The term "flying saucer" was first used in 1930 in news articles. Depictions of "flying saucers" go back to the 10th century. So once again your point fails.
Is it me or is this site in its death throes?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
No, you're not. You are doing a screen grab to copy the data into your report; no "observation" required there. The instrument captures the data and exports it to a file, which you then enter into Matlab. Again, no "observation" required there.
You are really getting desperate.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Flying discs and spherical craft have been witnessed as early as Roman times. My point stands.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nope. Can't do a screen grab and know what the measurement is without observation. Try again?'
Not to mention that the bulk of science relies on direct seeing in many more things than just screen grabs. Are you denying this?
Odd, I seem to be able to hit Printscreen on a keyboard and then Control+V to paste the results elsewhere just fine, even with my eyes closed!
And once more - quit with this strawman tactic. Nobody is buying it.
Yet another claim you are making with zero evidence to back it up...
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I'm going to have to move on. Kittamaru is threatening to infract me again so he can get me up to enough points to ban me. I'm not going to take this abuse, especially when moderators like Bells stand by and do nothing about it. Thank Kittamaru for once again shutting down another lively conversation. This is what our deadass forum really needs. Adieu..
Last edited:
In other words, you are running away, again, instead of even attempting to back your claims with evidence - the very thing James R warned you not to do...
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Right, that's my point.
In other words, our own sensory experience and what is learned from that experience can't be "more often than not, wholly unreliable".
If that was so, then our senses wouldn't have any evolutionary survival value. Not only that, empirical science wouldn't be possible either.
My own view is that while our sensory experience isn't perfect and is obviously subject to errors of various sorts, it's still reasonably informative in general, in the majority of cases. Certainly informative enough that it makes more sense to proceed through life with our eyes open and not blindly.
Once again, you are equating in-the-moment perception with recollection from memory hours/days/weeks/months after the fact.
I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe you don't know the difference, or why this distinction is important... but I don't know many court cases where the "eye witness" is giving testimony mere moments after observing the event.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that my phrase "our own sensory experience and what is learned from that experience" captures that distinction.
I don't really understand your point or why you are making it. Are you trying to insist that while immediate experience might be reasonably informative about the world, our subsequent memory of that experience is "more often than not, wholly unreliable"?
If so, you still seem to be faced by the same kind of problems.
1. Why have animals evolved memories along with their senses? What survival value would memory have if it is wholly unreliable most of the time?
2. And what would remain of learning from experience? What's the point of attending school or reading a text if we can't reliably retain anything?
Here's my conclusion from my last post:
My own view is that while our sensory experience isn't perfect and is obviously subject to errors of various sorts, it's still reasonably informative in general, in the majority of cases. Certainly informative enough that it makes more sense to proceed through life with our eyes open and not blindly.
That idea seems reasonable and inoffensive to me. (I'm sure that the vast majority of scientists would agree with it, since it basically just restates the empiricism idea.) Nobody is telling you that you have to believe everything that you are told, or that some of those things can't be errors or even fabrications.
But the fact remains that we've evolved these cognitive faculties and they do seem to work pretty well. They aren't perfect by any means (nothing human is), but they do seem to work most of the time and have contributed greatly to the evolution of humankind. And I think that education consists in part of helping students use their cognitive faculties better. We shouldn't be encouraging students to turn their backs on them.
Agreed. It is sufficient to identify that we are being chased by a predator, not sufficient to determine what that predator is - nor does it need to.
Likewise, our senses are sufficient to determine that there is something in the sky - not sufficient to determine what it is, or how high it is, or how fast it's going.
Oh, absolutely. Usually our senses are good enough to make basic day to day decisions. It's when people misapply their perceptions to things that they are not suited for that we run into trouble.
Perhaps find someone who is a competent computer user and ask them to show you how to do this.
The bulk of science now uses automated data collection. For everything from PCR to particle physics, computers run the tests and collect the data. Directed by scientists of course.
You are falling into your usual trap of argument from incredulity - "I don't understand how science works, therefore it must be 'direct seeing.' "
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Scientist: Well here's a screen grab. I never looked at it and never saw where to send it. Don't ask me what it said because my perception is just so damn unreliable. It's just a key I pushed on a keyboard without ever observing the screen. lol!
How laughable the desperation to not believe in ufos when you have to burn down the whole edifice of empirical science and our justice system just to keep from having to accept the thousands of eyewitness reports. Methinks they doth protest too much.
Last edited:
This is ridiculous. Just stop.
We want to believe, but we don't have concrete evidence.
We want to believe, but we don't have concrete evidence.
MR has been issued another 10 point warning for continued trolling, intentionally twisting an misrepresenting other users statements, and intellectual dishonesty. The automated system has issued a 1 day ban as a result.
Either you are intentionally trolling or your intelligence is not up to the task to participating in a forum like this.
You don't , we don't , because you , we , refuse to investigate the evidence , which are in the thousands , well beyond just thousands , hundreds of thousands .
The concrete evidence is there .
BUT I RECOMMEND just take this info. Step by step . For those that are open enough to read and sometimes listen , be cautious.
Go at your own speed of understanding .
Beer/straw , assuming you have never investigated any , paranormal , UFO , phenomena , then go slow .
Anyway this site is very conservative . Hence I think so much so that new Ideas , new perspectives are met with anger and therefore closed mindedness .
This site , which I have been on for years , and I like , needs to get up to speed on all things , and more importantly , stop and I repeat stop , insulting people , just stop doing this .
I think when the insulting STOPS , people will gradualy come back around .
river
This site , which I have been on for years , and I like , needs to get up to speed on all things , and more importantly , stop and I repeat stop , insulting people , just stop doing this .
I think when the insulting STOPS , people will gradualy come back around .
river
Bells
Staff member
What, exactly, would you have me do for you yet again?
Each time I have tried to intercede, you have turned around and repeatedly insulted me and my person.
You have been told repeatedly to back up your claims. You have been repeatedly told to stop trolling.
In fact, a few weeks ago, you received an infraction by admin, advising you to stop evangelising. You were also advised that your continued posting of 'unverified and unverifiable anecdotal evidence' was not acceptable.
You have spent pages in this thread arguing that eyewitness testimony was absolutely valid, and despite requests that you prove it, you are still to prove it. Instead, you keep demanding more and more evidence from others, which you refuse to read and you even went so far to claim that statistics of studies posted was somehow irrelevant, while failing repeatedly to back up any of your claims. You were also advised that a line had been drawn in the sand in regards to what we would tolerate on this site from you.
Instead of adhering to that request and advice from admin, you persist in the very same behaviour that saw admin issue you with an infraction.
So, what, exactly, would you have me do? When you specifically ignore all advice given to you, requests from members, staff and admin and you persist in making claims that you fail to support with any actual evidence? And you accuse me of standing by and doing nothing? I have literally burnt down the house, argued with my colleagues, to intercede on your behalf, I even advised them that there was hope that you would change, that you were not the disingenuous prat you keep making yourself out to be, that there were redeemable features if we just gave you yet another chance. This has been going on for years. And each and every single time, you turn around, insult me, and continue with the exact same problematic behaviour. And you are doing it again.
So, I will ask again, what would you have me do, MR, that I have not already done repeatedly, over and over and over again, only for you to come along and take a massive dump on it repeatedly and literally make me out to be a liar because you keep proving me wrong and staff and everyone else right?
Do not blame me for your current misfortune. We do not make you post. We do not make you post as you do or what you post. In fact, we begged you to stop, repeatedly. You refuse. The only one to blame for your being moderated, MR, is you. Not Kitta, not me, not anyone else. Just you.
Hmmm..
Don't you mean 'see you later'?
Because adieu means goodbye. People who say adieu, do not normally return shortly after:
And once again, you refuse to adhere to even minimal standards of this site.
Remember what admin advised you of, MR. It's really not that hard.
Is that why you applied your own interpretation to what I said, and then claimed I had said that, when I had not said that at all and then when confronted, you again took my words out of context, made wild claims that you are yet to back up, all based on your own perception and interpretation.
That is why eyewitness testimony is so often wholly unreliable. And if you are going to keep using my quote and applying it incorrectly, you really should read the sentence in context as a whole. Just saying.