[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I love when people say aliens, conspiracies, etc have absolutely no proof, then whip out Occam's Razor...gee, that one's proven...

A beautiful straw man.

No one's saying that Occam's Razor literally disproves anything; it simply says that the theory that makes as few assumptions as possible is usually the correct theory.

Here's an example. As I'm sitting here writing this, I'm hearing a dull buzz. Now, this is most likely the noise of my fan; I've seen the fan before, I've heard the fan before, I've observed tangible evidence of it in the past. I also turned it on a while ago; unless some external force has interfered with my fan, one can assume it's still running. However, with all of this taken into mind, it doesn't disprove the theory that there's a government satellite high up in orbit, which is slowly boring a hole into my psych, and the buzz is a byproduct of the arduous mind-mining.

Of course, we all know that the fan theory is much more elegant and coherent; that's all that Occam's Razor is suggesting.

 

[Dzjudz]

Burn!

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif What made the Columbia come apart? USG

An amateur astronomer had been taking high-res photography of stars. He caught the shuttle being hit by some plasma beam that looked like a lightning bolt. Although it wasn't lightning. Lightning lasts no more than 2 seconds, and doesn't occur like that in space. This beam lasted for 30 seconds which NASA was able to determine by examining the duration of the film. When the man told NASA about the photos he took, they sent an astronaut to his house the same day and he gave them the pictures.

This was even in the news, but they were very vague about it and it none of the photos had been released by NASA, but someone got ahold of them.

Do some searching on the web and you can find stuff about it. There are also a few threads in the forum I mentioned.

Now what was this plasma beam? A space-based weapon of ours? A UFO firing on our shuttle? Who knows. But that's what damaged the shuttle, not a chunk of foam from the fuel tank.


Anyway, I don't wish to get in arguments with anyone here. It's kind of like double blind testing. People will believe what they want to. Skeptics deny the possibilities because they don't do enough research to find out the truth for themselves. Is a ton of it garbage? Absolutely. But there is plenty that isn't. You just need to be able to use common sense to tell the difference. Reptilian overlords? Don't think so.

 

[Dzjudz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif When the man told NASA about the photos he took, they sent an astronaut to his house the same day and he gave them the pictures.

They sent an astronaut to collect some pictures that some guy called them about? Why not send the mailboy or something...

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif An amateur astronomer had been taking high-res photography of stars. He caught the shuttle being hit by some plasma beam that looked like a lightning bolt. Although it wasn't lightning. Lightning lasts no more than 2 seconds, and doesn't occur like that in space. This beam lasted for 30 seconds which NASA was able to determine by examining the duration of the film. When the man told NASA about the photos he took, they sent an astronaut to his house the same day and he gave them the pictures. This was even in the news, but they were very vague about it and it none of the photos had been released by NASA, but someone got ahold of them. Do some searching on the web and you can find stuff about it. There are also a few threads in the forum I mentioned. Now what was this plasma beam? A space-based weapon of ours? A UFO firing on our shuttle? Who knows. But that's what damaged the shuttle, not a chunk of foam from the fuel tank. Anyway, I don't wish to get in arguments with anyone here. It's kind of like double blind testing. People will believe what they want to. Skeptics deny the possibilities because they don't do enough research to find out the truth for themselves. Is a ton of it garbage? Absolutely. But there is plenty that isn't. You just need to be able to use common sense to tell the difference. Reptilian overlords? Don't think so.

This coming from the person who thinks different music programs and lossless files sound different.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Reptilian overlords? Don't think so.

So, reptilian overlords isn't fathomable, but a space weapon used by some esoteric plasma weapon destroying one of our ships is more conceivable?

When you step back, it's all equally ridiculous.

Can you provide evidence of these pictures, which have been verified to be authentic?

Can the photos be accounted for anything else? A solar flare in the background, for example? Does it have to be a laser weapon?

Why would US/Some Earthen Faction test a weapon like this on such a high-profile operation? Surely if they wanted to test what would happen, they'd fire up an unmanned sattelite in some remote part of the world?

And how would such a weapon remain secret? It's difficult to cover something like that up: remember when the nuke was being developed? Think about how soon the Russians got ahold of that, and keep in mind the whole idea of a nuclear bomb was absolutely top-secret.

And if it was a UFO, why would they fire upon that particular ship? What would be their motives? Why wouldn't we have been able to sense them?

