UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Me too. It would be nice if he were capable of living within the guidelines he agreed to when he signed up - guidelines that promote rational, evidenced-based discussion.

Alas, he either can't or won't. And I agree that's pretty sad.
Yea, I think he pushes the envelope, but not out of malice. He's not trolling, either. People here ridicule him, and I'm not sure why they're not warned? He may be in violation of forum rules at times, but others have been as well, in this thread.
 
We don't need to have this thread become the Magical Realist Show, but since you're asked:

People here ridicule him, and I'm not sure why they're not warned?
Because they're not wrong. He's ridiculous. We're trying to have a rational, evidence-base discussion about phenomena here, and he is opposed to that.

1. He actively denies any and all established science knowledge that might weaken his argument. He simply denies that human perception, cognition and memory - as well as recon sensory machinery - is flawed enough to factor in to UAP reports.

2. Someone who repeatedly and shamelessly claims will take any stranger at their word, no matter how outlandish would not live long in the real world; he'd turn up dead in a ditch before he was out of his teens. Since this has not happened, he is clearly insincere about this.

These behaviors are not out of ignorance; they are out of shear bloody-headedness of not wanting to admit his wishes have overstepped his defenses. That's in his control, therefore he's being held directly responsible for his own deliberate behavior.

He may be in violation of forum rules at times, but others have been as well, in this thread.
But in MR's case, it is
... a drain on moderator time and effort.
 
Last edited:
We don't need to have this thread become the Magical Realist Show, but since you're asked:

Haven't you seen the photo by foghorn?
He was taken by a space craft, or he is piloting his space craft

Hence his stubbornness that UFOs are craft:)

:)
 
We don't need to have this thread become the Magical Realist Show, but since you're asked:


Because they're not wrong. He's ridiculous. We're trying to have a rational, evidence-base discussion about phenomena here, and he is opposed to that.

1. He actively denies any and all established science knowledge that might weaken his argument. He simply denies that human perception, cognition and memory - as well as recon sensory machinery - is flawed enough to factor in to UAP reports.

2. Someone who repeatedly and shamelessly claims will take any stranger at their word, no matter how outlandish would not live long in the real world; he'd turn up dead in a ditch before he was out of his teens. Since this has not happened, he is clearly insincere about this.

These behaviors are not out of ignorance; they are out of shear bloody-headedness of not wanting to admit his wishes have overstepped his defenses. That's in his control, therefore he's being held directly responsible for his own deliberate behavior.


But in MR's case, it is
What do you want him to say if he doesn’t agree with your point of view?

There isn’t testable evidence so much of the topic is based on eyewitness reports. Of course, many are outlandish and I don’t believe most, but there are some that are worth exploring. I can see the problem in bringing in eyewitness reports and believing that those claims should serve as objective evidence.

But, there isn’t a whole lot to work with - out of 360 pages of this thread, probably 350 have been around ideas, philosophy and unfortunately, grand standing. :rolleye:

But that’s why it’s not in the hard science section, right? Yes, this is a science forum but either science needs to bend a little, or we need to find other methods of discussing controversial subjects, like UAP’s.

Without violating forum rules, of course.
 
What do you want him to say if he doesn’t agree with your point of view?

There isn’t testable evidence so much of the topic is based on eyewitness reports. Of course, many are outlandish and I don’t believe most, but there are some that are worth exploring. I can see the problem in bringing in eyewitness reports and believing that those claims should serve as objective evidence.

But, there isn’t a whole lot to work with - out of 360 pages of this thread, probably 350 have been around ideas, philosophy and unfortunately, grand standing. :rolleye:

But that’s why it’s not in the hard science section, right? Yes, this is a science forum but either science needs to bend a little, or we need to find other methods of discussing controversial subjects, like UAP’s.

Without violating forum rules, of course.

Wegs, the most important aspect of a forum, UFO's, Ghosts, and Monsters, are the rules. If we are to talk about monsters we must realize rules are of upmost importance.

Speaking of rules, just to recap, we can't just post a video or ask, "What do you think about Putin" (for example). However, it is OK to turn thread after thread into blogs that no one reads or responds to (as long as they are footnoted).

I understand your confusion but society would collapse were we to talk about UFO's, Ghosts, and Monsters without the appropriate underlayment of rules. I hope that clears up some confusion.
 
