Why does the government hide UFO's?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by darksidZz, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Read books from the 50's and early 60's .

    Look in the end , the US government hid the reality of UFO's because it had no defence against them .

    And it figured the general populace couldn't handle the truth .

    People can handle the truth , nowadays , it seems though who can't are the minority .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I don't read fiction so its out no matter what era.
    As to non fiction I like the latest text as hopefully it contains up-to-date information.
    Well if faced with such a prospect I think I would probably resort to a dishonest move and keep the truth from the people. There are other available alternate views but mine is leaders should try not to cause panic.
    I think that sounds reasonable.
    I hope those who can't handle the truth are in the minority just as I hope that those who tell the truth are on the majority.

    You do raise interesting propositions River thank you for the stimulating input.

    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    By what criteria do you ascertain that these decisions and figurings are "truth"?

    That is a rhetoical question.

    One cannot simply declare why a government might have done something, and what it (a body of thousands) might have "figured".

    Those are conclusions. And unproveable ones at that. They are merely projections.

    Somebody drew those conclusions. That would be the authors. And you have chosen to accept their conclusions.

    So don't you speak about "truth".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What could I tell you to encourage to read these books ?

    Any thing that I say you fight against it .
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I only fight unsound logic.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    So the fight is within yourself .
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It is not unsound logic to be skeptical of the unproveable conclusions of an author somehow being "truth".

    How does the author prove as truth what an entity, comprised of thousands, "figures"?

    That is a rhetorical question.

    You could help yourself here. Instead of making sweeping generalized statements, you could detail some specifics - things that could be verified as factual or not.

    Imagine a courtroom, where a proscecutor stands before the jury and declares "this man is guilty because, well he just is. Don't worry about the facts of the case - look at the big picture - and truuuuuuust me. "
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Imagine you reading .
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I'm asking you specific, pertinent questions about a source you brought in to the discussion. That's my M.O.
    I'm not just shooting enigmatic one-liners, as is your M.O.
    Your lack of content about your assertions is not helping you.

    But this is digressing. You have the floor for more one-liners.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What does the source matter if you have not read the source data ?
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Now that's a hard one just try looking at my avatar and instead of holding up the phone to take my photo imagine that I hold a book.

    You want to know the absolute irony of my situation River and it only hit me last night, and you are the only person I am going to tell, no others, but the only book I now own is a copy of the bible.
    True.
    I had a magnificent library once, books on so many subjects, no fiction, maybe a thousand maybe more had never counted them and didn't keep an inventory.

    But I lost all of them in the big fire that took most everything I owned.

    I lost interest in material things due to that fire.

    But that is so funny particularly when I often say to Christians that they need to read another book and I say that I have never read fiction.
    See how foolish one can be without realising it.


    But I do read, thanks to my little phone and my small tablet.

    Oh there is a lap top for astronomy but that's another thing altogether.

    So I guess forget imagining the book in hand as the phone is really where its at....photos and reading

    Alex
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Most Adult reading ceases at Donald Duck, or The Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf...yours seems to be a continuation of childhood fairy tales....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Stop reading those books pad , it's irrelevant to the thread .
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Yazata:

    I think you've fallen into the trap of believing that science is a dogma, and that its reductionist tendencies necessarily remove all wonder from the universe. You sound like you see science as a series of neat "boxes" - kind of like stamp collecting. It's not like that - at least not entirely. I think that mental image dates back to the late 19th century, when such a relatively small amount was known in certain fields of science (e.g. geology and biology come to mind) that basic data gathering was a very important task. Thus, many scientists worked to do the basic work of classifying things, noting similarities and differences. That's necessary before you can think about developing a theory about why these things are like that and those other things are different.

    You don't have to believe in fairies to wonder at the universe. There's plenty of wonder in nature. That's what gets many scientists into science in the first place. There's also more than enough mystery to get people excited about science. There's a lot we still don't know about our world.

    Philosophy is important, and I'm rather a fan of it, as it happens. However, scientists tend to be rather more pragmatic than philosophers. Their guide is that if a theory "works" as an explanation, when tested against the real world, then it's probably a good theory (for now). They do not, as a rule, spend much of their time worrying about the Problem of Induction, or whether it is possible to know The Ultimate Truth, or such things.

