call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:07 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Think of it, Xouper, in terms of probabilities. It is seriously improbable that anyone will be able to zip about the universe at some velocity seriously faster than light.

Improbable given our current knowledge.

Do you concede then that it might be possible given sufficient technology?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I have been following this argument for the last 40 years, since that is how long I have been subscribing to science magazines. One of the things I notice is that every few years, someone comes up with a new idea for travelling faster than light. It generally lasts less than six months, which is when some smarter physicist does a bit more work and points put the fallacy surrounding the idea. It appears probable that the light speed limit is, indeed, absolute.


That does not answer my question.

It is merely a restatement of the same claim you made before.

I agree that with current knowledge, it seems improbable to find a way around that speed limit.

However, that is not the same as saying the required knowledge will never exist.

Do you concede that with sufficient technology, it might be possible to find a way around that speed limit?

It is a simple yes or no question.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:12 am

Allow me to make a proposal that might cut down on a lot of unnecessary chatter in this thread.

The skeptic position needs merely to ask for evidence for claims, and perhaps challenge the relevance or validity of that evidence.

The skeptic does not need to make unnecessary counter-claims, which might require you to defend your claims.

Perhaps a more effective tactic is to keep the burden of evidence on the claimant who says there are aliens, and avoid getting side tracked by having to defend your own counter-claims.

Just a thought.

Example: If a claimant says certain radar images are not due to temperature inversions, then the skeptic needs merely to ask for evidence for that claim. However, if the skeptic makes the counter-claim that those particular radar images are in fact temperature inversions, then the skeptic has (unwittingly) shifted the burden of evidence upon himself, and must now defend that claim. Why expose yourself to that side show?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:If it were possible to get around physics and go faster than the speed of light then why no evidence after 13 billion years from any life form doing this?

I think E=MC2 is a universal rule and no evidence exists otherwise.
:D


xouper wrote:Be careful not to make this fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


"Leprechauns will fly elephants into the habour bridge."
"A hamburger will become King of England."
"A slug will invent a new sort of shoe that fits everyone."


So it was a Leprechaun buzzing Washington DC! I called it first! :lol:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:19 am

Xouper

It is not a simple yes or no question, because it demands knowledge that no one has. If the speed of light is truly absolute, then no amount of technology will defeat it. Currently the data strongly suggests that the speed of light is, indeed, absolute. Since science is not about proof, my assertion is that it is improbable that the speed of light will be defeated, regardless of technological advances.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:39 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

It is not a simple yes or no question, because it demands knowledge that no one has. If the speed of light is truly absolute, then no amount of technology will defeat it. Currently the data strongly suggests that the speed of light is, indeed, absolute. Since science is not about proof, my assertion is that it is improbable that the speed of light will be defeated, regardless of technological advances.


Are you conceding that you do not have enough information to rule out that it might be possible to find a way around that speed limit?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:53 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:If it were possible to get around physics and go faster than the speed of light then why no evidence after 13 billion years from any life form doing this?

I think E=MC2 is a universal rule and no evidence exists otherwise.
:D


xouper wrote:Be careful not to make this fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


"Leprechauns will fly elephants into the habour bridge."
"A hamburger will become King of England."
"A slug will invent a new sort of shoe that fits everyone."


So it was a Leprechaun buzzing Washington DC! I called it first! :lol:


That's amusing, Matthew.

You just demonstrated my point.

The general form of the fallacy is this: There is no evidence against X, therefore X is true.

You gave an obviously humorous example where X is "Leprechauns buzzing Washington".

So that shows you understand the general form of the fallacy.

Now let's look at the more serious claim where X is "the speed of light is a limit in how long it takes something to cross the universe".

There is no evidence against X, therefore X is true.

Same fallacy.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:59 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Currently the data strongly suggests that the speed of light is, indeed, absolute.


The Large Hadron Collider
Question "I've read in numerous places that the Large Hadron Collider is capable of accelerating protons at 0.999999991 c, which mathematically works out to being 3 metres per second slower than the speed of light. That seems so incredibly close to the speed of light, that it's hard for me to understand why we can't quite get all the way there."

Answer "The "speed limit" of cc is asymptotic. That is, the more energy you add to the protons, the closer they will approach cc, but it will never actually reach cc completely. (Equivalently, we say that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive object to c)"
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... peed-limit

Why worry about technological advances, when Jo 753 and Richard Crist can simply show us holes in the existing formula E=MC2? :D

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:01 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

It is not a simple yes or no question, because it demands knowledge that no one has. If the speed of light is truly absolute, then no amount of technology will defeat it. Currently the data strongly suggests that the speed of light is, indeed, absolute. Since science is not about proof, my assertion is that it is improbable that the speed of light will be defeated, regardless of technological advances.


Are you conceding that you do not have enough information to rule out that it might be possible to find a way around that speed limit?


We are back to semantics. What do you mean by possible? Is a million to 1 chance called possible ? A trillion to 1 ?

I regard it very, very improbable.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Why worry about technological advances, when Jo 753 and Richard Crist can simply show us holes in the existing formula E=MC2? :D


Straw man, Matthew.

Are you claiming there must be a hole in E=MC2 in order to find a way around the speed of light?

If so, how do you intend to prove that?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:09 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

It is not a simple yes or no question, because it demands knowledge that no one has. If the speed of light is truly absolute, then no amount of technology will defeat it. Currently the data strongly suggests that the speed of light is, indeed, absolute. Since science is not about proof, my assertion is that it is improbable that the speed of light will be defeated, regardless of technological advances.


Are you conceding that you do not have enough information to rule out that it might be possible to find a way around that speed limit?


I regard it very, very improbable.


OK, you've said that about six million times now, give or take a few.

Are you conceding that you do not have enough information to rule out the possibility of finding a way around that speed limit?


Lance Kennedy wrote:We are back to semantics. What do you mean by possible?


I am using the word "possible" to mean there's X to 1 chance, for any finite number X.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:19 am

xouper wrote: Are you claiming there must be a hole in E=MC2 in order to find a way around the speed of light?
Nope Jo 753 and Richard Crist are claiming there must be such an existing hole. It's their claim. :lol:

Amazingly, all the various and differing experiments for the last 100 year confirm it is a law and integrates with all other physics.
:lol:

xouper wrote:If so, how do you intend to prove that?
Ask them. It's not my claim, is it? :lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:22 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Are you claiming there must be a hole in E=MC2 in order to find a way around the speed of light?
Nope Jo 753 and Richard Crist are claiming there must be such an existing hole. It's their claim. :lol:


OK, sorry, I did not see where they made that specific claim. Can you post the link to that post?


Matthew Ellard wrote:Amazingly, all the various and differing experiments for the last 100 year confirm it is a law and integrates with all other physics. :lol:


I do not dispute that.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:28 am

xouper wrote: OK, sorry, I did not see where they made that specific claim. Can you post the link to that post?
Jo 753 wrote:My posts about lite speed were to debunk Lansez beleef that there cant be any alienz here kuz the distans between starz iz too great.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&start=480#p605314

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:32 am

Xouper

If there were a way to travel faster than light, it would involve unbelievable amounts of energy. Astronomers see this energy expenditure all the time. Seyfert galaxies, and super nova. Way more energy expenditure than humans or other intelligent life are ever likely to be able to control. Yet never has there been even the slightest hint of anything, whether matter, energy or information, being transmitted faster than light.

As things are right now, there has never been an observation, or experiment, or theoretical method to suggest any possibility of faster than light travel. Is it possible ? No one knows. But if I have to say this, I would put the chance at less than 1 in a million. That is low enough that, for practical purposes, we can call it impossible.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Yet never has there been even the slightest hint of anything, whether matter, energy or information, being transmitted faster than light.
E=MC2 also works on a sub atomic level. It is an integrated theory with other working theories.

I'm suggesting that Jo 753 and Richard Crist will have a lot of work on their plate showing holes in the formula.
:lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:50 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

If there were a way to travel faster than light, it would involve unbelievable amounts of energy.


How do you know that?

How big is an "unbelievable" amount?


Lance Kennedy wrote:As things are right now, there has never been an observation, or experiment, or theoretical method to suggest any possibility of faster than light travel.


Not experimental, but there have been several theoretical methods proposed. You say they have been debunked but I not willing to take your word for it.


Lance Kennedy wrote: Is it possible ? No one knows.


