Being a part of the phenomena and not a researcher seeking to prove a point.
And this is different than an alleged victim seeking to prove a point? Appeals to pity abound in both her and your arguments.
That the phenomena is real is undeniable...
Straw man. It is being attributed to alien abduction without any proof of that.
A look inside the experiance from someone with an educator background...
Handwaving. You have yet to establish that her background has anything to do with the validity of her conclusions or the soundness of her method.
Unless you reject the premise of Clarke that any sufficiently... then it should be considered a possible example...
Affirmed consequent. Asked and answered.
You make a statement of conclusion and offer no support for it.
I have drawn no conclusion. I have rejected as extremely unlikely your claim that the symptoms Turner identifies are the result of alien abduction. That rejection is predicated upon the total lack of proof of any such connection. It is your job to provide the evidence to satisfy it.
Or class it as what it cannot be without any supporting argument.
False. I have described numerous times that the lack of prima facie evidence -- which is stipulated by both you and Turner -- is grounds for not accepting your claims. You simply fail to understand even the most basic principles of scientific inquiry, so you don't understand why the absence of prima facie evidence is fatal to the hypothesis.
You have alleged the cause to be alien abduction. I dispute that cause because there is no proof for it. You still have the burden of proof. The disputer does not, and never can, accept a burden of proof for the negative, converse proposition.
You repeatedly attempt to assign a burden of proof to your critics when they express skepticism at your conclusion. We are not going to play that game anymore. Stop putting words in people's mouths, stop trying to shift the burden of proof; either prove or concede your claims without further delay.
You impune the person presenting the case, refuse to evaluate the work, and cite the motive of the source without proof of such motive.
False. I am not impugning the person; I am impugning the qualifications of the person, which was your stated basis for the insinuated strength of the claim. You presented Karla Turner's work as being worthy of special attention because she had a background which you alleged would assure a higher degree of reliability to her research. I specifically asked you that question, and you specifically answered it that way.
That worthiness has been challenged because her background was misstated and has now been determined to be irrelevant. When something is presented as expert research, the question of whether it's expert research is not only relevant, it's all that's relevant. Now you're backpedalling, because it's clear you haven't done the homework necessary to determine whether she really was qualified.
So in addition, her method and conclusions have also been examined independently of her alleged qualification. She states her principal conclusion (which you blatantly lied about) as an absolute certainty, something no scientific study does. She also states a conclusion based on absolutely no prima facie plausibility -- again something no scientific study does. She finally accuses the government of covering up alleged evidence that would supposedly prove her case -- something scientific inquiry does not do.
By one line of reasoning she has no scientific credentials or qualifications, yet she is playing at being a scientist. We may not therefore accept her findings as those of one learned in the field.
By a completely different line of reasoning, her findings and the methods by which they were reached violate several important precepts of scientific inquiry. We may not therefore accept her findings as well-formed science.
Justify why her work deserves further attention from fair-minded people.
|