Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 On Monday, January 5, 2004, at 11:09 AM, wrote: > Message: 5 > Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:29:03 -0000 > " radcsusa " <peakqstr > Re: Sayonara / ET life and vegetarianism > > Thanks for clarifying your remark, though you go further to apparently > condescend to me as some scientifically naive and uneducated twit who > claimed more than I in fact did. > > We necessarily disagree on evidence. Why necessarily? If there is some, let's see it. Oh, yes, there is " evidence " of SOMEthing, but radar traces and such don't cute it, and eyewitless accounts amount to nothing. > I've never " seen " mesons or > bubble chamber trails, but I accept their photos in say a Sci Am > article as reasonable " evidence " . Why? Because other scientists are repeating those experiments and confirming the findings, and peer review keeps everyone honest. Such is not happening in UFOlogy, and isn't even possible. You are citing apples when the topic is oranges. > There is a huge wealth of credible > research by credible scholars, interviews, unhoaxed film, and more. Really? Gee, I've studied this stuff for nearly four decades and I disagree. Show me where this wondrous stockpile is kept. > Anyone with serious interest I refer to things like Timothy Good's > Above Top Secret just for a start. Read it. Good book, but certainly falls on the credulous side of things. And no book proves a damned thing. > Governmental entities with only > indirect interest like the CIA deny conducting any investigation into > matters they research specifically with multimillion dollar budgets > specifically for it. Would you expect them to cop to secret projects? lol > > I argue your reasoning is circular, that there is no credible evidence > because anything claiming ET visitation is real you ipso facto define > as inherently non-credible. At least give the point consideration. Nope. That'd be CSICOP logic, not mine. I'm flatly stating that there is no convincing evidence. There is circumstantial, indirect, tangential evidence, sure. But guess what? Evidence for anything can be faked. We need something like ONE ET, or ONE ET's BODY, or ONE ACTUAL SPACECRAFT with PROVABLE ET aspects. It's just like Bigfoot. Unless and until we have one in hand, it remains hearsay and circumstantial. This is not my fault, nor is it a reclassification of evidence, as you suggest. Shame. If it were it'd be so easy to contradict. > > You suggest my sighting was maybe drone craft or my mind. I listed those only as two among many possibilities, none of which can you prove. See the problem? > Surely you > don't think I never asked myself these questions? I'm sure you've asked often. Doesn't help much, does it? > Drone craft do not > glow bright red How the hell do you know? Oh, and this is actually demonstrably untrue. Ever heard of the A-12? Precursor to the SR-71, looks just like it, but carries a DRONE on top, which looks like a cute little son of SR-71. Both the plane and its drone glow bright red when traveling at mach speeds. In fact, the fuselage gets so hot that the titanium actually reforges itself. The plane lands with skin newer than when it took off. So did its drone, which could go even faster and higher. Your categorical statement is thus refuted with real world facts anyone can confirm. That's how real science works. > nor illuminate clouds as they pass into them Any glowing craft, such as one heated by re-entry, would illuminate a cloud when passing through it. So would, for that matter, a light-emitting hot air balloon, etc. Ever watch planes land in fog? Same thing. > or > execute instantaneous changes of direction. From a single observer's viewpoint it is impossible to determine whether such a maneuver was made. It can look that way from one observer's view, but if triangulate you find the maneuver to have been well within normal parameters. So you cannot know this. Do you see how insufficient a single point observation is? > My imagination? Why not? People hallucinate all the time. And they're always convinced it was real. That's the nature of hallucinations. You cannot demonstrate that it was NOT imagination, which is my sole point. I happen to believe you saw or experienced something, but I'm saying neither you nor I have any way of saying what it might have been. > Sure, > just like I could be imagining the computer in front of me, which I > submit I am not. Silly example. My reception of your signal confirms its existence. That didn't happen during your UFO. > I tried to come up with alternative explanations > after I observed them, and failed. That's the frustrating nature of Fortean phenomena, their transience. > Let me suggest for your > consideration these warn't no stinkin' weather balloons or planet > Venus either, How can you be sure, though? You cannot. > and that you might care to start allowing for if nothing > else the very possibility these babies are definitely for real. Real? Never questioned their " reality " . Only your intepretation, which you seem married to. Why? It's obviously important to you that these things you saw be ET in origin, and intelligently controlled. Interesting testament of faith, but faith-based statements don't add a whit to scientific evidence. We haven't ruled out, for instance, external forces or influences that may have caused you to experience this