Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Explanation for phenomen

Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings
2. the so-called "shadow people"
3. sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world
I'll add more later.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:13:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings

1) Lies.
2) Hallucinations.
3) Exaggerations.
4) Word of mouth problems.

2. the so-called "shadow people"

Well you got me there... no self-respecting person is going to challenge the concept of shadow people.

3. sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world

1) Doctoring photographs.
2) Normal unexpected effects during photocapture.
3) Misinterpretation of photos.
4) Assumption that there even are pictures of the spirit world in the first place.

I'll add more later.

Please do.
kfc
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:22:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings
2. the so-called "shadow people"
3. sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world
I'll add more later.

Hypnopompic States, for aliens, shadow people, and ghosts (depending)

As for UFO's, they are unidentified, so I don't know, could be anything.
Pictures of ghosts/'UFOs' are generally lens glares, fakes, and other natural phenomenon.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:25:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 12:22:53 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings
2. the so-called "shadow people"
3. sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world
I'll add more later.

Hypnopompic States, for aliens, shadow people, and ghosts (depending)

As for UFO's, they are unidentified, so I don't know, could be anything.
Pictures of ghosts/'UFOs' are generally lens glares, fakes, and other natural phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:25:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 12:13:09 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings

1) Lies.
2) Hallucinations.
3) Exaggerations.
4) Word of mouth problems.

2. the so-called "shadow people"

Well you got me there... no self-respecting person is going to challenge the concept of shadow people.

Exactly, especially after what happened to Ted... http://www.angelfire.com...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 1:12:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 12:13:09 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings

1) Lies.
2) Hallucinations.
3) Exaggerations.
4) Word of mouth problems.

I would like to also add that there is a possibility that there are also misunderstandings of natural phenomen such as swamp gas or mist, and especially other things as well. Personally, I am not very impressed with the UFO sightings, since they are very unclear and can easily be mistaken for something else. Even military planes, as I have read in one book, can be mistaken as well.
2. the so-called "shadow people"

Well you got me there... no self-respecting person is going to challenge the concept of shadow people.

Umm...explaining the shadow people is probably going to be the hardest of the three: "Figures seen in peripheral areas of vision can sometimes be explained as pareidolia, the tendency of the brain to incorrectly interpret random patterns of light/shadow or texture as familiar patterns such as faces and human forms.[3]

Hypnagogia, also known as "waking-sleep", a physiological condition in which a person is part-way between sleeping and waking, can also account for such perceptions.[4] During hypnagogia, a person can be conscious and aware of their environment, but also in a dream-like state where they can perceive images from their subconscious. People experiencing waking-sleep commonly report the sensation of lights or shadows moving around them, as well as other visual hallucinations. A feeling of dread is also a sensation that occurs when experiencing hypnagogia. Hypnagogia is sometimes known as 'the faces in the dark phenomenon' because those who experience this state commonly report seeing faces while experiencing waking-sleep."
(www.wikipedia.com)
3. sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world

1) Doctoring photographs.
2) Normal unexpected effects during photocapture.
3) Misinterpretation of photos.
4) Assumption that there even are pictures of the spirit world in the first place.

I'll add more later.

Please do.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 4:23:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well you could show me a picture of yourself in Thailand and I could refute it. Saying that photoshop does wonders. I could do the same if you showed me a picture of almost anything that is far away. You could show me a picture of a commercial airplane and I could refute it's validity, claiming computer manipulation. If you say that there are people who can detect this kind of manipulation, then I would say great, because it would make both of our cases valid. There are such pieces of evidence for UFOs, ghosts, spirits, EVPs, etc. I don't personally have any, so it's your word against mine, or your link against mine, in any argument of such circumstances. But all hard evidence is for sight or sound is through video, photography, or audio. There is unexplainable hard evidence to support almost everything you listed (not sure about the shadow people).
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 4:27:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 4:23:35 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Well you could show me a picture of yourself in Thailand and I could refute it. Saying that photoshop does wonders. I could do the same if you showed me a picture of almost anything that is far away. You could show me a picture of a commercial airplane and I could refute it's validity, claiming computer manipulation. If you say that there are people who can detect this kind of manipulation, then I would say great, because it would make both of our cases valid. There are such pieces of evidence for UFOs, ghosts, spirits, EVPs, etc. I don't personally have any, so it's your word against mine, or your link against mine, in any argument of such circumstances. But all hard evidence is for sight or sound is through video, photography, or audio. There is unexplainable hard evidence to support almost everything you listed (not sure about the shadow people).

Okay...are you in favor of the alien sighings. Why don't you offer your evidence, and I make a fair assessment of both sides?
I think that'll make the post even more interesting...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 5:22:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 4:27:00 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2011 4:23:35 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Well you could show me a picture of yourself in Thailand and I could refute it. Saying that photoshop does wonders. I could do the same if you showed me a picture of almost anything that is far away. You could show me a picture of a commercial airplane and I could refute it's validity, claiming computer manipulation. If you say that there are people who can detect this kind of manipulation, then I would say great, because it would make both of our cases valid. There are such pieces of evidence for UFOs, ghosts, spirits, EVPs, etc. I don't personally have any, so it's your word against mine, or your link against mine, in any argument of such circumstances. But all hard evidence is for sight or sound is through video, photography, or audio. There is unexplainable hard evidence to support almost everything you listed (not sure about the shadow people).

Okay...are you in favor of the alien sighings. Why don't you offer your evidence, and I make a fair assessment of both sides?
I think that'll make the post even more interesting...

Hmmm.... very interesting. But all comes down to perception and belief to a certain degree. My sister is a photo editor and I've seen both sides to the coin. I could believe something that could be fake and manipulated evidence, or I could believe something that is actually unexplained phenomena which holds support towards widely accepted views on both sides of the coin.

Even if I show you something that I feel could be true, I also accept that the specific evidence could be false and that I was fooled in that specific situation. The same would apply to any picture, video, or audio that anyone makes of anything. My sister has fooled me with her computer work, so have others in seemingly real life footage like David Blaine, Chris Angel, etc.

When it all comes down to it... You either believe what you are seeing or you don't. Such perceptions shape all of our realities with every individual experience.

But... just for the fun of it. I will try to find something that I feel may be real evidence, trying to justify it's credibility seems almost pointless given the computer age that we live in though. Anything that I bring to the table can be written off as fake or delusion very easily. All photos, videos, and audio evidence could in fact be manipulated.

It really comes down to belief.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:35:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ah, such beautiful cases against naive realism.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:54:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's more probable, therefor logical, to accept that aliens exist. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to exist. Scientists are even starting to accept this fact. They have to..it's math.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 9:54:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's more probable, therefor logical, to accept that aliens exist. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to exist. Scientists are even starting to accept this fact. They have to..it's math.

It is very probable they exist. It is not necessarily probable for them to have reached us.
You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.
It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:29:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings
Mistaken or crazy.

2. the so-called "shadow people"
What, like the Men-In-Black?
I hear Will Smith is making number three soon.

3. sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world
Erm, what pictures?
I suspect that if Ghosts are real (which I have no reason to believe is true, BUT I've heard eye-witness accounts from reliable sources so I'm quite torn) then there is a as-of-yet undiscovered natural explanation for them.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 6:56:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:29:11 AM, tvellalott wrote:
2. the so-called "shadow people"
What, like the Men-In-Black?
I hear Will Smith is making number three soon.

I think I've read some connection between the two, but from what I understand, shadow people are different from the men in black.

They do share the commonality of not actually existing though.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:39:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:25:53 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
I would like to challenge anyone who could effectively explain the phenomen:
1. alien and UFO sightings
2. the so-called "shadow people"
3. sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world
I'll add more later.

1) Alien and UFO sightings,"shadow people",sightings and pictures of ghosts and the spirit world.
2) You can't explain that !!!
3) Therefore God did it.

Bill O Reilly approves this message.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 9:18:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 9:15:18 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
What about Big Foot, The Abominable Snowman and the Loch Ness Monster?

Can you explain it ? if no, ergo God did it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 9:20:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 9:18:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/23/2011 9:15:18 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
What about Big Foot, The Abominable Snowman and the Loch Ness Monster?

Can you explain it ? if no, ergo God did it.

Well, when two adult big feet get together....
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 12:06:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 9:15:18 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
What about Big Foot, The Abominable Snowman and the Loch Ness Monster?

Well, you guys could discuss any phenomena you want, really. I just listed what I had in mind at the time.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 1:43:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 12:06:06 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/23/2011 9:15:18 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
What about Big Foot, The Abominable Snowman and the Loch Ness Monster?

Well, you guys could discuss any phenomena you want, really. I just listed what I had in mind at the time.

How about the Springheeled Jack?

That's always been one of my favs.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 2:28:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/22/2011 9:54:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's more probable, therefor logical, to accept that aliens exist. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to exist. Scientists are even starting to accept this fact. They have to..it's math.

It is very probable they exist. It is not necessarily probable for them to have reached us.
You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.
It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.

Yes, I agree and have often pondered that thought myself. What would it take? Most evidence of any phenomena that we see or hear is recorded via photo, video, or audio. So any record of such events can be refuted as fake. I personally feel that reality is shaped by belief and believing in certain phenomena fall under this same idea of perception.

I would like to hear other theories though. How would we actually prove such phenomena if it does indeed exist?
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 3:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 2:28:15 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/22/2011 9:54:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's more probable, therefor logical, to accept that aliens exist. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to exist. Scientists are even starting to accept this fact. They have to..it's math.

It is very probable they exist. It is not necessarily probable for them to have reached us.
You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.
It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.

Yes, I agree and have often pondered that thought myself. What would it take? Most evidence of any phenomena that we see or hear is recorded via photo, video, or audio. So any record of such events can be refuted as fake. I personally feel that reality is shaped by belief and believing in certain phenomena fall under this same idea of perception.

I would like to hear other theories though. How would we actually prove such phenomena if it does indeed exist?

Well, that could also be conducted in the debate. Remember, my forum states only "explanation for phenomenon", so you could either explain to disprove or prove the phenomenon in question.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 3:41:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 3:19:19 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/23/2011 2:28:15 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/22/2011 9:54:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's more probable, therefor logical, to accept that aliens exist. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to exist. Scientists are even starting to accept this fact. They have to..it's math.

It is very probable they exist. It is not necessarily probable for them to have reached us.
You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.
It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.

Yes, I agree and have often pondered that thought myself. What would it take? Most evidence of any phenomena that we see or hear is recorded via photo, video, or audio. So any record of such events can be refuted as fake. I personally feel that reality is shaped by belief and believing in certain phenomena fall under this same idea of perception.

I would like to hear other theories though. How would we actually prove such phenomena if it does indeed exist?

Well, that could also be conducted in the debate. Remember, my forum states only "explanation for phenomenon", so you could either explain to disprove or prove the phenomenon in question.

I would say that credibility would have to account for something. If a source is credible then it gives much more weight to the assertion. If an Air Force veteran says that he saw a UFO while he is in the air and he has no doubt, then it gives much more credibility that the assertion is valid. It's the equivalent of a physicist claiming that he saw an object flat out defy gravity right in front of his face and that he was without doubt of it's authenticity. His assertion would be more credible, would it not?

Does anyone agree with this perspective?
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 4:25:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 3:41:28 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:19:19 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/23/2011 2:28:15 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/22/2011 9:54:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's more probable, therefor logical, to accept that aliens exist. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to exist. Scientists are even starting to accept this fact. They have to..it's math.

It is very probable they exist. It is not necessarily probable for them to have reached us.
You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.
It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.

Yes, I agree and have often pondered that thought myself. What would it take? Most evidence of any phenomena that we see or hear is recorded via photo, video, or audio. So any record of such events can be refuted as fake. I personally feel that reality is shaped by belief and believing in certain phenomena fall under this same idea of perception.

I would like to hear other theories though. How would we actually prove such phenomena if it does indeed exist?

Well, that could also be conducted in the debate. Remember, my forum states only "explanation for phenomenon", so you could either explain to disprove or prove the phenomenon in question.

I would say that credibility would have to account for something. If a source is credible then it gives much more weight to the assertion. If an Air Force veteran says that he saw a UFO while he is in the air and he has no doubt, then it gives much more credibility that the assertion is valid. It's the equivalent of a physicist claiming that he saw an object flat out defy gravity right in front of his face and that he was without doubt of it's authenticity. His assertion would be more credible, would it not?

Does anyone agree with this perspective?

I agree. Since we can't fully analyze all those old photos and cases regarding the phenomenons I have listed or other members have discussed, I guess it is down to terms of credibility and, in my view, possibility (rationality).
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 4:34:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 4:25:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:41:28 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 3:19:19 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/23/2011 2:28:15 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/22/2011 9:54:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
It's more probable, therefor logical, to accept that aliens exist. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to exist. Scientists are even starting to accept this fact. They have to..it's math.

It is very probable they exist. It is not necessarily probable for them to have reached us.
You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.
It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.

