UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[nismaratwork]

i think they are less susceptible. but if we were talking about 1 or 2 incidents and a handful of people, then i would probably not put much emphasis on it yet. but we are talking hundreds, and dozens of incidents. i simply can't just wipe it all away, just because it doesn't meet my previous thought patterns.

i don't think we can compare an event caused by a human versus one caused by an alien, in terms of people knowing about it.

i now have lots of doubt about the sincerity of the cseti group. but let's just take their one claim that many of these visits have been to disarm missiles, and such - that their major concern is us bringing weapons into space.

that being said, it is a small assumption to think that an alien race could keep itself hidden from the masses, and only target those areas of concern.

in fact, i think why it opens my "belief factor" is that it is not only possible, but i think possibly likely that an alien group might behave this way. of course, i realize that the ones making these claims also realize that it is going to seem like a likely type of behavior from an advanced civilization.

i consider myself to be on the fence, but still leaning towards there not being any et visitations. but it would no longer surprise me to find out that there have been.

for me, it would not really affect my life one way or the other. so unlike a lot of people and groups, i don't have any emotional/financial reasons to hope one way or the other.

although i figure it may be good for people in general, since they may have some sort of technology/medicine that could be helpful to us. and i am not scared, since i figure they could have already destroyed us, if that was their goal.

Hmmmm... I think others have better responded to these questions earlier in this very thread. I would point you to FlexGunship's and Jarednjames' posts especially regarding the essential nature of skepticism.

I'm not attacking your beliefs, because unlike many, you're presenting them as just that: beliefs. I would just recommend reading this thread from page 1, and I suspect that by the end you'll be even MORE uncertain.

Still... that's a good thing. Stay on that fence; it's a good place to be when there is nothing to confirm or deny something.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i have posted on this thread quite a few times, earlier. i think i am familiar with many of the older posts to which you refer.

i simply don't buy the thought that hundreds of these military/high level people are simply all mistaken.

if it is untrue, i am much more likely to think that they currently have some sort of goal, and are simply lying.

so unless some new information comes to being, the whole issue simply rests on the back burner for me. AS OF YET, it is neither proved or disproved.

 

[nismaratwork]

i have posted on this thread quite a few times, earlier. i think i am familiar with many of the older posts to which you refer.

i simply don't buy the thought that hundreds of these military/high level people are simply all mistaken.

if it is untrue, i am much more likely to think that they currently have some sort of goal, and are simply lying.

so unless some new information comes to being, the whole issue simply rests on the back burner for me. AS OF YET, it is neither proved or disproved.

In that case, what did you find so convincing in this, beyond the ranks of the people involved?

 

[Physics-Learner]

because i always thought it was a bunch of nonsense, i really had no idea of any of the sorts of "visits".

i can't separate "the ranks" from my thought patterns. it does have a lot of meaning for me.

plus i had no previous thought that they could be concerned about our missiles and bringing our violence into space.

the combination of those 2 things seems like a very real and plausible explanation for et visitations that are not known to the public.

there is still no doubt in me that the vast majority of "sightings" are either hoaxes or something other than ets.

but when people at high level military bases talk about their incidents, i put a lot more stock in it.

and again, i am "not convinced" - but certainly more willing to be open-minded. LOL.

 

[nismaratwork]

because i always thought it was a bunch of nonsense, i really had no idea of any of the sorts of "visits".

i can't separate "the ranks" from my thought patterns. it does have a lot of meaning for me.

plus i had no previous thought that they could be concerned about our missiles and bringing our violence into space.

the combination of those 2 things seems like a very real and plausible explanation for et visitations that are not known to the public.

there is still no doubt in me that the vast majority of "sightings" are either hoaxes or something other than ets.

but when people at high level military bases talk about their incidents, i put a lot more stock in it.

and again, i am "not convinced" - but certainly more willing to be open-minded. LOL.

Well, I obviously disagree, but you've been in the thread and are entitled to your view. I appreciate you going into some more detail, because I admit I found your original post confusing.