What do you want him to say if he doesn’t agree with your point of view?
Something that discusses the issues, and the differences of view, in a rational manner, perhaps?
There isn’t testable evidence so much of the topic is based on eyewitness reports. Of course, many are outlandish and I don’t believe most, but there are some that are worth exploring. I can see the problem in bringing in eyewitness reports and believing that those claims should serve as objective evidence.
Sure. It's not that much is based on eyewitness reports, it's that MR gives undue credence to those reports. As DaveC points out, it is only in this field that it seems he does so, thus suggesting it is deliberate bias rather than anything unintentional. It goes further as to cripple any sojourn he might actually undertake along the path of critical thinking.
Further, while the evidence may be weak, the conclusions one reaches should really take the strength of evidence into account. Weak evidence should result in weak conclusions, not cast-iron and unshakeable belief, which in practice more often than not is the cause of the conclusion, i.e. question-begging.
But, there isn’t a whole lot to work with - out of 360 pages of this thread, probably 350 have been around ideas, philosophy and unfortunately, grand standing. :rolleye:
If you want to go to where UFOs are actually discussed, go to somewhere like Metabunk. While the rationale of the site is to try to debunk stuff, one can learn much by what is not debunked.
Here, the thread is limited by the attitude of people. Someone posts a video and little else. Others say "it looks like X, Y, or Z", and then others say "No it's not, and you can't prove it is!".
Discussion takes not just two parties but two parties willing to engage honestly.
But that’s why it’s not in the hard science section, right? Yes, this is a science forum but either science needs to bend a little, or we need to find other methods of discussing controversial subjects, like UAP’s.
Not being in the "hard science" section doesn't mean that science can not, or should not, be employed, and I know you're not advocating otherwise. "Bending" science makes little sense, though. Either you use science or you don't. It's like saying that to build a house you can possibly use one tool but "bend [it] a little" to do all the jobs. If science can't give you the answers, if the one tool is insufficient to build the house, then using other tools is the answer.
The question, though, is what other tools are appropriate to be able to reach conclusions on the matter, and what are the types of conclusions you will be able to reach with them. If there are no other tools, and science is insufficient, then maybe the answer is as simple as "don't know"? Then it becomes a matter of "if we don't know, so what?". That way lies risk evaluations not on the specifics of a case but on the general. E.g. what is the risk of alien visitation, and what resources should we apply to mitigate the risk? And you can do that without looking at the specifics, which should probably stop at the conclusion of "don't know" (although obviously revisit if other evidence comes to light).
Without violating forum rules, of course.
Of course. ;)
 
It's not that much is based on eyewitness reports, it's that MR gives undue credence to those reports. As DaveC points out, it is only in this field that it seems he does so, thus suggesting it is deliberate bias rather than anything unintentional. It goes further as to cripple any sojourn he might actually undertake along the path of critical thinking.
Further, while the evidence may be weak, the conclusions one reaches should really take the strength of evidence into account.
Is this an example of MR's over zealousness to believe?
You have no compelling reason to doubt people talking about their firsthand experiences. To do so is mentally ill and paranoid. It requires a suspicious paranoia on the level of a conspiracy theorist to think everyone who has a paranormal experience is just lying about it
 
Yea, I think he pushes the envelope, but not out of malice.

Depends on what "envelope" that is, and on who defined and constructed it. If we are talking about the movement "skeptics" on this board, the envelope merely consists of what they are personally willing to believe at the moment, and on their personal (rather scientistic) faith about the nature of reality.

I'm not MR and can't speak for him (and I see that they have ensured that he can't speak for himself either) but think that MR might be trying to open a few tightly closed minds around here. He's just proposing hypotheses that lie outside the worldview that our "skeptics" are willing to entertain, and pointing to a much broader data-set than they are willing to recognize.

They are trying to rule out whole classes of evidence (such as personal experience and testimony) and whole classes of explanatory hypotheses (including the eminently skeptical placeholder: "I just don't know at the present time") simply a-priori, because the topic of discussion is "woo" in their minds. (The so-called 'argument from incredulity'.) And it crosses the line into intellectual dishonesty when they stoutly insist that they aren't dismissing that evidence or those hypotheses as possibilities, while simultaneously they rhetorically do exactly that, with ridicule, insult and sarcasm.

