Ever wanted to smash someone in the face who said "Extraordinary claims require ...?"

Discussion in 'Alien Hub' started by Jim_from_the_South, Nov 6, 2020.

  1. Jim_from_the_South

    Jim_from_the_South Honorable

    Messages:
    129
    Sorry, but I know that I have. Anytime I hear that from the rubbery lips of some clueless skeptic,
    repeated without even understanding its underlying meaning, Mr. Hand forms into Mr. Fist,
    mentally speaking.


    American astronomer, astrophysicist and author Carl Sagan popularized the statement: " Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and we find it being employed as a brute force tool by a great many of our modern-day Skeptics and Scholars. However, this represents an unscientific statement on Sagan's part, in that he does not bother to define his principal variable; that is, the word "extraordinary".

    If a scientist is not completely open to examining evidence that has never been previously presented or acknowledged, then he will, quite naturally, become completely surprised by that data when it comes forward and stares him in the face. This will lead to his labeling it as "extraordinary", and that represents his own personal opinion. Every theory requires the best evidence, both for and against it, that is available. All claims, whether extraordinary or not, require this same degree of dedication to evidence. Personal opinions should not represent the major portion of that gathered "evidence"; they belong instead in the section called "conclusions" in a report.

    What I find extraordinary is quantum mechanics, and yet it is a well-accepted, if poorly comprehended, part of modern physics. Whenever any part of it seems to not quite "work", they come up with something like a "black hole" as a weak type of patch-work explanation for something that really should be telling them that their theory is busted, and they need to try something else.
    .
    The presence of UFOs and their extraterrestrial occupants should no longer be considered to be either out of the ordinary (extraordinary) or unanticipated.

    And that's my rant for the day.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. August

    August Metanoia

    Messages:
    5,612
    Don't forget the X Files music and the snarky wry smiles the news reporters put on when reporting a UFO story on the news. [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2020
    • Like Like x 3
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,211
    I agree - given what we now know about the universe, we should be expecting the fairly routine visitation of our planet by more advanced civilizations than our own. The ETH is only an "extraordinary" hypothesis if one has lived under a rock for the last half of a century.

    I tried to explain this to Mick West a couple of times, but he prefers to pretend that scientific knowledge about the universe halted sometime in the last century...before we knew how common Earth-like worlds are in the universe, and how much older they are, on average, than our own planet (roughly 2-3 *billion* years older than the Earth).

    It would be harder to explain why we weren't being visited by extraterrestrial intelligences, if there were no UFO reports at all. Which is why Enrico Fermi asked "where is everybody" back in 1950.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Jim_from_the_South

    Jim_from_the_South Honorable

    Messages:
    129
    I agree. BTW - do you know what else Fermi was famous for?
    He's considered the father of the "scientific guess" or, as we say down south, the "wild-ass guess". He
    would use napkins to jot notes and then blurt out something about the topic at hand without
    doing any real study on it, and became infamous for doing that. His Paradox, in that it
    also asks "why have they not contacted us" is an amplification of that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Skepticide123

    Skepticide123 Honorable

    Messages:
    345
    I've heard that repeated a lot by skeptics. Actually Extraordinarily entrenched paradigms require extraordinary evidence.
    You don't need "extraordinary" evidence to prove something --just because you think it is "extraordinary" --it might be more ordinary than you think. McVey was convicted based on a lot of circumstantial evidence. If we had to have extraordinary evidence to prove everything --nothing could be believed. As it stands there is a LOT of evidence, and extraordinarily entrenched paradigms won't even consider it. Again, even if it was revealed and fragments produced --many would still not believe it --scientists included --unless they tested it personally. Others would see it as false flag event -other's would see it in religious terms --this is why we can't have nice things ..er contact, and have the level we can deal with. It is also why we s=would be completely vulnerable to an alien attack --we'd still be arguing about while we were being finished off --it's the human way.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  6. Xuu

    Xuu Honorable

    Messages:
    159
    I think there is a misunderstanding in what "extraordinary claims" are.

    It would indeed take extraordinary evidence to convince me that the world is suspended on the back of four elephants, riding on top of a grand turtle.
    Even if we hadn't been to space, if we hadn't discovered the world was even round, the claim is so preposterous and extraordinary that it definitely does require some pretty damn good evidence.

    You could extend it in a more real life situation to flat earthers. Claiming that the Earth is flat is an extraordinary claim not because of its fantastical elements like the Great Atuin claim , but because it is counter to everything we have observed, measured, and have filmed from space. To assert a claim that the Earth is flat, you have to also present evidence that 2500 years of measurements including people seeing it with their own eyes is wrong. Even why experiments you can do yourself are wrong. That'd be pretty extraordinary evidence.
    Of course that evidence is always presented by people who couldn't pass high-school math so doesn't even hit the ordinary evidence mark.

    Claiming you saw a light moving in the sky? Eh who gives a crap, that's not an extraordinary claim.

    Claiming the Queen is a lizard? Fantastical and is in need of good evidence. Crap quality heavily distorted images are no evidence. Gimme that blood sample, which would be pretty extraordinary to obtain in a trustworthy source.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  7. Skepticide123

    Skepticide123 Honorable

    Messages:
    345
    But it doesn't really take extraordinary evidence to show that the earth is not carried by elephants, just simple evidence --so that can be ruled out. It's becoming less extraordinary in many people's minds that there could be life out there --some scientists claim we will detect it within 20 years --with no evidence. beyond a reason

    There is a TON of evidence that UFOs are real and under control --and not ours. Decades of it. If it is a matter of preponderance of evidence.. And circumstantial and anecdotal and visual sightings and simultaneous recordings on devices --to the point that much of it is even unavailable... or proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What is that in this case?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Xuu

    Xuu Honorable

    Messages:
    159
    Exactly, it doesn't take much to prove that it's not. That is why the claim that the Earth isn't carried by elephants isn't extraordinary. That takes simple, trivial evidence.
    It would however take extraordinary evidence to prove that it is. You'd have to start with disproving spherical earth, then gravity, then somehow prove the global governments have conspired to lie about it.
     
