psychic chess masters

dictionary

UFO unidentified flying object that usually appear blurred in all the photographies which have not being photoshopped, their objetive is usually the White House, their sightings are a good bussiness for some smarties, including Steven Spielberg and some best-sellers authors

   pdela and trysts (she licks)

pdela wrote:

UFO unidentified flying object that usually appear blurred in all the photographies which have not being photoshopped, their objetive is usually the White House, their sightings are a good bussiness for some smarties, including Steven Spielberg and some best-sellers authors

-----------------

reflectivist replied (from his iPhone):

What's strange to me is the implicit statistical references skeptics recklessly pull out of their ass to justify their counter claims so often. You make it sound as though you are an insider who has seen, counted or has credible information about all the submitted photographs, when the truth probably is you have 2nd hand information and have no idea about most of what's been seen, photographed and submitted. I just feel compelled to keep people, including so called skeptics, honest. I'm not saying there are alien UFOs. I am unconvinced and suspending concluding anything barring proof. But I am interested and definitely curious.

well, at least I got a conclusion based on 2nd hand information, other people argument based of unknown information (this equals non information at all) which is suppossed to exists in case the suppossed aliens also exists, the reasoning itself is a tramp as you take as hypothesis the spacecrafts exists and you get as a result: assuming there are spacecrafts we can say spacecrafts exist

Do the both of you know each other? Sounds like you been friends for years.

We both have been friends for years.  Just not with each other.

The fact is, most of us only see the bubblegum level of reports, and we don't really know all of who's seen what, what information they've submitted, and how it's been processed and handled.  The only intelligent, honest, objective, truth-oriented position on this is, "Until I see some conclusive evidence I will consider the matter inconclusive."  Anything else is just a masturbatory ego trip.

"All I know is that I know nothing." - I don't know who said that, but I know that it was someone famous. Or was it? IDK

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens.

A narrow view, Reflectivist, to encompass every opinon on a subject without definitive evidence a "masturbatory ego trip" .

We can make hypotheses. I hypothesise that there exist countless alien civilisations in the universe, but that the distance between us is too great for the possiblity of rogue encounters with governments and such to occur. My hypothesis concords perfectly with the known facts of the situation and so is perfectly valid. Is this hypothesis a masturbatory ego trip, or an attempt to provide a theory to explain a set of data and challenge others to refute it?

Hitchens was a nasty old drunk.  That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - it plays out to a draw. No one has the superior position in that case.  Just back to 'inconclusive'

I personally think that aliens are an unlikely explanation because of the physics/time constraints in conjunction with the limited value that would be derived from visiting a backwards place (relatively speaking).

I can accept that others disagree without ascribing bad motives to them. Don't see why reflectivist can't do the same and admit a skeptical POV is fine, even if he doesn't agree with it himself.

In other words, if you want to debate, debate nicely. Don't try to ramp it up into an argument by using emotive terms.

That's a lesser case. That's more like pocket pool to be sure your parts are all there.  But shares some of the same elements.

Not that anything you've said has carried any weight at all. yet now you've referred to such an eloquent and forward thinking man as Hitchens as a "nasty old drunk" really removes any remaining respectibility from your words.

Good points, but doesn't adress the time/energy constraints.

OMG a skeptic deeply offended about the slight of his politically controversial sacred cow.  Ironic.

If you continue to argue instead of debate, I will have no choice but to regard you as a person who isn't really here for the ideas.

Um.  Nothing hypocritical in your post, is there? I've done plenty of debating, but hey, rush off to a hyperbolic extreme because you did a little cherry picking.  Fine.  Your choice.

Christopher Hitchens is a controversial figure. To hold him up as some sort of objective deity in a debate is to invite challenges to his objectivity at least:

A staple of talk shows and lecture circuits, his confrontational style of debate made him both a lauded and controversial figure. Known for his  contrarian stance on a number of issues, he excoriated such public figures as Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton,Henry Kissinger, Lady Diana, Ayn Rand, and Pope Benedict XVI. He was the older brother of author Peter Hitchens.

But what's REALLY ironic is that the guy who defends the guy who quoted the highly confrontational Christopher Hitchens is deriding me for being confrontational about it!  lol

Absolutely!  All we really know is how damned much we don't know.  We can't even begin to fathom the depth of our ignorance in in the big scheme of things and yet people have some need to reach closure on the interminable and assume a lot of stuff.