"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

researcher wrote:

A Definition of "UFO Skeptic"

Someone that is fundamentally in denial and has a mind closed
like a steel trap.

[snip]

his definition of a Skeptic is sound.

If you think so, then you are delusional too.

The true definition of a UFO skeptic is merly someone who listens to all
the baseless ravings flowing out of the UFO cult and then asks "what
evidence do you have to back up any of that?" Then when no real evidence
is presented, the skeptic quite correctly writes off the ravings as the
utter BS they are. HTH.

No. That is the definition of a disbeliever.

No, it is the definition of a rational person. You see, for things that
are real, no belief is required. You can prove they are real. However,
when someone appeals to belief in a debate, it is a clear sign that they
have nothing real to offer to back up their claims, and are just
shoveling BS. A rational person can see that a mile away. Why can't you?

How do you know I can't?

Because you are defending his idiocy.

Jeez - I so hate all this inexactitude!  Why would I want to
defend idiocy in anyone?

In fact I see a small element of truth in his theory - not the
psychotronic energy thing I hasten to add - and it is because
of that I lend him my sympathies.

Researcher's psychotronic thing may, privately, strike me as
bullshit too but I won't say so until I have seen his ideas tested.

Why wait? If you were to accidentally drop your gum into what looks like
a big steaming pile of bullshit, would you reach down, grab it and pop
it back into your mouth because you weren't absolutely certain it had
been shown to be bullshit? The ability to detect bullshit is a very
handy thing to have.

So you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that his ideas are
bullshit, and without so much as asking a question. Well whup-de-doo!
I nominate you for next year's Nobel prize for psychic detection.

To do otherwise would be quite the opposite of scepticism.

Wrong. You obviously have no clue what the definition of skepticism is.
A real skeptic, upon seeing something that strongly resembles bullshit,
will be skeptical of any claim that it is anything other than bullshit
unless a large body of supporting evidence is provided to back up that
claim.

Far better I should have thought would be to inquire how he
explains the nature of aural energy in terms of physics and
how it can be utilised for propulsion.

What aural energy? He has clearly put the cart before the horse. *First*
he needs to prove that UFOs are anything out of the ordinary. *Then* he
needs to prove they are some sort of spacecraft. *Then* he needs to
prove some sort of "aural energy" is involved with them. *Only then* can
he try to explain this alleged "aural energy" in terms of physics and
speculate about propulsion. He started at step four without first doing
steps one, two and three. That puts him squarely in fantasy land.

Sure he would need to do all that in order to present a scientific
paper for publication. But that isn't the case is it. All he is trying
to do is hold a discussion. You are not engaging him, you are
trying to shut him up, and that is plainly undemocratic.

To dismiss them summarily
and without question

I dismiss him because he has no foundation to his arguments. He is
engaging in mental masterbation, not science.

makes me wonder why you are in a debating
forum.

This isn't a debating forum. This is Usenet. It is an entertainment
forum. I find debunking UFO kooks to be entertaining. HTH.

Aaaah! now we have it. You're not interested in the science
at all - you just love the cut 'n thrust.

'nuff said.

--
altheim