call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:18 pm

The mission of our new Truth Engine Institute is to promote reason. Our main work will be to create and maintain a living Encyclopedia of Controversy. We envision that this encyclopedia will eventually comprise a large number of books-of-best-arguments pro and con, each on a different topic. Each of these books (we call them “dialectical” books) will be living, because it will be used to guide a series of informal, moderated, online debates on the topic, and, at the same time, the debates will inspire frequent changes to the book—the book readers and the debate audience will participate in making these changes. This recursive procedure is designed to operate in a continual cycle of positive feedback which will sharpen the arguments over time, revealing what’s true more and more clearly. Our first topic will be the UFO controversy—the first dialectical book is The UFO Dialectic (published by Truth Engine Books). We have decided to produce our UFO debate shows on YouTube Live, and are now in the process of deciding which video conferencing platform to use.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I wish to say that I, myself, believe that some UFOs are manifestations of an otherworldly intelligence (I think that eyewitness testimony can sometimes be evidential), but I am committed to making sure that the arguments of both sides of the controversy are presented in the strongest form possible. The purpose of these debates will be to reveal truth, whatever it turns out to be—my interest is in establishing the process of recursive debate, not in winning the argument.

In order for this first project, this experiment in collective intelligence, to succeed, we need to find people who would enjoy debating the pros and cons of the question. We are looking for debaters on both sides of the issue. Several people have agreed to argue the pro position (which is: Some UFOs are manifestations of otherworldly intelligences), but no skeptics have yet indicated a willingness to represent the other point of view (which is: The pro position is not justified).

Might you be interested in participating in our debates? We will not be able to pay you, but we will make sure that you will have the opportunity to promote your website, book or activities.

Richard Crist, Ph.D. (my degree is in philosophy)

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19814
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: call for debaters

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:29 am

Just stopping by to welcome you at SSF and to wish you success in your quest.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Anomaly
Poster
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby Anomaly » Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:36 am

TEnginist wrote: Several people have agreed to argue the pro position (which is: Some UFOs are manifestations of otherworldly intelligences), but no skeptics have yet indicated a willingness to represent the other point of view (which is: The pro position is not justified).


What is meant by UFO?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:23 am

By "UFO," some people mean "alien spacecraft," but I just mean "unidentified flying object."

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5008
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby Monster » Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:48 pm

Why do you want a debate format? The purpose of a debate is to win, not show the truth.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:48 pm

Monster wrote:Why do you want a debate format? The purpose of a debate is to win, not show the truth.


Yes, it's fine for the debater to be arguing to win (it's the usual motive, of course, and it tends to result in a lively debate), but the purpose of the debate organizer should be to see to it that truth is revealed. Debating for the purpose of revealing truth is called "dialectic"--it's a Socratic ideal.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby gorgeous » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:47 pm

you won't find debaters here...they have no evidence to prove ufos are not from other worlds...they are good at calling believers in other world travelers idiots, morons, irrational...though...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Anomaly
Poster
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby Anomaly » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:08 pm

gorgeous wrote:.they have no evidence to prove ufos are not from other worlds...


What is implied by UFO? Is it some spaceship of some kind? What is the relation to the intelligence on other worlds?

How can one discuss the unknown? I am curios, but need at least some info. There exists something unknown that came from some unknown place, prove me wrong approach is boring.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:29 pm

gorgeous wrote:you won't find debaters here...they have no evidence to prove ufos are not from other worlds...they are good at calling believers in other world travelers idiots, morons, irrational...though...


gorgeous, I hope that you're wrong about that, and that we will, in fact, find debaters here. I agree that no one can show that there are no otherworldly visitors. We're looking for skeptics who will put up a strong and respectable defense (one that doesn't include invective) of the more interesting and challenging proposition that the pro side can't justify its claim that there are such visitors.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby gorgeous » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:31 pm

good luck..
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:35 am

TEnginist wrote:We are looking for debaters on both sides of the issue. Several people have agreed to argue the pro position (which is: Some UFOs are manifestations of otherworldly intelligences), but no skeptics have yet indicated a willingness to represent the other point of view (which is: The pro position is not justified).
With all due respect, aren't you putting Descartes before the horse? :P

On what basis is the defense justified in stipulating that the act of one or more humans claiming to have seen objects that they have concluded—based on no evidence whatsoever—are alien spaceships in any way proof of extraterrestrial intelligence?

