In my mind it does. But then I also believe the Earth is round even though I've never been in space and seen it for myself. I'm probably hopelessly gullible about that. 😎
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I know what you mean, everywhere you look it ain’t round. It was the ancient Greeks who first used science and maths to measure the earth’s circumference with admirable accuracy. Like you and I, they never went into space, so the question is, how the heck did they know it was round in the first place to even try?
Last edited:
There is that famous word again. I'm waiting to see that precious quote.
You can see the curvature if you are onboard of high flying airplane. I have when I was on international flight.
They saw the moon and noticed its roundness (during full moon). They noticed disappearing sail of boat as it went further into the horizon but reappears as it came closer.
If no one here disputes the witnessing of an UAP event(s), what does the description "the most credible report" mean?
Lol, since when do you become the expert on what usage I intended? Is it not up to you to make sure you understand correctly before you reply?
Here’s a phrase you may be unfamiliar with: begging the question
Chances are if I do not address a question issued to me (especially if it seems rhetorical) it is because some question begging is involved and to address it is to willingly indulge psuedoskeptical disingenuousness.
Feel free to rephrase/reissue your query if I am in error.
Ad hominem, in the wild.
Last edited:
Thank you Eric, I could not have said it any better myself. I naively assumed that at least one detractor would be proactive enough to watch the film the first time I endorsed it, even if just to poke holes in it. The subsequent times I endorsed it, I felt I was at risk of inviting bad-faith viewings. This is why I have been pushing Scott for his impressions of it; he really seems to be the only detractor here capable of arguing without mischaracterizing the actual claims.
UFOs and Nukes is another good one to watch (if you haven’t already seen it). It’s essentially a distillation of Robert Hastings’ research which was further distilled into a small segment of The Phenomenon. Though it is not as well-produced as The Phenomenon, I would still love to hear your impressions of it.
Last edited:
Why WASTE time watching obscure tedious inconclusive videos which are just more hot air?
Cut it short: show a piece of UFO being studied at some University an measurement-test results proving it´s not Man made but by some Alien beings, Civilization or Tchnology.
Simple!!!!!
Anything else is skirting around the problem and I don´t mean
Cut it short: show a piece of UFO being studied at some University an measurement-test results proving it´s not Man made but by some Alien beings, Civilization or Tchnology.
Simple!!!!!
Anything else is skirting around the problem and I don´t mean
"Ignore," "go around." "Skirt" is a commonly used word, and you're trying to make distinctions that have left the realm of "silly" and moved to something worse. Something that isn't saved with italics.
I posted on the origin of "pathological skepticism." I said nothing about anyone.
Ad hominem would be something more like, "It's no secret who Bonsai was referring to."
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
That’s the clearest image so far, showing an Ultimate Flirting Object that I can only hope is here to make first contact 😀
You stated Puthoff was engaging in pathological science as if it were a fact, like “water is wet”. I looked at the link you provided, realized that “pathological science” as a concept is premised on some assumptions that can (and are) challengeable on philosophical grounds. That was my objection to it and I tried to say as much. You took issue with my objection and asked me to defend your own misinterpretation of what my objection was. Instead, I opted to do more research and Lo and behold, there was a philosophical critique that more or less addressed my objections. I then provided this to you. You don’t have to like or agree with the counterpoint but there is one and you just have to accept it.
I really hope that makes things clear.
Now what is this question you want me to answer?
"Pathological science" isn't a psychiatric term. It was coined by a chemist if I'm not mistaken. I'm not really familiar with it, though I may have encountered it at one time or another.
I didn't state that "Puthoff was engaging in," with a present tense. I don't know what he is currently engaged in. He has engaged in it in the past, and that is fact, but you can call it something else if it makes you feel better.
Everything can be challenged on philosophical grounds. That's why most people have little use for philosophers.
My misinterpretation??
You were the one that imagined "fringe interests." I have no qualms about fringe interests; some people may consider "diy audio" to be one such interest.
Beaty is not a philosopher any more than I am.
As to the question, do some more research.
Beaty is your own irrelevant hang-up. I’m talking about Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend.
Maybe if my library has it
Last edited:
Which of those three coined the phrase?
I acknowledged finding what I called the "grandfathering" of the phrase.
I'm not averse to the basic concept of "pathological skepticism." At an extreme, you get the "we don't know everything so we can't know anything" that infects the UFO sister thread.
I acknowledged finding what I called the "grandfathering" of the phrase.
I'm not averse to the basic concept of "pathological skepticism." At an extreme, you get the "we don't know everything so we can't know anything" that infects the UFO sister thread.
You never know when you're going to be abducted by aliens. So I figure that if I'm going to get an anal probing, I might as well be in the mood. That's why I keep this song on my phone.
Barry White - Never Gonna Give You Up - YouTube
Barry White - Never Gonna Give You Up - YouTube
I think the second youtube video you referenced is interesting Mostly where it talks about Eric Lentz's paper. I've always seen these papers based on Alcubierres ideas and they are a complete dead end. They require negative energy, which doesn't exist and can't exist. But people treat that as just something you can wave away and keep working on it as if that limitation is ever going to go away. At least Lentz's paper does away with that limitation, albeit still requiring energy that is astronomical. But at least its theoretical progress because it eliminates negative energy, which is an unphysical idea.
There's another thing I like about it also, which is the idea of using wave movement perpendicular to the acceleration vector. Using that method to cancel the negative energy requirement is promising. I thought of that in 2005 using a whole different conceptual basis from his. But I think the two ideas may end up arriving at the same final idea. I may have to look at his paper. I'm also not sure it would require nearly as much energy as he seems to think.
There's another thing I like about it also, which is the idea of using wave movement perpendicular to the acceleration vector. Using that method to cancel the negative energy requirement is promising. I thought of that in 2005 using a whole different conceptual basis from his. But I think the two ideas may end up arriving at the same final idea. I may have to look at his paper. I'm also not sure it would require nearly as much energy as he seems to think.