That's exactly my point. You don't have enough information to say it's not possible.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:51 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: OK, sorry, I did not see where they made that specific claim. Can you post the link to that post?
Jo 753 wrote:My posts about lite speed were to debunk Lansez beleef that there cant be any alienz here kuz the distans between starz iz too great.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&start=480#p605314


Nowhere in that post is the claim there is a hole in E=MC2.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10762
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:53 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I'm suggesting that Jo 753 and Richard Crist will have a lot of work on their plate showing holes in the formula. :lol:


They do not need to defend a claim they did not make.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:24 am

What strikes me as ludicrous is the simple fact that faster than light travel is not needed. To get between the stars can be done. It just takes longer. Personally, I think that if no major disaster strikes, humans will be doing it within 1,000 years. An advanced ion drive could in theory push a star ship to between 0.1 C and 0.2 C. Assuming 0.1 C and ten years for acceleration , and also for deceleration, it would take 55 years to get to Alpha Centauri. If the various flying saucer believers want to rationalise their belief, they just have to assume that the alien mother ship left home a long time ago.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12416
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:17 am

Rong post, Matt.

Its this wun:

JO 753 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Have you found any errors in E=MC2


No. Dont need to. Distans iz relativ to speed.

To an outside obzerver, the planet uv orijin for example, the vehicle will never reach LS. But inside the ship the akseleration will remain constant (prezuming an enjin capable uv such performans) and will seem to exeed LS at sum point az distansez to wutever they are looking at shrink.

JeNKINZ 2043.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12416
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:27 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:What strikes me as ludicrous is the simple fact that faster than light travel is not needed. To get between the stars can be done. It just takes longer. Personally, I think that if no major disaster strikes, humans will be doing it within 1,000 years. An advanced ion drive could in theory push a star ship to between 0.1 C and 0.2 C. Assuming 0.1 C and ten years for acceleration , and also for deceleration, it would take 55 years to get to Alpha Centauri. If the various flying saucer believers want to rationalise their belief, they just have to assume that the alien mother ship left home a long time ago.

:shock:

Finally you got it!

Now that you realize you hav no sientific reazon to dout that alienz coud be here, are you ready to aksept the possibility that eye witnessez may hav actually seen them?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:37 am

Jo: no one has reported seeing a space ship travel for 55 years. Which brings us back to Matt's Demonstration of lack of common sense. Why take 55 years to get here, then hide?.......and fyi there is a complete mismatch between any space vehicle and one capable of flying in the atmosphere. Want to build a space ship with a launch for flying in the atmosphere once you get there?===>LOADS more complications....but oh ya.... get there and then hide.

Makes "no sense" from start to finish. Like God.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:07 am

Jo

Interstellar travel is quite possible, whether humans going to the stars or aliens coming here. But I get offended when you, or anyone else, proposes stuff that is against the laws of physics, like FTL. If you want to propose alien mother ships travelling slower than light, and taking centuries to get here, then it is a bit more credible. Still unlikely.

Bobbo
The mother ship could easily be carrying smaller ships. As to why they would do this, they are aliens. Their motives may not be understandable to humans.

But at the end of the day, the bottom line is that this is still an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. Anything that can stem from errors, delusions, dishonesty or hoaxes, is not credible, much less extraordinary evidence. Until I see some solid evidence, I am doing the rational thing and assuming it is all a load of nonsense.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12416
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Jo: no one has reported seeing a space ship travel for 55 years.


We'v seen spase ships travelling for 40 yirz. Not a big leap uv faith to think they can go another 15.
(yes, I no it wuz just badly worded)

Seriously now, we can barely detect planets in other solar systemz. Wy woud you expect us to be able to see a spase ship on its way here? There coud be an armada uv Star Destroyer size battleships parked in the Ort cloud for all we know.

Which brings us back to Matt's Demonstration of lack of common sense. Why take 55 years to get here, then hide?.......and fyi there is a complete mismatch between any space vehicle and one capable of flying in the atmosphere. Want to build a space ship with a launch for flying in the atmosphere once you get there?===>LOADS more complications....but oh ya.... get there and then hide.

Makes "no sense" from start to finish. Like God.


Not that trying to gess motivez iz a valid argument for or agenst alien vizitorz, but I can ansr or rebut thoze.

Az any Treky can tell you, its a big no-no to interfere with the development uv intellijent speciez. To do so iz to steal their future. Who woud Einstien be if in 1890 Tokar the Absonite provided the human rase with a book explaining relativity az well az everything we've figured out sins then or will figure out in the next 100 yirz? Albert who?