Stay with me for a moment...
• Sea anemones typically partner with hermit crabs. The anemone uses the crab as transportation to get access to more food, while the crab benefits from the anemone's protection. Does this prove that sea anemones and hermit crabs are intelligent? Not really.

• Quite a lot of humans own automobiles. Does ownership of transportation prove intelligence? Not remotely.

• Human senses are quite easily fooled. People have believed they've seen alien spaceships...and their sightings have turned out to be balloons, missile tests, clouds, Chinese lanterns, the planet Venus, kites, meteors, the NOSS satellites, city lights reflecting off clouds, military planes, the Moon, mirages, lightning sprites, the ISS, and iridium communications satellites. There's an awful lot of stuff orbiting Earth.

Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sun Aug 27, 2017 8:50 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:On what basis is the defense justified in stipulating that the act of one or more humans claiming to have seen objects that they have concluded—based on no evidence whatsoever—are alien spaceships in any way proof of extraterrestrial intelligence?


If the witnesses in a case were to conclude without evidence that what they saw was ET, then there would be no basis on which the defense would be justified in saying that the witness account constitutes proof of ET intelligence. But I think that there have been some cases where the witnesses concluded, based on evidence, that what they saw was alien. The defense may be justified in claiming that such accounts constitute proof (or at least evidence) of ET intelligence on the basis of ordinary inductive reasoning: experience shows us that, in ordinary life, such reports can be believed.

Nikki Nyx wrote:• Human senses are quite easily fooled. People have believed they've seen alien spaceships...and their sightings have turned out to be balloons, missile tests, clouds, Chinese lanterns, the planet Venus, kites, meteors, the NOSS satellites, city lights reflecting off clouds, military planes, the Moon, mirages, lightning sprites, the ISS, and iridium communications satellites. There's an awful lot of stuff orbiting Earth.

Our senses can be fooled, but they're also often trustworthy. If this wasn't true, our genus wouldn't have flourished for 3 million years.

Whether the senses can be trusted in any specific UFO sighting depends on the particular circumstances of the sighting. The UFO Dialectic, the edition of the book that will shape the first debate, covers three cases, Roswell, the Washington National case, and the Portage County police UFO chase case. Arguments for and against the specific possible misperceptions relevant to these cases are included there.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: call for debaters

Postby Flash » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:20 pm

gorgeous wrote:
you won't find debaters here...they have no evidence to prove ufos are not from other worlds...they are good at calling believers in other world travelers idiots, morons, irrational...though...


Some of my ex-wives, stubbornly and despite of what I thought was the evidence to the contrary, persisted at calling me no good. I am glad that now thanks to gorgeous I turn out to be good at something. :mrgreen:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19814
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: call for debaters

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:18 am

TEnginist wrote:[...]The UFO Dialectic, the edition of the book that will shape the first debate, covers three cases, Roswell, the Washington National case, and the Portage County police UFO chase case...

If I may ask, why those three? Because of the alleged "cover-ups"?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby gorgeous » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:07 am

how about the Bentwater military base case?...many had encounters seeing the CO in telepathy with the aliens.....some had nervous breakdowns...some were brought with meetings with the aliens in an underwater base and communicated with them...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:27 am

TEnginist wrote: But I think that there have been some cases where the witnesses concluded, based on evidence, that what they saw was alien. The defense may be justified in claiming that such accounts constitute proof (or at least evidence) of ET intelligence on the basis of ordinary inductive reasoning: experience shows us that, in ordinary life, such reports can be believed.

What is this evidence beyond personal belief?

