For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
And how, prey tell, is that the case?Conde Lucanor wrote:It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.
Conde Lucanor wrote:It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.
Some that come to mind:SpheresOfBalance wrote:And how, prey tell, is that the case?Conde Lucanor wrote:It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.
Expound your common sense logic.
A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.Conde Lucanor wrote:SoB in blueSpheresOfBalance wrote:And how, prey tell, is that the case?Conde Lucanor wrote:It's not only lack of evidence. UFOlogy defies common sense.
Expound your common sense logic.
Some that come to mind:
1) A basic assumption from the UFO myth is that there are human-like civilizations in other parts of the universe.
First you mentioned "Ufology," which is simply the study of unidentified flying objects. Which are objects that appear to be flying, that have gone unidentified, simple. So anything, that meets that criteria can in fact be a UFO.
But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.
Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?
At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model. But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.
That we know of, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, and Kepler is currently finding all kinds of planets, such that there is some probability of ET life. I saw some figures once, though they presently escape me, that some scientist calculated, which indicated that there is high probability that there is life on other planets. It was purely a number thing, which I'm not good a memorizing, and it was some time ago.
As the only civilization we know of is our human civilization, and that civilization is the product of a contingent (non-teleological) natural history, as well as of a contingent cultural evolution, people who believe in alien civilizations are implicitly favoring the idea that those worlds went through exactly the same physical, biological and cultural process as on Earth. It's not only that life emerged, which is always a reasonable possibilty, but that it went through the same path of geological and biological eras, and that living systems evolved almost just the same, until producing complex organisms with central nervous systems, a lymbic system, etc., and eventually one of those groups of organisms would develop a neocortex and other features typical of hominids (like innate capabilites for reasoning, creativiy, language, etc.), all of which would be necessary to develop their societies to the point that they can build intergalactic spaceships. You have to think of a linear, unidirectional process, where the very existence of hominids guarantees the devolopment of highly technological societies. These coincidences are, of course, very unlikely, and more likely to represent our anthropocentric views of the universe.
2) The UFO phenomenon is undoubtedly a mass media phenomenon. It didn't come up in the public sphere until the science fiction genre had been well established, evolving from H.G. Wells to Buck Rogers in the first half of the 20th Century. Then came the Kenneth Arnold sightings and the subject exploded as mass hysteria. Before that, the UFO phenomenon didn't even exist. In terms of the amount of claims and the timing that results from the Drake equation and the history of mankind, this sudden "Cambrian explosion" of alien spaceships, doesn't make sense.
Actually there are some that swear that cave paintings, other forms of ancient art, and writings, seem to represent humanoids flying in "Chariots of the Gods," (<- a book that was written about it). I've seen the imagery and agree that they could be 'interpreted' that way.
3) And now it exists only as part of a subculture of "the unknown" and conspiracy theories, all advanced by people lacking any scientific methodology, ranging from hoaxers to naive aficionados. No wonder why the only scientific paper devoted to the subject, delivered by the University of Colorado, dismissed the genre as nothing to add to scientific knowledge.
Disinformation is in fact a real tactic employed by various governments. While I cannot say with certainty that any is being applied in this instance, I can see some possible reasons why it might be. Namely, the potential for loss of control.
4) Interesting to note that before the 80's, the phenotypical features of aliens was heterogenous: tall, short, hairy, non-hairy, small eyes, big eyes, etc. Suddenly, after a few alien movies and the infamous "UFO Cover-up? Live!" pseudo-documentary, aired in 1988, all aliens have become pretty much alike.
See my wrap up below, after your quote
5) How about the problem of language? Telepathy? Come on!!!
The human body and mind emits and utilizes electromagnetic energy, (EM), even producing coronal discharge and infrared energy (a specific frequency of EM). Radio waves are a specific band of EM energy, that are either frequency or amplitude modulated to give us music on the air waves. Sure for humans it's futuristically possible, as how could anyone profess to know what shall or shall not be included in the future, as the word conjures up infinity.
6) And the funniest of all reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhqkYEjU8U
Within the first minute I heard them spout logical falsehoods.
Yeah, keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel more comfortable. The bottom line is that within the space of 45 minutes while the "cigar-shaped craft" followed the airliner, every single stewardess on that plane would have shot multiple photographs of it with her cellphone.Arising_uk wrote:Funny and sadly true.SpheresOfBalance wrote:I know the answer to this one, the reason there is no cellphone UFO evidence, is because no one is looking up anymore, because they have their heads buried in their cellphone LCD screens, texting friends on their social network; look up and miss something really important, are you kidding me.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.
Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?
At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model. But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.
