In defence of space aliens

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,896
    I pointed out you have no evidence. You can prove me wrong by providing credible evidence. You won't provide credible evidence. You have no credible evidence. You're too credulous to differentiate between plain fantasy and evidence.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    11,155
    As I said prove that there is no evidence .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,896
    Not my job. You have evidence? Present it. So far you haven't done that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    11,155
    It is your job .
     
  8. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,896
    I've already done my job. I've challenged your silliness.
     
  9. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    The default assumption is the null hypothesis, that there is no unusual source for observed objects.
    The unusual is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
    The null hypothesis is the default without such evidence.

    Demanding evidence against your extraordinary claim is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  10. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,896
    River knows this, on some level. On other levels he's dancing with the Teletubbies in a field of big flowers.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  11. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,378
    Are you sure the Teletubbies would accept him?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,896
    Shhhhh, we planted mines in the field.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    11,155
    The default assumption of the null , is not only illogical , but not backed by knowledge .
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  14. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    I'm pretty sure that's the point. The null hypothesis requires evidence to be refuted.
    There's no logical reason to believe just any old claim anyone makes.

    But if you believe otherwise, I have some beachfront property in Wyoming I'd like to sell you.
     
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,056
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,959
    47 years and fifty pages and still no evidence that seems reasonable.

    For these UFOs to be from elsewhere they would have to travel vast distances ...closest star and lets presume a system capable of having life...a very advanced form of life...is some 6 light years away.
    Top speed of any craft would seem limited to C but the energy for travel at that speed you may as well say infinite...I think GR would tell us that...
    So it is difficult to imagine how long their trips would take as it is doubtful they could get anywhere near light speed...say they could do 1,000,000 klms per hour which would still consume so much energy it is hard to imagine a ship with fuel tanks less than the size of Earth for such a trip.

    Then why do they come?
    A picnic?

    If there are so many genuine sightings why is there no real evidence.
    Everyone has a camera these days, both phone and car cameras...plus security cameras that you would think should capture many images....so you would think there should be 1000 fold photos these days.

    I suppose there could be a civilization who live on board a mother ship style of craft and they have no home planet and send smaller craft to check us out...but they would take over probably.

    It should be easy to provide evidence if there was any you could think.

    Alex
     
  17. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,056
    Recall this thread Alex?: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/early-report-ufo-australia.158519/
    To refresh your memory: p1, - #2, #4, #7, #9, #11, #13, #19, p2, - #23, #38. I left out some irrelevant ones. Those in red highlight are highlighted for a reason.

    Collectively, those posts deal with all your generic criticisms raised here in #1033. And recycled endlessly by yourself and various others in this and similar threads.

    As a reluctant response to some truly disgraceful behaviour in another thread in another subforum, I made a particular point this post: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3496944/
    Rigid ideological commitment, and with it narrowness of perspective, is seldom self-admitted, let alone publicly admitted. Hence there is never a shift in position.
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,959
    Hi Q-reeus.
    How are you going.
    I only recall the thread when I looked at it...the beauty of my advancing years is give a few months I have forgotten and can start all over.
    Its not so bad I can watch old cage fights and have no idea who is going to win even though I may be looking for a second time...even a third time if they are lesser known fighters.

    I know its a terrible sport but I was a fighter when very young so I love to yell advice at the screen as to how its done.

    I am just bored really.

    I came away to my dark site with my new scope mount guide scope lap top inverter new camera etc and all it has done is rain.

    I come here to this site and simple threads for a break from trying to learn a astrophoto processing program that is way above my little brain...

    But I suppose being focused somewhat on astronomy at the moment I started thinking about the real difficulty in space travel and was reminded just how far our closest star is from us by a guy posting a time lapse of five years showing our closest star actually moving...so cool.

    And when you think about it even a alien civilization would face similar problems to us travelling...time and energy required carrying capacity for said energy and then a reason to come here...maybe they could be like us and do it for the heck but if there are so many a motive is beyond me.
    Stuff to think about when you are not really thinking.

    A mother ship thing would probably be the only way as travel may be over generations but you would think they would call in and be after fuel and dounuts.

    None of the astronomers on another forum have ever seen anything of interest and well astronomers tend to look up a fair bit.

    It is nice to hear from you and I hope all in your world is good.
    Best wishes
    Alex
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  19. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,056
    OK thanks Alex.
    And to you to Alex.
     
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,896
    There have been many thousands of UFO reports. It's foolish and asinine to deny it.

    It might be more plausible to try to argue that none of those reports constitute good evidence. Evidence that's acceptable.

    To do that, one would have to specify evidence of what, exactly? What proposition are we trying to defend?

    UFO's are space aliens (or their vehicles)? (I'm doubtful about that but can't exclude it 100%.) UFO's might in some cases be currently unknown phenomena? (I'm still undecided about that.)

    And we need some account of 'good evidence'. What standard does 'good' represent? (If a person has a closed mind and has already decided that no evidence of what is already believed to be a falsehood is acceptable, then no evidence will meet the 'good' standard. Conversely, if one is credulous and wants to believe, then far more evidence will probably cross that relatively low hurdle.)

    I sense that MR is in the latter category and you (and others on this board like you) are in the former. The petitio principii fallacy works both ways when people let their pre-existing conclusions determine what constitutes evidence and what standard that evidence must meet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,896
    Whenever somebody asserts a controversial proposition ("seventy years, no evidence") and expects other people to accept it, the burden of proof of presenting some plausible justification lies with the one making the assertion.

    It's just elementary rhetoric. Nobody is ever in a position where they can expect everyone who disagrees to automatically surrender and accept whatever is said.
     
  22. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,896
    You make the claim, you provide the proof. Until then there is no proof of aliens visiting Earth. After you provide your "proof" there will be no proof of aliens visiting Earth. Get over it.
     
  23. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,896
    Right. You're the one who wrote "seventy years, no evidence" in post #1011.

    I agree that there is no proof, in a logical apodeictic sense. (Where the evidence logically implies the conclusion.) In real life (including science) that kind of proof is often unavailable. ('Proofs' are typically encountered in the abstract world of mathematics.)

    There certainly is a massive body of evidence. (There are many thousands of UFO reports, from all over the world, from all of history.) People can disagree about how strong and persuasive that evidence is. (I don't weight most of it very high myself, but that doesn't mean that we can simply announce that it doesn't exist.)

    In post #1011 you were talking about 'evidence', now it's 'proof'.
     
    Q-reeus and Magical Realist like this.

Share This Page