In alt.alien.visitors The_Sage <theeSage@azrmci.net> wrote:
:>Reply to article by: Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. <nospam@newsranger.com>
:>Date written: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:36:43 GMT
:>MsgID:<vCstb.29319$cJ5.4678@www.newsranger.com>

:>According to Dr. Sagan, there is no convincing evidence that UFOs are real.

: Do you have any examples to the contrary?

:>Methinks Carl doth protest too much for a person who, as a young man, was at
:>least favorable toward, if not totally convinced by, the early UFO sightings:
:>"It seemed pretty believable to me...apart from a few harrumphs and giggles--I
:>couldn't find any counterarguments.  How could all these eyewitnesses by
:>mistaken?"

: Then Carl grew up and learned to think for himself instead of being the victim
: of every passing fad.

:>After all, he is a proponent of listening via radio to the universe in order to
:>detect signs of intelligent life "out there."  Hence he must be a believer in
:>life out there...enough of a believer to commit his and other people's time and
:>money to hours and hours of "listening."

: I find it amusing that believers think that life out there is visiting us over
: here, yet see no contradiction in denouncing those trying to look for life out
: there because they also believe it won't be found.

:>Is there any evidence of life out there to listen for?

: Not anymore evidence to look for than the story about life out there trying to
: visit us in here.

There is far more observational data that apparently solid craft under 
intelligent control performing beyond or current capabilities are operating
in our atmosphere then ET radio from the stars. . .why do you think we have
the whole UFO phenomenon? Or are you just profoundly stupid?

:>Dr. Sagan points out that as he grew up and learned "how science works--the
:>secrets of its great success," he became skeptical of UFO reports.  He decided
:>that "Essentially all UFO cases were anecdotes," just stories, by people "who
:>reported what they saw."

: Unless there is more to the UFO reports than just stories, such as some actual
: physical evidence on display somewhere, Carl is completely correct.

There is plenty of physical evidence, it is just not unambiguous. . .

:>At the end of his article (in which he also discussed crop circles) he appeals
:>to skepticism as a counter to credulity and laments that the "tools of
:>skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society."  The
:>implications is that anyone who "believes" in the UFO reality is not being
:>properly skeptical but, rather, credulous (willing to believe in "anything").
:>Again methings that Carl protests too much, for it was by using the "tools of
:>skepticism" that I arrived at the conclusion that UFOs are real.

: But of course, you failed to properly define what those tools are, giving you
: license to say anything and call it "using the tools of skepticism". That
: implies that you are deluding yourself.

:>My "conversion" to "belief" (really, acceptance) of UFO reality was a result of
:>considering and analyzing explanations for UFO sightings.

: Exactly how do you "analyze explanations"? Do you check for pronunciation of
: words or spelling errors in the explanation? How do you prove when an
: explanation is a fact and not a storytale, if you don't go outside of the
: explnation and try to look for physically corroborating evidence?

: I can tell you one thing, analying explanations is not a tool of skepticism or
: of science, it is a tool of the self-deceiving.

:>I analyzed a number
:>of the classic (read, "older") sightings and the explanations for them and
:>realized that the explanations were unconvincing, at best, and just plain wrong,
:>at worst.

: That isn't analyzing, that is mere opinion. In boths cases, any explanation that
: cannot be backed up with facts is still called storytelling. You have got to
: learn, like all UFO believers do, that a report of a UFO doesn't not prove UFOs
: exist. You need something much more substantial than millions of reports, each
: of which lacks even the slightest trace of physical evidence that what was
: claimed to have occured, actually did occur. Physically real objects leave
: physically real traces that they existed. UFOs never ever do that. Most reports
: of UFOs are not even reports about Unidentified Flying Objects, but rather they
: are only reports of visual anomalies, like optical illusions. Are visual
: anomalies, 'objects'?

:>It was at this time that I became skeptical of the skeptics.

: That is called the logical fallacy of polarizing the issue. You are boxing
: everyone up into neat little boxes, with one box labeled 'believers' and the
: other box labeled 'skeptics'...and then assuming beforehand that anyone in the
: skeptic box is one of the 'bad guys'. Instead of boxing up facts, you box up
: irrational predjudices. It doesn't matter what other people say or do, what
: matters are, what are the facts. Whether believers or skeptics, if either one
: has the facts, you should be listening for those facts, not pre-judging them on
: whether they are worthy of listening to in your predjudiced opinion.

Nice statement, people on both sides of the UFO phenomenon could take advice
from them. . .

Garry

snip<