The advanced civilization from distant star system has mastered inter-stellar travel. They have come all the way to earth to insert weird metal things under people's skin and put probes in their anus. They also need some organs surgically removed from cattle. They can remove them with laser cutting tools that man does not yet understand.Conde Lucanor wrote:6) And the funniest of all reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhqkYEjU8U
SpheresOfBalance wrote:A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.Conde Lucanor wrote: 6) And the funniest of all reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EhqkYEjU8U
Within the first minute I heard them spout logical falsehoods.
You forgot something, actually the aliens are privy to our technologies, and have adapted new ones of their own, as they really don't like having their pictures taken.Kuznetzova wrote:Yeah, keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel more comfortable. The bottom line is that within the space of 45 minutes while the "cigar-shaped craft" followed the airliner, every single stewardess on that plane would have shot multiple photographs of it with her cellphone.Arising_uk wrote:Funny and sadly true.SpheresOfBalance wrote:
You have a choice. Either you can admit this, or you can retreat back to your comforting delusions.
When you mention that it's "the study of...", you give the subject a tone of seriousness and objectivity that it doesn't have. UFOlogy is not anything near a scientific discipline, nor another field of knowledge, it does not intend so. It will allow any criteria that fits it mythical narrative. It's like saying that Astrology is the study of something or that looking for fairies in the garden is an actual scientific research activity.SpheresOfBalance wrote:First you mentioned "Ufology," which is simply the study of unidentified flying objects. Which are objects that appear to be flying, that have gone unidentified, simple. So anything, that meets that criteria can in fact be a UFO.
Yes, of course there are some variations of the myth. A myth is flexible enough to accommodate almost any possible cases or scenarios, but the core principle of UFOlogy is about alien civilizations visiting Earth with spaceships. Let's not confuse, however, UFO with SETI. SETI is not about any phenomenon, actually its highly theoretical and speculative nature is about the absence of any physical phenomenon that could lead us to believe in activities from alien civilizations. You perhaps can make a speculative case about SETI, but it has very little to do with spaceships traveling to Earth.SpheresOfBalance wrote:But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.
The problem is that there's no ET case from the perspective of UFOlogy, just as there is no flying pink unicorns case. But you can make an "ET case" based on the claim that they are actually pink unicorns disguised as interstellar travelers. The ET case can be anything. The ET case from the SETI perspective is something else, although UFOlogists will base their unsubstantiated claims about alien visitors on SETI speculations: "there can be other civilizations, therefore they're coming to Earth in spaceships, abducting people".SpheresOfBalance wrote:Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?
You can certainly wish or have high hopes that it turns out that way, but so far there's no support to that claim (I mean, other than "anything is possible").SpheresOfBalance wrote:At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model.
Very unlikely that everything that happened of Earth just repeated elsewhere exactly the same. You seem to entertain the notion that human-like organisms just flourish easily anywhere, but you only have evidence of that happening in just one place, under contingent conditions that are highly improbable, or at least very difficult to repeat. Humans might have not evolved if dinosaurs were decimated by a large cataclysm, and yet you wouldn't expect dinosaurs to end up designing and building spaceships.SpheresOfBalance wrote:But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.
That's the Drake equation, related to SETI (not necessarily to UFOlogy), which is just speculation about conditions on Earth being repeated somewhere else. But it also works against the case of ET and thus has been counteracted by the Fermi paradox (if there are so many, why we're still alone?). Considering the age and vastness of the universe, and the possible cycles of emergence and disappearance of civilizations, even if they emerged in several places, the chances of ever being in contact one with another could be minimum. But in any case, please note again that this is typical SETI speculation, very little to do with UFOlogy.SpheresOfBalance wrote:That we know of, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, and Kepler is currently finding all kinds of planets, such that there is some probability of ET life. I saw some figures once, though they presently escape me, that some scientist calculated, which indicated that there is high probability that there is life on other planets. It was purely a number thing, which I'm not good a memorizing, and it was some time ago.
You cannot support claims about extraterrestrial voyages with a well known hoaxer like Von Daniken. He's just an aficionado who makes money selling books to naive, gullible people, eager for fantastic stories. Thery are not scientific studies, nor anything like that. If you want a scientific study, look for the Ed Condon report (oh yes, of course, he's part of the conspiracy, right?). Besides, common sense will tell us that if intergalactic voyagers were visiting Earth on spaceships, people would just tell so, they wouldn't hide it under "enigmatic" hieroglyphics that just "look like" something. The history of writing goes back to around 3,500 years, enough time to put on record such events as UFOlogist claim, yet there's nothing. Not the Egyptians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Arabs, no one in Middle Age or Renaissance Europe, nobody ever saw anything until Kenneth Arnold in 1947. Not even in societies willing to entertain fantastic tales. Does that make sense?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Actually there are some that swear that cave paintings, other forms of ancient art, and writings, seem to represent humanoids flying in "Chariots of the Gods," (<- a book that was written about it). I've seen the imagery and agree that they could be 'interpreted' that way.
The Condon report was submitted by a well known scientist from the University of Colorado. And since our subject here is common sense, well...you can extend my claim about UFOlogy to government conspiracy theories: they defy common sense, too.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Disinformation is in fact a real tactic employed by various governments. While I cannot say with certainty that any is being applied in this instance, I can see some possible reasons why it might be. Namely, the potential for loss of control.
That doesn't seem to be anything close to a proof about the existence or possibility of telepathy.SpheresOfBalance wrote:The human body and mind emits and utilizes electromagnetic energy, (EM), even producing coronal discharge and infrared energy (a specific frequency of EM). Radio waves are a specific band of EM energy, that are either frequency or amplitude modulated to give us music on the air waves.
So, we cannot be for sure that pink unicorns will not appear in the future, right? Maybe, but it defies common sense.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sure for humans it's futuristically possible, as how could anyone profess to know what shall or shall not be included in the future, as the word conjures up infinity.
But I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about common sense. Proof is the subject for those who claim the existence of something, and since UFOlogy has never being able to submit any material, concrete evidence, to support its claims, I rest my case and will advocate for my right to be skeptical about those claims. Common sense will not prove anything, not even that there are no little garden fairies, but still is common sense.SpheresOfBalance wrote:A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.
Not gone, but can't answer today, too much to do, I'll return tomorrow, May 24, or let you know otherwise, so as to finally answer here, in the place of this text.Conde Lucanor wrote:When you mention that it's "the study of...", you give the subject a tone of seriousness and objectivity that it doesn't have. UFOlogy is not anything near a scientific discipline, nor another field of knowledge, it does not intend so. It will allow any criteria that fits it mythical narrative. It's like saying that Astrology is the study of something or that looking for fairies in the garden is an actual scientific research activity.SpheresOfBalance wrote:First you mentioned "Ufology," which is simply the study of unidentified flying objects. Which are objects that appear to be flying, that have gone unidentified, simple. So anything, that meets that criteria can in fact be a UFO.
Yes, of course there are some variations of the myth. A myth is flexible enough to accommodate almost any possible cases or scenarios, but the core principle of UFOlogy is about alien civilizations visiting Earth with spaceships. Let's not confuse, however, UFO with SETI. SETI is not about any phenomenon, actually its highly theoretical and speculative nature is about the absence of any physical phenomenon that could lead us to believe in activities from alien civilizations. You perhaps can make a speculative case about SETI, but it has very little to do with spaceships traveling to Earth.SpheresOfBalance wrote:But OK, you specifically are referring to those that some attribute to Extra Terrestrials (ET's); not of this planet. In that case I'm having problems with "basic," "the" and "human-like," as you seem to be lending those believers credibility, if only in that this, "the UFO myth," of which you've referenced, is the only way the case can be.
In the case of UFO's (assuming there's a case), there is not such phenomenon either, there's nothing physically happening which would need theories and explanations (i.e. they are coming from Earth, etc.), but there's a mythological narrative based on claims about the existence of a phenomenon, never supported by evidence, nor common sense.
The problem is that there's no ET case from the perspective of UFOlogy, just as there is no flying pink unicorns case. But you can make an "ET case" based on the claim that they are actually pink unicorns disguised as interstellar travelers. The ET case can be anything. The ET case from the SETI perspective is something else, although UFOlogists will base their unsubstantiated claims about alien visitors on SETI speculations: "there can be other civilizations, therefore they're coming to Earth in spaceships, abducting people".SpheresOfBalance wrote:Does everybody agree that in fact there is only one way that the ET case can be? Anybody?
You can certainly wish or have high hopes that it turns out that way, but so far there's no support to that claim (I mean, other than "anything is possible").SpheresOfBalance wrote:At least I see, that as to the possibility of there actually being ET's, they could exist however the universe allows; that we are not necessarily the only model.
Very unlikely that everything that happened of Earth just repeated elsewhere exactly the same. You seem to entertain the notion that human-like organisms just flourish easily anywhere, but you only have evidence of that happening in just one place, under contingent conditions that are highly improbable, or at least very difficult to repeat. Humans might have not evolved if dinosaurs were decimated by a large cataclysm, and yet you wouldn't expect dinosaurs to end up designing and building spaceships.SpheresOfBalance wrote:But that being said, I see no reason why humanoids can't exist elsewhere, as there could be some universal predisposition, that as yet humans are not privy.
