UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

I agree that the first is worse than the second. But the second is still an implicit accusation of lying, which is uncool by its nature. I'd be inclined to reply "I wouldn't have written it if I didn't think it was true."

Perhaps the best way to handle is is to say "I don't think that's right, because...".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd say the mods do a good job with banning obvious trolls. MR isn't a troll, though. lol I suppose the term ''troll'' can be subjective, but to most, it's this:

Internet troll - Wikipedia

You know he's not a troll, he just infuriates you because he posts his opinions at times, as facts. Or he wants you to take the evidence more seriously.

It all winds back to my original question, why does this sub-forum exist? If you are expecting MR to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt to back up his ideas about space aliens, it's not going to happen. Because there isn't any “proof” other than eyewitness accounts, fuzzy pics, grainy videos, which we could take a deeper dive into what those witnesses are actually alleging/reporting, and go from there. Maybe allowing MR to explain why he believes what he does, understanding that it’s potentially subjective, would be a step in the right direction.

This sub-forum is a little off the beaten path. But, there is a way to “get along” without destroying the integrity of the thread discussion. At least I’d like to think so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm appointing Wegs as Ambassador of Courtesy. From this point forward, ask yourself "Would Wegs say this...". If not, rephrase.

 

Okay. I'd agree.

Okay, so it's "reliable most of the time, more often than not." I would concur. This is also consistent with your answer to #1.

First, you seem to be saying: "if we can rely on it then we can/should rely on it, but if we can't then we shouldn't." So maybe some clarification by you is needed, as I'm sure you didn't intend such a vaccuous truism, and something no more insightful than saying "that animal over there is an elephant, unless it isn't".
Second, you're not actually answering the question. The question was, to effect that: IF it was totally reliable, does that mean we could always rely on it. This isn't a question about whether you think it IS totally reliable or not, but IF IT WAS.

As a question, however, it is just a matter of linguistics: if something is "totally reliable" then that means, by definition, that it can be relied upon. It's what the words mean.

Your point regarding not being able to escape from reliance on perception I will get to at the end.

Again, this is just the rather vacuuous "we shouldn't rely on it if it isn't reliable".
The question is really just an extension of #1. If perception is fallible it means that it is sometimes incorrect. If we know something is sometimes incorrect then we can not, rationally, have full confidence that it is correct. Thus we can not always rely on it being correct.

Noone is saying that human perception is not central to human cognition. It's just a question of whether it is fallible or not, whether one can rely on what they perceive all of the time, etc.
Science works by seeking to eliminate much of the individual's errors in perception. But even something perceived by everyone as being X could in fact be something else. This is because of the way our brain actually processes what it perceives. We have optical illusions precisely because of this, precisely because our brain interprets things in certain ways that are different to how they actually are. We can understand those illusions, we can show that they are illusions, but we will still be tricked by them.
Now, the majority of the time... the vast majority of the time... what we perceive is sufficiently accurate to allow us to live our practical lives. Much of this will come from repetitive perception of the same thing, where we have reference for what it is we are perceiving (such that our brain will be able to fill in any gaps with something pretty darn close to what is actually there). But, every now and then, we come across something that is different to anything we have perceived, and our brain will struggle. It will fill in the blanks with whatever it can to make sense of it.
So, yes, perception is not "totally reliable", and can not "always" be relied upon. 99.999% of the time it may be sufficient for practical purposes, though.

The important question, though, is not the black and white of whether perception is wholly infallible, but to what degree, if any, it can or should be dismissed. Are we to throw baby out with the bathwater? Is anyone even suggesting that that happen?

 

Curtsey??
That's a bit sexist, isn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Spell check error, since changed. I intended to type "courtesy".

 

Virtual curtseying ... that could become a thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

@ Dave - do you really see MR as a troll? I guess the word is subjective, but my idea of a troll is someone who instigates for the sheer pleasure of riling everyone up in a thread, or someone who posts inflammatory remarks for kicks, or someone who argues a point, but never yields.

I'm genuinely curious, how others define that term. I don't see MR as a troll - he has posted information that could be construed as inaccurate, but he really holds onto these beliefs and opinions, so maybe there's a reason. I've actually envisioned this section/thread topic to be more about understanding why people believe in space aliens or Big Foot, etc...not necessarily that such ''believers'' are going to convince me to change my thinking.