subjectively. Unless and until we do, and in the absence of any physical evidence to handle, test, and verify, I'm afraid it is reduced to anecdotal and thus insignificant. My own UFO observations fall into this exact situation, too, by the way. > > I all but stated outright for you that the connection between > extraordinary performance craft and ET life What ET life would that be? You're using an imagined solution to solve a problem. That's cheating. Unless and until there are confirmed ETI you cannot cite them as an explanation for this or that. > was indirect; but it's a > far shorter hop once you accept the first; (a) because they're so far > beyond conventional physical technology (laws of momentum, etc.) Nope. We don't know that at all. We know only that you think you saw something defying physics as you know it -- yet I contend that it might as easily have been you being tricked by or fooled by something or someone. And you surely can't argue that your observations are any more reliable than others'? Example: You say it performed maneuvers impossible for any craft we know. Instant reversals, etc. Were there sonic booms? If not, then why would one conclude these " glowing " things were solid? Perhaps they were only light, being cast somehow, from somewhere you didn't spot. Solid things passing through air create specific effects. Extending your argument that it's Magic ET Tech at work, you'll have to now include not only control of a craft that stays together in impossible maneuvers, but that also somehow controls the reality around it, contravening local physics. The explanation grows ever more stretched and less likely. > , and > (b) because of the, I argue, abundant corroborative evidence > consistent with them. No. Corroborative testimony, maybe. No evidence. > I don't challenge you to believe it on my > say-so alone; but kindly in future cease to claim I did when I did not. You're asking us to buy your explanations. I cannot in conscience do that. I do believe you saw or experienced something. No reason to question that. > > Internal terrestrial diversity is a reference to within species; the > account represented the ET's in question as saying that off-world > civilizations are generally far more homogenized. I don't know what you mean. In science fiction novels, you mean? I'd disagree. But either way, we're discussing imaginary beings. It's silly. > > Your claim I claimed they're magic is false; I asserted little more > than advanced use of science. " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke. It was to this that I held reference. > > Believe me, I can make all the arguments against ET contact probably > better than you. I'm not arguing either way. Just observing. > The sun, 6.0x10^5 miles across, if reduced to BB > size, would be about 58 miles from Proxima Centauri; relativistic > limitations, etc. Non sequitur. > You may wish to consider in the hypothetical, if > nowhere else, that a civilization in existence for, e.g., 600 million > years, may be capable of bypassing those restrictions with continuum > alteration and better harnessing of the fundamental forces. Why? Maybe they've had six hundred million years of enjoying thermal mud baths and lolling about in gelatin. Why does time alone give them an impetus toward technological breakthroughs? For all we know, we're unique in that. Scary thought, but maybe less scary than the obvioius alternative. And I've read science fiction for decades too, so I know the wrinkles and variants. > > You take this further off-topic than I intended, and we don't need to > prolong it. My key point was ultimately the moral logic of an > advanced civilization evolving into vegetarianism; on this, perhaps, > we may agree. Morality is based on references to an established dogma. I see no reason why there would be a universal one. Everything being relative, I'd say it' s unlikely we'll ever find another intelligence that agrees with even the slightest of our moral bigotries and provincial ethics. > > We are so fond of being out among nature because it has no opinions about us. -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Oh this is a fun discussion! It is sort of like being on my paranormal list with you again. *lol* Anyway, good show and I agree with your thoughts on this subject.... but still I WANT to believe! I still also hold to my opinion that cats are alien greys in a clever disguise. Also, bigfoot is real and lives somewhere in my backyard. Yes, he sure does! ;] ~ PT ~ Since 'tis Nature's law to change, Constancy alone is strange. ~ John Wilmot ~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~~~~~> , The Stewarts <stews9@c...> wrote: > Nope. That'd be CSICOP logic, not mine. I'm flatly stating that there is > no convincing evidence. There is circumstantial, indirect, tangential > evidence, sure. But guess what? Evidence for anything can be faked. We > need something like ONE ET, or ONE ET's BODY, or ONE ACTUAL SPACECRAFT > with PROVABLE ET aspects. > > It's just like Bigfoot. Unless and until we have one in hand, it remains > hearsay and circumstantial. This is not my fault, nor is it a > reclassification of evidence, as you suggest. Shame. If it were it'd be > so easy to contradict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 , The Stewarts <stews9@c...> wrote: > > On Monday, January 5, 2004, at 11:09 AM, > wrote: > > > Message: 5 > > Mon, 05 Jan 2004 03:29:03 -0000 > > " radcsusa " <peakqstr@n...