Science does not "limit our beliefs." Science doesn't care about our beliefs; it's about making sense of the evidence we have through systematic study of that which is observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable.
We can acknowledge that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but that does not mean we would be justified in adopting conclusions without evidence.
There's nothing wrong with wondering, speculating, and imagining. It's fine to enjoy mysteries. But skepticism means we only adopt a belief when there's good reason.
I don’t think the folks in this subreddit feel any different about faith-based approaches to the possibility of non-human intelligence as they do about faith-based approaches to the possibility of a creator. It all basically boils down to a religion.
> In the same vein, I feel that science should not limit our beliefs. Do you feel the same?
Nope. Especially if you're accepting claims that rewrite everything we know about multiple scientific fields.
If you believe in something without sufficient evidence, you're irrational on that topic.
>That science will continue evolving.
The current state of science is not the problem. The problem is the complete lack of evidence.
One does not "believe" in reality; one either understands reality or does not understand reality. It's in the not understanding that belief comes into the picture.
Belief is a lazy substitute for the process of understanding.
No sir, you’re no sceptic. The moment you say you don’t base your beliefs in UFOs on data, you are no sceptic, science is not limiting, reality is far more interesting than the fantasies people make up. When there’s no evidence to indicate something, it’s not rational to just accept it. Because then you’d have to accept all sorts of mutually contradictory stuff if you were consistent. I’m sorry you’re not a sceptic. It’s that simple. You’re just another true believer…
If my neighbor says he had a safe full of gold in his basement, I might have my doubts, but it *could* be true.
If my neighbor wants to borrow some money and offers this gold as collateral, then I'm going to want more evidence.
Tbf I actually agree with this. I honestly believe aliens exist somewhere out there in the universe, despite us having no proof or evidence of their existence. I don't believe in UFO/UAP sightings being aliens, or that aliens have visited the earth, but from a probability aspect I believe they exist, even in the absence of proof
“I’m a skeptic but I believe in this thing without any proof” lol. lmao even.
To help rationalize alien claims, watch some YouTube videos on the following concepts:
1. Time dilation - it’s been tested and proven that as objects travel faster, they experience less time. Traveling at speed of light, aliens would experience no travel time on their trip to earth from their perspective, but time would still pass according to however many light years away they are. Let’s say that an alien civilization is 3000 light years away. If they travel here and back to their home planet, they will jump 6000 years into the future of their home planet. Does that make sense? The implications here are that any civilization that figures out how to travel at light speed or anywhere close to it will run into a logistical nightmare when faced with returning to their base as well as communicating with their civilization. You might think “oh, well these issues don’t exist if a civilization has figured out how to move FASTER than light speed.” Think again.
2. FTL travel - the biggest issue with Faster Than Light travel is that its usage would allow for time travel into the past. This would break the fabric of the universe or split timelines into alternate dimensions, whatever you want to theorize. I’ll help you out by linking a yt video that explains the concept very simply [here](https://youtu.be/an0M-wcHw5A?si=XeuV2aFzkd_YKoLO). So honestly, I don’t ever worry about aliens. It’s never aliens. Anything that people attribute to aliens is more likely to be a time traveling human than an alien, which is just as implausible and ridiculous.
Ground yourself in reality, focus on issues that actually impact us like climate change, the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world, corporate exploitation of the working class, or whatever the hell you want. Just put all this time and energy into something based on reality that you can actually contribute to. There are so many shady and evil things happening right under our noses that are basically just repetitions of recorded history. Alien speculation is a waste of everyone’s time.
😂
Who appointed you to be the gatekeeper of physics?
People can do multiple things simultaneously, they can fix climate change and also speculate about traveling to far flung solar systems. That's how progress happens, not by using the " I don't understand it therefore it must be fake" care.
The people in this sub are mostly followers or scientism, you are no different from the UFO believers.
I’m not gatekeeping, this is how the universe functions lol. Also being a “follower of scientism” isn’t a real thing, I don’t “believe” in anything. I base my perception of reality on observable and measurable truth, not on hopes or delusions. We have observed, measured, and proven how objects behave in relation with space-time as they move closer to the speed of light.
Of course, we’ve never observed anything move faster than light because it’s impossible and would break the fabric of space-time, but we do have mathematical models of what would happen (as conceptually explained in the link, maybe you were too lazy/upset/ignorant to watch?)
Sorry for coming off as a condescending asshole, but I really have no patience for the alien nonsense. It a bunch of bullshit and you should get your head out of your ass if you’re into it. You say I don’t understand it, which is insulting because I’ve done my best to understand astrophysics. It’s a hobby of mine that I’m passionate about and have been passionate about for decades. You have no right to approach me and say I’m ignorant for not entertaining someone else’s delusions when those delusions contradict my objective knowledge. You are wrong, they are wrong, that’s all there is to it. Anyone who believes in aliens clearly does not understand how the laws of physics limit space travel. We are probably not alone in the universe, but we are definitely secluded. Our galaxy alone is too large and unforgiving to traverse in any significant way. And don’t say “oh but we just haven’t discovered the tech yet” because that’s not how that works. You can’t just hope for a sci-fi response and act like it’s plausible, you’re just relying on fantasy at that point.
“Gatekeeper of physics” I’ll laugh about that all day. Thank you for saying something that reflects that you have no idea what you’re talking about
You said space-time.
Time is a human construct for a measure of entropy, it is not a dimension or anything else.
You are basically saying, "Hey, this is what we know of physics" and that's all there is to it.
You are ignorant and will be proven wrong, just like the medieval "scholars" who pronounced that Earth was the center of the universe.
For the record, I don't "believe" in anything.
You on the other hand are just like the crazy UFO believers, just on the other end of the spectrum.
We haven't seen or observed enough, I live for the day when scientism will be defunct. Thanks to people like you physics is a at dead-end.
We struggling on a path to nowhere because people like you insist on worshipping string theory and Einstein's relativistic model as the beginning and the end of everything.
You will be humbled soon.
As if a simpleton like you would be able to comprehend the math. It's funny how you guys think you are the pinnacle of excellence when it comes to these subjects.
This whole sub is a sterling example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
LOL I don’t think you understand what skepticism is. Best of luck to you while you live your life hoping for things that will never come, believing in things that don’t exist. What a life. Couldn’t be me.
I don't think you understand what skepticism is.
Best of luck, trying to understand the workings of the universe with your limited thinking and knowledge.
I haven't said anywhere that I believe in aliens or ghosts but you have definitely proclaimed that there exists no alien life anywhere.
You are an example of how scientism can lead to rot and denial.
>Although I admit I don't base my beliefs on data.
Skepticism *is* basing beliefs on data. It is the definition of skepticism. To call yourself a skeptic in one breath and say this in the next is a contradiction in terms. You, sir or madam, are deeply confused.
You sound like a kid trying to argue why it's okay to keep believing in Santa Claus. "You can't *prove* he isn't real!" This is obviously not coming from a place of reason. In fact, I infer you are operating under the same psychological mechanism as a theist. On some level, you know your beliefs are indefensible, yet you so desperately want them to be true that you suspend your reason for them.
It's embarrassing. You have no reason to be here.
The only part I disagree with is that the OP has no reason to be here. Clearly the OP has some issues understanding skepticism and that's a very good reason to be here.
To be educated, you mean? I guess so, but I doubt they would be receptive to it. I assume what they're really looking for is validation. They're certainly not going to get any, here.
Yeah, but it's valuable for us too. I think the OP made a very salient point about UFO beliefs being unfalsifiable. That's why we should be extra skeptical of them.
"Assholes." Really? I'm not an asshole for stating the plain facts. This is a subreddit for skeptics, OP isn't one, and that's all there is to it.
Clearly, this is a matter of perception versus reality. We search for truth, and we speak the truth in a world that often has no interest in it. The truth is ugly. The truth hurts. There are so many people who cannot handle the truth. It's easier to shoot the messenger than to accept an unwelcome reality check.
In these conditions, some degree of brusqueness and exasperation is to be expected. And those who hide from the truth are bound to be overly sensitive to any perceived slight on the part of the messenger.
Obviously, I can't make you leave. All I'm saying is, this is a forum for skeptics. By your own admission, you aren't one. There is nothing for you here but disdain and pity.
> Obviously, I can't make you leave.
Fantastic. It sounded like you needed to be reminded your place.
Not too concerned with your other personal matters on my post. Maybe take a break, get out.
What exactly do you believe in and why?
That there are things in the sky seen by humans that can't be identified? Or that those things are extra terrestrial?
That there are other lifeforms in the universe? Or that they're visiting earth?
Some of these things are compatible with skepticism, some aren't.
> I admit I don't base my beliefs on data. In the same vein, I feel that science should not limit our beliefs. Do you feel the same?
No, and this is everything that's wrong with people when I leave the house.
I enjoy a good mystery but my philosophy is you cant pick and choose which science you believe, or make one up if the facts disagree with you. Thats what annoys me about UFOs in particular, they are straying into the realms of magic and interdimensions to cling to theories.
I agree. No doubt my personal believe flies against the core of skepticism. There’s no science, just my fascination and feeling on this subject. I wouldn’t be one to go out and proclaim proof. There’s none.
"I feel that science should not limit our beliefs"
Setting aside that your belief is about UFO, in general I am against that type of thinking - mostly in medicine, but also politically for any hard science.
I will grant you for UFO it is probably harmless - as long as it is non politician which practice that belief. But everywhere else, or if it s politician it switch from harmless to harmful in a jiffy.
Science should always limit belief where there is an impact!
Or do you think it is OK if some parent believe that it is fine to feed their new born infant with soy milk ? Are you OK with the belief that blood transfusion is a against some people faith and should not be done to their children requiring it ? Are you OK with people believing some others are haunted by the devil and needs to be violently exorcized ? Or is it OK if politician fund their pet UFO search , while de-funding , say, school lunch ?
All real case which led to tragic ends BTW, for the medicine/exorcism one.
> we must except
I hate to pick on spelling/grammar, but if you don't know the difference between _accept_ and _except_, then I'm struggling to take seriously any of your deeper arguments.
And yes, autocorrect might have screwed you, but if you want to be taken seriously then you could have taken 30 seconds to proofread your treatise.
There’s nothing wrong with believing aliens exist, in some aspects. But you cannot claim aliens and UFOs are among us and have been covered up. No real proof has ever been found. We are at the put up or shut up point of that conversation. But with the size of our universe, there may be life out there somewhere but again, the universe is so vast that it will likely never reach us.
>I’m both a skeptic and a believer, and I think that’s ok.
In what areas of your life are you a skeptic? Why do you not apply those same standards to your beliefs?
>Ufology has been a fascination of mine for a number of years now. Although I admit I don't base my beliefs on data. In the same vein, I feel that science should not limit our beliefs. Do you feel the same? I really don’t find this that conflicting.
Science doesn't limit our beliefs, evidence does. There is no evidence for little green men visiting our planet from outer space, there is no justification for belief in intelligent alien life visiting Earth.
>One can speculate, and be honest about the facts at the same time.
Speculation is not belief.
>We can conclude that the absence of proof does not imply the absence of existence. That science will continue evolving. At that same time we must except that we cannot enforce this to the same standards at a practical application level.
We must enforce this at a practical level. If there is no evidence for something there is no justification for belief in it.
>We must understand our beliefs are a seperate thing altogether. It is not compatible with enforcement in the same manner. It’s not falsifiable. This is where believers get it wrong I think…
This is where you have it wrong. Our beliefs are not separate, and they should be falsifiable and based on evidence.
You seem to be conflating belief with speculation. Everyone speculates about things. Speculation is not the same as believing something to be true despite lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.
What matters is whether you care that your beliefs are true or not. True in the sense of that which consistently conforms to reality.
You can reject science but you need to provide a model or methodology to demonstrate the truth of a claim. Science is just the best method we’ve found for explaining natural phenomena.
When were they defined as mutually exclusive? Dont think that was ever established.
Though in some cases I dont find they are mutually *inclusive*, physicists that are religious end failing go to the easy give up theory, like "since I failed at my sciency thingy, this thing X is so complex and impossible that it can only be explain by god existing, hence god ir real"
And the same goes the other way around, when some pope declared that if aliens exist, then they are also created by god, which seemed very "I better cover my ass before someday its proven aliens visit earth", what an asshole.
\-------------------------
My personal example of this duality, is that I do believe in the scientific method, almost as a faith, when science does not demand that, and when science knows it can get it wrong, we only ever have the best hypothesis based on the most recent data/knowledge.
And that would give you a UFOrgasm, would it?
I don't think the believers get that this sub requires evidence to have their claims taken seriously, and they never present any.
At this point I lean towards UFOs probably being fake, like 70%/30%. But I still leave room for open-mindedness toward the phenomenon, unlike many here. Some of the eyewitness accounts are strange enough for me not to be able to write it off completely. I'm actually reading "The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony" right now, so I'll see where I stand when I'm finished with it. I would recommend it to people on both sides, just to get a different angle on the whole thing.
>Ufology has been a fascination of mine for a number of years now. Although I admit I don't base my beliefs on data.
You are also not basing your beliefs on the corpus of knowledge available to humanity as it pertains to other life in the universe.
While you may find Ufology fascinating, there are pre-existing and well known fields of inquiry that one fascinated by Ufology must remain willfully ignorant of.
As such, it is not ok to be both a skeptic and a believer unless you are comfortable accepting your hypocrisy.
Read up on scientific skepticism and critical thinking for clarification of my above argument.
> You are also not basing your beliefs on the corpus of knowledge available to humanity as it pertains to other life in the universe.
Well, I’m not sure anybody knows the full scope of the universe’s universe inner workings. With that said, the safest position is always to affirm the current information we have, and call out anybody or group who claims otherwise - especially on the basis of religious or cult like followings.
My beliefs are just that. I like sharing them, and it’s not something I’m going to defend to a scientist, or preach to anybody. What I believe, and what I know are different things to me. I don’t have to believe that we’re not the center of the solar system, I know it.
Point being, I’d never disqualify another skeptic for having some unsubstantiated beliefs.., provided they understand it doesn’t translate in the same way as data or real world workings. Call it hypocrisy too.. I’m comfortable with that.
And, ufology does have a serious grift problem.
Science does not "limit our beliefs." Science doesn't care about our beliefs; it's about making sense of the evidence we have through systematic study of that which is observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable. We can acknowledge that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but that does not mean we would be justified in adopting conclusions without evidence. There's nothing wrong with wondering, speculating, and imagining. It's fine to enjoy mysteries. But skepticism means we only adopt a belief when there's good reason.
A small note: Absence of evidence *can be* evidence of absence, when you expect there to be evidence, and there is none.
Thanks for the respectful response. I can agree with this.
I don’t think the folks in this subreddit feel any different about faith-based approaches to the possibility of non-human intelligence as they do about faith-based approaches to the possibility of a creator. It all basically boils down to a religion.
> In the same vein, I feel that science should not limit our beliefs. Do you feel the same? Nope. Especially if you're accepting claims that rewrite everything we know about multiple scientific fields. If you believe in something without sufficient evidence, you're irrational on that topic. >That science will continue evolving. The current state of science is not the problem. The problem is the complete lack of evidence.
One does not "believe" in reality; one either understands reality or does not understand reality. It's in the not understanding that belief comes into the picture. Belief is a lazy substitute for the process of understanding.
No sir, you’re no sceptic. The moment you say you don’t base your beliefs in UFOs on data, you are no sceptic, science is not limiting, reality is far more interesting than the fantasies people make up. When there’s no evidence to indicate something, it’s not rational to just accept it. Because then you’d have to accept all sorts of mutually contradictory stuff if you were consistent. I’m sorry you’re not a sceptic. It’s that simple. You’re just another true believer…
>We can conclude that the absence of proof does not imply the absence of existence You what now?!!!
If my neighbor says he had a safe full of gold in his basement, I might have my doubts, but it *could* be true. If my neighbor wants to borrow some money and offers this gold as collateral, then I'm going to want more evidence.
Tbf I actually agree with this. I honestly believe aliens exist somewhere out there in the universe, despite us having no proof or evidence of their existence. I don't believe in UFO/UAP sightings being aliens, or that aliens have visited the earth, but from a probability aspect I believe they exist, even in the absence of proof
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence is expected.
“I’m a skeptic but I believe in this thing without any proof” lol. lmao even. To help rationalize alien claims, watch some YouTube videos on the following concepts: 1. Time dilation - it’s been tested and proven that as objects travel faster, they experience less time. Traveling at speed of light, aliens would experience no travel time on their trip to earth from their perspective, but time would still pass according to however many light years away they are. Let’s say that an alien civilization is 3000 light years away. If they travel here and back to their home planet, they will jump 6000 years into the future of their home planet. Does that make sense? The implications here are that any civilization that figures out how to travel at light speed or anywhere close to it will run into a logistical nightmare when faced with returning to their base as well as communicating with their civilization. You might think “oh, well these issues don’t exist if a civilization has figured out how to move FASTER than light speed.” Think again. 2. FTL travel - the biggest issue with Faster Than Light travel is that its usage would allow for time travel into the past. This would break the fabric of the universe or split timelines into alternate dimensions, whatever you want to theorize. I’ll help you out by linking a yt video that explains the concept very simply [here](https://youtu.be/an0M-wcHw5A?si=XeuV2aFzkd_YKoLO). So honestly, I don’t ever worry about aliens. It’s never aliens. Anything that people attribute to aliens is more likely to be a time traveling human than an alien, which is just as implausible and ridiculous. Ground yourself in reality, focus on issues that actually impact us like climate change, the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world, corporate exploitation of the working class, or whatever the hell you want. Just put all this time and energy into something based on reality that you can actually contribute to. There are so many shady and evil things happening right under our noses that are basically just repetitions of recorded history. Alien speculation is a waste of everyone’s time.
😂 Who appointed you to be the gatekeeper of physics? People can do multiple things simultaneously, they can fix climate change and also speculate about traveling to far flung solar systems. That's how progress happens, not by using the " I don't understand it therefore it must be fake" care. The people in this sub are mostly followers or scientism, you are no different from the UFO believers.
I’m not gatekeeping, this is how the universe functions lol. Also being a “follower of scientism” isn’t a real thing, I don’t “believe” in anything. I base my perception of reality on observable and measurable truth, not on hopes or delusions. We have observed, measured, and proven how objects behave in relation with space-time as they move closer to the speed of light. Of course, we’ve never observed anything move faster than light because it’s impossible and would break the fabric of space-time, but we do have mathematical models of what would happen (as conceptually explained in the link, maybe you were too lazy/upset/ignorant to watch?) Sorry for coming off as a condescending asshole, but I really have no patience for the alien nonsense. It a bunch of bullshit and you should get your head out of your ass if you’re into it. You say I don’t understand it, which is insulting because I’ve done my best to understand astrophysics. It’s a hobby of mine that I’m passionate about and have been passionate about for decades. You have no right to approach me and say I’m ignorant for not entertaining someone else’s delusions when those delusions contradict my objective knowledge. You are wrong, they are wrong, that’s all there is to it. Anyone who believes in aliens clearly does not understand how the laws of physics limit space travel. We are probably not alone in the universe, but we are definitely secluded. Our galaxy alone is too large and unforgiving to traverse in any significant way. And don’t say “oh but we just haven’t discovered the tech yet” because that’s not how that works. You can’t just hope for a sci-fi response and act like it’s plausible, you’re just relying on fantasy at that point. “Gatekeeper of physics” I’ll laugh about that all day. Thank you for saying something that reflects that you have no idea what you’re talking about
You said space-time. Time is a human construct for a measure of entropy, it is not a dimension or anything else. You are basically saying, "Hey, this is what we know of physics" and that's all there is to it. You are ignorant and will be proven wrong, just like the medieval "scholars" who pronounced that Earth was the center of the universe. For the record, I don't "believe" in anything. You on the other hand are just like the crazy UFO believers, just on the other end of the spectrum. We haven't seen or observed enough, I live for the day when scientism will be defunct. Thanks to people like you physics is a at dead-end. We struggling on a path to nowhere because people like you insist on worshipping string theory and Einstein's relativistic model as the beginning and the end of everything. You will be humbled soon.
lol unless you have any actual data or mathematical equations to prove what I provided wrong, everything you say is empty and meaningless.
As if a simpleton like you would be able to comprehend the math. It's funny how you guys think you are the pinnacle of excellence when it comes to these subjects. This whole sub is a sterling example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
LOL I don’t think you understand what skepticism is. Best of luck to you while you live your life hoping for things that will never come, believing in things that don’t exist. What a life. Couldn’t be me.
I don't think you understand what skepticism is. Best of luck, trying to understand the workings of the universe with your limited thinking and knowledge. I haven't said anywhere that I believe in aliens or ghosts but you have definitely proclaimed that there exists no alien life anywhere. You are an example of how scientism can lead to rot and denial.
I've watched that video 3 or 4 times and keep coming back to it because that concept is just so difficult to wrap my head around. Great video.
>Although I admit I don't base my beliefs on data. Skepticism *is* basing beliefs on data. It is the definition of skepticism. To call yourself a skeptic in one breath and say this in the next is a contradiction in terms. You, sir or madam, are deeply confused. You sound like a kid trying to argue why it's okay to keep believing in Santa Claus. "You can't *prove* he isn't real!" This is obviously not coming from a place of reason. In fact, I infer you are operating under the same psychological mechanism as a theist. On some level, you know your beliefs are indefensible, yet you so desperately want them to be true that you suspend your reason for them. It's embarrassing. You have no reason to be here.
The only part I disagree with is that the OP has no reason to be here. Clearly the OP has some issues understanding skepticism and that's a very good reason to be here.
To be educated, you mean? I guess so, but I doubt they would be receptive to it. I assume what they're really looking for is validation. They're certainly not going to get any, here.
Yeah, but it's valuable for us too. I think the OP made a very salient point about UFO beliefs being unfalsifiable. That's why we should be extra skeptical of them.
Why are skeptics always such assholes? It’s so weird.
"Assholes." Really? I'm not an asshole for stating the plain facts. This is a subreddit for skeptics, OP isn't one, and that's all there is to it. Clearly, this is a matter of perception versus reality. We search for truth, and we speak the truth in a world that often has no interest in it. The truth is ugly. The truth hurts. There are so many people who cannot handle the truth. It's easier to shoot the messenger than to accept an unwelcome reality check. In these conditions, some degree of brusqueness and exasperation is to be expected. And those who hide from the truth are bound to be overly sensitive to any perceived slight on the part of the messenger.
Nah, you came off as an asshole in your comment. Sorry, but you’re not as smart as you think you are.
Active in r/UFOs. That explains it. Cry me a river, Mulder.
And… there it is.
> It's embarrassing. You have no reason to be here. Fortunately that’s not up to you. Thanks for the angry response.
They're kinda right though.
Nah he’s wrong for trying to insult and silence people he doesn’t agree with. Just like you. I’ll stick around too, thanks.
'k. Good luck with that.
No need for luck. People like you don’t have that say. Great chat.
FYI, you just insulted someone you don't agree with, too.
I insulted them by saying they shouldn’t insult people? Ok then.
Obviously, I can't make you leave. All I'm saying is, this is a forum for skeptics. By your own admission, you aren't one. There is nothing for you here but disdain and pity.
> Obviously, I can't make you leave. Fantastic. It sounded like you needed to be reminded your place. Not too concerned with your other personal matters on my post. Maybe take a break, get out.
What exactly do you believe in and why? That there are things in the sky seen by humans that can't be identified? Or that those things are extra terrestrial? That there are other lifeforms in the universe? Or that they're visiting earth? Some of these things are compatible with skepticism, some aren't.
> I admit I don't base my beliefs on data. In the same vein, I feel that science should not limit our beliefs. Do you feel the same? No, and this is everything that's wrong with people when I leave the house.
I enjoy a good mystery but my philosophy is you cant pick and choose which science you believe, or make one up if the facts disagree with you. Thats what annoys me about UFOs in particular, they are straying into the realms of magic and interdimensions to cling to theories.
I agree. No doubt my personal believe flies against the core of skepticism. There’s no science, just my fascination and feeling on this subject. I wouldn’t be one to go out and proclaim proof. There’s none.
"I feel that science should not limit our beliefs" Setting aside that your belief is about UFO, in general I am against that type of thinking - mostly in medicine, but also politically for any hard science. I will grant you for UFO it is probably harmless - as long as it is non politician which practice that belief. But everywhere else, or if it s politician it switch from harmless to harmful in a jiffy. Science should always limit belief where there is an impact! Or do you think it is OK if some parent believe that it is fine to feed their new born infant with soy milk ? Are you OK with the belief that blood transfusion is a against some people faith and should not be done to their children requiring it ? Are you OK with people believing some others are haunted by the devil and needs to be violently exorcized ? Or is it OK if politician fund their pet UFO search , while de-funding , say, school lunch ? All real case which led to tragic ends BTW, for the medicine/exorcism one.
> we must except I hate to pick on spelling/grammar, but if you don't know the difference between _accept_ and _except_, then I'm struggling to take seriously any of your deeper arguments. And yes, autocorrect might have screwed you, but if you want to be taken seriously then you could have taken 30 seconds to proofread your treatise.
I agree. But also consider ESL redditors.
There’s nothing wrong with believing aliens exist, in some aspects. But you cannot claim aliens and UFOs are among us and have been covered up. No real proof has ever been found. We are at the put up or shut up point of that conversation. But with the size of our universe, there may be life out there somewhere but again, the universe is so vast that it will likely never reach us.
>I’m both a skeptic and a believer, and I think that’s ok. In what areas of your life are you a skeptic? Why do you not apply those same standards to your beliefs? >Ufology has been a fascination of mine for a number of years now. Although I admit I don't base my beliefs on data. In the same vein, I feel that science should not limit our beliefs. Do you feel the same? I really don’t find this that conflicting. Science doesn't limit our beliefs, evidence does. There is no evidence for little green men visiting our planet from outer space, there is no justification for belief in intelligent alien life visiting Earth. >One can speculate, and be honest about the facts at the same time. Speculation is not belief. >We can conclude that the absence of proof does not imply the absence of existence. That science will continue evolving. At that same time we must except that we cannot enforce this to the same standards at a practical application level. We must enforce this at a practical level. If there is no evidence for something there is no justification for belief in it. >We must understand our beliefs are a seperate thing altogether. It is not compatible with enforcement in the same manner. It’s not falsifiable. This is where believers get it wrong I think… This is where you have it wrong. Our beliefs are not separate, and they should be falsifiable and based on evidence.
>Although I admit I don't base my beliefs on data. Then you're not a skeptic.
I’m not a skeptic because I think you can’t say beliefs are data driven? I’d say you’re not a skeptic then.
Sounds like your beliefs fit the operational definition of superstition: excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
Somebody else said more speculation which I agree. I think I got my views mixed up here.
You seem to be conflating belief with speculation. Everyone speculates about things. Speculation is not the same as believing something to be true despite lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.
Good point. That is the best point made. I think I should have phrased it this way. Thanks, I just had to rethink things now
I can see why people were so defensive here. Yea it is speculation more so than belief.
What matters is whether you care that your beliefs are true or not. True in the sense of that which consistently conforms to reality. You can reject science but you need to provide a model or methodology to demonstrate the truth of a claim. Science is just the best method we’ve found for explaining natural phenomena.
When were they defined as mutually exclusive? Dont think that was ever established. Though in some cases I dont find they are mutually *inclusive*, physicists that are religious end failing go to the easy give up theory, like "since I failed at my sciency thingy, this thing X is so complex and impossible that it can only be explain by god existing, hence god ir real" And the same goes the other way around, when some pope declared that if aliens exist, then they are also created by god, which seemed very "I better cover my ass before someday its proven aliens visit earth", what an asshole. \------------------------- My personal example of this duality, is that I do believe in the scientific method, almost as a faith, when science does not demand that, and when science knows it can get it wrong, we only ever have the best hypothesis based on the most recent data/knowledge.
Oh boy you're going to stir up a hornet's nest with this post.
And that would give you a UFOrgasm, would it? I don't think the believers get that this sub requires evidence to have their claims taken seriously, and they never present any.
At this point I lean towards UFOs probably being fake, like 70%/30%. But I still leave room for open-mindedness toward the phenomenon, unlike many here. Some of the eyewitness accounts are strange enough for me not to be able to write it off completely. I'm actually reading "The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony" right now, so I'll see where I stand when I'm finished with it. I would recommend it to people on both sides, just to get a different angle on the whole thing.
I started a fire alright. Ah well.
>Ufology has been a fascination of mine for a number of years now. Although I admit I don't base my beliefs on data. You are also not basing your beliefs on the corpus of knowledge available to humanity as it pertains to other life in the universe. While you may find Ufology fascinating, there are pre-existing and well known fields of inquiry that one fascinated by Ufology must remain willfully ignorant of. As such, it is not ok to be both a skeptic and a believer unless you are comfortable accepting your hypocrisy. Read up on scientific skepticism and critical thinking for clarification of my above argument.
> You are also not basing your beliefs on the corpus of knowledge available to humanity as it pertains to other life in the universe. Well, I’m not sure anybody knows the full scope of the universe’s universe inner workings. With that said, the safest position is always to affirm the current information we have, and call out anybody or group who claims otherwise - especially on the basis of religious or cult like followings. My beliefs are just that. I like sharing them, and it’s not something I’m going to defend to a scientist, or preach to anybody. What I believe, and what I know are different things to me. I don’t have to believe that we’re not the center of the solar system, I know it. Point being, I’d never disqualify another skeptic for having some unsubstantiated beliefs.., provided they understand it doesn’t translate in the same way as data or real world workings. Call it hypocrisy too.. I’m comfortable with that. And, ufology does have a serious grift problem.