Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Funny, we don't expect anything from you. Your standards are abysmal, your diction sloppy, and you don't know when to admit you're wrong. And your claims are simple BATSHIT.
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I recommend 30 hail marys while kneeling on broken glass...
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Child. I would say "it's okay to admit you're wrong" but you wouldn't be doing anything else.
Which isn't a bad thing, all considered.
Which isn't a bad thing, all considered.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It would be irresponsible to give you directions just off the top of our heads. On a science forum, most of us like to dot our i's and cross our t's when it comes to making statements.
This is stupid, even for you. You don't use ciritical thinking; you don't know what it is. You ask us what we mean by it and we tell you. And then you try to criticize us for how we do it. What business is it of yours if we choose to be diligent when helping you? You are in absolutely no position to judge how carefully anyone responds when helping you with your confessed shortcomings.
Reported for vexatious trolling and generally acting like an ungrateful asshole.
Oh no - the troll disapproves of our diligence.
Can we get back on-topic please?
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
He was disappointed at getting called for evidence to back his claims. Good evidence, not the normal garbage UFOligists try to pawn off on the public.
You don't know how to use critical thinking or know anything about it despite the fact resources have been offered to you. It's clear you have no interest whatsoever to learn how to think.
We do know how to use critical thinking, you don't. And again, why define something to you that's already defined and available for your perusal? Are you so lazy and arrogant you can't look something up yourself? A mind is a terrible thing to waste, why are you wasting yours?
And we never expect more from you. Ever. It's the least you can do and you always try to do the very least.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I swear, some gods sprang from the forehead of Zeus, while some people climbed out of Jim Davis's trashcan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I don't believe there is one right way of thinking. I think there are all kinds of thinking, each equally effective at arriving at the truth. Some minds are more logical. Others think more metaphorically or with analogies. Still others think linguistically, focusing on the meanings of words. And there are those who think intuitively, grasping the inner sense of what needs to be said. History is filled with different kinds of ingenious thinkers.. Isaac Newton the theoretical. Mark Twain the common sensical. Bertrand Russell the philosophical. Kahil Gibran the poetical. It would be foolhardy to try to contain all these thinkers under one label called "critical thinking" Quit legislating thought for other people and respect their own unique and creative style of reasoning.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
If I were you I wouldn't pontificate on thinking until you've tried it.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
While there are multiple types of cognition and ways of interpretation of observations, that doesn't mean there is no consensus on criteria for truth, for what qualifies as a fact. I don't watch the rising sun strike a building and announce "My intuition tells me the light moved from the sun instantaneously. So c = infinity. Please don't legislate my thinking on this with your critical thinking crap!" Studying anomalies or any phenomena with the objective of understanding their nature, we have to come to the table with evidence rather than a poem we wrote about it. If you think all kinds of thinking are "equally effective at arriving at the truth," perhaps if you are ever in legal trouble you could ask your defense attorney to skip the evidence and logic part and just invite the jury to hold hands and intuit your nice vibe.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
True. Critical thinking isn't one way.
None of which preclude critical thinking.
In fact, I have been using the analogy of "Earth animals" to show you how " these UAPs" is a category of disparate things, not a reference to a specific thing. "Earth animals can run at 70mph and dive to a mile depth" is analogous to "UAPs can fly at Mach 2 and stop on a dime."
You chose to troll about how we gave you references instead of using our own words - all the while ignoring the part where I gave a detailed answer, using relevant examples, in my own words.
This is problematic, when people use generic dictionary definitions that don't account for context.
Did any them put their minds to solving UFOs?
So far, what you've done is wax thougtfully that there are different types of thinking. Which no one disagrees with. But what do they all have to do with analyzing and explaining the origin of UAPs?
Indeed it would. Luckliy no one is trying to do that except you.
If you started philosophizing like Russell about philosophy, or waxing poetic like Gibran - here in this science discususon form - we would absolutely have every right to reign you in.
"...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument...."
No mention of poetry or your ersatz common-sense.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's all I ever do here is offer evidence. What invariably happens is that the skeptics will start trying to debunk the evidence and making claims based on nothing. Then they start attacking me and my intelligence for not thinking critically enough. It's been played out here hundreds of times in this thread. You've even begun to succumb to this group think. And to think you initially held such promise...sigh..
Likewise if I feel lost in my life and have lost all hope of carrying on, I will not consult an attorney for advice. Rather I will consult someone intuitive and practically in tune to the deeper meanings behind experience.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Your most recent "evidence" coming from your intelligence is that balloons don't inhabit seashores, LOLing the very idea, instead putting video in the same bucket with advanced non-human intelligence.
Want to walk through your thinking on that one?
No one is fooled by you trying to play the victim card.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
And yet there are subfora and threads here for such under Philosophy and Art and Music and Free Thoughts. And even the most ardent scientific type will imaginatively speculate and sometimes lapse into an eloquent and witty prose style. Ever read Carl Sagan? Lewis Thomas? Loren Eisley? Bill Bryson? Guy Murchie? Now there's some minds that knew how to wax poetic and profound about scientific topics.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Which type of thinking does 'LOL balloons don't inhabit beaches, therefore ANHI' fall under?
No one is fooled.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I've never seen a balloon flying around at the beach in all my life. And I grew up just miles from beaches. But hey, when denying the obvious all bets are off I guess.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I would help you with using the quote feature but you will criticize me for helping you.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So, you dismiss it based on your personal experience.
Good to know, good to know.
Ever personally seen a UFO?
Oh wait, suddenly you flip flop on "I've never personally seen it".
That's a lack of critical thinking.
Walked right into it, eyes wide open.