts) is that i am definitely not a follower.
with regards to knowledge, i tend to place levels of probability on most things that i "know".
Physics-Learner said:...personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.
Andre said:Would that mean that because a general and some pilots have a story that this is more credible than other stories?
We have been here before, but there are some flaws, not adding up.
But why would a military story be more credible than any other? It's not that military culture is based upon honesty and truth. It's certainly not science. Military is all about 'make believe'. If your are to be defending yourself, you'd better *convince* friend and enemy that you can, rather than *prove* that you can. So -for instance- if you happen to be a dictator somewhere -vulnerable to attack-, it helps to convince the world that you have powerful weapons of mass destruction. Also if you want to overthrow that dictator, it helps to convince your friends that he has weapons of mass destruction, regardless if he has them or not. Also, when you go into the offensive against that dictator, be sure to present a completely fake attack plan to the international press, so you can surprise your opponent, deception and surprise the one of the main principles of war.
No the military is not about truth and honesty, it's about winning and attaining your goals in which deception plays a major role, be it to win, or be it not to lose your face, when you goofed. So what would warrant the fallacy of the appeal to authority: "he is an official military, hence it must be true"?
Andre said:Thanks Nismaratwork
Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but there could be three variation, with interesting differences.
1: A states S; A is the undisputed world leading authority in the realm of S, hence S is true
Example: the best weather forecaster in the world says it will snow on 12 February 2013
2: A states S; A is an scientific authority with multiple PhD's, hence S is true.
Example: Prof dr mult X says that when the rooster crows, the sun will rise within the hour.
3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.
Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.
Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.
Andre said:...
Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but
...
3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.
Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.
Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.
Physics-Learner said:... a pilot, a military person, etc. have skills that an average citizen does not.
Andre said:This is most ironic. Insiders will know why, but no, I am not going to use the appeal to authority myself. This is hopeless, how can you convince without saying: been there, done that.![]()
Physics-Learner said:i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.
and again, i am not saying that they are correct. but i certainly am not going to sweep it under the rug.
Physics-Learner said:hi lisa,
if you knew me in real life, you would know that i definitely am not someone who believes because others believe - LOL.
in a lot of ways, i consider myself swimming in a small pond instead of the ocean where most the other fish are.
i said this before - but i have made the mistake of discounting something because i thought it was a bunch of hooey - and then turned out to be true. i once thought that about ufos and ets.
i now take the stance that i don't know nothing about it for sure, so certainly should not be making any definite conclusions. i may very well die with no more knowledge about it.
Physics-Learner said:.. bragging...
Physics-Learner said:i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.
jreelawg said:What's up guys? Been gone a while.
Anyways, just thought maybe we should go deeper into the issue of credibility as a function of the position of an individual.
Pilots, astronauts, astronomers, radar operators, military personal etc; People in these types of positions, wether justified or not command more respect and credibility to the average person.
My opinion, is that giving more credibility to certain types of people in certain positions is entirely rational. That said, I agree that these types of people may be as susceptible to psychosis or illusion as the average person.
Do you ascribe more credibility to a PF mentor than to a newbie? I'm guessing you would answer yes. You would also rather trust a professor than a homeless person on the street. But of course a PF mentor is human like the rest of us. They are subject to imperfections, egos, jealousy, greed, etc. A PF mentor could have a conflict of interest in a given topic. The same points I believe apply to any expert or qualified person. But to say that all people are equally credible seams a little bit foolish. Aside from the differences of the individuals on the basis of expertise or character, you have a big difference in capability. Not everyone has the appropriate radar equipment, and a fighter jet to scramble at a moments notice for example.
I think you ought to be more convinced by certain people than others. Without proof you have good reason to be highly skeptical of even the most trusted or respected individual. But, you shouldn't expect to have access to proof even if it exists. The same thing to a more extreme level could be said about many things we take for granted. How many of you have personally verified the effect of time dilation, some people we trust said it was so and we believe it.