  9. Xuu

    Xuu Honorable

    Messages:
    159
    I'd say the claim that there is no life out there is extraordinary given the size of the universe. The claim that it is out there is just simple probability.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Skepticide123

    Skepticide123 Honorable

    Messages:
    345
    Surely, and similar preposterous claims by ufologists or anyone else should be exposed to the light of truth but if the evidence is real, shows a pattern, has been seen over a long time.. it is just evidence --the "extraordinary" nature of it is in the mind.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Skepticide123

    Skepticide123 Honorable

    Messages:
    345
  12. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    302
    That's an understandable rant there Jim and although violence is never the answer I've often thought CSICOP's James Mcgaha deserves a good slap.



    Stanton makes a few interesting comments in this vid about Sagan (and his not being too objective or knowledgeable about the UFO subject)..





    There has been speculation about the 'recruitment' of Sagan and turns out he used to be rather open minded - there's an older article below which goes into detail about Sagan's position concerning the 'strong probability' of the Earth being visited by ETs every few thousand years... and alien moon bases.




    Cheers.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. karl 12

    karl 12 Honorable

    Messages:
    302
    Don't know what UFOs are mate but there are definitely patterns in the data and objective factors which show the actuality of these objects - would also say that many militant 'UFO debunkers' are not genuine sceptics at all ..but rather wilfully ignorant cynics who cherrypick the data just to reconfirm their own prejudice.

    There's a relevant UFO quote below on genuine scepticism by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch - also thought Kevin Randle made a very good point in this vid.




    Cheers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    4,002
    maybe 'unequivocal' would be a better way to put it
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Jim_from_the_South

    Jim_from_the_South Honorable

    Messages:
    129
    But in reality Tyson is lying. Because I could rip the leg off of a gray and throw it on
    that dinner table he speaks of, and he still would find a way not to believe. It's because
    he is paid to react that way, and paid well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    447
    This has pretty much caused something curious. In case of UFOs, now you have to bring the undeniable proof before scientists are intrested in looking into it, at all. Imagine if we said the same thing to SETI, that they first have to bring an alien civilization here and proof that it exist before they can start looking for its signals. Its insanely backwards curiosity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  17. Skepticide123

    Skepticide123 Honorable

    Messages:
    345
    Great point!! I hadn't thought of it that way before. In science and academia, everything is controvertible. The evidence for UFOs is of two kinds -esoteric and exoteric; in the first case it is information contained in secret groups in the government and private companies that are aware of the reality of UFOs and have the evidence, which they aren't releasing because of all of the aforementioned ramifications; direct constant contact with something far more advanced would destroy our humanity and civilization, meaning and imagined exceptionalism. In the second case it is these rather farcical flash and dash displays for poor folks trying to camp or drive or fly that maintain a constant and ongoing level of contact. This is the best and only kind of contact, and I'd recommend it to us if we were ever in a similar situation with another world. About half of the people on the planet believe UFOs are real. Perfect. Bigelow knows all of this and it's why he is waiting for the observers to make the first move in this area --it is in control, not us. And that is not going to be the mass "Eureka!" moment that he envisions. Instead it will be an ongoing sublimely algorithmic series of contacts between the observers, the military and the public, until everyone yawns when they hear the word "aliens". We are there now --much has already come out and been in the mainstream news again, and no big paradigm shift --folks would rather get back to their video games...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  18. Jim_from_the_South

    Jim_from_the_South Honorable

    Messages:
    129
    Yours is a well thought out reply, thanks.
    I have written evidence that the CIA,FBI, Air Force, Army, and some others in the deep state,
    have known the writing system used by extraterrestrials since at least 1964, if not earlier.
    I have to imagine that they have been in communication with aliens as well, based upon
    how closely they guard that secret.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Skepticide123

    Skepticide123 Honorable

    Messages:
    345
    "Ever wanted to smash someone in the face who said "Extraordinary claims require ...?"

    Yes, for a moment, then I realize it would be far more satisfying to watch their paradigm squashed flat in an excruciatingly slow manner, right before both of our eyes, so I can wait it out! :)
     
  20. Skepticide123

    Skepticide123 Honorable

    Messages:
    345
    I don't know a lot about that, but I think it is certainly possible that some folks in the military and government have had intense longer duration contacts where things were communicated. It happens with civilian contacts too --like the school visitations. And I'm sure those folks aren't talking. Looking at the history, it seems that the huge wave of the 40's after WWII especially in '47 could have culminated in events, where direct communication could have taken place. Up to that time, the military was basically open-minded and acknowledging they existed and even acknowledged landings! And then the Estimate of the Situation created by folks with eyes in their mother-loving heads who were trying to be honest. And then the denial and ridicule of the phenomenon and those having contact with it --no reason to publicly gather information --they knew what it was at that point. and with all of the surveillance of military sites.. The concerns of the observers were obvious --demonstrated by these symbolic appearances at places like White Sands, scrutinizing missile technology and the crazy beings hell-bent on killing each other.
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page