You want a motiv for why they are here? How about theyv seen this staje uv development 1,000 timez. They saw it go rong enuf timez and desided that a trunkated history iz better than a scorched barren rock, so the polisy iz to keep a close watch till the speciez gets past their nuclear bom faze.

The UFO reports seem to indicate control over mass, inertia andor gravity, so they woud hav no problem entering the atmosfere. They dont need to do the 40,000 mph flaming deth drop like our spase shuttle or re-entry capsulez. They are clearly not flying on aerodynamic prinsiplz.

Then therez the "55 yirz to get here" premise - A spase fairing sivilization duznt need to get here, kuz they alredy are here. 'Here' to them iz the entire galaxy at least, more likely the entire univers.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:40 am

Sy Fy sitcoms is a terrible source for science info.

Just saying.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:41 am

Again, Jo, where is the solid evidence.
As we have pointed out so many times, fallible eye witnesses seeing lights in the sky does not cut it.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12416
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:But I get offended when you, or anyone else, proposes stuff that is against the laws of physics, like FTL.


Hey! Dont blame me! Argue with Einstien if you disagree with relativity. We may alredy hav the ability to create a vehicle capable uv jenerating 1G for a yir. Do you no wut that meanz?

Anything that can stem from errors, delusions, dishonesty or hoaxes, is not credible.


Modern lie detectorz werent available back wen alot uv the events we are debating occured. They are very reliable - sumthing like 98%. It mite go a long way to eaze your consernz if UFO witnessez get tested az a matter uv standard proseedure. It woud immediately expoze the hoaxerz and anybody refuzing to take the test coud be laffed off az a liar.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: call for debaters

Postby Cadmusteeth » Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:43 pm

Honest people can be mistaken also.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:15 pm

Jo

On FTL
Einstein would be on my side, since his calculations were the first to show why FTL was impossible.

I already told you the flaw in your 1 G for one year nonsense. If the acceleration were uniform, then light speed would be reached. But it is not uniform. There is, incidentally, no way in present day technology to do this. But if some future technology could, then what would happen is that mass would increase exponentially as light speed is approached, with an end point at light speed of infinite mass. It is impossible to accelerate something approaching infinite mass.

According to what we know of the laws of physics, there is no way to reach, much less exceed, light speed. Nor do I believe that any future technology will permit FTL.

On lie detectors.
One of the big drawbacks is that they cannot distinguish a person who is wrong, but believes he is right.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:19 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
TEnginist wrote:Physical evidence is very high on the scale.

I disagree with this part as it's worded. Physical evidence in a vacuum is meaningless. You might show me a piece of metal you allege to be debris from an alien spacecraft, but I wouldn't accept it as physical evidence.


A point well taken. Let me amend it:

Physical evidence is very low to very high on the evidence-strength scale

TEnginist wrote:Imagine two scales:

1) Strength of evidence for a claim: zero (very weak) to 100 (very strong)
2) “Extraordinariness” of the claim: zero (completely non-extraordinary) to 100 (extremely extraordinary)
So far, I agree...in general terms, but it largely depends upon the definition of "evidence."

by itself, [eyewitness testimony] has little value. It's far too easy to fool our senses and our brains into thinking we've witnessed something we did not


I agree that we do often fill in where we experience a memory gap or a perceptual gap. I once witnessed a fight between a policeman and a criminal in a New York City subway station. During the struggle, the bad guy grabbed the officer’s gun and shot a bullet into the token booth window, where it lodged between the glass and the frame. I watched the confrontation from beginning to end, and when I was questioned as a witness, I said that, as the cop approached the bad guy, the cop “jumped over the turnstile.” When the investigating officer, who was interviewing me, after hearing my comment, smiled and said “He jumped over the turnstile?” I realized immediately that I was filling in, and that when exiting the platform, as the officer was, you only have to push through the turnstile. I’m sure that if the investigator hadn’t questioned my report at that moment, I would’ve forever after “remembered” the officer as jumping over the turnstile. (My error caused a problem for the grand jury.)