 

I think the word "troll" is overused by those (in general) trying to stifle dissent. You can either address someone's question or just dismiss them as a "troll". The latter is the easier approach.

I think it's better not to call someone a "troll" or a "liar" and just deal honestly with what they are saying without the personal attack.

 

There's a range between 'sometimes trolls' and 'is a troll'.
Looking at the definition you have posted, I would say MR is guilty of all of those at one time or another. Not all the time, but enough certainly that I have lost patience. I don't think he 'is a troll'; I think his frustration drives him to bad behavior.

But everyone has their limit.
If your best friend slept with only one of your last ten boyfriends, is that OK? Or would they have to sleep with most of them before you lost trust and patience?

If an opinion or belief is based on a flagrant dismissal of the very sciences critical to analysis of the subject, how much merit should it be given? How much screen space before it erodes the very discourse?

That would be a good thread, although I suspect members have been primed to see such discussions as a potential trap, in that members may find themselves having to defend their beliefs against scrutiny.

 

Anyway, I'm bored of this discussion about MR. I'll call out ignorance and anti-science denial as I encounter it, and will raise it to the level of moderation if it interferes with constructive discourse.

Is it ironic that, despite all this side discussion from and about myself and MR, I'm virtually the only one who contributed some on-topic analysis of the most recent video submitted by MR?

If this is a quote from the interview:

then how do we reconcile that with the video?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What does that tell us about this witness' account? How much does it degrade our confidence in the rest of the account?

• None?
• A little?
• A lot?
• All of it?

What does it tell us about eyewitness accounts in general, when we otherwise don't know the particular faculties of the witness?

• Does it tell us that this witness is an outlier, and that all other witnesses are perfectly trustworthy?
• Does it tell us that - all other things being equal - we just don't know what the reliability of a given witness is?
• Should we optimistically assume any given witness is entirely reliable unless shown otherwise?
• Should we pessimistically assume any given witness is not entirely reliable unless shown otherwise?

 

What other inaccuracies/errors do you see in comparing Mariana's account with the video footage?

 

Nothing to say about the given example?

Because if your answer to this:

What does that tell us about this witness' account? How much does it degrade our confidence in the rest of the account?

were to be

• All of it

Then we'd need to look no further.

 

So you're ready to dismiss his whole account based on this one discrepancy of size/distance? That seems rather biased and dogmatic.

 

It doesn’t completely disqualify the witness’ claim, but it’s fair to say that their credibility went down a peg or two. The measurements were clearly off, but my expectations aren't all that high for these types of claims, meaning that I don't expect Sci-Forums level analysis.

That said, the video seems a little hoaxsy, to me. Is that a word? Hoaxsy? Like, those ''flying objects'' could have been anything, and it struck me how they didn't move apart from each other the entire time. As though they were specks of dust or something on a lens, and somehow, the specks were made to look like flying objects in the sky. That's a little out there, I know.

I've stated before in this thread that the main reason to believe the eyewitness accounts related to the ''tic tac'' flying object initially reported by military personnel, would be that they see more flying objects and unusual occurrences than the average human, and I'm not alone in that thinking. Many skeptics give that one some consideration. Nothing has been concluded other than it's still considered ''unidentifiable,'' but that is a step towards genuine analysis and not dismissing the account. Also, it's a positive step in determining what qualifies as a convincing witness.

It does matter who is reporting these claims, in my opinion.

 

Somewhere between option #3 and #4 for me.

 

There are thousands of airline pilots in the air all the time, much more than military pilots. You have a very small number of military pilots who say they don't know what it was.

I would give a military pilot more weight if they were actually closing in on the UFO and getting video just like they would in a dogfight. Surely someone by this time should have gotten a close-up picture of a spacecraft, IMO.

 

Yea, that’s true, too. It’s definitely strange that none of these witnesses offer clear videos or pics! Like I shared a few pages back, that article about the airplane mechanic who randomly “stole” a plane, threatening to crash it into a local Walmart…social media blew up with tons of clear pics. If I saw a UFO, I’d be sure to take a pic of it as usually my phone is near me.

That has become more mysterious than the UFO claims, themselves. lol

 

It is now ✅

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!