> > > Re: Sayonara / ET life and vegetarianism > > > > Thanks for clarifying your remark, though you go further to apparently > > condescend to me as some scientifically naive and uneducated twit who > > claimed more than I in fact did. Here you're not trying to claim you didn't even notice me as you did in your post preceding. Whether you intended anything personal by it is naturally different, but I tend to ignore personal stuff in preference for factual content anyway, and the condescension is evident enough in your first post, though perhaps a pardonable lapse. > > We necessarily disagree on evidence. > > Why necessarily? If there is some, let's see it. Oh, yes, there is > " evidence " of SOMEthing, but radar traces and such don't cute it, and > eyewitness accounts amount to nothing. The necessity arises from our different definitions of what constitutes it. I accept the Big Bang e.g. in spite of the fact it will not be repeatedly replicated in my lifetime. Science does not, contrary to myth, consist solely of precise moles in beakers: it has loads of holistic and fuzzy-edged, subjective fields from psychology to economics to anthropology and a dozen more where people piece together disparate and inconclusive data to argue to likelihoods, and which are not for that reason less science. As for eyewitness accounts amounting to nothing, that boils down to asserting that if out of a randomly chosen pool of 1000 subjects, 995 of them agree regarding observable details of an event, the scientific worth of that datum is zero. That I dismiss as bunk, -- and the kind of difference regarding evidence that makes our respective viewpoints so difficult to reconcile. > > I've never " seen " mesons or > > bubble chamber trails, but I accept their photos in say a Sci Am > > article as reasonable " evidence " . > > Why? Because other scientists are repeating those experiments and > confirming the findings, and peer review keeps everyone honest. Such is > not happening in UFOlogy, and isn't even possible. You are citing apples > when the topic is oranges. Your " isn't even possible " is a positive assertion of the kind of unprovable you try to fault me for. Then you seem to deliberately ignore the bigger-picture factors like the fact that any scientist who so little as investigates, let alone claims evidence exists, is for that very reason subjected to intense peer derision and professional ceiling, irrespective of the merit, and people like John Mack and Leo Sprinkle are the exceptions that prove the very rule. I contend you also overlook, somewhat crucially, *documentable* government coverup agendas to suppress, selectively intimidate and in instances snuff, ET contact evidence; to investigate while denying, largely for (not wholly groundless) concern the population at large is unprepared to handle the reality of contact. The UFO craft that overflew DC openly in the 50's, which were not in any way mistakable for conventional craft, were seen by hundreds if not thousands of witnesses, yet they probably got less followup research, in spite of their arguably far greater cosmological import than say one single alleged proton decay. Predjudice today is not terribly different from the Ptolemaic scientific dogma that derided Copernicanism. Suum cuique. > > There is a huge wealth of credible > > research by credible scholars, interviews, unhoaxed film, and more. > > Really? Gee, I've studied this stuff for nearly four decades and I > disagree. Show me where this wondrous stockpile is kept. Here's this wonderful resource called the internet. Sure you have to sort through lot of fluff along the way (though recall the line about tabloids in Men in Black ;-) ), and yes it's sizeable, but a little basic horse sense, and you'll stumble across resources like http://www.ufoevidence.org or http://disclosureproject.org. I concur with the scientists and astronauts who believe these things are not, as you do, thousands of bizarrely mysterious " inexplicables " . 'Scuse the X-files echo, but objective truth is out there and exists. > > Anyone with serious interest I refer to things like Timothy Good's > > Above Top Secret just for a start. > > Read it. Good book, but certainly falls on the credulous side of things. > And no book proves a damned thing. Gee, so have I, and curiously, I disagree with your credulous characterization. I contend it's untenable to think you can dismiss every single account in there as imagination. I've met commercial pilots who see these things fly their discrete patterns, simlutaneous with their crews, who would laugh you out the room. Your " no book proves " contention is false; I could prove root two irrational on only one page. I suggest you're in effect defining nothing as truly provable. > > Governmental entities with only > > indirect interest like the CIA deny conducting any investigation into > > matters they research specifically with multimillion dollar budgets > > specifically for it. > > Would you expect them to cop to secret projects? lol No, but your answer proves you easily distracted off a main point. Confronted with the evidence, they indict themselves to believe something's very definitely real, and to want to stifle its evidence, that you claim doesn't even exist. > > I argue your reasoning is circular, that there is no credible