UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

[technomage]

I think reason is far more expansive because it is our faculty for forming concepts, which include beauty. When you form all the various concepts, you're using this faculty, but you're not using strict linear logic. In fact, much of this is done unconsciously, but at some point, your conscious mind needs to validate it through some kind of logical process. So when you see a new buggy, you quickly realize, "ah, that's a type of car". I'll add it as an instance of the car concept and perhaps expand my understanding of what a car is. This applies to things or people you identify as beautiful. You have the concept of beauty and instances of it that make up that concept and then you can decide if something new fits into the concept or not.

So I agree that no linear explicit logical process occurs when you identify something as beautiful, but it is not outside the realm of reason, so I don't see it as being irrational. I would rather say this truth is not arrived through a strict linear process, but the fact that you identified it as true through a reasoning process makes it rational. You may think something is true, but it's not, in which case your process was irrational.

Using the term non-rational would make more sense to me as it indicates that a truth is arrived through a non-rational (i.e. non linear logical) process. Irrational implies a contradiction in terms, which the truth can't be, because the truth is our identification of reality.

 

[Constance]

@technomage wrote: "Using the term non-rational would make more sense to me as it indicates that a truth is arrived through a non-rational (i.e. non linear logical) process. Irrational implies a contradiction in terms, which the truth can't be, because the truth is our identification of reality."

I agree that using the term 'non-rational' makes more sense than 'irrational' when applied to ufo sightings. We do apply our concept of what is 'rational' when we attempt to identify in terms we are familiar with what we see in many, perhaps most, ufo sightings.

I attempted to do that in reflecting on the identity of the very large and brilliant glassed-in light, called to my attention by my three-year-old child, which appeared to be located just off the wingtip of the airliner we were traveling in over Lake Michigan in late November 1989. I at first attempted to explain it to myself as a lighthouse light, which might have seemed 'logical' were it not the case that (as I later realized) that would be impossible, and thus not actually a 'rational' deduction. But the light itself was not irrational, nor was my response to it either before or after I realized that it was anomalous. We are limited by what we conceptualize to be 'rational' and that conception is what we need to expand in becoming open to what is actually possible in the world we live in, which is so much more vast and unexplained than the local world we know.

I think this is what people mean when they say, regarding the ufos they have observed, that “I know what I saw.”

 

[Randall]

I think reason is far more expansive because it is our faculty for forming concepts, which include beauty.

Beauty isn't conceptual, it's experiential. Again: Thinking about beauty is entirely different that experiencing beauty, and without the experience there would be no conceptualizing about it.

When you form all the various concepts, you're using this faculty, but you're not using strict linear logic. In fact, much of this is done unconsciously, but at some point, your conscious mind needs to validate it through some kind of logical process. So when you see a new buggy, you quickly realize, "ah, that's a type of car". I'll add it as an instance of the car concept and perhaps expand my understanding of what a car is.

OK

This applies to things or people you identify as beautiful.

Not OK. You can use logic to identify a car, but you can't use logic to determine if the car is aesthetically beautiful. You have to see the car and experience the color, shape, line, textures etc.

You have the concept of beauty and instances of it that make up that concept and then you can decide if something new fits into the concept or not.

Nope. One might be able to verbally describe the features of a car to you, and you might assume from that, that the car is beautiful, but you wouldn't really know until you saw it for yourself and experienced the beauty for yourself.

So I agree that no linear explicit logical process occurs when you identify something as beautiful, but it is not outside the realm of reason, so I don't see it as being irrational. I would rather say this truth is not arrived through a strict linear process, but the fact that you identified it as true through a reasoning process makes it rational.

Beauty isn't identified though a reasoning process. It's experienced. Only after you experience it can you reason that the object of the experience is truly beautiful.

You may think something is true, but it's not, in which case your process was irrational.

Or it might be rational but based on faulty data.

Using the term non-rational would make more sense to me as it indicates that a truth is arrived through a non-rational (i.e. non linear logical) process. Irrational implies a contradiction in terms, which the truth can't be, because the truth is our identification of reality.

The word "irrational" does tend to carry with it negative connotations in certain contexts, but that doesn't necessitate that everything irrational is negative. Hope can be completely irrational under some circumstances, yet it's not a "negative" emotion. It's similar to the use of the word "critical" in "critical thinking". In this context it doesn't mean to demean or unconstructively criticize. I do however agree that it would be handy to have an all encompassing neutral word that covers all the bases for our irrational experiences.

Returning to beauty. Here's another point to ponder: Many Dadaists believed that the 'reason' and 'logic' of bourgeoisie capitalist society had led people into war. They expressed their rejection of that ideology in artistic expression that appeared to reject logic and embrace chaos and irrationality.( Wikipedia ). Not all dadist art is beautiful, but the point remains the same, the experience of how it disturbs us in an unpleasant way speaks to the same issue.

Dada

 

[technomage]

Beauty isn't conceptual, it's experiential. Again: Thinking about beauty is entirely different that experiencing beauty, and without the experience there would be no conceptualizing about it.

I'm not sure what you mean by experiential. We have to experience everything in order to come up with concepts of some sort to organize experiences in our mind. We can experience justice, beauty, love, hate, etc. but the instances of each help form the concept. So I agree that we need to experience beauty, as we do everything else, but it doesn't mean there is no conceptual basis to it. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. With no distinction, they would be the same type of thing. But because they're a different type of thing in our minds, different concepts were created to help represent the individual experiences.

Not OK. You can use logic to identify a car, but you can't use logic to determine if the car is aesthetically beautiful. You have to see the car and experience the color, shape, line, textures etc.

I am not saying you use logic to identify if an instance of a concept fits within the concept or not. Your emotions will tell you that based on the premises you have, conscious or unconscious. If your premise is that cars of a certain shape or color fit in the concept of beauty (something you may have acquired through experiences without much explicit reasoning), your emotions will tell you if they're beautiful or not. Then if you want, you can attempt to validate them or try to identify what premises are in place for you to have that emotional reaction. People have musings and discussions all the time on why they think something is beautiful or why a movie is great.

Nope. One might be able to verbally describe the features of a car to you, and you might assume from that, that the car is beautiful, but you wouldn't really know until you saw it for yourself and experienced the beauty for yourself.

Agreed.

Beauty isn't identified though a reasoning process. It's experienced. Only after you experience it can you reason that the object of the experience is truly beautiful.

Agreed.

I said: "You may think something is true, but it's not, in which case your process was irrational."

Or it might be rational but based on faulty data.

Agreed. Rational is contextual, so we can always add "within the current limits of our knowledge" to almost any statement we make about reality.

Returning to beauty. Here's another point to ponder: Many Dadaists believed that the 'reason' and 'logic' of bourgeoisie capitalist society had led people into war. They expressed their rejection of that ideology in artistic expression that appeared to reject logic and embrace chaos and irrationality.( Wikipedia ). Not all dadist art is beautiful, but the point remains the same, the experience of how it disturbs us in an unpleasant way speaks to the same issue.

Dada

The fact that it's unpleasant to you and may be pleasant to others would indicate a difference in premises, held consciously or unconsciously. The artist is actually explicitly communicating something in their art to arouse an emotion. But the emotion aroused is dependent on the premises the person has, so the experience will be different. I'm sure some artists don't care, as long they arouse some emotion in the viewer. Others probably are looking for more specific emotions (e.g. a painting that shows an atrocity to get people angry and call people to action).

 

[Constance]

I'm not sure what you mean by experiential. We have to experience everything in order to come up with concepts of some sort to organize experiences in our mind.

I think that's correct. We've been discussing in the C&P thread lately the overlapping region of prereflective and reflective consciousness, both of which evolve in animals, only some animals now being conjectured to think reflectively. But even we, like all life forms, begin to build our sensed relationship with the environing palpable, visual, audial world prereflectively, subconsciously from the base of our 'affective' experiences in the world, and these experiences, based in feeling, ground and guide our prereflective choices in what we feel and are drawn to (aesthetically as well as in terms of obtaining physical sustenance and avoiding mortal threats) before we attain reflective consciousness and mind. This view is borne out by Jaak Panksepp's "Affective Neuroscience" and earlier in the investigations of consciousness accomplished in phenomenological philosophy.

 

[Randall]

I'm not sure what you mean by experiential. We have to experience everything in order to come up with concepts of some sort to organize experiences in our mind. We can experience justice, beauty, love, hate, etc. but the instances of each help form the concept. So I agree that we need to experience beauty, as we do everything else, but it doesn't mean there is no conceptual basis to it. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. With no distinction, they would be the same type of thing. But because they're a different type of thing in our minds, different concepts were created to help represent the individual experiences.

Sticking to our previous example of automobiles. Someone had to conceive the automobile before it could be made into a reality. Therefore there is a conceptual basis for the automobile. On the other hand, beauty is something we experience directly and intuitively on an emotional level, and in the moment. Someone who has never seen or heard of automobiles, might upon seeing a new red Ferrari for the first time exclaim, "It's beautiful! What is it?" Because such beauty can be experienced without having any preconceived concept of what an automobile is or should look like, the basis for such beauty is experiential rather than conceptual.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Hello Paracast, long time listener first time caller. I thought I'd weigh in on this one though.



Reports of an experience, even a large volume of reports, don't on their own make it reasonable to believe the experience is real or even plausible, it's actually a logical fallacy, and in the context of any paranormal phenomenon a very elementary logical fallacy. For instance, I could apply that same value to the notion that Angels must be real because of the sheer number of reports of them appearing at gas stations or scorched by blessed toaster ovens on to breakfast items. Or that the sheer number of survey answers that Sherlock Holmes was a real detective means that he wasn't a fictional character, or that Canadians live in igloos (do they?) because of the number of people who for whatever reason report to believe that. A paranormal phenomenon isn't in the same category of "I'm watching T.V" because --not to put too fine a point on it-- you can invite me over to verify the existence of your T.V. You can sit in front of it and demonstrate to me your watching it. I can go to my parlor and see a TV for myself (or I could if I owned one) and surmise that it's reasonable that you have a T.V. too. I can have an engineer explain to me the technology of a T.V. and then go to a factory where T.V.s are made and see it happen in real time. What you can't do is produce an alien space craft or any of the side-dishes.

This article reminds me a little of what I'm trying to say but lack the words to do so. http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/...ature-of-science-why-gravity-is-just-a-theory

"Science is based on inductive reasoning, which is a method of drawing generalized conclusions based on finite observations. Inductive reasoning can be used to disprove a theory, but it cannot be used to prove one. for example, take the following observation:

• The grass outside my window is green.

Using inductive reasoning I can conclude:

• All grass is green.

This conclusion is valid in inductive reasoning so long as all observations support it. As soon as an observation contradicts the conclusion, the conclusion is proved false. However, the only way to prove theory is true would be to observe all grass. This limitation is due to the fact that a conclusion is being drawn from a subset of possible observations.

Since science, by its very nature, attempts to draw conclusions from observations of the natural world inductive reasoning is necessary. In science, though, it is literally impossible to make every possible observation to prove a rule. Therefore, it is also impossible to prove any theory in science. Every conclusion science has ever made is an unproved theory, including gravity.

Still not convinced? Consider the theory itself (in a Newtonian sense for simplicity): all mass is attracted to all other mass in a manner which fits a specific equation (F = G*m1*m2/d^2).

How would we test this? We can try dropping objects with various masses, measuring their acceleration, and then use the above equation (along with Earth's mass for the second object) to verify. If the math works out then the theory is supported. Up until Einstein (maybe even up until now, but I'm not sure) this always worked. However, the only way to prove that the equation is right would be to test every object in the Universe against every other object in the Universe. This is (essentially) an infinite number of observations, which can't be done.

Some might argue that this only applies to the equation itself, but not the fact that gravity occurs. They would say "I can prove gravity by dropping something". However, they are wrong. The only thing you can prove by dropping something is that gravity worked for that test. The only thing they're changing in their test versus the test I described above is loosening the requirements for success: instead of requiring that the equation fit the observation, they are checking that the acceleration is positive (F > 0). The reasoning being used to prove the theory hasn't changed. It's still inductive, and you would still have to make an essentially infinite number of observations in order to prove that gravity works in that way every time."

The article isn't long and adds thought to the discussion. It's not like I don't like science. I'm programmed like most people to hand clap on new findings, studies, discoveries. But what brought science to the "scene" so to speak? In many cases, witnesses. Witnesses who proclaimed an observation, underwent a physical change, endured a mental alteration, etc. And in having enough witnesses, science, which is actually composed by humans, proceeded to study, collect data, compare data, and at which point proposed theories. But there are still many things in our society that we take for granted, know exists, yet cannot be proven concretely. Why did society therefor except these conclusions? I'm thinking an accumulation of things, data, time to accept the idea, and this per-programmed notion that science leads the way. Mostly science does, so it's not a knock I'm expressing but instead a reasonable challenge that the very thing we consider most sacred might not always be capable of helping us out and as humans we're required to use our other abilities to finish the job.
Call what I have an "intuitive" need to not discount the witness. If witnesses regularly reported flying dragons, Harry Potter buzzing by on a broom stick or giant mice running down the street, essential a wide swathe of bizarre reports, I'd give credence to the idea that we're not as stable as I thought. But instead researchers have been able to pinpoint what's being seen into a definable set of similar shapes, around the world. Disk, cigar, triangle, and orb. Probably leaving a few out, but I'm sure everyone's aware of them. Historically, in just my reading on the U.S it's been laughed right out the door. I can only conclude, based off everything I've read, that the subject is just too damn uncomfortable for our society just yet to really realize how incredible it all is.

 

[technomage]

Sticking to our previous example of automobiles. Someone had to conceive the automobile before it could be made into a reality. Therefore there is a conceptual basis for the automobile. On the other hand, beauty is something we experience directly and intuitively on an emotional level, and in the moment. Someone who has never seen or heard of automobiles, might upon seeing a new red Ferrari for the first time exclaim, "It's beautiful! What is it?" Because such beauty can be experienced without having any preconceived concept of what an automobile is or should look like, the basis for such beauty is experiential rather than conceptual.

Rather than an automobile, let's take a rock. Someone had to experience a rock multiple times before coming up with the concept of a rock. The same with beauty; just that beauty is a more abstract concept than a rock. There is no such thing as a generic rock, there are only specific instances of different types of rocks, but we form a concept of the rock. With beauty, we experience different instances of it (e.g. looking at the sunset, rainbow, green field, art work) and then form the concept of beauty. So my point is that the basis of everything is experiential first, before it becomes conceptual.

 

[Randall]

Rather than an automobile, let's take a rock. Someone had to experience a rock multiple times before coming up with the concept of a rock.

We don't really experience rocks. We only experience things about them. We experience their shape, color, texture, weight, and so on, and we add all that up and give it a label called "rock". That's how we catalog things in the external world. How well we can experience the external world directly harkens back to discussions on the allegory of Plato's Cave.

The same with beauty; just that beauty is a more abstract concept than a rock. There is no such thing as a generic rock, there are only specific instances of different types of rocks, but we form a concept of the rock. With beauty, we experience different instances of it (e.g. looking at the sunset, rainbow, green field, art work) and then form the concept of beauty. So my point is that the basis of everything is experiential first, before it becomes conceptual.

Not everything is experiential first. It's almost always advisable not to use absolutes. Just consider how many inventions started out as as concepts before they could be experienced as realities.

 

[Constance]

@technomage, you will appreciate knowing about this new book by Alva Noe -- Strange Tools: Art and Human Nature -- though it appears you already think in the same directions Noe does. The book is described at this post (from a few minutes ago) in the C&P thread:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6

 

[technomage]

We don't really experience rocks. We only experience things about them. We experience their shape, color, texture, weight, and so on, and we add all that up and give it a label called "rock". That's how we catalog things in the external world. How well we can experience the external world directly harkens back to discussions on the allegory of Plato's Cave.

Not everything is experiential first. It's almost always advisable not to use absolutes. Just consider how many inventions started of as concepts before they could be experienced as realities.

Regarding rocks, we experience the sense perception of them. It's hard to compare abstract concepts such as beauty and justice with simpler ones such as rocks. We could use justice or happiness or cold.

I'm not saying we don't create. But we use our experiences to form concepts and combine them with other concepts to come up with new things that don't yet exist: "a horseless carriage" became a car before the car existed, but the concepts of horse and horseless and carriage first existed and were experienced before the concept of the car could be formed. These new concepts don't come out of nothing. They come out of some combination of experiences combined with other concepts or combinations of concepts which themselves were derived from experience.

 

[Randall]

Regarding rocks, we experience the sense perception of them. It's hard to compare abstract concepts such as beauty and justice with simpler ones such as rocks. We could use justice or happiness or cold.

Beauty as a concept is abstract but the experience of it isn't. It's a pure experience similar to our other perceptual faculties. We don't have to have a concept of smell before we can smell, and we don't have to have a concept of beauty before we can experience it either. I'm confident that before people invented the word "beauty", people still experienced it. The experience came first and all the talk about it came later.

I'm not saying we don't create. But we use our experiences to form concepts and combine them with other concepts to come up with new things that don't yet exist: "a horseless carriage" became a car before the car existed, but the concepts of horse and horseless and carriage first existed and were experienced before the concept of the car could be formed. These new concepts don't come out of nothing. They come out of some combination of experiences combined with other concepts or combinations of concepts which themselves were derived from experience.

Sure. I'd agree that many, if not most inventions come from contemplating more primitive structures, including natural ones. But I doubt that all do, and even if most do, the resulting improved versions can have characteristics that have never been experienced before other than on a conceptual level. The telescope is an example. Even though it became apparent that light behaves differently when going through glass, the concept of magnification of distant objects using lenses was still only a concept until someone actually made a telescope and peered through it. Before that, there was nothing like it, not even anything in nature that was known. The idea had to be imagined ( conceptualized ) first.

Another example is a laser. The laser was originally hailed as one of the most interesting ideas with no purpose ever created. Nobody had ever seen one. It was purely conceptual at first. However inventions using lasers are now commonplace. For example there was nothing like an optical disk for storing information either. It was totally novel. It doesn't matter that punch cards came before that. Someone still had to conceptualize the DVD before it could be manufactured. I imagine the list could go on and on where all the talk about something comes before the thing is actually made.

 

[technomage]

Beauty as a concept is abstract but the experience of it isn't. It's a pure experience similar to our other perceptual faculties. We don't have to have a concept of smell before we can smell, and we don't have to have a concept of beauty before we can experience it either. I'm confident that before people invented the word "beauty", people still experienced it. The experience came first and all the talk about it came later.

Sure. I'd agree that many, if not most inventions come from contemplating more primitive structures, including natural ones. But I doubt that all do, and even if most do, the resulting improved versions can have characteristics that have never been experienced before other than on a conceptual level. The telescope is an example. Even though it became apparent that light behaves differently when going through glass, the concept of magnification of distant objects using lenses was still only a concept until someone actually made a telescope and peered through it. Before that, there was nothing like it, not even anything in nature that was known. The idea had to be imagined ( conceptualized ) first.

Another example is a laser. The laser was originally hailed as one of the most interesting ideas with no purpose ever created. Nobody had ever seen one. It was purely conceptual at first. However inventions using lasers are now commonplace. For example there was nothing like an optical disk for storing information either. It was totally novel. It doesn't matter that punch cards came before that. Someone still had to conceptualize the DVD before it could be manufactured. I imagine the list could go on and on where all the talk about something comes before the thing is actually made.

Regarding beauty, yes the experience of it comes before the concept because the experience helps form the concept itself.

I can't comment on how the idea of the telescope first came about because many different possible conceptualizations could have led to its development. But as an example, you can take the concepts of "distance", "too far to see", "visual aid", "magnify" and in a very creative way bring them together to come up with telescope. I'm not saying the conceptualization process is simple or straightforward but all the way at the beginning are experiences, which are the building blocks of concept formation.

 

[Randall]

Regarding beauty, yes the experience of it comes before the concept because the experience helps form the concept itself.

Exactly !

I can't comment on how the idea of the telescope first came about because many different possible conceptualizations could have led to its development. But as an example, you can take the concepts of "distance", "too far to see", "visual aid", "magnify" and in a very creative way bring them together to come up with telescope. I'm not saying the conceptualization process is simple or straightforward but all the way at the beginning are experiences, which are the building blocks of concept formation.

True. Experiences lead to ideas ( concepts ) which lead to creation ( realization ).

BTW: I posted a video called The Moment of Beauty in the music thread. If you've got an HD screen it's worth going full screen. It's one of those experiences where if you find it beautiful, you experience it in real time, and if I try to figure out why it's beautiful while watching it, the beauty begins to pale ( for me ). Not sure if you'll see what I mean there. But I thought it might be a pretty good example.

 

[jeff.oram]

At the risk of (yet again) sounding like a fan boy, Burnt put into words EXACTLY how I feel, "belief" in something is one thing, acceptance of a particular possibility is another. There is a big difference, IMHO. Debunkers and agenda-driven skeptics are unable (or refuse to) understand and/or acknowledge this distinction. I couldn't have said what Burnt State said more succinctly and as eloquently. This post is the latest example that illustrates why so many of us here (myself included) consider Burnt (and many others here, btw) to be such valuable members of this forum community attempting to analyze and dissect the imponderable. There are many forums that cover these so-called "paranormal"mysteries, but the Paracast forum is among the very best available on the 'net because of you members. It's an honor to have you all here!

Gene sounded like a Douche interviewing Stanton. I thought he came off very condescending at times. He's a total Rockoid!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Gene Steinberg]

How so?

 

[jeff.oram]

How so?

You kept asking him for evidence after he explained why he felt the way he did. I think you asked him 10 times.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So, then, he's under no obligation to prove his claims? No, it wasn't 10 times.

 

[jeff.oram]

He was very obviously giving you his opinions. You've been in the field decades. How much proof is there? He was telling the listeners and you his informed opinion based on thousands of hours of investigations. It's not like you didn't know his positions. The interview could been more informative if you had just asked better questions. "Real proof is difficult to come by in this business, what are the reasons that make you feel so strongly about (insert whatever gene wants proof for)" You're the expert, but my example is nicer and wouldn't put the interviewee on defense. To me you seemed patronizing.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Gene Steinberg]

What proof do we need? Enough to convince non-believers something real is happening.