I disagree.

All of those definitions for logical fallacies have been posted in this very thread, if I am not mistaken. Even if they are not posted in this thread they have been done to death on many threads.

How hard can it be to view the information presented?

Moreover, in case of uncertainty, just Google the latin phrase for an instant clarification....

It's not often I see Jay go into the Latin other than the common usage.
In this case though...the argument is between philosophy and scientific proof. How can scientific proof be discussed without meantioning QED?

And; he explains what it is. So; just the use of Latin is not pretentious, it's the method of using it that turns it pretentious.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I have not evaded the questions, you reject the answers.

To support this statement, please point me to your answer to my second question.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

QED is actually one of the few latin phrases that are in common use, and not just in english. Claiming it to be obscure says more about that person than the one using the phrase.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Q.E.D. isn't obscure. I'm not a Latin expert (far from it) but I'm familiar with that. And, as gzhpcu said, if you don't know it, google it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

No, you don't; at least not from surveys of UFO belief or interest. You missed my point entirely. 30% of American adults (shudder) do not have a "foundation" for believing that the Sun goes around the Earth; they simply are wrong. Half the population has no "foundation" for believing that viruses are killed by antibiotics; they simply are wrong. If you pointed to such a poll, and said they gave you a "foundation" for believing either, you would be wrong - just as you are when you claim it with UFOs.

If you want to argue (and, obviously, you do!) that there is evidence for your claim, keep on truckin'. But don't try to slide an argument to popularity past us.
This is a science-oriented board, so if you want to play here you'll need to deal with it. However, I am not in the least interested in poll numbers: they don't matter. They don't support the reality of your proposition one way or the other.
I do stipulate that public belief and interest exist. The public is interested in, and believes in, a lot of things, many of which simply aren't so.

But I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've made, what, two posts in this thread?
No. My comments here have been confined to your faulty logic on this one particular subtopic (popularity => foundation for belief).

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

No, the use of a Latin phrase here is meant to confuse and dominate your debate opponent with pretentiousness. Let's call it what it is, shall we?

No, I'll not be obliged to agree with a second-guessing of my intent. Quod erat demonstrandum, often abbreviated QED, has a precise meaning in discussions and proofs. It means to signal the arrival of a line of reasoning at its intended destination. No other phrase has the precise meaning I required in this case. Upon the first indication that it was not understood as intended, I defined it without prejudice and elucidated my intent in using it.

Other Latin terms such as prima facie and ad hoc are used because they remain the proper phrases even in English writing to describe the concepts to which I occasionally refer.

I will repeat my policy on terminology. I use words and phrases from specialized vocabularies where their clear definitions and distinctions must apply. When speaking of engineering, I use proper engineering terminology. Latin remains a vital language in logical analysis, hence Latin phrases still occur even in modern cases of it. I accept that this policy risks using words that may not be familiar; and I accept that the remedy to that risk is to define words and phrases as needed. I elect to take that risk because to avoid the proper vocabulary and instead to invent putatively equivalent phrases of my own, that I might believe to be better understood initially, transforms the situation from one in which there is some guaranteed agreement on the meaning of words to another in which there is no guaranteed agreement.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I note that there is no proof aliens do exist. Proof of the latter is your burden.

Proof of technology beyond the known would imply and justify speculation and search for.

To show that it was not, I reproduced your line of reasoning to show how what you claimed to be distractionary was actually the premise to your conclusion.

Proliferation of UFO and alien forums where people discuss alien types, their abductions, or suspected abductions, or seeing spaceships, suggest there is wide belief. Government coverup is a big topic. No alins then no reason to coverup.

There is wide belief and even wider consideration. Why do you think there are so many youtube vids. Same on all the video posting forums. How big exactly is the belief, conduct a study. Exact numbers aside, the belief is sgnificant.

See no reason to withdraw statement. Personal experiance support that most people I ask believe and that the term "swamp gas" is a standing joke to believe in government denial.

The issue is your review of it, which has been demonstrated to be ignorantly undertaken.

Wrong. It ignored the issue that the reason for memory conflict might be that alien abductions were real. The study assumed the negative and found what was expected. There was no objectivity in anything of purpose or conclusion. The only objective aspect was the technical implementation.

Guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

What you identified as the error was in fact an appropriate part of any scientific inquiry.

Asked and answered. I believe my evaluation is justified.

You have made specific propositions for which you alone are responsible. Alluding to others' (perhaps more defensible) propositions does not prove yours.

Not only that most of the believers do not accept my hypothesis. People claiming abduction don't like them but seldom say why. Those who believe without being part of the abduction process continue to believe that ET beneficial, benign, or at worst indifferent.