What ordinary life experiences allow for belief in such claimed extraordinary events?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:42 am

TEnginist wrote:If the witnesses in a case were to conclude without evidence that what they saw was ET, then there would be no basis on which the defense would be justified in saying that the witness account constitutes proof of ET intelligence. But I think that there have been some cases where the witnesses concluded, based on evidence, that what they saw was alien. The defense may be justified in claiming that such accounts constitute proof (or at least evidence) of ET intelligence on the basis of ordinary inductive reasoning: experience shows us that, in ordinary life, such reports can be believed.
1. It depends on your definition of 'evidence.'
2. Inductive reasoning can easily lead to a false conclusion, even if all its premises are true. Therefore, you will not arrive at 'the truth' via inductive reasoning on the part of the defense, and the skeptics have already won.
3. I disagree that, in ordinary life, reports of encounters with alien spaceships can be believed. Anecdotal narrative is only useful alongside verifiable factual evidence from reputable sources. On its own, it's not evidence. And it's certainly not proof.

TEnginist wrote:Our senses can be fooled, but they're also often trustworthy. If this wasn't true, our genus wouldn't have flourished for 3 million years.
Spectacular example of a cum hoc fallacy. Is this debate to be conducted without logic?

To be honest, if inductive reasoning and logical fallacies are going to be acceptable argumentative tactics—and based on your posts, it appears that they are—and if anecdotal narrative is going to be given equal weight as legitimate scientific evidence—and, again, based on your posts, that appears to be the case—then it's not a valid debate.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:06 am

evidence:

1. Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

2. An indication that makes something evident

In application..."your" can be yours personally or the broader your meaning other people while being evident means ''Capable of being seen or noticed"===>which does NOT include verbal testimony. VT is based on credibility, not providing anything evident. Its a two step.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
What is this evidence beyond personal belief?

It varies with the case; for instance, in the Washington National case, the men in the radar room concluded from the solid returns, the simultaneous visual reports from the interceptor pilots, the incredible performance and the clearly purposeful maneuvers that there were alien craft in the sky. Harry Barnes, the senior air traffic controller in the room said, "We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed.” Al Chop, the Air Force public information officer, who was there too, said, “I am convinced that they are probably from another planet.”

What ordinary life experiences allow for belief in such claimed extraordinary events?

Re my statement, “in ordinary life, such reports can be believed:” by “such reports” I mean reports supported by solid inductive inference.”

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19814
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: call for debaters

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:48 am

TEnginist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
What is this evidence beyond personal belief?

It varies with the case; for instance, in the Washington National case, the men in the radar room concluded from the solid returns, the simultaneous visual reports from the interceptor pilots, the incredible performance and the clearly purposeful maneuvers that there were alien craft in the sky. Harry Barnes, the senior air traffic controller in the room said, "We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed.” Al Chop, the Air Force public information officer, who was there too, said, “I am convinced that they are probably from another planet.”[...]

Sorry, that certainly seems to be a case of argument from jumping to conclusions. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:02 am

TEnginist.... so you have NOTHING beyond personal belief....ie...no evidence at all.

"“I am convinced..." /// but no one else is. This is a statement of personal belief...not facts, not evidence.

Can you refocus and see that?..... or continue to stumble on what evidence is?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:04 am

By my lojik, therez very little justification for the jeneral skeptisizm agenst UFOz being alien spasecraft. The typical sientist's skeptisizm iz based only on hiz beleef that the speed uv lite can not be exeeded, and that notion iz both irrelevent and based only on perpectiv.

The only solid reazon to dowt UFO reports iz bekuz there are so many fraudsterz and wakkoz cranking out bogus storyz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:14 am

JO 753 wrote:By my lojik, therez very little justification for the jeneral skeptisizm agenst UFOz being alien spasecraft. The typical sientist's skeptisizm iz based only on hiz beleef that the speed uv lite can not be exeeded, and that notion iz both irrelevent and based only on perpectiv.

The only solid reazon to dowt UFO reports iz bekuz there are so many fraudsterz and wakkoz cranking out bogus storyz.

Your own wording is that the limitation of the speed of light is the opinion of "typical scientist." Not something made invalid by simply dismissing it. You know: saying something that is fanciful to begin with is hardly supported by adding fanciful notions that are only theoretical at best with zero indication there is real world possibility.