I would hope that while keeping an open mind, you consider that human minds are very open by definition. You've said it, that rank is linked to veracity in your mind, although rank and expertise are not the same. Still, I don't see you claiming anything, just describing your view.

That said, skepticism is Skepticism... there is no way to make a sound argument in the context of this thread or sub-forum based on what you've said. Given that, I'd ask that you at least consider how to articulate your new views in a manner that a crusty bastard like me would accept. True, it might not be possible, but it's not a bad exercise, and it can't hurt.

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, at this point, i am somewhat disconnected, because i have no ability to shed any information one way or the other.

i think the prayer about change what you can, accept what you cant, and the wisdom to know the difference applies well for me in this situation.

 

[nismaratwork]

well, at this point, i am somewhat disconnected, because i have no ability to shed any information one way or the other.

i think the prayer about change what you can, accept what you cant, and the wisdom to know the difference applies well for me in this situation.

Ahhh... the "Serenity Prayer". "Give me the power to change what I can, accept what I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference." I'm not sure that invoking prayer of any kind, however well meant is going ot help this situation, and you may be underestimating yourself.

There is an open mind, an open and critical mind... and then...

"Keep your mind too open, and you never know what might walk in." (Simon R. Green)

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, i am certainly still critical. however, i am at least open, now. where i really hadnt been before.

one thing i have found in my life, as i have matured - is that several times it has taken me awhile to become open-minded to things that eventually i found out to be true.

that in itself, was evidence that sometimes i was making conclusions too hastily.

 

[nismaratwork]

well, i am certainly still critical. however, i am at least open, now. where i really hadnt been before.

one thing i have found in my life, as i have matured - is that several times it has taken me awhile to become open-minded to things that eventually i found out to be true.

that in itself, was evidence that sometimes i was making conclusions too hastily.

I think most people who become skeptical begin life cynical as a kind of self-defense. Still, this transitional period between cynicism and optimism is a perfect time to embrace the tenants of (big S) Skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, defining skeptical as having doubts, i guess i am skeptical about most things - LOL.

being raised catholic, i am now agnostic on the topic of the existence of god. however, i don't think there will ever be any information on that topic. if true, that means there will never be anything with which to base a conclusion.

with ets, we certainly have the possibility of finding out if there are any.

 

[nismaratwork]

well, defining skeptical as having doubts, i guess i am skeptical about most things - LOL.

being raised catholic, i am now agnostic on the topic of the existence of god. however, i don't think there will ever be any information on that topic. if true, that means there will never be anything with which to base a conclusion.

with ets, we certainly have the possibility of finding out if there are any.

Nope, that's not Skepticism... that's just having doubts. Skepticism is a philosophy, which can be further modified to accept the scientific method as a "filter".

Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2] Usually meaning those who follow the evidence, versus those who are skeptical of the evidence (see:Denier) Skepticism is most controversial when it questions beliefs that are taken for granted by most of the population.

The word skepticism can characterise a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.[3] Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess.[4]

In religion, skepticism refers to 'doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).' (Merriam–Webster). Often skepticism is confused with agnosticism for the reason that the skeptic usually is also an agnostic.[citation needed]

In classical philosophy, skepticism' (or scepticism) is the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[5]

 

[Physics-Learner]

one thing that may surprise you about me (from just reading these posts) is that i am definitely not a follower.

with regards to knowledge, i tend to place levels of probability on most things that i "know".

 

[nismaratwork]

one thing that may surprise you about me (from just reading these posts) is that i am definitely not a follower.

with regards to knowledge, i tend to place levels of probability on most things that i "know".

If I believed you were mindless (a follower) I wouldn't have engaged with you at all. Heck, ask anyone, I'm not a nice guy on S&D... I just am.

The fact that you think in probabilties is the reason that I see that potential for a high grade of skepticism. If you want to bulk that up, then adding a truly scientifc approoach to your internal "dialogue" of doubt and questioning yields the bests result possible: the critical thinker, the Skeptic. (IMO of course)

Consider what I've said to be an endorsement of what I believe is potential, and an existing ability to live with doubt instead of certainty.