It is questions like these which make conspiracy theories uncomfortable.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif An amateur astronomer had been taking high-res photography of stars. He caught the shuttle being hit by some plasma beam that looked like a lightning bolt. Although it wasn't lightning. Lightning lasts no more than 2 seconds, and doesn't occur like that in space. This beam lasted for 30 seconds which NASA was able to determine by examining the duration of the film. When the man told NASA about the photos he took, they sent an astronaut to his house the same day and he gave them the pictures. This was even in the news, but they were very vague about it and it none of the photos had been released by NASA, but someone got ahold of them. Do some searching on the web and you can find stuff about it. There are also a few threads in the forum I mentioned. Now what was this plasma beam? A space-based weapon of ours? A UFO firing on our shuttle? Who knows. But that's what damaged the shuttle, not a chunk of foam from the fuel tank. Anyway, I don't wish to get in arguments with anyone here. It's kind of like double blind testing. People will believe what they want to. Skeptics deny the possibilities because they don't do enough research to find out the truth for themselves. Is a ton of it garbage? Absolutely. But there is plenty that isn't. You just need to be able to use common sense to tell the difference. Reptilian overlords? Don't think so.

Using "common sense" and "UFO" in the same sentence is creating an oxymoron.

 

[The Pieman]

Beam me up Scotty! There is no intelligent life down here.

It is done, somebody had to say it.

But seriously, I don't believe any of this type of stuff. The main reason is that secrets are pretty much impossible to keep. If more than one person knows about something, it is no longer a secret.

That much puts paid to conspiracy theory. I doubt if there is a conspiracy in history that hasn't leaked or been uncovered sooner or later. There is no way a government could cover up something for an indeterminate amount of time.

I have no doubt there are other sentient alien life forms somewhere in the universe. Have we seen any around our solar system? No.

cheers
Simon

 

[sector001]

looks like military...

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif A beautiful straw man. No one's saying that Occam's Razor literally disproves anything; it simply says that the theory that makes as few assumptions as possible is usually the correct theory. Here's an example. As I'm sitting here writing this, I'm hearing a dull buzz. Now, this is most likely the noise of my fan; I've seen the fan before, I've heard the fan before, I've observed tangible evidence of it in the past. I also turned it on a while ago; unless some external force has interfered with my fan, one can assume it's still running. However, with all of this taken into mind, it doesn't disprove the theory that there's a government satellite high up in orbit, which is slowly boring a hole into my psych, and the buzz is a byproduct of the arduous mind-mining. Of course, we all know that the fan theory is much more elegant and coherent; that's all that Occam's Razor is suggesting.

There was nothing strawman about it, I simply find it amazing someone can ridicule someone else's theory or belief by using a theory themselves. A bit hypocritical, no?

Besides, I don't really care what people do or do not believe, I don't like the childish nature people resort to when they are presented with something they disagree with. I've had numerous conversations with people I do not agree it, and never once found it necessary to ridicule. Question it all you like, what's to gain from sarcasm and stupidity???

The fan analogy, btw, doesn't make your point all that well. You can prove the fan is the source of the noise by turning it off and on. You cannot disprove any conspiracy theory on the basis of Occam's Razor or a lack of evidence, you simply can't prove it to be true.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif There was nothing strawman about it, I simply find it amazing someone can ridicule someone else's theory or belief by using a theory themselves. A bit hypocritical, no?

The straw man essence was when you were suggesting that Occam's Razor had been proven. It's not a scientific theory (or any other sort of theory), it's a principal.

And, although your statement is another straw man in the fact that no one is 'ridiculing' his opinion, simply dismissing it, how is it hypocritical to ridicule one's theory with another? Some theories are more correct than others.

Take for instance, the well established theory of Evolution, against a theory such as Intelligent Design. The bulk of the evidence (and there's a lot of it) weighs on Evolution; you can dismiss ID with specific occurrences and sections of evidence from Evolution.

Quote:

Besides, I don't really care what people do or do not believe, I don't like the childish nature people resort to when they are presented with something they disagree with. I've had numerous conversations with people I do not agree it, and never once found it necessary to ridicule. Question it all you like, what's to gain from sarcasm and stupidity???

Who's ridiculing? A straw man, methinks.

Quote:

The fan analogy, btw, doesn't make your point all that well. You can prove the fan is the source of the noise by turning it off and on.

Yes, you're correct. However, before I turn the fan off experimentally, we can make hypothesis, and apply Occam's Razor to these hypothesis. That's the point I was trying to get across.

Quote:

You cannot disprove any conspiracy theory on the basis of Occam's Razor or a lack of evidence, you simply can't prove it to be true.