Given the immensity of time and space.......i do assume there is intelligent space faring life out there. Put the emphasis on: "out there." Add to that: no "earthly" reason to come to Earth...........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19814
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: call for debaters

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:16 am

I think it must be the lack of a natural vacuum. :-P



Edit: I had to add a "be". That stings.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:20 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: 2. Inductive reasoning can easily lead to a false conclusion, even if all its premises are true. Therefore, you will not arrive at 'the truth' via inductive reasoning on the part of the defense, and the skeptics have already won.

I wouldn’t say “easily,” but inductive inference can lead to a false conclusion because it leads to probable, not absolute, truth. But there is such a thing as a sound inductive argument, and a conclusion can be very probably true, even to a degree that approaches (but doesn’t quite reach) certainty. We live our lives using inductive and deductive inference—it’s how we think. Do the skeptics really want to pit themselves against ordinary induction?


TEnginist wrote:Our senses can be fooled, but they're also often trustworthy. If this wasn't true, our genus wouldn't have flourished for 3 million years.
Spectacular example of a cum hoc fallacy. Is this debate to be conducted without logic?

Post hoc propter hoc describes the mistaken assumption that A caused B simply because B followed A—how does this apply here? Are you claiming that it’s fallacious to believe that totally deficient senses would probably result in the failure of a genus?


To be honest, if inductive reasoning and logical fallacies are going to be acceptable argumentative tactics—and based on your posts, it appears that they are—and if anecdotal narrative is going to be given equal weight as legitimate scientific evidence—and, again, based on your posts, that appears to be the case—then it's not a valid debate.

Of course inductive reasoning always has and always will be acceptable in debate, and I don’t agree that you’ve correctly identified a fallacy. But suppose that the argument had been flawed in the way you say; flawed arguments don’t “invalidate” a debate—they're a necessary part of any debate--it's the job of each side to point out the flaws in the opponent's arguments.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10249
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:32 am

I have several times specified the kind of evidence I need to take seriously the idea of intelligent alien people's visiting Earth .
It has to be material evidence (No fallible eye witnesses or easily faked photos or video), analysed by scientists, with tbe results published in a reputable and peer reviewed scientific journal. Gorgeous always responds to this idea with a demand for documentary evidence of my own existence, which is kinda moronic.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:31 am

TEnginist wrote: Of course inductive reasoning always has and always will be acceptable in debate, and I don’t agree that you’ve correctly identified a fallacy. But suppose that the argument had been flawed in the way you say; flawed arguments don’t “invalidate” a debate—they're a necessary part of any debate--it's the job of each side to point out the flaws in the opponent's arguments.

I agree with this. Hard to keep your lips flapping if you aren't using inductive or deductive reasoning aka argument. Although it would be hard to stop laughing when someone proposes a text book tautology as giving inductive reasoning a basis on which to rely.

.............is it too late to say the best debates use facts?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:42 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
TEnginist wrote:[...]The UFO Dialectic, the edition of the book that will shape the first debate, covers three cases, Roswell, the Washington National case, and the Portage County police UFO chase case...

If I may ask, why those three? Because of the alleged "cover-ups"?

scrimbidggs, I just thought that these cases supported the pro side particularly well.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:03 am

gorgeous wrote:how about the Bentwater military base case?...many had encounters seeing the CO in telepathy with the aliens.....some had nervous breakdowns...some were brought with meetings with the aliens in an underwater base and communicated with them...


It's a good case, and I may well add it in a future edition. I've just finished writing a chapter on the Exeter sightings for the next edition. My list of cases to add includes the Hudson Valley sightings, the Phoenix lights, the Jimmy Carter sighting, and Iran 1976.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:12 am

TEnginist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: 2. Inductive reasoning can easily lead to a false conclusion, even if all its premises are true. Therefore, you will not arrive at 'the truth' via inductive reasoning on the part of the defense, and the skeptics have already won.

I wouldn’t say “easily,” but inductive inference can lead to a false conclusion because it leads to probable, not absolute, truth.
Sorry, I thought your goal was to arrive at the truth? Not the 'probable truth.'
TEnginist wrote:The purpose of these debates will be to reveal truth
Or have you already decided on the 'truth' that will be revealed?

