From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:04:12 +0000 Archived: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 05:11:25 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >From: Robert Powell<rpowell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:37:57 -0600 >Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >>From: John Donaldson<John.Donaldson.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:41:04 +0000 >>Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >>>From: Robert Powell<rpowell.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:03:44 -0600 >>>Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film ><snip> >>>NORAD should have the evidence that says "nay" or "yea." The >>>question is either, "will they provide that evidence," or "have >>>they even looked for that evidence." I know the latter statement >>>sounds a little far-fetched, but I don't think it is. I can >>>imagine a scenario where NORAD tracks space debris, potential >>>ICBMs, air traffic,etc., but they ignore oddities that have >>>speed/vector tracks that don't match up with the items with >>>which they are interested. (For anyone who has analyzed radar >>>data, they can appreciate the reason for this statement.) >>>Unfortunately, NORAD is not going to provide information to >>>answer either scenario. >>Yeah, I've sometimes wondered about NORAD, and related >>government agencies in the US and elsewhere, in relation to the >>question of how best to formulate the ETH: Two version of the >>ETH seem distinguishable: (1) ETH with no government(s) >>conspiracy; (2) ETH with government(s) conspiracy. Option (1) is >>taken to be the more attractive of the two by many (not least >>because it does not require a surprising degree of competency >>over many decades from a diverse and fractious group of >>governments); >Actually, John, Option (2) has been the favored theory amongst >most people. I consider all possibilities, but I currently favor >Option (1); although it's not so simple as just one of those two >options. But I don't want to expand this further. I claimed "many", you attribute "most" to me. But "many" doesn't entail "most". For example: "many people voted for Romney, but most people voted for Obama". Also, I think there's a question about the domain of these quantifiers: are the people in question here everyone? Just people with an interest in ufology? Just ufologists? Just the informed ufologists? Hence my cautious use of "many", which I think would hold true in all of these domains; whether or not "most" would apply in any of these domains, I don't know - which is why I didn't use it. >>but the question is - can ETHists hold (1) at all? >>This seems a reasonable argument: >>P1: Either option (1) or option (2). >With all due respect, I don't know what course in school taught >this type of argumentation method, but I would suggest >utilization of a different method. I'm somewhat puzzled about the method you're referring to... you insert the comment under a disjunctive premise, which is not itself an argument, it's part of an argument. Do you not like disjunctions? Or is that you don't like what's called "standard form" - numbering premises "P1" etc., making each premise explicit, laying the argument out so that it's formally valid? If so, what's wrong with standard form (which will be taught on any course that teaches informal logic)? Or did you mean something else? >>P2: If option (1) then ETs could *not* be visiting this planet >>anywhere near as frequently as some claim in the apparent manner >>in which they do (often showing up on radar, buzzing military >>vehicles and sites etc.). >This P2 line of reasoning is not correct. First, you make an >absolute conclusion without providing any of your reasoning. It's not a conclusion, it's a premise. I guess you mean that the conditional is false. >First, you need to establish what you think the frequency of >real visitations might be. I said "as frequently as some claim" in the belief that it would be clear enough what I meant, although perhaps I was mistaken. I simply meant to refer to the frequency which is most often cited in the work of many of those who broadly favour the ETH, where it is often suggested that we have reason to believe that over the past 60 odd years there have been thousands of incursions into Earth's atmosphere by alien spacecraft. Although my point did not rest only on frequency - it was also the type of some of those incursions: buzzing military aircraft (RB47, Lakenheath, etc.) interfering with weapon systems (Tehran 1976, the minutemen missile shutdowns, etc.), and so on. >Second, you need to explain "why" >frequency of ETH visitations has anything to do with the "lack >of" or the "existence of" a government conspiracy. You also need >to take into account that there might be a momentary conspiracy >to keep something secret by just two people, or there might be a >government agency conspiracy that exists for only a few years >and then is forgotten. The ease of sustaining a conspiracy on a global scale across many governments becomes harder, and therefore less likely, the more incursions there are, and especially the more incursions there are in military contexts. That's all I'm saying.... >Your simplification of this issue is too extreme. It was simply meant to be a concise summary argument to introduce the point... >>P3: If option (2) then ETs *could* be visiting this planet >>anywhere near as frequently as some claim in the apparent manner >>in which they do (often showing up on radar, buzzing military >>vehicles and sites etc.). >Same thing as P2. Where is your proof of causality for the >conclusion that "frequent visits" (which you have not proven) >equates to "there must be a government conspiracy." First, remember that these are conditionals: "if P, then Q". Conditionals are true independently of whether or not their constituent propositions (P and Q) are as a matter of fact true. For example: this conditional is true "if I'm in Sydney, then I'm in the southern hemisphere" - even though it's false as a matter of fact that I'm in Sydney, and false that I'm in the southern hemisphere (I've never been in the southern hemisphere, unfortunately). Thus I don't need to prove that as a matter of fact I'm in Sydney to prove that the conditional is true. Similarly, with the conditional "If option (2) then ETs *could* be visiting this planet anywhere near as frequently as some claim in the apparent manner in which they do (often showing up on radar, buzzing military vehicles and sites etc.)" - both constituent propositions could be false, and yet the conditional is still true. Moreover, my general point was simply about the probabilities involved - more visits mean those visits are harder for govts. to hide - on a sliding scale; less visits mean those visits are easier for govts. to hide - on a sliding scale. Given enough visits, particularly involving military contexts, then you would seem to reach a tipping point, where it would be hard to believe that there wasn't a conspiracy (if there are any visits at all). >>P4: The ETH is taken to be plausible only because of the claims >>of frequent ET visitation including often showing up on radar, >>buzzing military vehicles and sites etc. >Your use of the term "only because" makes P4 false. There can be >other reasons that makes ETH plausible.of Again, perhaps I should have been clearer here - but by use of "etc." I meant to refer to the more compelling photographic, film and trace evidence that is presented to back up the claims of visitation - and that's the key point, it's the visits that count, and the higher number, the harder they are to hide. Beyond the evidence I've mentioned, I don't take any other evidence to be plausible - but I'm open to attempts to persuade me otherwise. >>C: Therefore, the ETH is plausible only if option (2). >>Some may respond at this point "but of course" - others may >>demure. But at the very least, it seems as if holding (1) is >>only compatible with an interpretation of the UFO phenomenon >>which downplays very significantly the number and type of >>visitations... >Untrue. >The Mashco-Piro tribe of Peru are unaware of the outside world. >The Peruvian Air Force could buzz them every day or once a year. >Either way, the existence of the Peruvian Air Force and their >frequency of visitations has no causality to whether the Mashco- >Piro "council" conspires to keep the information away from the >rest of the Macho-Piro people or not. It's not obvious that you're addressing my argument with this analogy... are you saying that the frequency with which the air force buzz's the tribe bears absolutely no relation to how difficult it would be for the council to conspire to keep the fact of such events secret? But that's surely false - if they've overflown just once, that's much easier to cover up than if they fly over every day - the probabilities are obvious... Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp