You're approach, Jay...
...is eminently logical. I have pointed out why your argument is perhaps not as strong as you believe it to be. If you disagree with my analysis, you can show where my analysis is wrong. If you agree with my analysis and care about the argument, then you will fix the argument.
But if, on the other hand, you simply wish to complain about badly you're being treated... well, there we are.
You would like to speak of loaded questions...
No, loaded language. You can barely contain your disgust for mainstream science. That speaks much louder than protesting how dispassionate you think your approach is.
...and cherry-picking and all sorts of logical-fallacy-type arguments...
Yes, I do want to speak about them.
I explained why I think your emphasis on the nature of the witnesses rather than the nature of their testimony constitutes an ad hominem approach. I would like you to explain why you think it is not ad hominem, taking care to address the content of my objection.
I explained why I believe your evidence is simply carefully chosen to exhibit a set of favorable properties, regardless of whether it characterizes all available evidence. I would like you to explain why your evidence is not cherry-picked; or failing that, to explain why you think cherry-picked evidence leads to a viable conclusion.
I have pointed out why I believe that your bullet points do not lead to your conclusion that the "multitude" of sightings cannot be explained by hoax or by misidentification. It simply does not follow. I can see (and have admitted) why some bullet points might plausibly rule out hoax or optical illusion. But I would like you to go back through your bullet points and say explicitly how each one of them rules out misidentification of ordinary phenemena. That would be in order if you purport that your observations support your conclusion.
...as soon as a certain amount of respect and consideration for my opinions becomes apparent in your tone...
I have respected your opinion in that I took it at face value. I considered your opinion in that I visibly addressed the points you put forward in its defense.
However, you seem to want your opinion accepted as well-informed and putatively factual. That will come only when you can support it by means that do not include selectively chosen evidence, fallacious lines of reasoning, exaggerated language, and question begging. You have berated everyone here for their allegedly unscientific approach, but unfortunately it would be highly unscientific to accept your opinion without first testing it. If you object to the test, then you're in the wrong forum.
I have given a single example of an inexplicable event.
No, a single unexplained event. But unfortunately you were at one point talking about a class of event, the properties of which class you argued should be taken seriously. In at least one property -- uniformity of witness reports -- your example fails to fit your class.
And you're changing horses. You started off by hyping the "sheer multitude" of reports, which you said exhibited certain properties that made it "highly improbable" that they could be plausibly explained by hoax or misidentification. Now you're trying to talk about this specific sighting or that specific sighting.
I wish that all of you would stop wasting time with my approach...
I'm sure you do, now that it has been entirely picked apart and rejected. Unfortunately until you withdraw your line of reasoning or defend it further, it's fair game. I'm sure you would love to bog down in the thises and thats of some particular sighting, at which none of us was present. Unfortunately we're not going to do that. You're proposing that our approach to unexplained sightings is wrong and that yours is right. I'm testing that proposition. Either defend it or withdraw it, but don't try to make me out to be some evil agent simply because I engaged you in the way you weren't prepared for.
|