| User | Post |
|
1:29 pm
November 10, 2010
|
Patrick
| | |
| Investigator | posts 190 |
|
|
Although, you could substitute "ghost" or "Bigfoot" or "Nosfer's underwear" for UFO in much of this speech and it applies just the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..fAzaDyae-k
|
|
|
12:42 am
November 11, 2010
|
Learjet
| | Australia | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1122 |
|
|
Nice refractor in the background.
Well I agree with him 95%. And that 95% has made UFO's into the laughing stock of just about everyone. If you cry wolf 95% of the time, no one is ever going to consider the other 5%. Like ghosts, the field is overwhelmed by BS!
|
|
|
|
|
1:40 am
November 11, 2010
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 589 |
|
|
I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is an amazing speaker, and I agree with what he says here.
The part about the argument ad ignorantum fallacy is classic, and applies to just about everything in the paranormal. Joe Nickell puts it nicely: you can't go from "I don't know" to "I do know." My inability to explain the strange noises coming from my basement aren't evidence for there being ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, or Nosfer's underwear down there. (I know which I would find the most terrifying.)
The argument about astronomers reporting fewer UFOs is one I've heard before. It's good rhetoric, but all that it means is that most UFOs are actually easily explainable. It doesn't touch the standard view that there is a core of unexplainable cases. Still, he's making good points about the fallibility of perception, which always fascinates me.
Finally, I like that he states his standard of evidence. You could argue that his standard is too high– perhaps it's not reasonable to suggest that we should be able to get evidence of extraterrestrial craft. Still, if someone were to produce an artifact that could not have been created by current science, then you have physical proof to support a physical claim. It works for me.
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
2:43 am
November 11, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Thanks for the link, Patrick. Always liked that guy… 
I'm right there with him on his standard of evidence. I'd like to look objectively at each and every case, but…the number is soooo daunting. Venus. Sunlight on a plane. A plane. Somebody says this. Someone else says that. A blurry whatever. A grainy video of something. Conspiracies all around us. It's tiring…
A body or space craft. Cut and dry. Easy. Firm. Real.
People will yell "Roswell." Do you have the bodies? No. Do you have the space craft? No. NEXT…
I don't want to be like that. I've never been that way in a lab. Like Neil (and yes, we're now on a first name basis) said…science is always at the drawing board. I want to examine the tiniest aspect of every single thing in a lab. No stone goes unturned. In fact, we rotate those stones regularly…we have a rotating stone schedule…and we track the rotation of the stones. But with ufology (which I get a bit sick when I use that term)…I become harsh. Just so much garbage and deception and bad science…I just want to wash my hands of all of it at times.
So…a body or space craft. Not only a standard of evidence for this sort of thing, but…really, to me…the only acceptable standard of evidence. Can anyone provide evidence that I should look at that might change my view on this? I'm not being combative or anything…just curious.
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
8:25 am
November 11, 2010
|
Learjet
| | Australia | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1122 |
|
|
Revenant said:
Just so much garbage and deception and bad science…I just want to wash my hands of all of it at times.
I know how you feel Revenant, but I'm not ready to give it all away just yet.
While sightings are not proof as such, some seasoned airline pilots have some intriguing tales to tell that are backed up by radar.
I don't hold quite the low opinion of pilots as our (good friend) Neil does. I'm not talking weekend fliers here, but seasoned professionals who's job is to look at the sky. They probably have more hours looking at the sky than many astronomers.
There are no roads in the sky so part of the job is traffic avoidance. Lives can depend on visually sighting other air traffic day or night, being able to identify astronomical objects, ground lights and beacons. Situational awareness and orientation can be critical to survival.
Obviously pilots are not beyond becoming disoriented. They fly in true 3D space. But come on, these are not the sort of people that freak out at Venus, although I still remember the light aircraft pilot that was tricked by flare balloons!
Some of my favourite UFO reading comes from professional pilot reports, especially the ones with corresponding radar data.
|
|
|
|
|
10:32 am
November 11, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
The problem I see is that the term UFO has come to be simply another word for alien spacecraft. This is why Revenant and I can have such fun debates where partway through we realize that I still take the term literally :)
I am reminded of several of the GH reveals when I heard this term. I know Rev knows exactly what I'm talking about as he's harped on these before, too. "We tried everything we could, but we couldn't explain it" I'm then reminded of the Belcourt case for one (I get reminded of lots of things) They couldn't explain the thermal image on the floor. Was it paranormal? No, they just couldn't explain it, and it gets shown as evidence. But send in two or three people from SV and it could be explained (as it was in the forum) Unexplainable and Unidentified are somewhat dependent upon the character of the observer.
The radar cases are more intriguing because in these cases, there is evidence of the event afterward (and I don't mean just some grainy picture of a tophat that was flung into the air) The few cases where you have radar contacts AND interceptors launched as a result are even more intriguing, but still not "proof positive". They might ultimately be explainable as a worldly object, but at least we know there was something there. They also might ultimately be explained as an otherworldly object, too. But until they are explained one way or the other, I don't see how the leap can be made to something extraterrestrial. They do go in that somewhat small hmmmmm pile though.
Unfortunately, I watched the video while at work and it was hard to keep from laughing at it…not only does he make some good points, but he just has a "delivery' that is enjoyable to watch! Thanks for posting it Patrick.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
11:07 am
November 11, 2010
|
Patrick
| | |
| Investigator | posts 190 |
|
|
I couldn't help but laugh out loud at alot of it too. And the one that kept popping in my head (I saw this video after reading some of the Fact or Faked discussions) was that FoF (or any of these shows for that matter) constantly says "credible eyewitness testimony" or at least "potentially credibile eyewitness testimony". I could picture Neil and his buddies sitting around the TV wathcing FoF playing drinking games and shotgunning beers everytime they said "credible eyewitness testimony".
|
|
|
1:11 pm
November 11, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
"Potentially credible witness." I laughed when Chi Lan originally said it on FoF. I laughed when Nosfer wrote about it in his review of "Symphonic Spirits" and I'm laughing now. 
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