    I don't agree that all our knowledge is a shaky intellectual edifice, except in a very theoretical philosophical sense. I am aware of the central questions of epistemology. They are interesting to consider. But I think it is a mistake to live your life as if you believe that nothing can be known for sure - not who you are, or what the world is like, or any of that stuff. The only way to operate effectively in the world is to make certain basic assumptions - such that our senses are often reliable, that our processes of reasoning about the world are reliable and so on. And experience shows that most of us get along with our lives just fine, all the while making all those philosophically shaky assumptions.

    One of the important differences between science and philosophy is that philosophy is all about thought, whereas science is empirical. You can do philosophy by sitting in your armchair and mulling over things to your heart's content. But to do science you have to constantly connect your theories with observations and/or experiments based in the real world. Scientists take for granted that there is a "real world" that can be observed and experimented on, of course. And, most of the time, that assumption works out just fine.

    I think you're reading in too much to the objections people have to woo.

    The problem with the woo is that there's simply no convincing evidence that any of it is real, and lots of plausible reasons why it is probably not real. You can complain all you want that it has been put in a box labelled "bullshit", but that's where it best fits right now.

    The door is never closed, though. You never know - one day some truly "compelling" evidence might come to light.

    He's hardly being silenced. On the contrary, he is rather vocally selling his wares, shoddy as they are.

    It would be nice if he could take a step back and examine his own views honestly, but apparently he cannot or at least will not.

    You misunderstand. It's not about being certain and accounting for everything and putting everything into neat boxes. It's about drawing on the available data to draw the most reasonable conclusion at the time, bearing in mind that such a conclusion is subject to possible revision in the light of new evidence.

    I know he's lying to himself because he always veers away from directly examining any of his supposed "evidence" for the woo. He clearly is not interested in examining any possible perspective other than the one he has settled on, a priori. He provides a rather neat example of confirmation bias at work.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    (continued)

    MR's "enemies"? Who are they? Frustration at MR's intellectual dishonesty isn't a general judgment of him as a person. A discussion about whether ghosts exist isn't something to come to blows about.

    And have you noticed that MR does nothing but express his opinions on UFOs, ghosts and the like? Why don't you apply the same standard to him as you apply to those who disagree with him?

    You're likely thinking of one or two posters on sciforums, and trying to tar everybody else with the same brush. Again, why the double standard? Why is ok for MR (or you, for that matter) to argue loudly that science is all wrong, and scientists are evil reductionists or whatever, but when somebody dares to question philosophy, suddenly there's a major problem?

    You're conflating two separate things: the existence of unidentified objects in the sky, and that those objects are alien vehicles. Nobody disputes the first half; it is the second half of the claim that is problematic. There's plenty of evidence that people see, and sometimes film, unidentified things. But to jump from "I saw a light in the sky" to "It's aliens from Zeta 4 who are kidnapping cattle in their cigar-like spaceships!" is unjustified on the basis of any sensible evaluation of the evidence as presented.

    There's so many possible mundane explanations for this that we'd need to look at specific cases to resolve any particular example. Different UFOs have different explanations. There is no evidence of alien presence or control of any "UFO".

    MR is free to present evidence at any point. The best he has is second- or third-hand youtube videos, apparently. Not very convincing.

    Right. I'd certainly put MR in that category.

    Ironic, wouldn't you say?

    This is typically what I say about my own position on the issue. MR feels a desperate need to continually misrepresent my views on this, no matter how times I repeat them, which is in itself another kind of dishonesty on his part.

    I've tried to engage with him in a discussion of specifics on several occasions. It always turns out that he has no interest in any such discussion. He just wants to believe.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    You really believe all that you have wrote James R ?

    Science is all about philosophy . Science is about knowledge ; regardless of your " subjectivity " .

    Objectivity and really ; quest for truth .

    Science is subjective ; nowadays , not objective .

    I could go on but it would fall upon blind eyes and deaf ears .
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Yes. What would be the point in writing stuff I don't believe in?

    No. Science is the study of the natural world. As a branch of knowledge, you could argue that it is a subset of philosophy, but in that sense every branch of knowledge is.

    In what way is science subjective? Be specific.

    Oh, I see. You just want to throw vague accusations of bias around, but you don't want to present anything that would actually support such an accusation. I get it.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    That's the M.O. Acting enigmatic is clever.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    How do you define " Natural world " ?
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,603
    Right. Because we all know that just because something is on youtube, it can't be anything other than fake. I guess all those science experiments, news videos, lectures, historical footage, go pro clips, biographies, and documentaries are all just products of the big youtube conspiracy to deceive you. I'll bet you never leave your house, do you James?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2016

Share This Page