horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

It depends on whether the laughter is de facto dismissal or merely awkward incredulity. Lack of falsifiablility confers neither credibility nor non-credibility; it is simply raw material for science to process, if ever possible.

Look - I'm not dismissing anything, and I have certainly said, many times, that it's possible.

It is possible.

So, what next?


Evidence.

Are you making an assertion other than "it's possible?" If so, what assertion and what evidence do you rely on?

I've asked that several times. So, what is it?

No one should really expect more than that; suspending your disbelief just long enough for a chance to learn something new. Certainty is a greater state of ignorance than uncertainty when evidence is in short supply.

How do you distinguish what things you should suspend your disbelief for and those you should not.

Lithium Farting Unicorns

Aliens that will come over and fix our world for us?

Bankers that secretly want the world to be abetter place and not profits?

Just suspend your disbelief Landrew.

Wuffy wrote:How do you distinguish what things you should suspend your disbelief for and those you should not.

Lithium Farting Unicorns

Aliens that will come over and fix our world for us?

Bankers that secretly want the world to be abetter place and not profits?

Just suspend your disbelief Landrew.

You make it easy.

No Landrew, you are applying personal opinion. You complain we are closed minded when we tell you that your idea is highly unlikely.

But you then have turned around branded my ideas unlikely.

Let's try retreading familiar ground.

You are a poor skeptic and should be ashamed for your closed mindedness and dismissing out of hand that my ideas have no merit.

If we don't know x then x is not 0.

Wuffy wrote:How do you distinguish what things you should suspend your disbelief for and those you should not.

Lithium Farting Unicorns

Aliens that will come over and fix our world for us?

Bankers that secretly want the world to be abetter place and not profits?

...but once again, I mean how many times must we go over this? The "ancient alien" theory is based around ancient texts describing encounters with "other worldly" creatures, as well as different art scenes from around the world depicting "alien-looking" creatures. It's not like this is simply pulled out of your ass, like "Lithium Farting Unicorns". Tell me about ancient texts describing Lithium Farting Unicorns or depictions of Lithium Farting Unicorns and perhaps. Not even sure where you got "Aliens that will come over and fix our world for us?"? As for bankers, there is proof that that is not true, the same can not be said about alien life, there is no proof that is not true. I suppose you could say there is no proof that Lithium Farting Unicorns do not exist either, but there is also not much to support that.

No the Ancient Alien theory is based on Misunderstanding ancient texts and saying they talk about Aliens.

What about ancient texts describing burning bushes, do they count? What about ancient texts about boats bobbing around, full of animals? How about all those paintings of Jebus rising from the dead? Come on now, if that isn't evidence then I don't know what is.

Wuffy wrote:No the Ancient Alien theory is based on Misunderstanding ancient texts and saying they talk about Aliens.

In your opinion.

laklak wrote:What about ancient texts describing burning bushes, do they count?

bushes don't burn?

laklak wrote:What about ancient texts about boats bobbing around, full of animals?

Exageration, there were many floods in prehistory.

laklak wrote:How about all those paintings of Jebus rising from the dead?

propaganda?

laklak wrote: Come on now, if that isn't evidence then I don't know what is.

You think it's evidence? Not I. Just saying thats the basis of the theory. Believe what you want though, go nuts.

Wuffy wrote:How do you distinguish what things you should suspend your disbelief for and those you should not.

Lithium Farting Unicorns

Aliens that will come over and fix our world for us?

Bankers that secretly want the world to be abetter place and not profits?

Just suspend your disbelief Landrew.

I've seen Landrew be just as dismissive of positions that he doesn't think are logical... so basically, it all comes down to him following his personal yardstick - oh and don't forget the berating of people who hold different positions to him - lots of berating. Such are the devices we have to make us feel confident.

I've seen it. I figure re iterating it might have helped. But apparently we then Have Sandinista who then swoops in to make a whole other class of judgements on comments and pull the direction of the conversation elsewhere missing the point trying to be made in a post.