evidence > > because anything claiming ET visitation is real you ipso facto define > > as inherently non-credible. At least give the point consideration. > > Nope. That'd be CSICOP logic, not mine. I'm flatly stating that there is > no convincing evidence. There is circumstantial, indirect, tangential > evidence, sure. But guess what? Evidence for anything can be faked. We > need something like ONE ET, or ONE ET's BODY, or ONE ACTUAL SPACECRAFT > with PROVABLE ET aspects. If that too can be faked, what'd be the point? You appeal for an " absolute " certainty even you yourself deny is possible. We're back to our definition of evidence again. Your contention reduces to null hypothesis: if a craft landed on the White House lawn, it'd still be possible to fake it, and in twenty scant years you might claim even the DNA might conceivably somehow be synthesized. > It's just like Bigfoot. Unless and until we have one in hand, it remains > hearsay and circumstantial. This is not my fault, nor is it a > reclassification of evidence, as you suggest. Shame. If it were it'd be > so easy to contradict. Definition issue again; I continue to assert it's classification still. > > You suggest my sighting was maybe drone craft or my mind. > > I listed those only as two among many possibilities, none of which can you > prove. See the problem? My point was I considered many more than your two, including whether air masses might have created a complex lensatic effect with sunlight, and I was forced to concede to the true Occam's razor here. > > Surely you > > don't think I never asked myself these questions? > > I'm sure you've asked often. Doesn't help much, does it? > > > Drone craft do not > > glow bright red > > How the hell do you know? Oh, and this is actually demonstrably untrue. > Ever heard of the A-12? Precursor to the SR-71, looks just like it, but > carries a DRONE on top, which looks like a cute little son of SR-71. Both > the plane and its drone glow bright red when traveling at mach speeds. In > fact, the fuselage gets so hot that the titanium actually reforges itself. > The plane lands with skin newer than when it took off. > So did its drone, which could go even faster and higher. How the hell I know, and there's your ignorance of me and condescension again, is I know the difference between a blackbird or reentering Apollo capsule on the one hand, and three distinct craft at approximately 3-5 miles moving at speeds of on the order of a few hundred miles per hour, which would not generate the effect you describe and are consistent with both film and credible witnesses. That's how. > Your categorical statement is thus refuted with real world facts anyone > can confirm. That's how real science works. My statement implied the specific context I referred to and therefore was NOT categorical (straw man argument by you, sight). Your " refutation " is thus refuted, and THAT's how real science works. > > nor illuminate clouds as they pass into them > > Any glowing craft, such as one heated by re-entry, would illuminate a > cloud when passing through it. So would, for that matter, a > light-emitting hot air balloon, etc. Ever watch planes land in fog? Same > thing. Absurdly self-evidently, but at the speed I observed, my refutation of your drone/plane alternative holds fast. At this intensity of glow, the titanium off an SR-71 skin would melt and peel, and it was closer to a cherry or laser-pointer red than orange. I've never seen a hot-air balloon emit light; one could easily be made to, but that explanation too (pun intended) deflates. These were no planes (and oh yes, I dismiss swamp gas too *g*). > > or > > execute instantaneous changes of direction. > > From a single observer's viewpoint it is impossible to determine whether > such a maneuver was made. It can look that way from one observer's view, > but if triangulate you find the maneuver to have been well within normal > parameters. So you cannot know this. Do you see how insufficient a > single point observation is? Bunk. We're talking approximately ten hairpin turns, which in toto moot your feeble " viewpoint " objection, and whether the angles were obtuse or acute is irrelevant to my laws of momentum point. Loads of radar stations have tracked these independently too. These ARE a reality, their nature is in the main consistent, they've been filmed, and no discomforted appeals to hallucination will make them go away. > > My imagination? > > Why not? People hallucinate all the time. SOME people do all the time; to claim ALL do all the time distorts the fact. And they're always convinced > it was real. Also false; many doubt, and most are equipped with a statistically healthy ability to differentiate most of the time. The fact you MIGHT confuse a dream for a memory is no proof you're wholly incompetent to try. And loads of flights have had multiple human witnesses from multiple angles too. > That's the nature of hallucinations. You cannot demonstrate > that it was NOT imagination, which is my sole point. Duh. On the other hand, I'm perfectly capable of submitting my own observational evidence to close analysis, which I do independently of your objections. I happen to believe > you saw or experienced something, but I'm saying neither you nor I have > any way of saying what it might have been. To me the evidence weathered strong internal skepticism and challenge and survived. There