Yes, I agree and have often pondered that thought myself. What would it take? Most evidence of any phenomena that we see or hear is recorded via photo, video, or audio. So any record of such events can be refuted as fake. I personally feel that reality is shaped by belief and believing in certain phenomena fall under this same idea of perception.

I would like to hear other theories though. How would we actually prove such phenomena if it does indeed exist?

Well, that could also be conducted in the debate. Remember, my forum states only "explanation for phenomenon", so you could either explain to disprove or prove the phenomenon in question.

I would say that credibility would have to account for something. If a source is credible then it gives much more weight to the assertion. If an Air Force veteran says that he saw a UFO while he is in the air and he has no doubt, then it gives much more credibility that the assertion is valid. It's the equivalent of a physicist claiming that he saw an object flat out defy gravity right in front of his face and that he was without doubt of it's authenticity. His assertion would be more credible, would it not?

Does anyone agree with this perspective?

I agree. Since we can't fully analyze all those old photos and cases regarding the phenomenons I have listed or other members have discussed, I guess it is down to terms of credibility and, in my view, possibility (rationality).

I completely agree with you.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 7:35:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.

Why would they, no one does in general. What evidence would you need me to have to convince you that I could invest your money and have a guaranteed simple payback period (continuous) for investments of > $1000.

It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.

Similar evidence that we would have to prove anything living exists. This is a well established fact of biology.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:13:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 7:35:12 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 6:22:43 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

You also made a very interesting point about photo-shop. I agree that even if a decent photo was taken, very few would be convinced by it, such is the nature of people's attitudes towards these things.

Why would they, no one does in general. What evidence would you need me to have to convince you that I could invest your money and have a guaranteed simple payback period (continuous) for investments of > $1000.

It is interesting to consider what kind of evidence would be required to prove they exist and have reached us.

Similar evidence that we would have to prove anything living exists. This is a well established fact of biology.

You are starting to amuse me with the kind of reasoning you keep representing yourself with.

We were talking about credibility.

You wouldn't be able to convince me of anything, because I don't value you as a credible source.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:31:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:13:48 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

We were talking about credibility.

Thaddeus was asking about justification in the post I responded to, this is very different from credibility.

Thaddeus is for example very credible, however based on this fact he would not expect me for example to give him a $500, 000 development grant for residential shallow bed disposal systems simply because he said he had a system which was installable at a net cost of < $15, 000 per unit.

Even though he is credible he can not simple say that and expect the money, it isn't reasonable and would be obvious to him why. I was not sure if he was presenting an actual question or satirizing because the response is obvious and he has the background to make it obvious. Hence the post.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 8:38:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 8:31:36 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/23/2011 8:13:48 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

We were talking about credibility.

Thaddeus was asking about justification in the post I responded to, this is very different from credibility.

Thaddeus is for example very credible, however based on this fact he would not expect me for example to give him a $500, 000 development grant for residential shallow bed disposal systems simply because he said he had a system which was installable at a net cost of < $15, 000 per unit.

Even though he is credible he can not simple say that and expect the money, it isn't reasonable and would be obvious to him why. I was not sure if he was presenting an actual question or satirizing because the response is obvious and he has the background to make it obvious. Hence the post.

I apologize. I thought you were responding to our post about credibility.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 9:12:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Justin, a physicist would not simply cite an observation of something like anti-gravity and expect anyone to take that as a violation of natural law. That would be in violation of the very principles of natural methodology. There is no way you could call yourself a physicist if you would do that as you are not following the scientific method. The method itself also does not allow for justification based on source.

If for example you walked into a presentation and then during the QA session you asked for justification of a claim and the speaker rebuked the question because you were not a scientist/education/young, etc. then again he would be violating natural methodology. It demands that the question be addressed independent of the source so it doesn't matter if you are even a ugrad an he is a distinguished research fellow - if your objections are uncontested then you win.

Now in general people are prone to realize the the less experienced someone is the more likely they made a mistake and have not revolutionized physics but this is obvious to anyone in the field. For example in ugrad studies students constantly perform experiments which fail to support natural laws, they are not however constantly given nobel prizes for it. What happens is that they simply make mistakes and 99% of the time they are not accounting for a systematic variance. In contrast a seasons researcher who hits the same result would immediately do a monte-carlo variance analysis or a quick perturbation simulation.

However, if the ugrad student really pushed on their results they would have to be discounted by some other means than their age/experience. However the very first response is likely to ask them to repeat the experiment and check their calculations. This makes perfect logical sense for the reasons noted in the above and is based in risk analysis.