I offered others belief in ET as a counterpoint to you disbelif, not of proof to my hypothesis.

Thus establishing your burden to provide prima facie evidence of alien existence as a condition of asserting your approach to be valid.

No it is not. Proving abduction by alien is proof of existence. Proposing a hypothesis is a valid scientific method. Testing of that hypothesis aganst the evidence is to look for confirmation or failure.

...none of which can establish the existence of aliens without falling into circular reasoning.

Wrong. Physical proof is testable. Circular reasoning is the argument made to not test the evidence.

I remind you that you supplied and characterized the link after you had claimed to have absorbed Clancy's material and would thus be expected to know whether a web link did or did not summarize it appropriately.

My error is admitted. The link is a sales promo for the book. I did not examine it before posting it. Why do you dwell on this. I was in error, I confess the mistake. Do you seek retribution?

But it has no evidence.

Asked and answered.

It's not an "issue" -- it's a conjectural side-step.

For this point it is not. Purpose for or existance of a coverup is relevent to the issue. It is only offered as evidence of widely held belief and not proof of coverup itself.

But it does mean that your accusations of bias are inappropriate. Kindly stop poisoning the well by that means.

Dissagree. You are not free of bias due to your beliefs. You do not believe therfore you would be predisposed to look for what supports that. Your debunking of this issue is a long established and succesful track record. Bias is expected.

No. There is no means of testing whether it is or is not the product of alien technology because there is no prima facie knowledge of alien technology. The hypothesis is left intentionally open-ended so that it can fit any claim. That's precisely what makes it unscientific.

But there is a means of testing its physical and technological attributes. If it can be proven that there is no advanced technology involved then the alien issue evaporates. If an advanced and sub miniature technology is found, then it would be appropriate to look for the origin, with alien not assumed.

I have not evaded the questions, you reject the answers.

To support this statement, please point me to your answer to my second question.

So many posts and so many responses many of which are irrelevent side issues. Your questions are not numbered so I dont know what second one is.

You may ask again if you wish and I will try to answer.

Proof of technology beyond the known would imply and justify speculation and search for.

No. Failure to be blue or green does not constitute proof that it must be yellow.

You are attempting an indirect argument. That is not scientific.

Proliferation of UFO and alien forums...

Completely off track.

Wrong. It ignored...

Repeating your claim doesn't prove it.

Asked and answered. I believe my evaluation is justified.

Reasons have been given why it is not. You have not resolved the contradiction at the heart of the reasons.

Not only that most of the believers do not accept my hypothesis.

Then do not invoke their lines of reasoning on your behalf. That was my point.

No it is not. Proving abduction by alien is proof of existence.

No, that's circular. You want the attribution alone to stand as evidence.

Proposing a hypothesis is a valid scientific method.

No. Not all hypotheses are scientifically testable hypotheses.

Testing of that hypothesis aganst the evidence is to look for confirmation or failure.

And that requires prima facie knowledge of aliens in order to design the test.

Wrong. Physical proof is testable.

Attribution of physical phenomena to uncharacterizable causes does not constitute proof or testability.

Circular reasoning is the argument made to not test the evidence.

Circular reasoning is the analysis of your proposition of test methodology. You're simply begging the question that you know what you're doing when it comes to science.

Why do you dwell on this. I was in error, I confess the mistake. Do you seek retribution?

Because the manner by which you informed yourself of Clancy's works before criticizing them is still very much in question and still very relevant to the rigor of your criticism, which seems still to form the basis of your dismissal of the skeptic approach to your claims. But nothing new is forthcoming on the matter of the web site, so I'll consider my point made.

Asked and answered.

I wondered how long it would be before you started misusing that phrase too.

You do not believe therfore you would be predisposed to look for what supports that.

No. You do not consider that my disbelief in your premise stems from the objective lack of support for it.

But there is a means of testing its physical and technological attributes.

But this does nothing to advance a proof for aliens, as you say it does.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

In fact Bart you have evaded - directly and with diversion - a large portion of questions. I would provide you with exact numbers but you clearly do not need provide supporting evidence for anything you claim so why should I in regards to you?

Additionally a comment about Jay's use of Latin. We are currently typing to each other in a rather limited form of communication. There are rare terms out there in other languages that are said clearer in their original form than translated. I think he uses them not only *exactly* correctly but to make the point that he is asking or stating *exactly* what he says. English phrases of something similar do not mean the same thing and so he must use the Latin form - some of which are commonly known some of which are not - to get it right. Look it up. Let it go.