And no one's suggesting otherwise. However, just because you can't disprove it with lack of evidence, doesn't mean it's a viable theory (you may or may not be suggesting otherwise, but I figure it's good to throw it out there nonetheless).

Take, for instance, Russel's Teapot. Bertrand Russel developed it, and it's become quite a famous analogy:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

I've snipped about half of it, because the latter half deals with religion and is a tad discursive.

 

[IPodPJ]

Yeah, most people ridicule these theories when they haven't put one iota of effort into researching them. That's why I will avoid any arguments with people who don't know anything about them.

But if someone wants to have a serious debate with me in chat after they've read the same tens of thousands of pages and watched the hundreds of hours of videos I have, I'll be more than happy to do so. If you need a little push in the right direction, I have about 70 or so websites bookmarked that I think provide some of the most useful information. Until then, any such dialogue is as useless as a DBT discussion.

And as much as I love researching the stuff, I had to take a break from it for awhile because it can get extremely depressing. And then of course you always run into the people on those sites who think the world is going to end every month, and much to their surprise we are still here.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif The straw man essence was when you were suggesting that Occam's Razor had been proven. It's not a scientific theory (or any other sort of theory), it's a principal. And, although your statement is another straw man in the fact that no one is 'ridiculing' his opinion, simply dismissing it, how is it hypocritical to ridicule one's theory with another? Some theories are more correct than others. Take for instance, the well established theory of Evolution, against a theory such as Intelligent Design. The bulk of the evidence (and there's a lot of it) weighs on Evolution; you can dismiss ID with specific occurrences and sections of evidence from Evolution. Who's ridiculing? A straw man, methinks. Yes, you're correct. However, before I turn the fan off experimentally, we can make hypothesis, and apply Occam's Razor to these hypothesis. That's the point I was trying to get across. And no one's suggesting otherwise. However, just because you can't disprove it with lack of evidence, doesn't mean it's a viable theory (you may or may not be suggesting otherwise, but I figure it's good to throw it out there nonetheless). Take, for instance, Russel's Teapot. Bertrand Russel developed it, and it's become quite a famous analogy: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." I've snipped about half of it, because the latter half deals with religion and is a tad discursive.

I never suggested you personally ridiculed, but some of the comments on this thread are condescending to the say the very least. There is absolutely no reason for it.

I never suggested Occam's Razor was proven, quite the opposite actually. I was pointing out how people use Occam's Razor as a way of dismissing complex theories when the Occam's itself could very well have no merit whatsoever. Simply because you may be able to apply it in certain situations and it appears to fit doesn't make it valid.

For the record, I don't believe the video was alien craft.

 

[Dzjudz]

Well, there's really not much more to it than what Marados is putting forward, is there? There is no proof for any of those theories, so the only thing these theories have got going for them is the faith (yes, I will say it again, faith) people put into them as being true. And, as we all know, despite some theories (I will not go much further into this, a slippery slope towards banned discussions on these forums) lacking substantive evidence, many people are still reluctant to dismiss them on the basis of such clear principles as Occam's Razor (edit, because the previous post was added while I was typing this: people don't dismiss theories just on the basis of Occam's Razor, people are rather reluctant to believe theories because of lack of proof which provides all the more merit to a principle as Occam's Razor: there are millions of possible theories without proof. Are you believing all of them, or are you dismissing them because there is no proof and they are construed in a ridiculous manner? Ergo, Occam's Razor). There's no arguing with believers. I'm a healthy sceptic, if I say so myself. I don't dismiss theories on face value, but I'd like some real facts/proof before I stand behind them. A theory is just that, a theory, nothing more, nothing less. However, some theories are better than others: those with proof. Next!

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, most people ridicule these theories when they haven't put one iota of effort into researching them. That's why I will avoid any arguments with people who don't know anything about them. But if someone wants to have a serious debate with me in chat after they've read the same tens of thousands of pages and watched the hundreds of hours of videos I have, I'll be more than happy to do so. If you need a little push in the right direction, I have about 70 or so websites bookmarked that I think provide some of the most useful information. Until then, any such dialogue is as useless as a DBT discussion. And as much as I love researching the stuff, I had to take a break from it for awhile because it can get extremely depressing. And then of course you always run into the people on those sites who think the world is going to end every month, and much to their surprise we are still here.

I've tried many times to get people to look into the theories before dismissing them. It never works. These days, I rarely bother to discuss any of it with anyone. You are correct, it's pointless.

I used to find it depressing as well, know I think the opposite. The information is out there, and to me, not looking into it willfully is more depressing. If even 1% of what's out there is true, I want to know.