• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Anyone with free time...

Forums New posts
B

BrandonD

Skilled Investigator
Hey all, I just started up a blog related to UFOs this week (as if there weren't enough already). It's called "Jumping the Fence". If anyone has time on their hands this Saturday and would like to check it out, I'd appreciate any comments or criticism:

Devil at the Crossroads

p.s. if posting this is violating some sort of forum rules, please let me know. Didn't mean to :)
 
A good start - I'm in total agreement with you about Occam's Razor - I've said similar things in other threads. The (pseudo) 'skeptics' use it all the time to 'win' their arguments - it's bogus because the 'simplest' explanation can be 'maintained' by the 'establishment'. If the establishment say that ET *is not* visiting us then that is automatically excluded from the 'simplest' explanation.

I think you're right about forums such as these - you're better off writing a blog. Get all your arguments and opinions out of your system - you don't get forum users trying to beat you around the head for daring to disagree with their 'world' and you'll feel a whole lot better... :)
 
Occam's razor suggest one goes with the simpler explanation, so long as there is just as much evidence for it. Not, when there isn't. It says nothing about needing to be lazy and ignorant. It also says nothing about a skeptic being immune from any need to present evidence to support their negative hypothesis that I can recall. Claims, no matter what, need to be backed by evidence. Occam's Razor is a conservative way of dealing with differing theories and conclusions that are both backed by evidence. It's a conservative tie breaking method with a nod to the law of averages.

""All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.""
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, if there is equal evidence to support that a ufo is Venus as there is a ET craft, one should conclude that it was a ET ship over Venus? Why?
 
A.LeClair said:
So, if there is equal evidence to support that a ufo is Venus as there is a ET craft, one should conclude that it was a ET ship over Venus? Why?
Click to expand...

So, there is a proven case where someone mistook the planet Venus for a 'flying object'? :confused:

What's the 'simplest explanation' for the object that David B saw in Venuzuela?
 
A.LeClair said:
Occam's razor suggest one goes with the simpler explanation, so long as there is just as much evidence for it. Not, when there isn't. It says nothing about needing to be lazy and ignorant. It also says nothing about a skeptic being immune from any need to present evidence to support their negative hypothesis that I can recall. Claims, no matter what, need to be backed by evidence. Occam's Razor deals with a conservative way of dealing with tie breakers with a nod to law of averages.

""All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.""
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, if there is equal evidence to support that a ufo is Venus as there is a ET craft, one should conclude that it was a ET ship over Venus? Why?
Click to expand...

I understand what you are trying to say, my post probably came off as a rant but I was specifically referring to the frequent mis-use of Occam's razor.

You mention "equal evidence". In my opinion, evidence is not merely quantitative but it is qualitative as well. Meaning that ignorance of a single crucial piece of evidence (such as knowledge of electricity in my blog example) can potentially skew the knowledge of the phenomenon to such a degree that Occam's razor becomes one notch above useless.
 
Rick Deckard said:
So, there is a proven case where someone mistook the planet Venus for a 'flying object'? :confused:

What the 'simplest explanation' for the object that David B saw in Venuzuela?
Click to expand...

Venus is one of the most commonly reported ufos.

Simplest explanation for what David and others saw is a UFO/saucer, as far as I'm concerned. The exact nature, I do not know, there isn't sufficient enough evidence to go on.
 
A.LeClair said:
Venus is one of the most commonly reported ufos.
Click to expand...

How do you know that?

A.LeClair said:
Simplest explanation for what David and others saw is a UFO/saucer, as far as I'm concerned. The exact nature, I do not know, there isn't sufficient enough evidence to go on.
Click to expand...

That's not an explanation.
 
Rick Deckard said:
What's the 'simplest explanation' for the object that David B saw in Venuzuela?
Click to expand...

Optical illusion, possibly some sort of thermal inversion reflecting ground the same way thermals on roadways reflect sky.

Does that mean that's what it was? No. Is that the best we can do objectively to find an answer? Yes. None of us were there, no one took pictures and no records exist.

The key to occam's razor is the first part "All things being equal..." In the paranormal, all things are rarely equal.
 
Back
Top