TEnginist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
TEnginist wrote:Our senses can be fooled, but they're also often trustworthy. If this wasn't true, our genus wouldn't have flourished for 3 million years.
Spectacular example of a cum hoc fallacy. Is this debate to be conducted without logic?
Post hoc propter hoc describes the mistaken assumption that A caused B simply because B followed A—how does this apply here? Are you claiming that it’s fallacious to believe that totally deficient senses would probably result in the failure of a genus?
I never said human senses were 'totally deficient,' so kindly drop that ridiculous straw man. 'Totally deficient' would mean humans had completely dysfunctional senses...blind, deaf, no sense of smell, unable to feel, no ability to taste, unbalanced, no sense of self in relation to environment, etc.

And I didn't say post hoc ergo propter hoc; I said cum hoc. Close, but no cigar. Your statement claimed that human senses are trustworthy because the human race still exists. Correlation does not equal causation. And human senses are not trustworthy. Take 15 minutes and Google the numerous ways in which both the environment and the brain itself can fool the senses. I'll even help you out by offering a few.

Have you ever been stuck in traffic, and suddenly felt your vehicle moving backward, only to realize that you hadn't moved, but the vehicle next to you was moving forward? Your eyes and proprioception just got punked. Yet, in that couple of seconds, depending solely on your senses, you would have testified that you were moving backward. And it would not have been the truth.

Here's another one, and it's an experiment that has been repeated with oenophiles around the world. First, the tasters were given a glass of white wine to sample. Next, they were given the exact same white wine, except it had been colored red. Each and every professional wine taster thought it was a red wine, and described it in those terms. They would have testified they were drinking a red wine. And it would not have been the truth. Their taste buds got fooled by their eyes.

Ever heard of Saccadic Masking? It's the term used to refer to the 40+ minutes of your waking day when your eyes are open and you are completely, totally blind. Bet you never even knew it. When you move your eyes' focus rapidly, your brain shuts down your optic nerve briefly so that you don't feel like an extra in The Blair Witch Project, get dizzy, and vomit. Your brain also prevents you from noticing those brief periods of blindness so you don't freak out. But you would have testified to seeing everything you looked at during that day, including those 40+ minutes. And it would not have been the truth.

But you really should Google more of these; you'd be much less confident in eyewitness testimony, regardless of the reputation of the witness. Because people can be utterly honest and supremely trustworthy...and still present testimony that's a load of crop fertilizer.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:13 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:.............is it too late to say the best debates use facts?
THIS.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10249
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:11 am

I agree with Nikki on the unreliability of our senses. We do not 'see ' the world around us. Our brains use visual data to make a model of the world around us, and what we 'see ' is the model. That model is easily modified by extraneous factors such as expectation. A person who believes in flying saucers, and views a brightly shining planet Venus against moving clouds, will 'see ' a space ship moving across the sky.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:35 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:[ Sorry, I thought your goal was to arrive at the truth? Not the 'probable truth.'

Let's stipulate that "truth" can mean "probable truth," as it does in ordinary conversation.
Nikki Nyx wrote:
TEnginist wrote:The purpose of these debates will be to reveal truth
Or have you already decided on the 'truth' that will be revealed?

I think I know what the truth will turn out to be, but humility requires us to be open to being proven wrong.

And I didn't say post hoc ergo propter hoc; I said cum hoc. Close, but no cigar.

I'm sorry, they are slightly different, as you say, but not different enough to deny me the cigar-- (cum = with; post = after); the argument is essentially the same--there's no fallacy here.

Your statement claimed that human senses are trustworthy because the human race still exists. Correlation does not equal causation.

Of course I'm not saying that it's the long-term existence of the human race that causes the human senses to be trustworthy; I'm saying that the fact that the human senses have been substantially trustworthy has been a necessary condition for the long-term existence of the human race.

existence of the human race And human senses are not trustworthy.

