UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

You know this.

"I saw a horse."
"I believe you."

"I saw a unicorn."
"Sure you did. Show it to me."

Contrast with Magical Realist's view:

"I saw a horse."
"I believe you."
"I am a complete stranger to you and I say I saw a whole herd of unic-"
"I believe you. No matter how outlandish, I am not at all skeptical."

You know this too.

Obviously, a craft landing on the Parliament lawn with waving little green men would suffice.

Note that, if aliens really are flying craft and super-interested in our internal biology, then that is not actually an unreasonable expectation. It would be more reasonable to ask: "Why - if they really are flying craft and super-interested in our internal biology - do they not land on the front lawn and say hello?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I say I saw a bird, that's a claim and me saying so is probably enough ordinary evidence for you. If it's not, several people seeing the same bird and describing it as a Blue Jay would probably be enough for you.

If I say that I saw a turkey flying at 1,000 feet for an hour, that's an extraordinary claim. That's probably not enough for you nor are several other people who say the same thing.

Extraordinary evidence would be video footage from a drone that we sent up to video the flying turkey. It wouldn't be a fuzzy blob taken from the ground that we claim was a flying turkey.

If the claim is extraordinary, the evidence should be good enough that we aren't still skeptical after looking at the evidence. For an extraordinary claim that would be extraordinary evidence.

Maybe I'd never heard of an Ostrich and you said you saw a strange bird and described it to me. I might not believe you as it sounds pretty odd. Take a good up close picture and now I have no problem believing you. A blurry one and I might still be skeptical.

If you say you saw a dude flying on his magic carpet, the evidence I'd want goes up a notch. A good video close up video that was determined to not be tampered with would be a good start. I might also want to then see this flying guy myself. I'd like to see it be repeatable.

After all that, I'd say "Hum, who knew that flying carpets exist but I now see that they do".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But just as in that religion-based argument, the position of the "atheist" is misunderstood: it is not "I believe that the UFOs are not of alien origin" (cf. "I believe God does not exist") but rather "I have no reason to believe that UFOs are of alien origin" (cf. the non-commital "I do not have the belief that God exists" - which doesn't go as far as the former).
I.e. almost all skeptics are of the agnostic variety: they are not saying "they are not alien craft", but rather "I am not convinced to believe, given the evidence, that they are of alien origin".
You want to paint yourself as the reasonable "agnostic", but fail to realise that almost all skeptics are similarly agnostic. You want to paint them, however, as only being reluctantly so, when in fact they are openly so. And you want to beat them around the head with what you misunderstand to be their reluctance.

The difference between your agnosticism and theirs, it would seem, is that you are less inclined to say that you think the explanation is likely mundane. You might stop at "I don't know" and might even then consider every possibility of equal likelihood. Other agnostics don't, but they are still agnostics on the matter, because they don't claim to know what it is, only have a view as to what it might be.

Just as in the religious theatre, agnosticism is not mutually exclusive from a/theism. It is a separate consideration. Epistemology v ontology etc.

If you continue to misrepresent other peoples' views it is no wonder you'll come to such conclusions.

You paint yourself as being different to others in this regard, but you're not all that different at all. Most of the skeptics here hold exactly the same view, but rather than say "I don't know" and stop there, they say "I don't know, but I think it more likely to be the mundane than alien". If one is truly of "I don't know therefore all options remain equally open" view then I think one will struggle pragmatically: not all possibilities to an unknown need be equally likely.

But few, if any, are doing this. They are not reaching definite conclusions on these cases, merely views as to what they consider more reasonable explanations. That's a difference I'm not sure you're fully appreciating.
If one doesn't know what 12*25 is, one can still conclude that it is likely to be a number rather than an elephant!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While that is an admirable trait, your desire to stand against what you perceive as bullying is more and more resulting in you arguing against caricatures of arguments rather than what people are actually arguing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand your points, but maybe what this thread is showing more than anything else, is that claims (extraordinary or otherwise) need evidence to be proven, however not everyone requires evidence to believe that something is plausible and/or true. Perhaps MR's beliefs when it comes to space aliens frustrates you because you want him to prove with evidence, why he believes what he does. But, he doesn't come to the discussion with the same requirements or expectations as you do. Therein lies the issue, maybe.