But I also believe that there are degrees of probability (which translate as degrees of evidence strength) regarding whether or not a witness might have filled anything in. In the case above, where a series of frightening events happened quickly, where a gun was fired in the chaos, filling in can easily happen (I also didn’t remember that it was two cops who brought the perpetrator down). But, there are cases where one would be hard pressed to point to details that might have been “fill ins” in a witness’ testimony. For instance, the case I gave before: If your favorite and trusted cousin tells you, "We were having an argument last night and Uncle Bob came in and complained about the noise," it’s improbable that any filling-in happened, and I take the eyewitness testimony to be high on the evidence-strength scale. Similarly, when a number of careful professionals are relaying a simple set of facts, for instance, that the apparently “good, solid” targets disappeared from the radar screen when the jets arrived, were absent while the jets were there, and came back after the jets left, I see the probability of filling-in as very low, and so I count the testimony (which is a lot like a scientist’s report on his or her observations) as being high on the evidence-strength scale. You talk about house color as an example of filling in. In the Exeter UFO case, Officer Bertrand said that the lights of the UFO were so strong that they turned the two nearby houses bright red. There might’ve been a little filling in; maybe the houses weren’t turned a very bright red, but I see no important way that there could’ve been filling in in this instance—of course Bertrand only saw some of the sides of the houses, but obviously that’s irrelevant in this case. I take this eyewitness testimony to be high on the evidence-strength scale.

So that’s why I think that some eyewitness testimony can be high on the evidence-strength scale. Now, whether or not it can ever be high enough to be able to strongly support claims that are very high on the claim-extraordinariness scale is a separate question. I think it can be, but you think it can’t. (Is it this subtle disagreement that separates fringe science” from mainstream science?)

TEnginist wrote:Principle P:

The higher on the extraordinariness scale a claim is (as determined independently of the present evidence), the higher the evidence for it has to be on the strength scale to be able to justify the claim.
Yes, I agree.

TEnginist wrote:So, if the claim is extremely high on the extraordinariness scale, generally speaking, only the most reliable witness testimony or physical evidence is likely to be able to justify it. (I imagine that the steadfast skeptic will not agree with the “most reliable witness testimony” part of this sentence.)

TEnginist wrote:So, where is the claim of extraterrestrial visitation located on the extraordinariness scale? That depends on what is meant by “extraordinary.”


“Extraordinary” can mean many different things. In this context, I take it to mean “improbable.” (My Principle P can be seen to be just another way of stating Sagan’s dictum, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In Sagan’s version, there are two “extraordinaries” to be defined, a double ambiguity.

I would define "extraordinary" to mean "outside the parameters of the natural world as explained by science."


even if I agree that extraterrestrial visitation is neither probable nor improbable, it is still an extraordinary claim that requires proof.


I don’t see your definition as working well either in Principle P or in Sagan’s dictum. I don’t believe that any claim requires unusually strong evidence unless that claim is improbable. Maybe I’m not clear on what you mean by "outside the parameters of the natural world as explained by science." Are you just talking about the laws of physics? Or are you talking about any and all scientific claims?

I guess there’s no reason to have any ambiguities in the principle, so I’ll restate it:

Imagine two scales:

1) Strength of evidence for a claim: zero (very weak) to 100 (very strong)
2) Improbability of the claim: zero (very probable) to 100 (very improbable)

Principle P1:

The higher on the improbability scale a claim is (as determined independently of the present evidence), the higher the evidence for it has to be on the strength scale to be able to justify the claim.

I guess you wouldn’t agree with this new version?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:32 pm

Why are you reworking the very simple easy to state: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Why are you reworking the very simple easy to state: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Because "extraordinary" is equivocal; and because I wanted to introduce the two scales and the way in which they relate.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:45 pm

Here is another suggestion.
Take the eye witnesses that are high on the credibility scale. Perhaps the good eye witnesses are the ones who report lights in the sky correctly, and it is only the bad ones who report alien space ships.

There are thousands of people each year who report unidentified flying objects, and many of them label their sightings as alien. But there will be millions more who see things that could be identified as alien, but who are smart enough to realise that they are not. The alien reports are the result of filtering out the reliable eye witnesses and leaving us only with the unreliable ones. I know this because I have seen many such lights in the sky myself, but have always identified them as the mundane things they are.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:16 pm

TEnginist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Why are you reworking the very simple easy to state: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Because "extraordinary" is equivocal; and because I wanted to introduce the two scales and the way in which they relate.