It soon becomes clear that the possibilities that they insist they haven't dismissed are possibilities that they don't even want discussed here on the 'fringe' fora. The fora that would seem to me to be the appropriate place for doing exactly that.

He's not trolling, either.

He says things that are outside what people here are willing to think about even as hypothetical possibilities, so to people with that a-priori mindset it's trolling I guess. It provokes them.

People here ridicule him, and I'm not sure why they're not warned? He may be in violation of forum rules at times, but others have been as well, in this thread.

Because Sciforums has and always has had a two-tier system of justice. People who agree with the moderators' politics, atheism, and their movement "skepticism" can say pretty much anything they like about their opponents, no matter how rude and inflammatory it might be, without any repercussions. But if people who disagree say anything at all that offends their own delicate sensibilities, the transgressers are immediately warned and banned. It's an attempt to stack the deck in favor of particular conclusions, and that's a kind of intellectual dishonesty too.
 
Last edited:
He says things that are outside what people here are willing to think about even as hypothetical possibilities, so to people with that a-priori mindset it's trolling I guess. It provokes them.
Nope. Dead wrong.

We just like evidence-based findings. This thread is about explanations.

If we wanted to explore metaphysical possibilities, we'd go start a thread in philosophy.

Simple. No need to go mind reading.
 
Nope. Dead wrong.

We just like evidence-based findings. This thread is about explanations.

If we wanted to explore metaphysical possibilities, we'd go start a thread in philosophy.

Simple. No need to go mind reading.
Are the scientific method and philosophy opposed to one another? Is it futile to even discuss the possible explanations, or the ''non-traditional'' research that has been done with regards to UAP's, simply because it doesn't fit the scientific method? I don't discount what you're saying, but we knew at page one of the first thread, that UAP's can't be measured, because they're one and done transient occurrences, often witnessed by one or several people at the same time. Of course, a clear pic on an iPhone would be helpful, but how can we investigate eyewitness reports, if we don't expand the definition of ''evidence?''
 
Last edited:
Are the scientific method and philosophy opposed to one another? Is it futile to even discuss the possible explanations, or the ''non-traditional'' research that has been done with regards to UAP's, simply because it doesn't fit the scientific method? I don't discount what you're saying, but we knew at page one of the first thread, that UAP's can't be measured, because they're one and done transient occurrences, often witnessed by one or several people at the same time. Of course, a clear pic on an iPhone would be helpful, but how can we investigate eyewitness reports, if we don't expand the definition of ''evidence?''
On the contrary, science grew out of philosophy. But science has philosophical rules, chief among which is that hypotheses be based on reproducible evidence and a second of which is that hypotheses be testable by further observation. That's what's lacking in all the stuff one comes across about Big Foot, the Bermuda Triangle, the Loch Ness Monster - and alien spacecraft. There is almost never any reproducible or corroborated evidence. And the tiny bit that is is nowhere near coherent enough for a credible hypothesis, let alone a testable one.
 
On the contrary, science grew out of philosophy. But science has philosophical rules, chief among which is that hypotheses be based on reproducible evidence and a second of which is that hypotheses be testable by further observation. That's what's lacking in all the stuff one comes across about Big Foot, the Bermuda Triangle, the Loch Ness Monster - and alien spacecraft. There is almost never any reproducible or corroborated evidence. And the tiny bit that is is nowhere near coherent enough for a credible hypothesis, let alone a testable one.
Agree on all of that, but how do we handle eyewitness accounts of UAP’s? No mention of space aliens. How can we properly investigate the merit of eyewitness accounts when it comes to random UFO sightings? Many, without question, are fabrications, lies and hoaxes - but the tic tac video seemed genuine and the eyewitnesses seemed credible.

What then?
 
Agree on all of that, but how do we handle eyewitness accounts of UAP’s? No mention of space aliens. How can we properly investigate the merit of eyewitness accounts when it comes to random UFO sightings? Many, without question, are fabrications, lies and hoaxes - but the tic tac video seemed genuine and the eyewitnesses seemed credible.

What then?
Document them, look for corroboration and then wait to see if a pattern emerges, i.e. do what science traditionally does. And don't expect a quick answer. The corroborated instances are so few that the data points will accumulate only very slowly. What you can't do is demand a 6 month study and hope to tie it all up in that time definitively. There just isn't the data.
 
Document them, look for corroboration and then wait to see if a pattern emerges, i.e. do what science traditionally does. And don't expect a quick answer. The corroborated instances are so few that the data points will accumulate only very slowly. What you can't do is demand a 6 month study and hope to tie it all up in that time definitively. There just isn't the data.
Thank you, this is what more scientists need to say.

In fairness, I think MR has pointed out (in this thread) various patterns that seem to show similarities between different UAP’s but his “enthusiasm” lol riles people up and we never really get very far.
 
Thank you, this is what more scientists need to say.

In fairness, I think MR has pointed out (in this thread) various patterns that seem to show similarities between different UAP’s but his “enthusiasm” lol riles people up and we never really get very far.
That is what all scientists say, isn't it? Who are these scientists that don't say that? There aren't even many scientists involved in this area.
 
That is what all scientists say, isn't it? Who are these scientists that don't say that? There aren't even many scientists involved in this area.
I didn’t say all scientists. Lol I said this is what more scientists need to say.
 
Thank you, this is what more scientists need to say.

In fairness, I think MR has pointed out (in this thread) various patterns that seem to show similarities between different UAP’s but his “enthusiasm” lol riles people up and we never really get very far.
The problem is that this kind of "similarity" is the same kind of naivete that begets superstitions, like "leaves turn over when its going to rain" or "babies are born more under a full moon" or "its bad luck to walk under a ladder".

Humans are great at confirmation bias and great at spotting correlations, but not so good at uncovering causations (without concerted effort).

And its that kind of sloppy illogic that we rile against. It's what kept us in the Dark Ages.

That's why science was invented, to save us from our superstitions.
 
We just like evidence-based findings.

From everything related to UFOs at the moment no-one would be able to extract a . (full stop) size piece of evidence

Scientific studies of UFOs currently (I'm thinking also well into the future)
  • ruling out physical impossibilities
  • examination of items claimed to be evidence
  • Along with non scientific of What do you think - over coffee :)
:)
 
Seattle:

We have two dedicated subforums for discussions about forum rules and moderation policies. Please use those forums for such discussion in future. Alternatively, if you have direct questions about moderation related matters or site rules, you can always send a private message to a moderator.

None of the rules here are set in stone. We even have an "Open Government" forum where members can suggest changes, amendments, deletions, substitutions etc. to the site rules. From time to time, we have put things to a general vote of our members and have made significant changes in light of the results of the vote.

I was in two minds as to whether to split this whole sidetrack about Magical Realist getting himself moderated for the 70th time to Site Feedback, but doing so would have risked taking some on-topic discussion about how to approach the investigation of UFOs out of context, so I've decided to leave things here for now.
Does the idea of a temporary time out strike anyone else as demeaning and a needless way to treat posters all in the name of "control"?
Is this just a general whine on your part, or do you have some suggestions for improvement? If so, we have a couple of forums for that. We could perhaps start with a discussion about "control" and what you might mean by that.
Wegs, the most important aspect of a forum, UFO's, Ghosts, and Monsters, are the rules. If we are to talk about monsters we must realize rules are of upmost importance.
You're against having rules for posting on this forum, I take it, then?

Or just against certain rules you don't like?

Or against certain people applying the rules?

Or against certain people having the rules applied in respect of them (yourself included, perhaps)?

I get the sarcasm and the snideness from you on this matter. That comes across loud and clear. But does it come with anything constructive?
Speaking of rules, just to recap, we can't just post a video or ask, "What do you think about Putin" (for example). However, it is OK to turn thread after thread into blogs that no one reads or responds to (as long as they are footnoted).
This all seems quite personal and - dare I say it - self centred. You've had a recent tiff with Tiassa, haven't you? 'cos this bit from you sounds a lot like you're trying to continue the fight. More fighting words, but you're hoping for plausible deniability. Is that what's happening here?

Are you perhaps still a bit disgruntled about being officially called out for some substandard behaviour of your own in the past? That was quite a while ago now, wasn't it? Is there still a chip there on that shoulder of yours?

Or is this really just honest concern for poor old Magical Realist's welfare? If so, your concern for him is quite touching. Perhaps he'll thank you upon his return.
 
Back
Top