That's the Drake equation, related to SETI (not necessarily to UFOlogy), which is just speculation about conditions on Earth being repeated somewhere else. But it also works against the case of ET and thus has been counteracted by the Fermi paradox (if there are so many, why we're still alone?). Considering the age and vastness of the universe, and the possible cycles of emergence and disappearance of civilizations, even if they emerged in several places, the chances of ever being in contact one with another could be minimum. But in any case, please note again that this is typical SETI speculation, very little to do with UFOlogy.SpheresOfBalance wrote:That we know of, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, and Kepler is currently finding all kinds of planets, such that there is some probability of ET life. I saw some figures once, though they presently escape me, that some scientist calculated, which indicated that there is high probability that there is life on other planets. It was purely a number thing, which I'm not good a memorizing, and it was some time ago.
You cannot support claims about extraterrestrial voyages with a well known hoaxer like Von Daniken. He's just an aficionado who makes money selling books to naive, gullible people, eager for fantastic stories. Thery are not scientific studies, nor anything like that. If you want a scientific study, look for the Ed Condon report (oh yes, of course, he's part of the conspiracy, right?). Besides, common sense will tell us that if intergalactic voyagers were visiting Earth on spaceships, people would just tell so, they wouldn't hide it under "enigmatic" hieroglyphics that just "look like" something. The history of writing goes back to around 3,500 years, enough time to put on record such events as UFOlogist claim, yet there's nothing. Not the Egyptians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Arabs, no one in Middle Age or Renaissance Europe, nobody ever saw anything until Kenneth Arnold in 1947. Not even in societies willing to entertain fantastic tales. Does that make sense?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Actually there are some that swear that cave paintings, other forms of ancient art, and writings, seem to represent humanoids flying in "Chariots of the Gods," (<- a book that was written about it). I've seen the imagery and agree that they could be 'interpreted' that way.
The Condon report was submitted by a well known scientist from the University of Colorado. And since our subject here is common sense, well...you can extend my claim about UFOlogy to government conspiracy theories: they defy common sense, too.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Disinformation is in fact a real tactic employed by various governments. While I cannot say with certainty that any is being applied in this instance, I can see some possible reasons why it might be. Namely, the potential for loss of control.
That doesn't seem to be anything close to a proof about the existence or possibility of telepathy.SpheresOfBalance wrote:The human body and mind emits and utilizes electromagnetic energy, (EM), even producing coronal discharge and infrared energy (a specific frequency of EM). Radio waves are a specific band of EM energy, that are either frequency or amplitude modulated to give us music on the air waves.
So, we cannot be for sure that pink unicorns will not appear in the future, right? Maybe, but it defies common sense.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sure for humans it's futuristically possible, as how could anyone profess to know what shall or shall not be included in the future, as the word conjures up infinity.
But I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about common sense. Proof is the subject for those who claim the existence of something, and since UFOlogy has never being able to submit any material, concrete evidence, to support its claims, I rest my case and will advocate for my right to be skeptical about those claims. Common sense will not prove anything, not even that there are no little garden fairies, but still is common sense.SpheresOfBalance wrote:A common fallacy, is to state that something can't be proven, because as of yet, it hasn't been; that because some, so called, proofs have been proven otherwise, there can be no proof, thus ones definitive statement of impossibility.
In the sociology of knowledge, "common sense" does have a connotation of "common knowledge", which represents the generalized assumptions of the man of the street, and is also deeply related to "ideology" or "false consciousness". But that's not what I've meant.SpheresOfBalance wrote:I shall continue to argue that the possibility of ET's is not in conflict with "common sense," rather "common knowledge," is that of which you speak, which are two different things...
Regardless of the fact that, as explained above, surveys don't define what common sense is, these surveys doesn't seem to be accurate. We may add that your interpretation goes a lot further from what the report actually says.SpheresOfBalance wrote:It would seem that at least the "Common Sense" of the UK and America believe in ET's.
As a 2012 in the UK a survey says that 52% believe in UFO's thus ET's according to your previous statements. In America a 2005 survey shows that 66% believe in life on other planets.
"The survey, conducted by Opinion Matters, revealed the following statistics among those surveyed:
52 percent believe UFO evidence has been covered up because widespread knowledge of their existence would threaten government stability."
See Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 68259.html
Please refer to my definitions above. A widespread, popular belief, does not account for common sense.SpheresOfBalance wrote:As to Americans:
"While most depictions of extraterrestrials are confined to science fiction, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that some form of alien life exists somewhere in the universe, according to a new survey."
See Link: http://www.space.com/1150-americans-ali ... shows.html
See Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fDyr_FDZiI
It would seem that the "common sense" of at least the UK and the US, stands behind the belief in ET's.