 

[Physics-Learner]

that is actually what i try to do. i try to look at the "evidence" that i have, and ask myself the likelihood of something being true or false, based upon that information.

giving up the certainty of god was the hardest thing to do. nothing else comes even a close second. but in doing so, everything else is easy. i have no problem whatsoever living with the thought that most everything i know has levels of probability attached to it.

with regards to ets, i highly doubt that we will ever get much evidence, until such time that either an et wants us to know, or the govts wants us to know.

unfortunately, the mass knowledge of ets would tend to greatly undermine govt and thereby the financial structure of the bigwigs. and to a smaller extent, the big religions. so there is a ton of resistance to us knowing that they exist, if they do so.

so for example, that knowledge about how life works, tends to lend more credence to their existence, for me. or put another way, if the govts wanted us to know, and we still didnt know, then the likelihood of them having visited would almost shrink to zero, for me.

 

[Andre]

...personally, i have always thought it was a bunch of hooey. but all these high-level people coming out with stories has made me take a couple steps back, and be more accepting of the possibility.

Would that mean that because a general and some pilots have a story that this is more credible than other stories?

We have been here before, but there are some flaws, not adding up.

But why would a military story be more credible than any other? It's not that military culture is based upon honesty and truth. It's certainly not science. Military is all about 'make believe'. If your are to be defending yourself, you'd better *convince* friend and enemy that you can, rather than *prove* that you can. So -for instance- if you happen to be a dictator somewhere -vulnerable to attack-, it helps to convince the world that you have powerful weapons of mass destruction. Also if you want to overthrow that dictator, it helps to convince your friends that he has weapons of mass destruction, regardless if he has them or not. Also, when you go into the offensive against that dictator, be sure to present a completely fake attack plan to the international press, so you can surprise your opponent, deception and surprise the one of the main principles of war.

No the military is not about truth and honesty, it's about winning and attaining your goals in which deception plays a major role, be it to win, or be it not to lose your face, when you goofed. So what would warrant the fallacy of the appeal to authority: "he is an official military, hence it must be true"?

 

[nismaratwork]

Would that mean that because a general and some pilots have a story that this is more credible than other stories?

We have been here before, but there are some flaws, not adding up.

But why would a military story be more credible than any other? It's not that military culture is based upon honesty and truth. It's certainly not science. Military is all about 'make believe'. If your are to be defending yourself, you'd better *convince* friend and enemy that you can, rather than *prove* that you can. So -for instance- if you happen to be a dictator somewhere -vulnerable to attack-, it helps to convince the world that you have powerful weapons of mass destruction. Also if you want to overthrow that dictator, it helps to convince your friends that he has weapons of mass destruction, regardless if he has them or not. Also, when you go into the offensive against that dictator, be sure to present a completely fake attack plan to the international press, so you can surprise your opponent, deception and surprise the one of the main principles of war.

No the military is not about truth and honesty, it's about winning and attaining your goals in which deception plays a major role, be it to win, or be it not to lose your face, when you goofed. So what would warrant the fallacy of the appeal to authority: "he is an official military, hence it must be true"?

Ahhhh... this would be the "AP course". Well said Andre... I'd add, George Washington did much the same... presumably deception has been a part of warfare predating the written word. The Art of War is in many ways, a guide to deception and a call to warfare as a total committment.

That commitment requires the resolution of cognitive dissonance firmly in one direction, as you say. Still, for the sake of this argument, it's simply the lack of expertise and evidence that matter; the rest is overwhelmed by that.

 

[Andre]

Thanks Nismaratwork

Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but there could be three variation, with interesting differences.

1: A states S; A is the undisputed world leading authority in the realm of S, hence S is true

Example: the best weather forecaster in the world says it will snow on 12 February 2013

2: A states S; A is an scientific authority with multiple PhD's, hence S is true.

Example: Prof dr mult X says that when the rooster crows, the sun will rise within the hour.

3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.

Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.

Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.

 

[nismaratwork]

Going to get some hairs cut, but I want to respond in detail later. VERY good post, and I wanted to aknowledge that before running out! "I'll be back..."

 

[nismaratwork]

Thanks Nismaratwork

Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but there could be three variation, with interesting differences.

1: A states S; A is the undisputed world leading authority in the realm of S, hence S is true

Example: the best weather forecaster in the world says it will snow on 12 February 2013

2: A states S; A is an scientific authority with multiple PhD's, hence S is true.

Example: Prof dr mult X says that when the rooster crows, the sun will rise within the hour.

3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.

Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.

Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.

It's this appeal to authority that is so dangerous, especially when authorities by definition do NOT exist for this kind of event. You need many people together, with various expertise agreeing on this 'amazing' event. Having just read Michael Shermer's "Financial Flim-Flam" in SciAm, never is it clearer that this is one of the most pernicious and dangerous fallacies to which any mind can fall.

Implicit in the fallacy you've lain out is also a number of other fallacies; like a Matrushka doll, once you go down that road it's just more dolls. You eventually reach a point where you have to resolve cognitive dissonance, and either break from the fallacy, or reinforce your beliefs. VERY dangerous.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi andre,

yes, for me, it does. a pilot, a military person, etc. have skills that an average citizen does not.

your example of deception doesn't really fly, in this case. we are talking about people coming out now, and talking about events as far back as 40 years.

they are not bragging about some weapon that they have, to intimidate someone else who does not have it. in fact, most of the stories don't include us acquiring a weapon, but rather an alien using it to disarm missiles, etc.

if i want information, i first try to find someone who is skilled and more adept at being able to supply me with said information.

the other thing that i think we need to remind ourselves about is that we are talking about a topic that would have SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS on the powers of today.

so it is almost a certainty that a visitation by aliens would want to be kept secret from the masses. so information is very suspect. so we don't have the luxury of simply making conclusions based solely on factual evidence.

because factual evidence could be hidden, and in its place, intentional confusion.

accepting this, and having some 100+ military, pilots, other skilled people all coming forth with multiple stories is something we should not sweep under the floor. almost every event is witnessed and corroborated by multiple sources.

events have been reported by multiple govts in their respective countries.

i have personally exchanged some emails with the cseti group, and some things simply don't add up. so i don't believe i am getting honest answers there, which is one of the reasons i am currently leaning on the side of the fence that aliens have not visited.

but i am simply too many rings down the ladder of expertise and information to make any sort of informed conclusions about anything.

maybe we will all learn something new and revealing in our lifetimes.

 

[Andre]

This is most ironic. Insiders will know why, but no, I am not going to use the appeal to authority myself. This is hopeless, how can you convince without saying: been there, done that.

On the other hand, one could not desire a better example of exactly that what we were pondering about:

...
Anyway we have been thinking/philosophizing about the argumentum ad verecundiam but
...
3: A states S; I want S to be true so I declare A an authority.

Example: The pilot stated that the UFO caused an electrical failure.

Problem is that the pilot cannot possibly say what caused an electrical failure, provided that there was one in the first place (or goofed, avoiding to lose face), that would require research on the ground, if it can be reproduced in the first place.

Okay, one small attempt then:

... a pilot, a military person, etc. have skills that an average citizen does not.

That may be less relevant if you place a person in an unnatural -extremely demanding- situation and a night air combat situation more than qualifies for that as I showed here.

Giving the problems with sensory illusions, especially the auto-kinetic effect, and spatial disorientation being aggravated by night flying because of the lack of normal visual clues, you simply cannot rely that his observations were accurate at all, even if he was to be the 'best pilot in the world'.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.

and again, i am not saying that they are correct. but i certainly am not going to sweep it under the rug.

 

[lisab]

This is most ironic. Insiders will know why, but no, I am not going to use the appeal to authority myself. This is hopeless, how can you convince without saying: been there, done that.

Ironic indeed .

Andre had a long career as a fighter pilot, for those who aren't aware.

 

[lisab]

i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.

and again, i am not saying that they are correct. but i certainly am not going to sweep it under the rug.

You sound as if you try to take all information into account, P-L. That's good - just keep aware of all fallacies that may apply to the situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[Physics-Learner]

i wasnt aware. but it does not change my opinion. i agree that no one is infallible. but we are not talking about one pilot, or one military person.

i wish this was a topic that had no political or financial implications, such that all the actual information was readily available. it may be a long time before we really know with certainty about all this.

andre,
i would not have taken your appeal as bragging. i think it is great that we have an opinion from someone who has been a fighter pilot.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi lisa,

if you knew me in real life, you would know that i definitely am not someone who believes because others believe - LOL.

in a lot of ways, i consider myself swimming in a small pond instead of the ocean where most the other fish are.

i said this before - but i have made the mistake of discounting something because i thought it was a bunch of hooey - and then turned out to be true. i once thought that about ufos and ets.

i now take the stance that i don't know nothing about it for sure, so certainly should not be making any definite conclusions. i may very well die with no more knowledge about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

hi lisa,

if you knew me in real life, you would know that i definitely am not someone who believes because others believe - LOL.

in a lot of ways, i consider myself swimming in a small pond instead of the ocean where most the other fish are.

i said this before - but i have made the mistake of discounting something because i thought it was a bunch of hooey - and then turned out to be true. i once thought that about ufos and ets.

i now take the stance that i don't know nothing about it for sure, so certainly should not be making any definite conclusions. i may very well die with no more knowledge about it.

re: bolded: This is very good, but very difficult to maintain in life, especially during times of high stress. Remember that at some point your thinking has to find some patterns, and if you don't choose them, they choose you.

 

[Andre]

.. bragging...

I'm sorry that I missed conveying the point. It's not about bragging, it's about believing an insider. Suppose you watched me taxing in in an F-16, and then after that, we would have a talk. You don't doubt my specialism and hence you are likely going to buy anything, I would tell about flying such a thing, regardless if it was completely nonsense or true honest knowledge. Can you tell the difference? That's appeal to authority (of the first kind). You would have no idea how to challenge gibberish stuff I'd say or recognise honesty. Therefore I tried to back up my argumentation with neutral references in the embedded links. Never believe authorities. Be sceptical and find comfirmation.

i would agree with your logic if we were talking about 1 incident. this is 100+ such skilled people and dozens of incidents.

But we can turn that around, couldn't we? We have so many incidents that turned out to be hoaxes or an yet unexplained but clearly natural occurances, so why can't all incidents be hoaxes or natural occurances? We know that people can't fly, yet thousands of people have seen David Copperfield flying, does that mean that he can?

Would that help explaining Lisa's link? why democracy doesn't work in logic?

 

[jreelawg]

What's up guys? Been gone a while.

Anyways, just thought maybe we should go deeper into the issue of credibility as a function of the position of an individual.

Pilots, astronauts, astronomers, radar operators, military personal etc; People in these types of positions, wether justified or not command more respect and credibility to the average person.

My opinion, is that giving more credibility to certain types of people in certain positions is entirely rational. That said, I agree that these types of people may be as susceptible to psychosis or illusion as the average person.

Do you ascribe more credibility to a PF mentor than to a newbie? I'm guessing you would answer yes. You would also rather trust a professor than a homeless person on the street. But of course a PF mentor is human like the rest of us. They are subject to imperfections, egos, jealousy, greed, etc. A PF mentor could have a conflict of interest in a given topic. The same points I believe apply to any expert or qualified person. But to say that all people are equally credible seams a little bit foolish. Aside from the differences of the individuals on the basis of expertise or character, you have a big difference in capability. Not everyone has the appropriate radar equipment, and a fighter jet to scramble at a moments notice for example.

I think you ought to be more convinced by certain people than others. Without proof you have good reason to be highly skeptical of even the most trusted or respected individual. But, you shouldn't expect to have access to proof even if it exists. The same thing to a more extreme level could be said about many things we take for granted. How many of you have personally verified the effect of time dilation, some people we trust said it was so and we believe it.

 

[nismaratwork]

What's up guys? Been gone a while.

Anyways, just thought maybe we should go deeper into the issue of credibility as a function of the position of an individual.

Pilots, astronauts, astronomers, radar operators, military personal etc; People in these types of positions, wether justified or not command more respect and credibility to the average person.

My opinion, is that giving more credibility to certain types of people in certain positions is entirely rational. That said, I agree that these types of people may be as susceptible to psychosis or illusion as the average person.

Do you ascribe more credibility to a PF mentor than to a newbie? I'm guessing you would answer yes. You would also rather trust a professor than a homeless person on the street. But of course a PF mentor is human like the rest of us. They are subject to imperfections, egos, jealousy, greed, etc. A PF mentor could have a conflict of interest in a given topic. The same points I believe apply to any expert or qualified person. But to say that all people are equally credible seams a little bit foolish. Aside from the differences of the individuals on the basis of expertise or character, you have a big difference in capability. Not everyone has the appropriate radar equipment, and a fighter jet to scramble at a moments notice for example.

I think you ought to be more convinced by certain people than others. Without proof you have good reason to be highly skeptical of even the most trusted or respected individual. But, you shouldn't expect to have access to proof even if it exists. The same thing to a more extreme level could be said about many things we take for granted. How many of you have personally verified the effect of time dilation, some people we trust said it was so and we believe it.

In short, no. Credibility is a function of expertise, and then the classic: "Trust, but verify" (Kissinger). Crediblity is also a function of how you view someone, as opposed to the objective measure such as expertise. You're making the argument to authority, and in fact, arguing for the validity of a fallacy; that's a non-starter.

 

[Physics-Learner]

re: bolded: This is very good, but very difficult to maintain in life, especially during times of high stress. Remember that at some point your thinking has to find some patterns, and if you don't choose them, they choose you.

hi lisa,

i am not sure i know what you mean by "patterns in thought" ? that term has a negative connotation for me, because it makes me think about a person thinking a particular way, just because. a bit akin to bias or prejudice.

i have strong opinions about a lot of things, if i have studied them because they are important to me. but some things i may have studied but don't have strong ideas, since i don't feel i have any sort of real grasp on the information.

with ets, i don't have access to any real information. and it is one topic that, if true, is going to have a ton of conflicting information, whose intent is to confuse. since i have nothing concrete that i can depend on, i must also logically admit that i have no idea.

i feel the same about the existence of god. because there is no information, it is irrational to believe or not believe. so by my definition, most people on the planet are irrational with regards to this topic.

i agree pretty much with the above post, regarding respecting other people's opinions. i am going to regard an opinion from a doctor about a medical issue more so than a person on the street. likewise, i put more stock in a pilot or military person about ets than a person on the street.

however, i dislike the medical community as a whole, and attempt to take care of myself, so that i don't need them. so i am not in love with the medical or the military community.

that doesn't mean i accept them lock, stock and barrel, no questions asked. but it does mean that when 100+ military people come out and say the same thing, it is more worth listening to than 100+ ordinary citizens. (with regards to ets, disarming missiles, etc.)

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi andre,

yes, you might be able to fool me, if you wanted to. but most things that you might tell me, it would not make much difference to me.

but if you told me you saw a ufo, i would have doubts for sure. and of course, if i don't know you, then i can't rely on your trustworthiness, since i don't know if you are or not.

i am not gullible. i am simply saying that when lots of pilots and such are all telling me the same thing, i simply can't discount that because it does not meet my prior thought processes about that topic.

to do that would be just silly and stubborn.

i had my first real awakening at about 25. before that i was an excellent student, and gobbled down everything my teachers said.

being raised catholic, jfk was a notch above the pope here in this country. as a little boy, i almost thought of him as a saint.

i started hearing time and again (as i got older) stuff about him that i absolutely discounted. when i finally accepted the fact that he was a big jerk, it really got me thinking about just how much of my other knowledge was simply acceptance of things that i was told.

so i seldom, if ever, rationalize about anything any more. and i try not to jump to hasty conclusions, since i am most apt to be short on some of the facts.

and upon listening to you, i would also try to figure out if there would be some benefit to you to lie to me.

if you were the first pilot to tell me you saw a ufo, i would probably not put much stock in it, and quite possibly write it off rather quickly. but if you were the umpteenth pilot who told me the same thing, at some point, i would begin to realize that there may be something to all of this.

 

[Andre]

and upon listening to you, i would also try to figure out if there would be some benefit to you to lie to me.

Perhaps this:

As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission.

And there are probably psychological mechanisms how that pilot rewires himself to ban out the truth from memory eventually and replace that with his version.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i can see someone doing that. it does not seem likely that 100+ people, both pilots and military personnel, would all be doing the same thing.

it is a bit of a numbers game. that does not mean that there does not need to be proof at some point.

but in this case, i think proof is something that will end up being forced. which generally means that the forcers gradually get up enough power to do so.

as more and more military people come forward, that opens up possibilities of real and actual information being given to us.

maybe it is a bunch of hooey, maybe it isn't ?

but things tend to work in small increments. 20 years ago, it looked like we would never lose the grasp of big oil. but we are now finally getting electric vehicles. and they will soon make the gasoline car extinct.

this did not happen overnight. and i am still not positive why it is happening now. but it is. i suspect that it is the only way the bigwigs have of keeping our economy going at all, and thereby keeping their status. that is based upon my 56 years of understanding greed and how life works.

 

[jreelawg]

You're making the argument to authority, and in fact, arguing for the validity of a fallacy; that's a non-starter.

I think your misunderstanding the meaning behind "appeal to authority" as a fallacy. First of all, in order for it to be a fallacy, you need to consider it in the context of absoluteness, for a lack of better words. For example, if a foot doctor says you have toenail fungus, it is not necessarily the truth based on the logic that would read, "Person A is a foot doctor. Person A says you have foot fungus.

So yeah, your right, as a deductive argument it would not be valid. But, deductive logic means working with assumptions. Without making assumptions you have nothing to work with in deductive logic. From certain assumptions, you can deduce what is true given said assumptions. For example, you could say, "Foot doctors are always correct in diagnosing foot fungus. A foot doctor says you have foot fungus. You have foot fungus."

Point is a qualified person does have more credibility, and deductive logic has nothing to do with it. It is not fallacious to trust someone based on who they are. In philosophy, really nothing can be proven. Well, I think the one thing philosophers say can be proven, was, "I think, therefor I exist. Personally I take issues with the actual profoundness of that argument.

So basically my conclusion is that if you want to say that affording more trust or credibility in certain people is wrong, and that nobody can be relied upon, then you might also get used to the idea of not knowing anything at all except that you exist.

 

[jreelawg]

Perhaps this:

As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission.

And there are probably psychological mechanisms how that pilot rewires himself to ban out the truth from memory eventually and replace that with his version.

See now here you've made a fallacious deductive argument.

 

[Andre]

See now here you've made a fallacious deductive argument.

If that would be my first paragraph, could you elaborate?

If it's the second, please consider it taken back. It's completely irrelevant. No need to turn it into a strawman.

 

[Andre]

It is not fallacious to trust someone based on who they are. .

I'm a car salesman and this car used to be from an old lady...

 

[jreelawg]

See now here you've made a fallacious deductive argument.

"As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission." Andre

I think you should post this paragraph in the homework section and say what's wrong with it. I am going to assume that superior pilot one, and one, are the same subject. First thing I notice, is that the pilot is assumed to never make mistakes. So yeah they couldn't possibly admit one, because it's impossible for them to make one based on your premise. Then your last sentence is out of nowhere land.

 

[Andre]

Ah, of course, but I was just reflecting what could have been on the mind of this pilot. It was not supposed to be a proper line of reasoning. He himself is certain that he is infallible, so he cannot goof and if he did, it must have been something else.

Second most important point for him is that the non flyers are convinced that he is the superior pilot. And as he can tell anything he wants, being the authority, he will do so. After all, the military as I said, is about convincing the others that you can do your job, rather than proving that you can.

More thoughts of a fighter pilot

 

[jreelawg]

I'm a car salesman and this car used to be from an old lady...

Not trusting a car salesman for whatever reason is the same as trusting someone for some reason.

It isn't fallacious to not trust a car salesman. The argument for not trusting them could be just that their job is to sell you a car and they have a financial incentive to mislead you if it helps them do so. Or you could say that statistically they are prone to dishonesty when selling cars. It would be a fallacy to say that car salesmen always lie. And it would be a fallacy to say that the amish always tell the truth.

 

[Andre]

Exactly, so how about trusting a fighter pilot, whose main objective is to seem to be infallible to his admirers?

 

[Physics-Learner]

I'm a car salesman and this car used to be from an old lady...

LOL andre,

but used car salesmen are known not to be trusted. it is their job to sell you a lemon.

ditto with real estate agents, lawyers, and most anyone trying to sell you something. people know to watch out, because the person they are dealing with is trying to take your money.

people skilled in something at least have better knowledge in said something than someone who doesnt.

so again, you respect that knowledge base, and of course must still need to discern what motives they may have.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Exactly, so how about trusting a fighter pilot, whose main objective is to seem to be infallible to his admirers?

andre,

that is not his main objective.

 

[Andre]

Point is that the mystification Tehran UFO incident (failure of aircraft systems) is based on the pilots reporting that, without these things there is not a lot left. So in that case it is essential.

 

[jreelawg]

Exactly, so how about trusting a fighter pilot, whose main objective is to seem to be infallible to his admirers?

I would argue that shouldn't be a fighter pilots main objective. Their main objective should be their duties, their orders, and their mission. But I get your point, they probably don't like admitting mistakes. Problem I see though, is that my view has been that making up a story about a supernatural event isn't going to win you very much credibility will it? Won't people be like, this guy is crazy, maybe we should have him cleaning the toilets instead of flying multi million dollar equipment? I have always heard people are afraid to say they saw a UFO because they lose credibility by doing so. Maybe if you knew you could get away with it and have your superiors convinced, you might try and make up a bogus story.

But anyone can lie. Their expertise as a fighter pilot isn't what gives them more credibility as a truth teller, well, maybe to a certain extent. Mostly, what makes them different, is that they were their, they had the tools which would enable them to get a look. Maybe they had been scrambled to investigate something caught on radar, and they saw something specific.

The point is not that they are immune from dishonesty, but that they have a unique position in which it is possible for them to better investigate or observe things in the sky.

So let's say that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials, it would be more profound to me, than if a large percentage of mental patients were convinced of the same thing.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i concede the point that a pilot can have other motives.

what will it take for you to concede the point that MULTIPLE military people and pilots give more credibility to the issue than a bunch of citizens whose main goal may actually be to get attention ?

 

[Physics-Learner]

.

So let's say that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials, it would be more profound to me, than if a large percentage of mental patients were convinced of the same thing.

LOL - exact a mundo.

 

[Andre]

Is there any substantiation for the idea that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials?

For the record, I was thinking that we were discussing the Tehran incident, which is mostly based on the narratives of two pilots.

I merely argued why using the Argumentum ad verecundiam does not hold ground, not even as an argument of autority. So replacing that by NASA people etc, seems not very relevant here.

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps this:

As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission.

And there are probably psychological mechanisms how that pilot rewires himself to ban out the truth from memory eventually and replace that with his version.

Cognitive Dissonance theory; when you resolve the dissodance, you reinforce the choices you make, sometimes to the point of self-deslusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance