Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
Dejarma

The absence of evidence

361 posts in this topic

It's great to believe- why not...
I did for many years until I started to look at it without the fantasy glasses on. I had to take mine off for a while to see what I was really looking at regarding the so called evidence. It seamed to be the logical thing to do due to the frustration of the lack of REAL proof/ evidence after (in my case) 40+ years of faith, hope & fantasy! Now they are off all the time. But I haven't thrown them away YET
For all the years us homosapiens have existed on this planet; not one piece of evidence has ever been submitted that would make a- <now skeptical> like my good self think again about ufos/ aliens & the supernatural in general. You know: <REAL EVIDENCE> -- not a story told by someone we should believe (via some form of lucrative media) because of who they are/ their position in life etc!> believe what you're told or don't kinda thing.
I'm here to find the truth/ real evidence of the supernatural in all it's diverse shapes & forms. Why are you here? Due to my opinions & approach; this is a question that's been asked of me many times over the years.
<the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence> is a phrase well used in discussions regarding ufos/ aliens & the supernatural. If you're here to try & find the truth via debate regarding the supernatural , as am I, then isn't it about time to re-evaluate this well used phrase?

What needs to happen or not happen or how long will it take, 10/100 years before the well used phrase will be: <the absence of evidence can only mean evidence of absence>?
By all means keep the fantasy glasses on when reading through this thread. But out of respect for different opinions & approaches at least take one lens out for some kinda balance. See how it goes;)

 

Peace.

dej...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if you are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'.

I have seen/heard a 1,001 pieces of evidence for various things. Proof can be defined so stringently that it is impossible, so I just say I am a believer beyond reasonable doubt and that is good enough for me.

Evidence can be any claim that argues for the existence of something. It is not 'proof' though and there can be counter-evidence and arguments too. In the end it is a reasoned judgment..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am wondering if you are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'.

I have seen/heard a 1,001 pieces of evidence for various things. Proof can be defined so stringently that it is impossible, so I just say I am a believer beyond reasonable doubt and that is good enough for me.

Evidence can be any claim that argues for the existence of something. It is not 'proof' though and there can be counter-evidence and arguments too. In the end it is a reasoned judgment..

Wonder no more...

'proof' would be job done- would it not!? End of the phenomenon....

You are totally correct: there IS much 'evidence'.. But I did say 'real' evidence as in:

not a story. There is no real evidence-- I'd go as far as saying that is a fact!

I guess this starts the debate= <what is real evidence?>

well, IMHO it depends if you've got the fantasy glasses on or not- which is the whole point of this thread;)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

 

I guess this starts the debate= <what is real evidence?>

 

Evidence is anything that furthers the case for a position. "Real' evidence is a subjective term for strong evidence I suppose..

 

12 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

well, IMHO it depends if you've got the fantasy glasses on or not- which is the whole point of this thread;)

I don't like to wear to any glasses myself, the clearer the better, and I believe in many things beyond the so-called 'normal' most conservative views. It is just my objective opinion on all the evidence and argumentation from all sides.

Edited by papageorge1
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it really be so bad if the UFO phenomenon/folklore was just mythology? Looking at some parts of UFO folklore, especially the pseudo-religious permutations, I'd say we can count ourselves lucky that (as far as I can tell) it isn't real. Would you really want little grey men zooming around in flying saucers mutilating cattle and probing humans? Would you really want some sort of Reptilians building a giant dream catcher on the moon that controls humanity's death/rebirth cycle? Would you really want some sort of "bootiful star peoplez" from Sirius beaming information about future calamities into the brains of cult leaders and self-appointed prophets/mediums? Would you really want that "the government" has secret dealings with "Orion Greys" and dispatches the infamous Men in Black to "take care" of you if you stumble across anything you shouldn't have seen? Would you want to live in a world like that in which humanity is merely the toy of some clandestine alien creatures that want our "soul matrixes"(or some other such crap)?

Because I don't.

Same with ghosts. Would you really be happy about the possibility that human souls can be trapped on this plane of existence after death, possibly indefinitely, doomed to endlessly wander some sort of hallway dressed in whatever old rags they happen to wear when they croaked? That those souls could be exorcised, banished, or possibly even destroyed? That mediums could trap them and use them for their own designs?

Because I don't.

Just like I, personally, wouldn't want to life in universes that were exactly like those described in Norse mythology or the Bible. 

I think the idea of alien life out there in the vastness of space is sensible. The idea of "Orion Greys" and Annunanki operating an intergalatic gas station out of the Bermuda Triangle, however is rubbish. 

As for the lack of solid evidence or proof right now. Remember the existence of giant squid was verified only recently and those are fairly large animals existing basically on our doorstep. Space is big and we are only just beginning to take baby steps into it. Who knows what might still be found within our lifetimes. Probably no Orion Greys and "bootiful star peoplez" from the Pleiades, but imho already evidence primitive life on another planet would be hella cool.

As to find evidence and proof for "superantural" things. Supernatural means beyond or outside of the natural universe. As creatures within the natural universe, with out senses and mind attuned to it. How would we go about proofing something supernatural? We might just be unable to "proof" whatever supernatural things might or might not exist.

Beyond that, well, sometimes entertaining the idea of things is...well...entertaining, as long as it's all good fun, and nobody screams at me to "open my eyes" or  to buy their book, I don't see anything wrong with the various supernatural/ufo fandoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't like to wear to any glasses myself, and I believe in many things beyond the so-called 'normal' most conservative views.

you've used that wonderful word: 'believe' in a debate about the supernatural... i deal in facts when debating- just thought i'd let you know, all due respect;)

 

so, do you have any facts?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Would you really want

if everything you've suggested is fact then i/we will have no choice.... nothing to do with what i want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dejarma said:

you've used that wonderful word: 'believe' in a debate about the supernatural... i deal in facts when debating- just thought i'd let you know, all due respect;)

 

so, do you have any facts?

"belief' (as opposed to 'faith"). Personal belief is formed from the best objective analysis of all evidence and argumentation from all sides. That is how human reason works in the absence of perfect proof, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

I think the idea of alien life out there in the vastness of space is sensible.

yeah, who's saying it's not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is how human reason works in the absence of perfect proof, right?

no, not for me! facts facts facts- personal belief means nothing without facts with regards to a logical meaningful conclusion 

Edited by Dejarma
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am wondering if you are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'.

I have seen/heard a 1,001 pieces of evidence for various things. Proof can be defined so stringently that it is impossible, so I just say I am a believer beyond reasonable doubt and that is good enough for me.

Evidence can be any claim that argues for the existence of something. It is not 'proof' though and there can be counter-evidence and arguments too. In the end it is a reasoned judgment..

I think the point, made clear in the OP, is that any evidence that supports the ETH, if it were graded on the Admiralty Scale, would rarely be better than F6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dejarma said:

no, not for me! facts facts facts- personal belief means nothing without facts with regards to a logical meaning conclusion 

A fact can be something like; Both people claimed to see the UFO.........that would be an example of a fact

What you don't realize is that you are heading to saying that you do not believe in anything without proof.

A few years back a physicist might have said; 'Although not proven yet, I believe the Higgs-Boson is likely to exist'. Was the scientist thinking in a way you do not respect when he made that statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I think the point, made clear in the OP, is that any evidence that supports the ETH, if it were graded on the Admiralty Scale, would rarely be better than F6.

I am not familiar with those terms. Is this some British stuff? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

A fact can be something like; Both people claimed to see the UFO.........that would be an example of a fact

no, that is not a fact!! Both people could be making up a story for a laugh! you DO NOT know that for a fact........don't be ridiculous;) 

Edited by Dejarma
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

no, that is not a fact!! Both people could be making up a story for a laugh! you DO NOT know that for a fact........

You are not understanding the logic I'm afraid.

I can know for a fact they 'claimed it'. Of course everyone considers they COULD make up anything they want. So it is not proof as I have been saying. But enough reports is not worthless either. It is evidence.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am not familiar with those terms. Is this some British stuff? 

British stuff?:huh:

Quote

"The Admiralty Scale (also called the NATO System) is used to rank the reliability of a source and the credibility of an information."

https://bartoc.org/en/node/1963

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

You are not understanding the logic I'm afraid.

i don't think i'll ever understand logic of this nature:rolleyes: still, no worries- have fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

<the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence> is a phrase well used in discussions regarding ufos/ aliens & the supernatural. If you're here to try & find the truth via debate regarding the supernatural , as am I, then isn't it about time to re-evaluate this well used phrase?

Umm. No. That is a very profound phrase that is used in Science not simply "aliens and supernatural". Of course it is a very simple condensed statement and it implies much more than some might assume. For example see below, this gets taken into the weeds much further than the quote I am quoting.

Quote

Popper’s black swan – the instance that is most often associated with the phrase ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ – is a Perfect Alibi for the hypothesis “All swans are white”: conclusive positive evidence – seeing a black swan – falsifies the hypothesis; but inconclusive negative evidence – failure to see a black swan – does not verify it.

http://www.massimofuggetta.com/2014/02/12/absence-of-evidence/ http://archive.is/wl15n

Now read the above. This is a profound statement and Popper in the quote is Sir. Karl Popper famous Scientist and Science Philosopher. Of course there are other permutations and the link above will get into those weeds deeper than I'm going to do here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Popper’s black swan – the instance that is most often associated with the phrase ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ – is a Perfect Alibi for the hypothesis “All swans are white”: conclusive positive evidence – seeing a black swan – falsifies the hypothesis; but inconclusive negative evidence – failure to see a black swan – does not verify it.

what are you talking about!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

what are you talking about!?!

Sciencey stuff... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Sciencey stuff... 

you've no idea what you're on about, do ya!? don't bore me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you've no idea what you're on about, do ya!? don't bore me

Of course I know what I'm talking about. Who doesn't know who Karl Popper is? 

Do you know what you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Do you know what you are talking about?

no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mark66 said:

WHY DOESNT ANYONE  HAVE PROOF

 

oh i love a good quiz= hmm, let me think??!

 

no ok, i give up: why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I am wondering if you are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'.

I have seen/heard a 1,001 pieces of evidence for various things. Proof can be defined so stringently that it is impossible, so I just say I am a believer beyond reasonable doubt and that is good enough for me.

Evidence can be any claim that argues for the existence of something. It is not 'proof' though and there can be counter-evidence and arguments too. In the end it is a reasoned judgment..

Evidence can be weak or strong. Things can be presented as evidence that are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.