It makes things very very difficult

Wuffy wrote:I've seen it. I figure re iterating it might have helped. But apparently we then Have Sandinista who then swoops in to make a whole other class of judgements on comments and pull the direction of the conversation elsewhere missing the point trying to be made in a post.

It makes things very very difficult

I think that some people don't grasp the notion of a 'discussion forum', instead treating it like it's a personal soap box. Woe befall anyone who might want to challenge an assertion: how incredibly rude that is to interrupt someone in full declamation by asking for, you know, some kind of evidence or support.

Yeah, but, that's just, like, your opinion.

MacIver wrote:Yeah, but, that's just, like, your opinion.

Its just another type of trolling; spoiling for fights, using any sort of convoluted rationale, as long as it sounds vaguely rational .

Landrew wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

It depends on whether the laughter is de facto dismissal or merely awkward incredulity. Lack of falsifiablility confers neither credibility nor non-credibility; it is simply raw material for science to process, if ever possible.

Look - I'm not dismissing anything, and I have certainly said, many times, that it's possible.

It is possible.

So, what next?

Evidence.

Are you making an assertion other than "it's possible?" If so, what assertion and what evidence do you rely on?

I've asked that several times. So, what is it?

Wuffy wrote:How do you distinguish what things you should suspend your disbelief for and those you should not.

I start with an open mind to everything, as best as I can. Anything is possible. From there, I look to what evidence and reason supports, subject always to later being modified or falsified. I never "suspend disbelief," as "belief" in the sense of believing without evidence or reason is not something I involve myself in much, except with the main axiom I accept which is that I am and the universe exists with me in it.

Wuffy wrote:

Lithium Farting Unicorns

Aliens that will come over and fix our world for us?

Bankers that secretly want the world to be abetter place and not profits?

Just suspend your disbelief Landrew.

It is possible that there are Lithium Farting Unicorns. I've not seen any evidence, or descriptions of evidence, of Lithium Farting Unicorns, though. So, I don't believe in them. There are historical references and ancient drawings/carvings of unicorns (nonspecific to lithium or flatulence), but such references do not, in my view, constitute evidence of unicorns actually existing. In a way, this kind of thing boils down to an assessment of the evidence, and yes, as some say, IN MY OPINION the evidence is weak -- but, we can, of course, argue the strength of these opinions, and whoever thinks my opinion is not a good one on this issue can bring forth their argument why carvings and writings constitute good evidence of unicorns (or aliens, for another example).

Just saying "it's your opinion" is NOT a negative statement is not something that logically diminishes an argument. Sure -- it's my opinion or his opinion - but, what's wrong with the opinion? What's weak about it? What's your opinion, and why is your opinion stronger than mine or his?

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

Landrew wrote:Anything is laughable, but not all things are falsifiable.

It's not a point in favor of a theory for it not to be falsifiable. In fact, not being falsifiable means that a thing or a theory is less credible or believable. If someone tells me they believe something because it isn't falsifiable, it tells me that they'll believe just about anything.

It depends on whether the laughter is de facto dismissal or merely awkward incredulity. Lack of falsifiablility confers neither credibility nor non-credibility; it is simply raw material for science to process, if ever possible.

Look - I'm not dismissing anything, and I have certainly said, many times, that it's possible.

It is possible.

So, what next?

Evidence.

Are you making an assertion other than "it's possible?" If so, what assertion and what evidence do you rely on?

I've asked that several times. So, what is it?

Its just another type of trolling; spoiling for fights, using any sort of convoluted rationale, as long as it sounds vaguely rational .

What is? Asking for what the proponents of ancient alien theory think is evidence?

horacerumpole wrote:What is? Asking for what the proponents of ancient alien theory think is evidence?

No mate, I copied one of his latest posts and pasted it under yours because I thought it fitted his posting style quite well.