Our disagreement seems to be a matter of emphasis: you're emphasizing the untrustworthiness and I'm emphasizing the trustworthiness. When you say that the senses are not trustworthy, I want to make plain that, yes, they can fool us (I'm well aware of this fact), but that most of the time, they give us a substantially accurate picture of the world around us. When I hear skeptical explanations for what UFO witnesses are reporting, I often feel that the skeptic is exaggerating the unreliability of the senses.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19814
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: call for debaters

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:02 am

TEnginist wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
TEnginist wrote:[...]The UFO Dialectic, the edition of the book that will shape the first debate, covers three cases, Roswell, the Washington National case, and the Portage County police UFO chase case...

If I may ask, why those three? Because of the alleged "cover-ups"?

scrimbidggs, I just thought that these cases supported the pro side particularly well.

Ouch, touched a nerve, didn't eye?


(And let's just say I'd not necessarily consider any eyewitness testimony from your corner. :lol:)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: call for debaters

Postby Poodle » Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have several times specified the kind of evidence I need to take seriously the idea of intelligent alien people's visiting Earth .
It has to be material evidence (No fallible eye witnesses or easily faked photos or video), analysed by scientists, with tbe results published in a reputable and peer reviewed scientific journal...


I thought this thread ended right there. It is not possible to debate grass out of existence, nor to debate a Flying Spaghetti Monster into existence.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:52 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Your own wording is that the limitation of the speed of light is the opinion of "typical scientist." Not something made invalid by simply dismissing it.


Dont take it frum me, lissin to Einstien. Distans iz relativ. The SUL may actually be unobtainabl in a vehicle, but only frum the perspectiv uv outside obzerverz. So traveling to distant starz, even tho it coud take thouzandz uv yirz frum the perspectiv uv your starting point coud be only weeks inside the ship.

Interstellar travel may be simply a matter uv giving up on the idea that you can go 'home'.

Like Bukaroo Banzai sed, "No matter where you go, there you are." We are flying thru spase rite now! Where are we going? However long it takes, we will get there. I think its unavoidabl that teknolojy will reach a level where beingz can pik their own destination rather than where the rok they grew up on happenz to be taking them.

And wut makes you think we are so smart that we can declare anything impossible after only a few hundred yirz uv contemplation?

Its hard to deny that we are VERY stoopid. Its a virtual sertainty that there are beingz out there many timez smarter than us that hav had far more time to figure out wayz to exeed LS.

Given the immensity of time and space.......i do assume there is intelligent space faring life out there. Put the emphasis on: "out there." Add to that: no "earthly" reason to come to Earth...........


There iz an Earthly reazon - curiosity. And az per the Bukaroo quote, there really iz no reazon not to.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I agree with Nikki on the unreliability of our senses. We do not 'see ' the world around us. Our brains use visual data to make a model of the world around us, and what we 'see ' is the model. That model is easily modified by extraneous factors such as expectation.


Surely you see the flip side uv that coin.

How often do peepl expect to see a 747 so dont notis that the thing moving across the sky haz no wingz?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:08 am

Poodle wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I have several times specified the kind of evidence I need to take seriously the idea of intelligent alien people's visiting Earth .
It has to be material evidence (No fallible eye witnesses or easily faked photos or video), analysed by scientists, with tbe results published in a reputable and peer reviewed scientific journal...


I thought this thread ended right there. It is not possible to debate grass out of existence, nor to debate a Flying Spaghetti Monster into existence.


Go find a piese uv a jumbo jet and then get back to us. You dont get to call a parts store, you haf to just wok around looking for sumthing. Till then, I claim that all thoze thingz flying around up there are just fantasy, halusination, wild storyz by liarz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:10 am

No Jo........photons have no mass and therefore can achieve light speed. Anything of any mass to carry humans would require "more energy than there is in the universe".......or some such impossible to contemplate number. Its just not the math of c2.

But I don't know.......I'm just parroting what Ive read.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4858
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:22 pm

JO 753 wrote:Go find a piese uv a jumbo jet and then get back to us. You dont get to call a parts store, you haf to just wok around looking for sumthing. Till then, I claim that all thoze thingz flying around up there are just fantasy, halusination, wild storyz by liarz.

Ok, I have some pieces. Now what?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests