• 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!

Where did all the skeptics go?

Free episodes:

Witnesses reported unusual craft making the marks etc and in some cases, it was determined that the object weighed many tons. Ergo, a hoax appears impossible to account for an unusual technological flying thing. Strange metal is also known IIRC Fowler wrote about this in Socorro saucer in a pentagon pantry.

But there you go...Witnesses. Again, this doesn't show the craft flying down from space, appearing in this dimension, or being made on site. All this does is show that something could have been there but isn't now. Once again it proves nothing in terms of extraterrestrial life.

And yet there is no metal to be found as evidence to this day.

An object which enters our atmosphere from above, as seen on radar, and then exits above, is excellent evidence for ET inasmuch as nothing natural acts that way so it must be technological yet not from earth--it came from elsewhere.

Entering the atmosphere from above could just as easily be inter-dimensional as it could be E.T. There are many other eye witness reports of saucers appearing and disappearing as they float off, almost as if they need the beginnings of this propulsion in order to commit to the change.

As far as those we have spotted entering our atmosphere from above, there isn't one case by which we have the object recognized as anything but a "U.F.O." and not E.T., nor anything to do with any classification but U.F.O. This in no way proves the existence of E.T. and actually does a lot to dissuade those who read about the cases, because many of them wonder why they seem so secretive....so unlike the benevolent creatures one would come to expect in a supposed "higher intelligence."

No, some have been photographed or have left footprints or caused injuries.

Every supposed "photograph" of an E.T. has been proven to be fake or created by some special effects production agency. Besides, if they were so intelligent, why would they allow themselves to be photographed in the first place? They have been so covert as to every other aspect of their supposed involvement with us, so why the change of heart?

Footprints? Caused Injuries? Please show what you mean here. Injuries as far as metal insertions?

UFO landing sites aren't old legends but modern reports; some like socorro, have been thoroughly investigated. I don't suppose there's much documentary evidence for visits by satan...other than his alleged handiwork--legends and old stories aren't in the same league as reports with firsthand witnesses besides physical evidence.

No, in the case of Satanic manifestations, there are case studies which show not only some form of entity who goes by the name, but other known cases where possession has occurred, and this has been going on to the present day. The old stories I quoted were just some of the examples where physical evidence was supposedly left.

Here are some current cases which have within them about as much physical evidence if not more than your E.T. cases:

A Woman documented as possessed and witnessed to do all sorts of strange things:
Real-life case of demon possession documented

Here are four more famous ones:
4 Strange Cases of Demonic Possession - Road Tickle

And I could show you case by case and evidence by evidence all day....But this in no way proves the existence any more than some foot pads on the ground or unknown objects in the skies proves the existence of E.T.

There's a difference: there is some physical evidence for aliens as well as UFOs. Another point is that many people have eagerly wanted to see jesus, whereas UFO/alien witnesses are often skeptics or wholly indifferent to the subject beforehand, which says something about the relative credibility of the two kinds of reports. :)

Nope. Not much difference when it comes to people waiting to see the truth. In the case of purported visions of Jesus, there are many case reports of mass witnessing....Show just one Mass case of people viewing "E.T." not U.F.O.'s. The "some" physical evidence you speak about pertaining to E.T. isn't nearly as advanced or even as accepted as you would like them to be, and unfortunately the evidence itself isn't really evidence at all of E.T., but of U.F.O's....a big difference.

Yet again, I said "evidence" not conclusive proof. Of course the phenomenon can be interpreted more than one way but that doesn't mean all interpretations are equally plausible. The ETH is most in line with modern science and rationality--far more so than "demons" or time travelers.

I disagree. Once again the "evidence" you provide shows 0.00% that E.T. exists....It might work a little toward the existence of U.F.O's, but even then it shows nothing in the way of confirmation.

Modern science and rationality cannot be a viable support base in the case where physical proof is so bleak or not even there. In the case of Demonic possession and Demons in general, many cases have shown the proof in actual video, eyewitness viewing, what the possessed says and acts as, their floating in air without the use of any assistance, whole objects slammed around and rooms shaking, beds shaking, etc. With E.T. you have nothing. No little bodies, no metal, no crafts....

Just some radar and a few eyewitnesses.

I would say there is much more for the proof as to the existence of Demons then there is for E.T. in this case, sorry.

More than for "demons" themselves. One shouldn't attribute effects to something which isn't itself visible or has no other corroboration.

I wish you would take that self advisement when judging the difference between a U.F.O. sighting and E.T. then, because you have 0.00% proof of E.T. Demons have been written up by every religion in almost every place on earth. They have haunted man for thousands of years on end, and continue to prove their existence in almost every seriously investigated case.

Erhman and no doubt others, cast considerable doubt on the validity and reliability of all of that.

I take it you mean Bart Erhman? Man have you been in bad company. Here's just one example of how Erhman gets it wrong:

Dr. Craig Evans cites Erhman’s quote in Fabricating Jesus. He states that Erhman’s line of reasoning is “so typical of brittle fundamentalism.” He continues by stating “rigid ideas about the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture underlie Erhman’s problem.” Evans summarizes that “the truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture…but on the resurrection of Jesus.” Throughout Fabricating Jesus, Evans points out that many people, like Erhman, have lost their faith because they have an inflexible understanding of what inerrancy and verbal inspiration mean.

Perhaps some good advice for you :)


I assumed you'd hate a book which predicts the phenomenon will be the ultimate nemesis of traditional beliefs such as yours.

My traditional beliefs have never been in question, and dare I say it, those who think E.T. would make an "ultimate nemesis" to thus is mistaken and misguided. As I stated many times, the existence of other life, albeit intelligent or not, doesn't contradict anything my Lord and Savior has said about the world, the heavens or the universe. I am completely aware that the universe is vast, larger than you or I can even conceive. Intelligent life is probably out there (Demons are intelligent and very capable;))....the difference of opinion we have is that E.T. ever cared more than perhaps a smidgen about us, that is if they ever came to us, or exist in the first place.

Reminds me of Sagan. For all the fascination for the idea of alien life he professed I don't think he really had the stomach for it. He was wiling to consider the half-fish Oannes legend evidence for an alien visit in the past, and thought contact via radio might happen in the future. But he totally rejected ALL UFO reports i.e. any suggestion they're here now.

Sagan understood the sheer odds that an intelligent life with the capacity to travel eons over great distances, would look at us as nothing more than an ant farm....one to look at, smile about, and most definitely move on. They wouldn't care about abducting us. The wouldn't care about helping our world, or nuclear usage, or anything humans could possibly have or have the capacity to do. As our probes move farther and farther away from earth and we continue to find nothing, it proves Sagan right.....Not completely denying the existence, but knowing we haven't been visited or aren't being watched by any E.T.
 
Once again, im not panning your religion, im using it to show the complete disparity in your criteria for whats proven and whats not

tumblr_l2wkke86Li1qz4uwlo1_500.jpg


You insist on the burden of proof test for the existance of ET, insisting "we haven't been visited or aren't being watched by any E.T. "

But then go on to speak of your lord and demons in a context of it being true they exist.

The burden of proof you insist must apply to the ETH, is completely forgotton where your religious programming is concerned.
 
You insist on the burden of proof test for the existance of ET, insisting "we haven't been visited or aren't being watched by any E.T. " But then go on to speak of your lord and demons in a context of it being true they exist. The burden of proof you insist must apply to the ETH, is completely forgotton where your religious programming is concerned.

This is why I don't think there's a god or that there are aliens visiting us. Science is awesome!
 
Indeed. Key word: Un-identified. Or alternatively, you might all be correct. Why must there be only one plausible explanation??

:rolleyes:*hmmmm*
 
Indeed. Key word: Un-identified. Or alternatively, you might all be correct. Why must there be only one plausible explanation??

Advanced ETs can account for all aspects of the phenomenon, and the near-simultaneous intensification of all aspects since WWII is suggestive of a single source.

Btw mike:
I'm not an atheist because I think science can disprove god.

Did you see the article in FREE INQUIRY some years ago--IIRC "Can science disprove god"? They concluded it can and has. In science, anything which is epistemically unnecessary is assumed not to exist. Around the 19th century, astronomers assumed Vulcan existed, even though they couldn't see it, because they had no other way to explain irregularities in Mercury's orbit. But soon, general relativity explained the irregularities. Belief in Vulcan ended at that point because it wasn't needed as an explanation. There was no longer any basis for belief. Scientifically that sufficed to disprove it. It's the same with "god." Besides being unseen, it's no longer needed to explain the earth, man or anything.:)
I haven't got time to answer all of PS but his remark about our probes going farther out and still finding nothing is ludicrous. Essentially we're still confined to the solar system. And we would be important to ETs, because unlike an ant farm, we have potential to equal them, perhaps in the not all that distant future given our rate of progress. And inhabitable worlds are relatively rare, hence very interesting.
 
Advanced ETs can account for all aspects of the phenomenon, and the near-simultaneous intensification of all aspects since WWII is suggestive of a single source.

They cannot account for "all" aspects of the phenomenon because if you are to believe that they originate from outer-space, then the thousands of cases of appearances out of thin air instead of landing from dropping down out of the heavens would be counter productive to your explanations of E.T. and its machinations in the first place.;)
 
They cannot account for "all" aspects of the phenomenon because if you are to believe that they originate from outer-space, then the thousands of cases of appearances out of thin air instead of landing from dropping down out of the heavens would be counter productive to your explanations of E.T. and its machinations in the first place.;)

But all they'd have to do is project holographic images. :)
 
But all they'd have to do is project holographic images. :)

Why? To trick us into believing their something their not? This wouldn't make any sense since they are obviously observing us for thousands of years and know we understand their position...or at least are privy to their "outer space" usage.:)
 
Once again, im not panning your religion, im using it to show the complete disparity in your criteria for whats proven and whats not

tumblr_l2wkke86Li1qz4uwlo1_500.jpg


You insist on the burden of proof test for the existance of ET, insisting "we haven't been visited or aren't being watched by any E.T. "

But then go on to speak of your lord and demons in a context of it being true they exist.

The burden of proof you insist must apply to the ETH, is completely forgotton where your religious programming is concerned.
Your post and graphic you posted shows strikingly that that both you and Trajanus do not understand the scientific method.

Statements like "burden of proof" or "bulk of evidence" are largely legal type terms that are not recognized in science.

Fact: The ETH is not falsifiable.

If there exists no condition, either implicit or explicit, whereby you can say for certain the hypothesis has failed then the hypothesis it is not scientific.

In science it's all about falsifiability, not about evidence for something.

An example: Ohms Law. E = IR. The falsifiability condition here is obvious. If I times R ever does not equal E, even once then it is falsified.

Believe it or not, but that equality, in the eyes of science, has not been proven.

It has failed to be falsified.

Despite literally billions and billions of attempts to do so there hasn't been a result that indicates otherwise. Every single working electronic device ever built can be looked upon as another failure to falsify Ohms Law.

This is how things become accepted in science. This is why science rejects ETH. This is why Carl Sagan, a scientist's scientist rejected ETH.

And this is why the debate between you and PararealtiySaint is exactly like a debate between a Catholic and a Muslim over religious doctrine. Neither of you has any firm ground upon which to attack the other. Neither of you can claim science on your side.
 
And this is why the debate between you and PararealtiySaint is exactly like a debate between a Catholic and a Muslim over religious doctrine. Neither of you has any firm ground upon which to attack the other. Neither of you can claim science on your side.

Your words hold water but please do not include me in the same category with either of the two you mentioned. I never once purported to know what is going on with this phenomenon. I have only stated my "theory" as to what is happening in this situation.

The difference is you won't hear this from either Mike or Trajanus. To them it has to be E.T. and that is it.

Again, please understand I have always made it known that I "believe" my case to be the truth...not that it definitely is the entire truth or even partially for that matter....or that I have any answer superior to what science has yet to clarify.

To me the worst possible result of anyone reading my posts is to think I have the definitive answer to this.
 
Your words hold water but please do not include me in the same category with either of the two you mentioned. I never once purported to know what is going on with this phenomenon. I have only stated my "theory" as to what is happening in this situation.

The difference is you won't hear this from either Mike or Trajanus. To them it has to be E.T. and that is it.

Again, please understand I have always made it known that I "believe" my case to be the truth...not that it definitely is the entire truth or even partially for that matter....or that I have any answer superior to what science has yet to clarify.

To me the worst possible result of anyone reading my posts is to think I have the definitive answer to this.
Yes, I understand the distiinction now that you point it out.

What you believe or claim is based on faith and you acknowledge that it is faith. What they believe or claim is also based on faith but they try to improperly state that it is based on science.

Big difference, sorry I missed it. :)
 
Yes, I understand the distiinction now that you point it out.

What you believe or claim is based on faith and you acknowledge that it is faith. What they believe or claim is also based on faith but they try to improperly state that it is based on science.

Big difference, sorry I missed it. :)

I appreciate your honesty in this stphrz. I learned a long time ago not to embellish for the sake of argument approval.
 
Some folks on here use the word "science" the way the old church in the middle ages used the word "scripture." They bully and rant and yell and make inuendos. To be honest it can wear ya out and I just don't respond for the most part. So, (sigh) for the ninety millionth time:

Science is not a "Thing" it is not an entity! It is not a all knowing catch all. I am a Social Worker and to an extent I do "science." I have a friend who is a doctor. He goes to church and he does worship there. At his office he does "Science." There are Chemist and mental health professionals and Sociologist and biologist and they all do "science." None of them are qualified to talk about the inner spirit or life of mankind more than anybody else. My doctor friend is not qualified to see my clients but to me he is much more of a "scientist" than I am. He's also much more religious than I am. The silly little "science is awesome" crap is just that. CRAP! The mind of mankind is AWESOME science is just a collection of disciplines and tools that "we" use to inquire about our world. However, to take a test tube and try to disprove or prove God is not science. It's silly. There are actual studies (Don't yell for a link, cause if your to damn lazy to study Rhine or Sheldrake or Targ or Tart and decide for yourself I'm not doing it for ya. Go watch Ghostbusters or something more up your alley) Anyway there are actual scientist doing PSI studies and there are some positive results and some woo woo factor. I don't care if you beleive in God or not. I have no burden to prove anything to anybody. It's my "opinion" that we are not being visited by aliens and it's also my opinion that inter dimensional or demonic or mentally ill or military or actual E.T.'s are all in play and all have the exact same validity. In other words hard scientifically speaking they all have NONE! We just don't know. Sorry if that offends the Raliens among us or the Christians among us or the Atheist among us or the Muslims among us or whatever! Anyway, that's my last rant (for now) :) on this silly religion vs science vs e.t. debate. Ya know there could be e.t. and it still wouldn't disprove or prove god. What if your blessed e.t. came down and told you they were from God. Would ya beileve em and become religious? What if they told you they were god? Would you turn your back on Jesus or Buddha or Darwin? Just sayin. Anyway, all of us wake up in our own skin and defend our own worldview. If you think your views are not colored by your worldview then you are self deluded.

Now can we stop with the attack dawg (I'm southern) mentality and talk about the wonder of the possibiltiy of alien or other worldly visitation without trying to destroy the spirit and the worldview of those we simply disagaree with? Hmmm? :)
 
Fact: The ETH is not falsifiable.

I reject that claim

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
The claim "No human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, "All humans live forever" is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are more difficult to falsify). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; "All humans have red blood" is a true statement but remains falsifiable because we can at least imagine finding a human with blood of another color to prove this statement wrong.
Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable). For example, "it will be raining here in one billion years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

There is currently insufficient data to make that claim
 
Mike:

Both you and Trajanus in your previous posts attributed abilities and scope science simply doesn't have. You attempt ed to give it authority it doesn't have. There is a name for this. It's called pseudo-science.

You used it to claim it gives credence to your arguments and diminishes the arguments of someone else. Science can only be used in such a fashion within the realm of clearly established facts, data and observations. Also, both sides of the argument have to play by the same rules. You cheated.

Then you went on to say to the effect "I'm not trashing your religious beliefs but unless you can prove them I don't want to listen to you.", forgetting completely that the scientific method doesn't set out to prove anything.

Now you are saying that there is sufficient evidence to validly form the ETH hypothesis but not enough evidence to determine that it's unfalsifiable. Sorry, there's no way that argument is staying on the rails.

Here's the thing, it's the lack of evidence is that makes it unfalsifiable. Please reread the paragraph you quoted.
If, we are in fact, not being visited by extraterrestrials what observation, fact or experiment could possibly show that? Billions of people live their entire lives without observing a ufo. Does that mean there are no ufos? If a billion observations can't falsify it what single observation could? And even that requires one to concede that ufos are extraterrestrial spacecraft.

All UFOs = Alien spacships. Falsifiable. (you only have to find one instance where a ufo turned out to not be an alien spaceship ie a hoax.)

Some UFOs = Alien spaceships. Not falsifiable.

The words "All" and "Some" make all the difference.




.
 
Advanced ETs can account for all aspects of the phenomenon, and the near-simultaneous intensification of all aspects since WWII is suggestive of a single source.

.

I agree -- indeed they can. There is a distinction, however, between something which can have only one possible explanation; and something which must. Example: One UFO sighting is proven to be a hoax. This does not automatically mean that they are all hoaxes. Or alien life is discovered, but every one of these entities are microbes. That doesn't mean that all alien life is microbial.