IS a difference. The fact you've never seen a small stone monument in my town, irrespective of the fact you can't accept it exists because I say it does, does not change the fact it exists. > > Sure, > > just like I could be imagining the computer in front of me, which I > > submit I am not. > > Silly example. My reception of your signal confirms its existence. That > didn't happen during your UFO. Not silly at all. To you I'm a string of text on a computer screen and could even be a pathological liar or a sophisticated bot. Your own " people hallucinate all the time " argument itself countervails. > > I tried to come up with alternative explanations > > after I observed them, and failed. > > That's the frustrating nature of Fortean phenomena, their transience. If you disregard all other factors in the problem I've alluded to, perhaps; otherwise I hold again they're less Fortean than you claim. > > Let me suggest for your > > consideration these warn't no stinkin' weather balloons or planet > > Venus either, > > How can you be sure, though? You cannot. I beg to point out that unless you claim weather balloons and Venus possess no falsiably distinct characteristics, or that Venus executes multidirectional instant delta-V's and flies into clouds, I can indeed. QED. > > and that you might care to start allowing for if nothing > > else the very possibility these babies are definitely for real. > > Real? Never questioned their " reality " . Only your intepretation, which > you seem married to. Why? It's obviously important to you that these > things you saw be ET in origin, and intelligently controlled. Interesting > testament of faith, but faith-based statements don't add a whit to > scientific evidence. We haven't ruled out, for instance, external forces > or influences that may have caused you to experience this subjectively. > Unless and until we do, and in the absence of any physical evidence to > handle, test, and verify, I'm afraid it is reduced to anecdotal and thus > insignificant. Why? My best scientific deductive processes. I could just as easily counterargue it's " obviously important to *you* that these things...[not] be ET " in origin, and it'd be just as petty and trite. I was simply finally willing to accede to the cogent in SPITE, not on account, of my preconceptions. And every data point is an " anecdote " . Few bother to add them together and interpolate, and their lives proceed contentedly. But perhaps everything in its time. > My own UFO observations fall into this exact situation, too, by the way. > > I believe that not better knowing the comparative characters of our observations, you can't claim this. All observational quality has lesser and greater. > > I all but stated outright for you that the connection between > > extraordinary performance craft and ET life > > What ET life would that be? You're using an imagined solution to solve a > problem. That's cheating. Unless and until there are confirmed ETI you > cannot cite them as an explanation for this or that. We're back to the character of evidence again, and you already know my reply in answer to " imagined " , but this time you're ignoring it more deliberately. That IS cheating. > > was indirect; but it's a > > far shorter hop once you accept the first; (a) because they're so far > > beyond conventional physical technology (laws of momentum, etc.) > > Nope. We don't know that at all. We know only that you think you saw > something defying physics as you know it -- yet I contend that it might as > easily have been you being tricked by or fooled by something or someone. I have a friend who faked a " ufo " enough to scramble Canadian jets into a scramble. I know the difference just fine, and to argue otherwise is like saying I can't look at Jupiter at an overhead ascension and claim it's not Venus since they're both bright lights. > And you surely can't argue that your observations are any more reliable > than others'? I'd plainly have to examine both to say, wouldn't I? > Example: You say it performed maneuvers impossible for any craft we know. > Instant reversals, etc. Were there sonic booms? No. But I can make effectively instant change at other subsonic speeds without booms too, or alter the nature of instant just enough at that distance (while still defying momentum). And your " necessity " also overlooks the large unknown character/variable of the very nature of the travel that permits that in the first place, of which you are even more ignorant than I. Open variables; objection fails. > If not, then why would > one conclude these " glowing " things were solid? Perhaps they were only > light, being cast somehow, from somewhere you didn't spot. They would have to have been projected onto something reflective, and there was none in the clear air they travelled through. Holographic projections like in Star Wars, even with independet reference and inference beam sources, do not today exist. > Solid things > passing through air create specific effects. Extending your argument that > it's Magic ET Tech at work, you'll have to now include not only control of > a craft that stays together in impossible maneuvers, but that also somehow > controls the reality around it, contravening local physics. The > explanation grows ever more stretched and less likely. Beside my answers preceding, it's actually not that difficult conceptually once you