Quote:
Originally Posted by blastingas10
I've read through this whole thread and I must say I was pretty neutral on the subject, until I read this. I've watched ancient aliens and told myself, "this is the supidest, most ridiculous ****." While I'm not convinced that any of this is true, I think the case that was made in this thread Is more believable than the argument that the skeptics had. None you skeptics really had much to say. On the other hand, there is some really intriguing, I won't say evidence, but there are some intriguing accounts. Oojay had some really intriguing arguments. Of course nobody is going to believe his abduction story, even if he recorded it all and interviewed one of the damn aliens, it would easily be dismissed as fake.
It seems to me that there are many signs that point to the truth, but since there isn't concrete evidence In front of everyone's faces, it will continue to be denied. I'm not going to say any of it is true or false, but considering the high probability of alien life and all the depictions of extra-terrestrial things throughout human history, it seems to be more plausible that there is and was something strange going on. More plausible than everyone being either mistaken or full of ****.
|
I'm not sure you understand the idea behind skepticism in general. Skeptics might have an initial bias about whether they think a particular claim is true or not, but the burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. It's on the individual making the claim. A skeptic need only to wait for the actual evidence to arrive, so that it can be analyzed. Until that happens, the skeptic doesn't have to make a case at all. We don't need to set about to try and prove that something doesn't exist. We can simply let the lack of evidence for its existence speak for itself.
Notice I said evidence, and not "something I heard once". A skeptic doesn't consider personal accounts to make the case for anything at all. If skeptical inquiry was based on one claim having more stories for it than not, the system would be outrageously flawed.
Unfortunately, a lot of laypersons do exactly that, and base their perspectives on whether stories they heard are believable or not. The problem with this is it doesn't actually provide any truth, and simultaneously leaves that person open to be manipulated.
I would advise against creating your inventory of beliefs and notions based on "which argument sounds more believable". The less you rely on evidence, the more likely you'll end up believing a bunch of false things.