There's that word again "skeptic". Show me a link please to Mr. NdT being skeptical beyond the usual "it must be aliens". Who here is claiming that all these events are imagined or made up?
It’s his whole twitter feed. UFOs are in the news and he wants to talk about aliens; not in response to any specific claims about aliens but simply to center himself in the conversation.
I think “denying” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. He is certainly undermining observations by floating balloon allegations of general incompetence. And not only is he is using his massive platform to mischaracterize the general claims by conflating UFOs with ET (thus perpetuating the stigma against UFOs), those who look at him as a role model are going to perpetuate this tactic.
I would still love to hear your thoughts on The Phenomenon.
I would still love to hear your thoughts on The Phenomenon.
Last edited:
Surely you aren't attempting to blame the "conflation" of UFOs and ET on Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Because that would be absurd.
Because that would be absurd.
He’s a public figure for science and skepticism with a huge platform who goes on other large platforms (Joe Rogan = 190M downloads a month) as a sort of ambassador for the general public re: science.
Is he supposed to be immune from criticism?
Is he supposed to be immune from criticism?
So, yes, you are being absurd?
Is Vallee immune from criticism?
I ask because you seem averse to that, so I had to discover that he's a friend of quack scientist Harold Puthoff on my own. People judge you by the company you keep, and all that.
Is Vallee immune from criticism?
I ask because you seem averse to that, so I had to discover that he's a friend of quack scientist Harold Puthoff on my own. People judge you by the company you keep, and all that.
I don't think this is a particularly productive way of debating someone. People will always have different ways of thinking about things. People can agree with you for all the wrong reasons. And on the other side people can disagree with you while using assumptions that should lead them to agree with you based on logic. To judge a person's ideas mostly on who agrees or disagrees with them, and not on the validity of the arguments on their own just doesn't work in the long run. It can give you hints on what direction to lean before you've acquired enough knowledge of the subject but that's all. It's just a shortcut in the long run and not a very good way to assess something.
Sofaspud, your rhetorical question absolutely misses the point so you can stop begging the question now. It’s Neil deGrasse Tyson’s conduct I’m critiquing here, which you are wisely stepping aside from defending.
Guilt by association is a type of ad hominem logical fallacy of the sort that rationalists love to harp on. Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, after all.
If you want to go down this path regardless, google “Neil deGrasse Tyson rapist” and then try to tell me whether it’s him or Puthoff that poses the bigger threat.
Guilt by association is a type of ad hominem logical fallacy of the sort that rationalists love to harp on. Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, after all.
If you want to go down this path regardless, google “Neil deGrasse Tyson rapist” and then try to tell me whether it’s him or Puthoff that poses the bigger threat.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I think it is quite reasonable to judge a person by the company they keep since it is often direct evidence of their judgment and values, though not 100%. And somebody who continues to keep the company of somebody proven to be ‘bad’ invites being poorly judged in the absence of a suitable explanation.
Last edited:
Nope, it's a shortcut. For instance, I agree with some of Puthoff's ideas and followed him in the beginning because of his fearlessness. I still admire many of his ideas but have abandoned all his ideas about the zero-point-field having limitless energy that can be tapped.
But that does not mean that all his ideas are not worth much. I think it's just too easy for many people to trash a person because they don't agree with everything about someone. It seems to be part of the internet culture but I don't have to like it. i believe in taking the good things someone contributes and accept that it often come with things that don't glisten quite so much. That's just like Newton and his involvement with metaphysics. Would you like to be judged and defined by the worst ideas you've ever thought up?
“absence of a suitable explanation” strikes me as a bit authoritarian unless the allegations are serious (ie sexual misconduct). Puthoff could be just as kooky as Isaac Newton with multiple passions; how ones feels about “quackery” is determined by how much emotional investment one has in the moral panic over magical thinking.
Note too that there are acceptable forms of magical thinking (a scientist who is also religious) and unacceptable forms of magical thinking (zero point energy). Seems like a practical (political) calculation rather than an entirely rational one.
Related: Nobel Prize Disease
Note too that there are acceptable forms of magical thinking (a scientist who is also religious) and unacceptable forms of magical thinking (zero point energy). Seems like a practical (political) calculation rather than an entirely rational one.
Related: Nobel Prize Disease
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
my comment was about keeping company with bad people - such as criminals, nasty people etc. Whereas keeping company of people with controversial ideas is not bad, could actually be good depending on your perspective.
being judged by your ideas is also valid in my book, for example I would judge somebody poorly if their ideas are harmful to others. quackery is a good example, such as using disinfectant as a medicine.
being judged by your ideas is also valid in my book, for example I would judge somebody poorly if their ideas are harmful to others. quackery is a good example, such as using disinfectant as a medicine.
Last edited:
I more or less agree with what you wrote with the caveat that there is an intrinsically political dimension with regards to a discussion of what you wrote (civil disobedience, whistleblowing) that is verboten on this forum 😉
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
what about ensuring good images of ufo’s are taken by space passengers, a chance for better clearer evidence
“Sir Richard Branson gains licence for commercial spaceflights”
Let’s face it, nobody is going up on a spaceflight without a sota camera.
If nobody gets good images this way, then maybe it’s not real.
p.s. as you can see, Sir Richard has his anti-gravity pants on for this photo op.
“Sir Richard Branson gains licence for commercial spaceflights”
Let’s face it, nobody is going up on a spaceflight without a sota camera.
If nobody gets good images this way, then maybe it’s not real.
p.s. as you can see, Sir Richard has his anti-gravity pants on for this photo op.
Attachments
Last edited:
“Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, after all.”
What then does this say about ordinary, rational folk who see lights in the sky?
Think very carefully before you answer.
What then does this say about ordinary, rational folk who see lights in the sky?
Think very carefully before you answer.