Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Fila

The inherit bias regarding UFOs

Sceptics, scoffers and believers  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Are all UFO reports lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs?

  2. 2. Is it possible that advanced ET life exists?

  3. 3. Can an advanced ET race visit Earth secretly?



217 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dejarma
1 minute ago, Fila said:

You guys are just making fools of yourself.

yep i agree

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

yep i agree

Whatever it takes to flood the thread with off topic-posts right? ;)

Oh look, a new page. Not many people will click back and bother reading the information there. Mission accomplished! lol.

You guys have given me the biggest smile for the past hour now. I feel like I am making progress with this UFO thing, and the sheer amount of hate directed my way is actually fuelling me more to remain unbiased, calm, cool, collected and scientific.

I have learnt to control emotional responses.., and this will work well in the future in IRL situations where people like yourself will simply lose the plot under the first sign of pressure.

Share this post


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

Care to explain how I wound you up by disagreeing with Neil Tyson?

like i said: 'your wind-up skills are quite good' =that's the good part-- you need to work on the weak areas

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
17 minutes ago, Fila said:

Another accusation.., with no evidence or rationale. Care to explain how I wound you up by disagreeing with Neil Tyson? https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6476799
I guess this is the part where I do it back.., start calling you both names.., and the thread get closed.

Nah.., I'm all G. You guys are just making fools of yourself. I am guessing internet trolls. I hope so anyway. If this is ya'll normally.., then its kinda sad.

You are the fool and your posts prove it,

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

like i said: 'your wind-up skills are quite good' =that's the good part-- you need to work on the weak areas

So mysterious and vague.., like the cool kid at school. lol

Hey.., if you feel like taking up Stereologists points.., please do.
I have no idea what he is on about.., and can only make vague guesses. Can you decipher what his point is about sky surveys? I know about them quite well.., but he is as vague as yourself and won't actually discuss his point. He just says "You don't know about them".

Or someone else. Please jump in. Anyone.

If no one can decipher his point and explain it to me.., then I guess its just proof he is talking nonsense.

Anyone up to take the Stereo challenge?

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

What we do have is a rather failed rebuttal by Fila.

Here is a rather short list of the typical misrepresentations:

The problem is that you don't discuss facts. You misrepresent facts.

1. Fila misrepresented why I gave you the link about wide field telescopes.

2. Fila misrepresent the amateur astronomers worldwide

3. Fila misrepresented my post about viewing distances

4. Fila misrepresented what astronomers do

5. Fila misrepresented full sky surveys

6. Fila misrepresented the star identification issue

7. Fila misrepresented comments about ability of humans to collect data

8. Fila has been untruthful  in stating the following: " I am trying to move forward scientifically and objectively. " That has never happened in any thread.

9. Fila has repeatedly misrepresented the Phoenix Lights by making false statements about consensus

10. Fila has misrepresented others by claiming that they deny that UFOs exist

This does not cover the numerous times Fila has been shown to be wrong and continues to deny that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Here are some mistakes from earlier in the thread.

1. Fila continues to state that science proves.

When given links and statements concerning those links Fila claims that I was being vague. He tried the same lame idea on others in this thread.

2. Fila could not understand that Einstein based his theories on facts just like all scientific theories are based on facts

When given links and statements attesting to that he claimed something along the lines of these are semantic arguments, which of course was hogwash.

The list goes on but these issues were brought up by psyche101, ChrLzs, Horta, and others.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)

Sorry Stereologist. I have made my posts very clear, and don't follow your logic. We must have a communication barrier that cannot be solved. I have no choice but to move on.., as I don't have the time.

TAKE THE STEREO CHALLENGE!

Anyone up for deciphering Stereo's post? I am having trouble following his points as it gets way too emotional for me to read. I feel like I have broken this man mentally.., and I feel bad like I'm picking on someone less educated. The anger is the huge indicator.

The issue starts here https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6476799

Psyche? Dejarma? Nope? If not.., that's fine. I don't blame you. Its a tough job guys.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 hours ago, Fila said:

 

0:48 - Psychologists know all about "it".
Know all about "it"? I cannot find one research paper that proves  "we are uncomfortable being ignorant" nor can I find any correlation with this and why people formed a ETH. The eth is based on a theory that alien life exists (which most scientists agree on). Where is the psychological link?

...

Given that we have a thing called the Dunning-Kruger effect I expect there must some papers addressing whether, or not, "we are uncomfortable being ignorant".

4 hours ago, Fila said:

...

2:25 - If you're not at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're something else. 
This is good advice. he should take it. This is a direct contradiction to everything he is saying about being ignorant, and shows how biased he really is. What has he discovered? If he hasn't made any.., he is "something else". A science journalist.

...

I thought it was widely known Tyson was awarded a PhD.

PhDKnowledge.010.jpg

 

The illustrated guide to a Ph.D.

http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Given that we have a thing called the Dunning-Kruger effect I expect there must some papers addressing whether, or not, "we are uncomfortable being ignorant".

Like Stereo? That would explain his anger as retaliation. I can see that.

Its possible they over-estimate their abilities.., due to constantly choosing environments where they can be a "big fish in a small pond." To surround themselves with idiots who don't question them.., their ego overtakes knowledge and they constantly scramble to find someone else to explain it for them, so they can copy and paste the material in a conclusive manner.

I mean.., a lot of people are happy being ignorant. Ignorance is bliss. Being wrong however is not a good feeling.

I don't think formulating an hypothesis stems from "people being uncomfortable". I would argue it stems from an inquisitive nature. And I'm not referring to our silly "opinions" which will most likely be formed by emotions unscientifically. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. A scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

I'm still open to the idea that a theory can be formulated from "feeling uncomfortable".., its just I'd need more evidence to be convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)

:D  Oops  - wrong button.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

:D  Oops  - wrong button.

Damn.., so close hey. 

Its harder than you think right? That's why I had to give up on him too. He just makes silly claims.., without a rationale or evidence. And surrounds it with anger and false accusations. Impossible to work with.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume
Posted (edited)

 

 

Humans hate uncertainty.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/uncertainty-stressful-research-neuroscience

https://www.unstuck.com/advice/afraid-change-science-uncertainty/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-addicted-to-inform/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuronarrative/201604/why-we-hate-not-knowing-sure

https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/how-to-be-better-at-uncertainty.html

Quote

. . . And yet ambiguity is frustrating. As humans, we’re wired for cognitive closure, a desire for firm answers and “an aversion toward ambiguity

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-we-need-answers

Quote

Heightened need for cognitive closure can bias our choices, change our preferences, and influence our mood. In our rush for definition, we tend to produce fewer hypotheses and search less thoroughly for information. We become more likely to form judgments based on early cues (something known as impressional primacy), and as a result become more prone to anchoring and correspondence biases (using first impressions as anchors for our decisions and not accounting enough for situational variables)

Edited by Resume
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Fila said:

Damn.., so close hey. 

Its harder than you think right? That's why I had to give up on him too. He just makes silly claims.., without a rationale or evidence. And surrounds it with anger and false accusations. Impossible to work with.

No we all understand Stereo and each other. Your obviously a young uni student who is disgustingly arrogant and very full of himself. But at least your rude about it. 

And guess what. The vast majority off posters in your threads support Stereo over you. What's that telling you? Or is the entire world against Fila is it? 

We all tried to have a reasonable discussion with you. It's just not possible. You could not have looked more self serving and egotistical when you 'evaluated' Neil DeGrasse Tyson. How you fit your head so far up your own rear end is truly an unexplained mystery. 

Your just not worth the effort. You should go chase weather balloons and tell everyone how the government is keeping you under wraps. You would fit right in I promise you. 

296.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No we all understand Stereo and each other. Your obviously a young uni student who is disgustingly arrogant and very full of himself. But at least your rude about it. 

And guess what. The vast majority off posters in your threads support Stereo over you. What's that telling you? Or is the entire world against Fila is it? 

We all tried to have a reasonable discussion with you. It's just not possible. You could not have looked more self serving and egotistical when you 'evaluated' Neil DeGrasse Tyson. How you fit your head so far up your own rear end is truly an unexplained mystery. 

Your just not worth the effort. You should go chase weather balloons and tell everyone how the government is keeping you under wraps. You would fit right in I promise you. 

Wow, that's really cool. I just glanced over your post without reading it thoroughly. I think I just developed the capacity to automatically tune out and overlook negative text.., and pick out valid points all without actually reading the words consciously. Like speed reading for jerks.

I don't really know what you just said.., but I am going to take a punt and say its nothing substantial. This is great. Going to save me heaps of time around here now.

If you wanna counter anything or make a claim.., you need to provide a rationale, and example. Otherwise its just like little kids arguing.

KID 1: "You are an idiot!" KID 2: "No, you are". KID 1: "I know you are, I said you are.., so what am I?" KID 2: "An idiot" etc etc.......

As always.., I am open to discussing facts. I'll be here when you're ready to take the Stereo challenge.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 hours ago, Fila said:

Like Stereo? That would explain his anger as retaliation. I can see that.

I'm not a moderator.

4 hours ago, Fila said:

Its possible they over-estimate their abilities.., due to constantly choosing environments where they can be a "big fish in a small pond." To surround themselves with idiots who don't question them.., their ego overtakes knowledge and they constantly scramble to find someone else to explain it for them, so they can copy and paste the material in a conclusive manner.

I mean.., a lot of people are happy being ignorant. Ignorance is bliss. Being wrong however is not a good feeling.

I don't think formulating an hypothesis stems from "people being uncomfortable". I would argue it stems from an inquisitive nature. And I'm not referring to our silly "opinions" which will most likely be formed by emotions unscientifically. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. A scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

I'm still open to the idea that a theory can be formulated from "feeling uncomfortable".., its just I'd need more evidence to be convinced.

I responded to you in good faith. But, I had to watch the video again after reading your reply.

Tyson is explaining the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. He speculate it may come from our need to know and says we're uncfortable with ignorance. That's essentially what you say above. I don't think Tyson says anything objectionable.

Maybe it's a little confusing why he says psychologist know all about this fallacy. I expect there are many disciplines familiar with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

I think it would be fair to say that this thread has run its course - there's little point in keeping this going.

Closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.