For decades they've clamored for "disclosure"—an admission by the government that it knows of galactic gatecrashers, and that aliens are irrefutably here. This always struck me as a classic argument from ignorance:
Right now you are focusing on only skeptics of UFOs. There is a very good flip side to this and it is based on the exact same argument that you are using about skeptics, and it applies to believers equally as well.
If you have been reading these boards for a long time, you'll find that many believers do equate UFOs with Aliens in a automatic way: I've seen many a debate in these very forums where believers will insist something is a UFO but are are using the term as "Alien Piloted Craft".
When a skeptic who thinks that a photo or video is not actually a UFO, the "strawman" argument will be pulled out by the believer.
To clarify the above paragraph, if evidence is presented such as a photo or video where the object in question is not very clear, but may have possible mundane answers blurred birds, lens flares, air craft, shooting star, etcbut is not definitive, a skeptic can agree that it is a "UFO" because it is NOT identified firmly, so is still "Unidentified".
However, many believers will quickly say: Thanks for your thoughtful response. One of the main reasons that I focused on the confusion of the UFO and Alien Hypotheses often made in off-hand remarks from the skeptic, is that this is often sufficient to turn people off to any further exploration of the subject.
I certainly agree that there is another side to the story - that many of the proponents of the UFO Hypothesis use some very silly arguments.
It is my hope that, in being able to recognize certain logical fallacies, that people will be able to weed out both the poor skeptical and poor proponent arguments, in order to eventually arrive at the best arguments from both sides.
This is where the real progress is made. Unfortunately, when looking only at what I have found to be the best arguments of the proponents and the best counter-arguments of the skeptics, there is a great divide in the number of logical fallacies committed. The skeptics, even at that level, consistently commit some truly egregious errors in logic, especially having to do with evidence.
This is the perspective I am writing from, after having assessed the arguments from both sides for many years, and is another reason that I focused solely on the errors of the skeptic in my post, as my conclusion is that UFOs are real.
But the updated main point is: As a result, be careful of introducing the idea of aliens when arguing for or against the UFO Hypothesis.The debate centered around whether or not UFOs are extraterrestrial space vehicles, or whether they exist at all, has raged for many years. During the course of the debate the United States Air Force, official government agency responsible for UFO report evaluation, has been subjected to severe criticism for the manner in which it has handled.
Aristotle’s advice was refined in in The Uses of Argument by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin, who focused on logical methods of constructing persuasive arguments. The Toulmin model emphasizes a clearly stated claim, convincing evidence, and adequate connections (warrants) between the two.
What if the reason you can do anything to UFO’s is because they have control over gravity which is the reason they can move really quick throught space. Also i think why you cant see them is because the light that they have to cover themselves is like a really bright light used to make you not be able to see but just bigger and keep it on.
Jul 01, · Both the USAF and Royston Paynter presented arguments touching on the possible existence of UFO’s and alien life.
Each expert made the logical conclusion that, as it stands, there is not enough evidence to conclude that UFO’s or alien life exist. Home / Articles / Entertainment / Obama talks Area 51, UFOs and aliens with Jimmy Kimmel.
Obama talks Area 51, UFOs and aliens with Jimmy Kimmel. Posted by: Alejandro Rojas March 13, when Clinton appeared on Kimmel’s show and discussed UFOs and aliens. The only really valid criterion for evolutionary success is current existence, so the conclusion would seem to be that large brains do not, in general, confer an evolutionary advantage over small brains.
Instead large and small brains seem to represent different but equally good evolutionary outcomes.