213 replies to this topic

[quillius]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

They had all come from a party, and it was Christmas week.

In her book, Georgina Bruni says the men denied being drunk, but then they would do. She also points out that drugs and alcohol were a very big problem on the base.If there has been any cover up, this is what is being covered up.

so by this you deduce they must have been drunk and on drugs.....Logical fallacy springs to mind.

[Flibbertigibbet]

quillius, on 23 April 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

so by this you deduce they must have been drunk and on drugs.....Logical fallacy springs to mind.

A bunch of people go out into the woods and see strange lights that they interpret as UFOs but actually turn out to fit the lighthouse rotation and direction. Where's the logical falacy in assuming they might have been drunk or drugged up?

[quillius]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

A bunch of people go out into the woods and see strange lights that they interpret as UFOs but actually turn out to fit the lighthouse rotation and direction. Where's the logical falacy in assuming they might have been drunk or drugged up?

its right there (bolded)

[Flibbertigibbet]

quillius, on 23 April 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

its right there (bolded)

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

They'd just come from a party, or some of them at any rate.

[quillius]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

They'd just come from a party, or some of them at any rate.

I have indeed.

you said that there was a drink and drug problem at the base...therefore they must have been drunk and on drugs...this is a logical fallacy.

Have you proof of this drink and drug problem? have you any evidence to show that they were all drunk and on drugs? if so please do share it.

and as for them coming from a party, you even say 'some of them' which implies not all....therefore how can they all be hallucinating or making this mistake, a mistake that you indicate is due to drugs and drink??!?

[Sky Scanner]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

They'd just come from a party, or some of them at any rate.

Occams Razor doesn't state you have to invent scenarios to make rational explanations seem more plausible. In other words, you started saying it was obviously the lighthouse light viewed through fog and drink/drugs (no evidence of drink or drugs), then you say it's because they came from a party (still no evidence of being drunk or on drugs)...now you're saying that some of them were at a party, which by implication means some of them weren't, yet were still fooled by a lighthouse light....that's just trying to crowbar a scenario with no merit into a situation to make a theory more plausible...

The light house theory doesn't require anyone to be drunk or on drugs.

[Flibbertigibbet]

quillius, on 23 April 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

I have indeed.

you said that there was a drink and drug problem at the base...therefore they must have been drunk and on drugs...this is a logical fallacy.

Have you proof of this drink and drug problem? have you any evidence to show that they were all drunk and on drugs? if so please do share it.

and as for them coming from a party, you even say 'some of them' which implies not all....therefore how can they all be hallucinating or making this mistake, a mistake that you indicate is due to drugs and drink??!?

The evidence that they were on drink or drugs is that they misinterpreted the light from the lighthouse as something out of this world. The leader of the group had definitely come from a party and it is he who was most vocal in his misinterpretation.

[quillius]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

The evidence that they were on drink or drugs is that they misinterpreted the light from the lighthouse as something out of this world. The leader of the group had definitely come from a party and it is he who was most vocal in his misinterpretation.

so we return to the logical fallacy.

[Flibbertigibbet]

The Sky Scanner, on 23 April 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Occams Razor doesn't state you have to invent scenarios to make rational explanations seem more plausible. In other words, you started saying it was obviously the lighthouse light viewed through fog and drink/drugs (no evidence of drink or drugs), then you say it's because they came from a party (still no evidence of being drunk or on drugs)...now you're saying that some of them were at a party, which by implication means some of them weren't, yet were still fooled by a lighthouse light....that's just trying to crowbar a scenario with no merit into a situation to make a theory more plausible...

The light house theory doesn't require anyone to be drunk or on drugs.

It doesn't require it, no. It's a variation on it.

[Flibbertigibbet]

quillius, on 23 April 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

so we return to the logical fallacy.

Occam's Razor is not a logical falacy, it is the very foundation of reason. Out of 2 theories that apparently fit the facts, which is more likely? That it was a lighthouse seen under slightly unusual conditions, or a spacecraft from another planet?

[Sky Scanner]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

It doesn't require it, no. It's a variation on it.

A variation lacking in any evidence. There is no slurred speech, irrational behaviour or strange comments made on Halts tape by any of the people you hear on the tape. If they were drunk or on drugs, how do you account of that?

[Flibbertigibbet]

The Sky Scanner, on 23 April 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

A variation lacking in any evidence. There is no slurred speech, irrational behaviour or strange comments made on Halts tape by any of the people you hear on the tape. If they were drunk or on drugs, how do you account of that?

I didn't suggest they were out of their faces.

[Sky Scanner]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Occam's Razor is not a logical falacy, it is the very foundation of reason. Out of 2 theories that apparently fit the facts, which is more likely? That it was a lighthouse seen under slightly unusual conditions, or a spacecraft from another planet?

Or option 3 - insufficient evidence to make a conclusion. Why does everything have to have an answer if the evidence is lacking to conclude a definitive answer?

[quillius]

Flibbertigibbet, on 23 April 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Occam's Razor is not a logical falacy, it is the very foundation of reason. Out of 2 theories that apparently fit the facts, which is more likely? That it was a lighthouse seen under slightly unusual conditions, or a spacecraft from another planet?

Who said Occams razor was a logical fallacy?

you missed the logical fallacy pointed out.

so just to confirm are you saying you have no proof of them being on drugs/drunk? this is the point being discussed, not what they may or may not have seen.

[Flibbertigibbet]

The Sky Scanner, on 23 April 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Or option 3 - insufficient evidence to make a conclusion. Why does everything have to have an answer if the evidence is lacking to conclude a definitive answer?

It's the job of any researcher to suggest the simplest answers possible to any event, and then test them to see if they fit the facts.