investigate some of the theoretical physical explanations suggested for them. But for you to suggest I don't already grasp your point and allude to Magic ET Tech is silly, childish, and trite by you, shortening my interest in this exchange. You're more interested in dominance-asserting verbal dexterity than honest investigation. Fine. > > > , and > > (b) because of the, I argue, abundant corroborative evidence > > consistent with them. > > No. Corroborative testimony, maybe. No evidence. Another deliberate choice to ignore my " I argue " qualifier. How far can we get when you ignore such details in front of your face? Same point as the preceding. > > I don't challenge you to believe it on my > > say-so alone; but kindly in future cease to claim I did when I did not. > > You're asking us to buy your explanations. I cannot in conscience do that. Your prerogative. Not an emotion issue for me, but I still enjoin you to be as open to the concept this was real as I tried to be it wasn't. > I do believe you saw or experienced something. No reason to question > that. > > > > Internal terrestrial diversity is a reference to within species; the > > account represented the ET's in question as saying that off-world > > civilizations are generally far more homogenized. > > I don't know what you mean. In science fiction novels, you mean? I'd > disagree. But either way, we're discussing imaginary beings. It's silly. No, I specifically referenced the account I referred to the first time. As for your unqualified assertion they are positively imaginary, that's the very kind of unsustained claim (again) you fault me for. Double standard, faulty science again. > > Your claim I claimed they're magic is false; I asserted little more > > than advanced use of science. > > " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from > magic. " -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke. It was to this that I held reference. Yet you made your assertion as the very categorical you objected to. By that " logic " , the fake " turkey " and " sausage " in my fridge are not only straight out of Star Trek but effectively voodoo to boot. > > Believe me, I can make all the arguments against ET contact probably > > better than you. > > I'm not arguing either way. Just observing. > > > The sun, 6.0x10^5 miles across, if reduced to BB > > size, would be about 58 miles from Proxima Centauri; relativistic > > limitations, etc. > > Non sequitur. To what? It followed nothing, it simply made two of the arguments against. (And p.s.; my first recollection was slightly in haste, it's more like 864,000 miles, though not having measured the Sun directly, I didn't claim for the figure the authority I do for my recollection.) > > You may wish to consider in the hypothetical, if > > nowhere else, that a civilization in existence for, e.g., 600 million > > years, may be capable of bypassing those restrictions with continuum > > alteration and better harnessing of the fundamental forces. > > Why? Maybe they've had six hundred million years of enjoying thermal mud > baths and lolling about in gelatin. Why do you again ignore the fact I alluded to *possibility* rather than certitude? > Why does time alone give them an > impetus toward technological breakthroughs? Notwithstanding the self-destruction variable in Drake, we extrapolate some information as likely based on comparative evidence. Darwinian evolution is only one example. > For all we know, we're unique > in that. Scary thought, but maybe less scary than the obvioius > alternative. See second answer preceding. > And I've read science fiction for decades too, so I know the wrinkles and > variants. > > > > You take this further off-topic than I intended, and we don't need to > > prolong it. My key point was ultimately the moral logic of an > > advanced civilization evolving into vegetarianism; on this, perhaps, > > we may agree. > > Morality is based on references to an established dogma. I see no reason > why there would be a universal one. By that line of argument, you refute the validity of relative value in your own vegetarianism. Civilization, however slow, still seems a stubborn thing. > Everything being relative, I'd say it' > s unlikely we'll ever find another intelligence that agrees with even the > slightest of our moral bigotries and provincial ethics. The same kind of jump again you don't accept from me, though to your credit, this time you do qualify it as an opinion. Like I said, it all reverts to our definitions of evidence, like my hypothetical 1000x data sample above. You say zero evidence exists; I say by that line, a huge chunk of scientific extrapolation fails as evidence. You say all accounts are anecdotal and uncorroborated; I say they aren't. You say every amateur video is either faked or a useless dot; I strongly differ. You say radar data means nothing; I say when it flies at ten thousand miles an hour along a US coast and then takes off vertically at the same speed, it is a stubborn reality that does not disappear simply because you find it inconvenient or are incapable of supplying the explanation I argue is compelling and exists. I repeat, we necessarily agree to disagree. I find our exchanges, after this many hours, are adequate of themselves and find further discussion likely pointless; you may perhaps come to share the view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.