It may seem like we go in circles with this thread (and we do) but this topic feels like a battle between philosophy and science, when I don't think it needs to be that way. Either ''side'' can technically, be right. You don't believe in space aliens because no one has ever proven them to exist, therefore any claims of space aliens now, require evidence. But, if MR chooses to believe people who claim to have somehow observed or encountered space aliens, he's willing to make that leap, without extraordinary evidence. He can choose to believe whatever he likes, and you're free to debunk it.

 

Wrong

Just as in other threads you are wrong in this one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

James, I think you're confusing gnosticism (opposite of agnostic) with the religious notion of Gnosticism.
While Gnosticism is about spiritual knowledge etc, the matter of agnosticism is about knowledge in general, even if Huxley did link it to scientific knowledge. The notion had been around far longer than Huxley, and generally refers to knowledge, not just scientific.
Thus I think your notion of the gnostic (as opposite of agnostic) is wrong.

I'd like to post more now, but have to rush off.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Must be time for Yazata's usual strawman by now, so I will get my reply in now:

Carry on Yaza.

 

What is clamed without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I guess you consider yourself a gnostic skeptic? That you can become convinced of alien UFOs by means other than evidence?

 

Neat

Did you think that up all by yourself?

You guessed incorrectly

You guessed without evidence

Your guess can be dismissed without evidence

Thinks
? Where have I heard something similar ?

I've not given any such indication that is my position

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK, there's no need to drag this out and muddle up the thread.
Moving on.

 

I believe in an omnipresent/omniscient higher power that created the universe, and that can be felt through nature, through prayer/meditation etc…Faith is believing in God (a god?) despite not being able to prove that God exists to anyone else.

Is that the same as MR’s belief in space aliens? I don’t know. His beliefs can’t be proven to your specifications, same like mine can’t. But, this doesn’t mean that I believe that anything someone tells me is true without evidence. I find evidence for God to be in nature, in the existence of a potentially infinite universe. The universe doesn’t seem random to me. It’s opinion, belief, faith…but it all is real, to me.

So, maybe this enables me to have empathy for MR’s position when it comes to space aliens, in that he believes the stories of eyewitnesses but he can’t prove why he believes beyond that. But in his mind and heart, he’s satisfied with “believing.” Maybe, that’s how he channels his wonder of the universe?

James - you have beliefs, too that can’t be proven through the scientific method. Like love, for example. I’m sure you have felt love before, for another person, a friend, a sibling, a pet. How would you explain the reality of that love to someone who has never felt it? If the person who has never felt it before scoffs and says to you “Sorry, but I don’t believe it exists.” Are they wrong? Are you wrong?

There are some things that we feel and experience that are outside of science’s ability to prove. You could say “well, love is felt by enough people in the world that we all have an idea of it”; that “it’s true because most everyone has felt it at one time or another.” But, how everyone defines love will certainly vary from person to person. Take people in abusive relationships, for example. Two people claiming they love each other, yet harm each other. Is that love to you? It’s not to me. Love shouldn’t hurt but many people stay locked in abusive relationships because they “love” the person.

So, I don’t mind you wanting to label us for the sake of this thread, but I think those labels don’t scratch the surface of who we are. Maybe I’m assuming too much, so I’ll wait for your response. lol

 

No..I believe in ufos because of all the evidence there is for them. That is the opposite of dogmatic--dogmatic in the sense of the denial of ufos by skeptics based on the a priori belief that they are too improbable or absurd to exist. That belief is the fallacy of incredulity.

 

I don't believe ufos are space aliens. I only posit that ufos as real and unknown phenomena exist. We simply don't know what they are or who's behind them. We can endlessly speculate about them, but that's about all we can do at this point.

 

It is not random

It is exquisite precise and physics is the reason for the preciseness

Atoms perform their precise actions / interactions unseen

Large happenings tends to introduce what could be construed as randomness during which the atoms are performing their precise actions / interactions

Those large happenings actions / interactions produce what appears to be randomness simply because large interactions have to much going on to keep track of

And just like that proof that love exist cannot be found

Who would have thought that?

Like something else claimed to exist but many scientists have not discovered and those who claim it does exist have yet to show evidence for its existence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!