Also Bart - it is obvious you are picking up much of the terminology used to counter your arguments. This is good as it means you are learning at least some of the words we chuck around at each other but I think you possibly don't fully understand how and when to use them. Example: circular reasoning/arguments. This I think you have the thinnest grasp on as you still don't understand why your stance is circular.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Indirect arguments do not correct the problem of circularity.

A simplistic circular argument would be:

Villagers: We've found a witch; may we burn her?
Sir Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villagers: We wouldn't want to burn her if she weren't.

Substituting for the villagers' response the indirect statement, "Well, she's not a fish wife or a laundress, so she must be a witch," doesn't satisfy the needed rigor. Nor does speculating that, traditionally, witches "might conceivably" have a wart do much to rectify the argument.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Bart,
Do you realize that for your entire complex hypothesis you only present alien implants as testable? Your entire house of cards is supported by only one card? How can you make such a mountain of speculation out of a molehill?

what if she turned me into a Newt?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I don't blindly follow youtube links for a number of reasons. They're blocked at work, and consume too much bandwidth at home.

Can you provide a synopsis of this youtube link worthy of comment?

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

You are not missing much. It is the old "Secret NASA transmissions" video: I just see a bunch of space dust, floating crystals, lens effects and camera zooms that are grossly misinterpreted as showing piloted alien spacecraft.

what if she turned me into a Newt?

Did you get better?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

oh god I followed the link.

pretty much claims that every fuzzy blob on camera is ET

I think I lost some brain cells in the effort

What is it with UFO proponents and fuzzy blobs?

It was touted as "Smoking Gun Evidence"...

you are kidding...

Some of the footage could be trivially identified as prosaic right from the get go without any effort

gullibility factor 9 captain kirk

Regardless of what the Pope says, the evidence that aliens have been here is not very good (and I'm being generous in that evaluation).

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Do you realize that for your entire complex hypothesis you only present alien implants as testable? Your entire house of cards is supported by only one card? How can you make such a mountain of speculation out of a molehill?

Agreed. Thats why I will take this as an answer for all of the last few posted by Jay as well, unless he wants something more specific. I will try to be thorough.

If alien abductions are happening with the scope and duration claimed that is just the beginning. By that I mean there is also the claim of harvesting of genetic material and some kind of breeding technology.

This would be central to purpose and all the rest a side issue as to misdirection of purpose.

This has many implications as to human interaction with and what the goals are. If ET were only observing us that is not so important. Sience ignores then I really don't care and proof will or will not be revealed in time, and so what? Believe or not to be believe is an irrelevent question.

That they take advantage and interact with us on an invasive physical level is an issue of some importance. Every user taking advantage is motivated by the gain to keep the victim under the influence.

It is not possible to stick an implant under a microscope and look for a label stating ' made on Beta Reticuli for the purpose of implanting in humans '. But it might be possible to evaluate it as to technology. If such objects were confirmed as mundane then fine.

If they were to be found as advance form of technology then; We have some method to look for whose technology and to what purpose. Alien need not be assumed to investigate. Look for a way to monitor the probes information as in a criminal investigation to catch in the act. Or whatever course of action deemed appropriate.

Aliens look over my shoulder, I hope they enjoy the show.

Aliens kidnap my children for genetic research, then hold them accountable and make them respect our laws. Come to the table and bargain for what they want, or stay off my planet.

All a big fabrication made of our strange imagination, oh well life is strange.

In a court of law, there is usually evidence that a crime has been committed, or at least the reasonable possibility that a crime has been committed. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable

Give us evidence that aliens exist, have ever travelled half-way across the galaxy to probe our anuses, and that people on Earth have actually had these involuntary proctological exams done by the imaginary suspects.

That would be great.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

So present one for evaluation already. Let's stick it under a microscope and see what it looks like.

And if it looks like an ordinary scrap of mundane metal, what then?

then the level of technology will be so high that to us puny Earthlings it just looks like a scrap of mundane metal, what alse?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Exactly. The unfalsifiable hypothesis.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Exactly. The unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Assume this to be the case before you evaluate it. No resaon to look.
Science by proclomation.
Look at it and find nothing, then show data. You have grounds for it. No counter argument can be made.

So look at it already. Show us the data.

You misunderstand. As usual. It is not an argument not to look, it is a prediction that no matter what any scientific investigation finds, it will not change the minds of believers, because every result can be fantasized away.

I also predict that all of us here showing a rational view on things would be very happy to have alleged alien implants scientifically investigated by a number of labs. A few might even be willing to donate $$ to get it done. I doubt any would argue to not put them through rigorous testing, especially not based upon the argument that sparked your reply.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.