I just think he's not up to the job to communicate constructively and it's getting tiresome.

As for the ancient alien theory Landrew's comments give away that his gut feeling about it fluctuate from possible to probable, and back. It should be possible because the possibility hasn't been falsified. And probable because the earth is very old, the universe is very large and ancient cartoons are dismissed out of hand because armchair skeptics apply their own frame of reference to them.

That's about it, I think.

It's certainly "possible."

But, the possibility not being falsified is not a point in its favor. Lots of possibilities haven't been falsified. Most haven't.

"Probable" is going to far, because we don't know anything about the likelihoods of life forming on planets, let alone the likelihood of it evolving intelligence and spacefaring capacities. So, big universe may well just be big enough for a very few space faring civilizations. We just don't know. And, even if there are millions of spacefaring civilizations, that also says nothing about the likelihood of them ever finding us or getting here.

Moreover, the ancient cartoons are not just dismissed based on a modern frame of reference, but rather based on the paucity of total evidence and the other more mundane explanations that easily fit the ancient cartoons. For example, Nazca lines -- are they symbols to show aliens where to land, as alien astronaut theorists say? Well, how much sense does that even make? Spacefaring aliens that can travel stellar distances and find a tiny little planet, need the help of cryptograms to know where to land on the Earth? They don't have the technology to find locations on globes? And, if these areas were, in fact, landing strips, as they have been alleged to be, would the cryptograms be the only evidence of it? Would there be no rubbish, broken machinery, written records of interactions, transfer of technology, and would the cartoons be so sparse and sporadic, if visitors were so common that humans were decorating the aliens' airports?

Basically, where I am skeptical is when I see a lack of evidence where reason tells me it would be, that there would at least be some corroborating physical evidence.

Tie that to the fact that every cartoon advanced to support the alien astronaut theory, well, frankly, only vaguely look like they can sort of be interpreted as being kind of like what our own frame of reference would see as an astronaut. To me, when I see what is advanced by astronaut theorists. They look like humans in costumes and such.

horacerumpole wrote:

Wuffy wrote:How do you distinguish what things you should suspend your disbelief for and those you should not.

I start with an open mind to everything, as best as I can. Anything is possible. From there, I look to what evidence and reason supports, subject always to later being modified or falsified. I never "suspend disbelief," as "belief" in the sense of believing without evidence or reason is not something I involve myself in much, except with the main axiom I accept which is that I am and the universe exists with me in it.

Wuffy wrote:

Lithium Farting Unicorns

Aliens that will come over and fix our world for us?

Bankers that secretly want the world to be abetter place and not profits?

Just suspend your disbelief Landrew.

It is possible that there are Lithium Farting Unicorns. I've not seen any evidence, or descriptions of evidence, of Lithium Farting Unicorns, though. So, I don't believe in them. There are historical references and ancient drawings/carvings of unicorns (nonspecific to lithium or flatulence), but such references do not, in my view, constitute evidence of unicorns actually existing. In a way, this kind of thing boils down to an assessment of the evidence, and yes, as some say, IN MY OPINION the evidence is weak -- but, we can, of course, argue the strength of these opinions, and whoever thinks my opinion is not a good one on this issue can bring forth their argument why carvings and writings constitute good evidence of unicorns (or aliens, for another example).

Just saying "it's your opinion" is NOT a negative statement is not something that logically diminishes an argument. Sure -- it's my opinion or his opinion - but, what's wrong with the opinion? What's weak about it? What's your opinion, and why is your opinion stronger than mine or his?

You must have missed most of my other posts in the thread...

I'm fine with opinion. That's fine grand and wonderful whatever.. But Landrew has repeatedly spoken about how people who don't see what he believes as highly probable, as being bad skeptics with closed Minds...

And so Tried to give an example of things he should open his mind about since I have as much proof for those things I listed that he does for the Alien visit, but he of course simply implied that what I say is fanciful while ignoring the fact his are also opinion.