See the distinction?

8)PS. Vulcan is real. LLAP \\// ...(Just kidding.):p
 
Mike:

Both you and Trajanus in your previous posts attributed abilities and scope science simply doesn't have. You attempt ed to give it authority it doesn't have. There is a name for this. It's called pseudo-science.

You used it to claim it gives credence to your arguments and diminishes the arguments of someone else. Science can only be used in such a fashion within the realm of clearly established facts, data and observations. Also, both sides of the argument have to play by the same rules. You cheated.

Then you went on to say to the effect "I'm not trashing your religious beliefs but unless you can prove them I don't want to listen to you.", forgetting completely that the scientific method doesn't set out to prove anything.

Now you are saying that there is sufficient evidence to validly form the ETH hypothesis but not enough evidence to determine that it's unfalsifiable. Sorry, there's no way that argument is staying on the rails.

Here's the thing, it's the lack of evidence is that makes it unfalsifiable. Please reread the paragraph you quoted.
If, we are in fact, not being visited by extraterrestrials what observation, fact or experiment could possibly show that? Billions of people live their entire lives without observing a ufo. Does that mean there are no ufos? If a billion observations can't falsify it what single observation could? And even that requires one to concede that ufos are extraterrestrial spacecraft.

All UFOs = Alien spacships. Falsifiable. (you only have to find one instance where a ufo turned out to not be an alien spaceship ie a hoax.)

Some UFOs = Alien spaceships. Not falsifiable.

The words "All" and "Some" make all the difference.




.

Ive never claimed that science has proved UFO's exist, or that they are ET vehicles.
You on the other hand seem to be claiming based on scientific principle that they dont/arn't.

hinging this debate on "falsifiable" is tenuous, Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable). For example, "it will be raining here in one billion years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.
Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'
As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it.
Hence the reference to balance of probabilitys, being a valid measure where a definative answer is lacking

Use in courts of law
Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools as such (it can be taught as religion). In his conclusion related to this criterion he stated that "While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed

Many contemporary philosophers of science and analytic philosophers are strongly critical of Popper's philosophy of science<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class=Template-Fact title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from July 2010">[citation needed]</SUP> . Popper's mistrust of inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientific practice. Among the professional philosophers of science, the Popperian view has never been seriously preferred to probabilistic induction, which is the mainstream account of scientific reasoning.<SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference>[</SUP>


Further not evryone agrees falsifiability is the be all and end all of scientific evaluation

Sokal and Bricmont
In their book Fashionable Nonsense (published in the UK as Intellectual Impostures) the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories. Their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled "Intermezzo," which contains an attempt to make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism.
Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes." (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)

Which again makes my point, that while we dont have scientific proof, "balance of probabiltys" are reasonable enough until we do.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has "no proof" that ET's exist, but on the balance of probability states
"it would be inexcusably egocentric to suggest we are alone in the cosmos..........."
 
Yes, the longer a hypothesis goes unfalsified the more accepted it becomes. I already said that. (remember my Ohm's Law example?) The caveat is that the hypothesis can be falsified by just one contrary observation, measurement or experiment.

Also, I'm what I'm arguing is not philosophy here. For example, some philosophers oppose quantumn theory on philosophic grounds. They are wrong. Some make a tempest out of a teapot regarding induction. Science doesn't.

Probabilistic induction is fine and dandy, provided you can accurately calculate the probabilities. And provided you have a way to determine if you are in error. (that is to say you can make the determination if it just so happens the truth goes against the odds.)

By the way, just how probable is it that extraterrestrials are visiting earth? How do you calculate that? Show your work.

In fact science has no problem with induction at all. Example:

All life we know of needs liquid water to exist. (These are the observations)

Therefore all life needs liquid water to exist. (This is the hypothesis}

The hypothesis is falsifiable by the simple discovery of one life form that does not need liquid water to live.

The fact remains, to know if you are right is entirely contingent upon you knowing when you are wrong. The scientific method is a way of asking "if I am wrong, how will I know it?" It's not a way of asking "am I right?" Looking for evidence to support your hypothesis is like taking random shots at the side of a barn, drawing a circle around the closest grouping of holes and declaring that to be the target.

So, I ask again. If we are not being visited by ET's how can we determine that? If you are wrong (note I'm not saying you are) how will you know it?

I leave you with this Einstein quote: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
 
Back
Top