UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

It's obvious but not for that reason.

It's obvious that it's going into philosophy because no evidence has withstood the objective light of analysis. Even "The best UFO picture ever taken" - according to many - turns out to be underwhelming.

The thread is starving for fodder to discuss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, again…what is the point of this sub-forum? We all know that random UFO sightings, eyewitness reports and grainy/blurry footage aren’t going to serve as “evidence,” so why have this sub-forum except to discuss the possibilities that could exist? I’m not suggesting to accept that space aliens exist for example, without tangible proof, but we should be able to discuss why others believe them to exist. Not every UFO claimant is “crazy,” or seeking attention. I’m glad NASA doesn’t think so, and it’s willing to invest its energy into creating a study team to explore “what we don’t know” related to UAP’s.

If this site’s section exists, it was for the purpose of discussion. Science doesn’t yet answer the question of UAP’s so should we shut down this sub-forum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sounds pretty conveniently subjective to me, opening the door to all sorts of bullshit infractions for posters that happen to disgree with you. So how does this relate to saying someone is lying being a bannable offense?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can be blamed for anything, MR.

Asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs? MR's fault!

 

This may come as a shock but generally, online discussion forums expect their members know how to behave like adults.

If you are unsure where the line of unacceptability is, and fear that you are continually in danger of crossing it, you should seriously ask yourself if you know how to behave in public without someone having to tell you.

That's kind of what it means to adult.

 

LOL I haven't worried about acting adult since my teens. It all pretty much comes naturally to me, just like with most adults.

 

MR's position is that human perception is (generally speaking) reliable. I agree with him about that. That isn't to say that perception is infallible or immune from error. It just means that our powers of perception are good enough that we are justified in relying on them. And we do so, every moment of our waking lives. They are the basis upon which empirical science rests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I'm inclined to agree with MR's view about that. Eyewitness reports of anything would seem to have some presumptive evidenciary value, absent an even more convincing reason not to believe them. MR seems unwilling to accept that someone's mere disbelief convincingly defeats the eyewitness claim. (The disbelief may be well founded, but that needs convincing justification.)

The thing is, we needn't accept somebody's eyewitness testimony as if it was logically-necessary apodeictic proof of the truth of the account of the thing seen. That would be too strong. But the eyewitness reports are data-points. They are evidence that might even be valuable. The question is how heavily to weight them. You seem to favor close to zero, MR weights them more highly, and I think I might be more in the middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodicticity

I agree with you that the more interpretive elements should perhaps be weighted less highly than the more descriptive elements. But they probably shouldn't simply be dismissed either. At worst, they are hypotheses about the nature of what was seen, based on what the individual reports seeing, which seems inherently more plausible to me than the sarcasm of those who base their dismissals only upon their judgement that the hypothesis is "woo".

Didn't you just apologize up above for falsely saying that? And here you're back at it!

The issue isn't whether perception is infallible (immune from error). The issue is whether human perception is reliable (trustworthy enough to base our daily lives on, not to mention the practice of science). Infallibility and reliability are two different concepts. Don't confuse them.

 

Empirical science rests on the basis of repeatability, and tries to remove any chance of human fallibility. However, as for our perception being such that we rely on them "every moment of our waking lives", it is because of the repeatability of experience that we can rely on them. Where they are not so good is when we experience something unusual. Our brain tries to fill in gaps, which distorts what we experience and our interpretation thereof. With no reference of something, for example, how can we interpret it at all? So our brain tries to interpret as best it can, but the less it is like something else that we have experienced, the more fallible it becomes.
Since UAPs / UFOs are, by their very nature, not your every day occurrence, it would be disingenuous to assume that our perception of them would be as reliable as it would be for most other things we encounter in "every moment of our waking lives".

Reliability in context of common (i.e. often repeated) observations is a weak argument for reliability when faced with a novel observation, is it not?

 

Wegs makes a good point about the standard MR is being held to in a sub-forum that includes "monsters" in the title.

I wouldn't have added this sub-forum to the site but it's here so I don't get the standards that MR is being held to given the subject heading.

My own opinion is that the word "liar" isn't very polite and shouldn't be used by James R., MR or anyone else but that's just me. How about "That's not true" or "that's not accurate and you know it". "You are a liar" borders on the vulgar and that should be against forum rules (but not a reason to ban someone).

Most discussion groups would self-regulate if given the chance. James's defense for "liar" is that it's OK if you are a "liar". Is it OK to refer to someone as "fat", "stupid" or "obnoxious" as long as that's true? I don't think so.

 

Well said. Yes - attack the argument, not the member.

 

"Butterfly Power to the People!"

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Cancel all butterflies until they are more social!

 

How large do you think is the public education that is being presented here? Or rather I should say how wide is the general public that comes here?

What proportion would you say is here for the UFO discussion vs the monsters discussion vs the ghosts discussion. Are "we" educating the wider general public regarding monsters as well?

Not that I'm pushing it but is there any consideration being given to adding a sub-forum regarding unicorns? Is that just determined by a members vote? It's an unusual system and I'm sure many would be interested in its inner workings. I think we could be doing more to education the wider general public regarding unicorns.

 

So start a thread. This is the subforum for discussion of unicorns. 'Monsters' maybe a bit of a misnomer, but a four word title can't be very nuanced.

The preponderance of threads about a subject would be the first criteria as to whether a subforum is useful. AFAIK, there isn't even one thread devoted to unicorns, let alone one that's over 7,000 posts long, never mind multiple threads that need gathering together.

But you know this.

 

"unconventional thinking" you call it.

If some dude stood out on front of a synagogue and started yelling anti-semitic sentiments, and a bunch of people started yelling "stop that!" back, do you think the cops should arrest everybody for breach of the peace?

The two encampments are not equals. MR has been provided metric buttloads of whole science fields about subjects essential to the study of UAPs which he denies. He's (metaphorically) denying the Holocaust.

 

Dave compares me to a holocaust denier. He's sunk to a new low.

 

Yeah, I needed dive gear just to find you. How can you even live down there?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which is why most accounts of UFOs/UAPs by eyewitnesses use descriptors like discs, ovals, spheres, triangles and 40ft long tic tacs. I see nothing more questionable about these accounts than I do everyday experiences. They express the strangeness of what they saw and its defiance of being anything we are familiar with. This perception of a novel object disturbs us and provokes deliberate thought. It is not like the everyday glossing over of familiar objects. It stimulates the mind with a curiosity and a wakefulness that makes it stand out and become more memorable as something extraordinary and mysterious.