In the way you are using it, EVERYTHING is equivocal. all you are doing is slicing the baloney into different shapes. KISS.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:20 pm

Lance: I'll quibble. There is "no such thing" as a reliable eye witness.... for the "public" to rely on. As to the valid distinction you make, of note is that the whole group can describe what they saw....adding on what they saw to what it was that they saw is a different task from the actual eye witnessing. If they all see and report a light in the sky that moved real fast at right angles==they are all equally credible. One group then saying its flying saucers and the other group saying they don't know does not add or subtract anything from their eye witness report. You need "devotees" to get that.

edit: I see I'm flip flopping on where the credibility is. Too tired to edit for clarity.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:50 pm

Bobbo

Not disagreeing, but would you accept that the reliability of eye witnesses does vary. Even if none are totally reliable, some will be more reliable than others.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:53 pm

xouper wrote:How do you know that? How big is an "unbelievable" amount?
E=MC2 directly states an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate a particle to the speed of light. Do the maths.

xouper wrote:Nowhere in that post is the claim there is a hole in E=MC2.
Jo 753 directly states that an object can go faster than the speed of light which is impossible because of E=MC2. That is why I asked Jo 753 if he found holes in E=MC2 which he did not.

Jo 753 wrote:"The SUL may actually be unobtainabl in a vehicle, but only frum the perspectiv uv outside obzerverz."

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569#p601299

Jo 753 wrote:"bobbo, even us dummy humanz hav thot uv wayz that lite speed can be exeeded or bypassed. Do you beleev we hav gotten to the last word on the subject alredy?"

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&start=40#p601348

Jo 753 wrote:If the enjin can jenerate 1G for longer than it takes to reach LS, duz GOD show up and turn it off?.....At 10 meterz per second per second akseleration (a little more than 1G) it will take 347.2222 dayz (30,000,000 sekunz) to get to 300,000,000mps (slitely more than Lite Speed).".

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&start=200#p602600

Jo 753 wrote:"The entire objection iz based on the claim that lite speed can not be exeeded or even reached thus the vast distansez between starz iz an impassable barrier. Turnz out that LS iz a matter uv perpsectiv and the basic assumtion that the vizitorz had to start frum sum distant solar system with the intention to arrive here iz groundless."

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&start=280#p603593

It is quite clear to me that you are not bothering to read Jo 753's posts as you are imitating Sweetpea and simply trolling Lance and myself. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:58 pm

JO 753 wrote: Hey! Dont blame me! Argue with Einstien if you disagree with relativity. We may alredy hav the ability to create a vehicle capable uv jenerating 1G for a yir. Do you no wut that meanz?

If you bothered to read Einstein's 100 year old theory, it means that that the mass of the vehicle increases as it approaches light speed until it becomes infinite, and thus an infinite amount of energy would be required to continue acceleration at 1 gravity. This is an impossibility.

I linked Xouper to the formulas for accelerating a rocket to light speed. Ask him to plug in your numbers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:10 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Not disagreeing, but would you accept that the reliability of eye witnesses does vary. Even if none are totally reliable, some will be more reliable than others.

Sure..........but my point is that while that is true, its irrelevant. Eye witness testimony just cannot be relied upon. NOW.......I see I'm coming at this from a courtroom context. It sincerely pisses me off that in a PURE he said vs some other person says that the context of credibility can result in a jury verdict in a criminal case that is said to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." That just should not be "as a matter of law." some "circumstantial evidence" is required to bolster any eye witness account (eg--both parties to a two party dispute).

This is not the same as witness testimony to "I saw a bright light in the sky." This is a very firm basis on which to go find that corroborating evidence....like dash cams.

Two of my favorite memes ALWAYS apply, whether stated or recognized at all: Everything falls on 15 different continuums, and Everything is related to everything else, separated only by degrees. I need to make some business cards to that effect.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:10 am

JO 753 wrote: We can accerlerate a vehicle at 1G continuously
JO 753 wrote: We'v seen spase ships travelling for 40 yirz. Not a big leap uv faith to think they can go another 15.


Our Galaxy is 100,000 light years across.
1) Show me the mathematics for how long it would take a spaceship to accelerate to 99% of the speed of light at one end and decelerate to stop at the other side of the galaxy.

2) Show me the energy increase required to maintain this acceleration as mass increases using the formulas I have already linked for Xouper.


Angular Momentum
I have posted this several times and you have ignored my question. What amount of energy is required to make the spaceship turn 90% with increased mass, due to relativity at 0,99 light speed?


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests