Apollo 14 Astronaut claims aliens exist!

[angellous_evangellous]

Then please explain to me what else you were trying to accomplish with your "salmon" comments.

I think that you were typing when I was still writing the previous post - I had a little browser error, and it posted duplicate.

I wrote:

I am allowed, of course, to utilize logical fallacies to demonstrate the failures in my own thinking

And, I'm sorry, I just figured that since you were showing disdain earlier in the thread for my position, that later questionable comments with no other discernable mottive, were showing disdain for my position.

I have no worries at all. On the contrary, I found your reading of my posts entertaining (my apologies there) and educational.

Do you deny that even your earlier comments, especially your support of Jay's insults, showed disdain for my position, along with others'?

I don't recall Jay insulting anyone, but that is something that I would never do. My disdain is only for myself and the views that I hold or recreate in my mind. If someone else happens to hold the same views, how could I know even if they told me? (People aren't always honest with me or themselves...).

Therefore, I focus my disdain on no one but myself. If someone wishes to project that on to themselves, they do it to their peril.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your idea is not a reductio ad absurdium, because you have added more caveats to the initial premise to try and make it out to be ridiculous.

Did you really think about this before you wrote?

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result....

Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe any argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd.

It's reducito ad absurdum in its simplest form.

We can compare that to a stawman:

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent

If you can show that I attributed this thinking to someone else, be my guest.

 

[cardero]

Two videos of Buzz Aldrin explaining what the astronauts saw on the Apollo Space Missions.

YouTube - Buzz Aldrin Explains Apollo XI UFO Sighting

YouTube - Astronaut Buzz Aldrin Recounts Apollo 11 UFO Encounter

 

[rojse]

Did you really think about this before you wrote?

I would always dignify you with an original, thought-out response, because you have always done so for me in the past. In fact, I do that for everyone on here, even when I completely disagree with every statement made within the post. I apologise if I do not give you that impression.

It's reducito ad absurdum in its simplest form.

There are quite a few differences between your gun-wielding salmon and people asserting that aliens are probing people, which means the reducito ad absurdum does not work.

Firstly, most people (some exceptions, granted, but not everyone) who simply believe that aliens exist have not specifically mentioned any specific type of alien.

The people that believes aliens have contacted earth could be right, although this probability is less than the assertation that aliens exist. The few that have tried to describe these aliens as looking like the stereotypical greys also could be right, but the probability of this is less than the assertation that aliens exist and have already come to earth. Certainly, I am a skeptical about aliens having come to earth merely out of some sexual fantasy to anal probe humans, but I concede that I might not be correct.

As for the greys or any other aliens mentioned by those whom believe in aliens contacting earth, the form described is one that we could reasonably expect to do things such as manoeuvering space craft, wielding weapons, and directing anal probes. These aliens have arms, sensory perceptors that would possibly allow it to obtain a pictoral view of the world, an area where a reasonable-sized brain would be located, and so forth. Yes, I recognise that we are projecting our ideas in science onto these supposed aliens, and they do look remarkably similar to humans, but I don't have anything better to work with at the present point in time.

The main difference between the argument that "aliens might exist in this wide universe of ours," and "salmon with attitude might exist in this wide universe of ours," is that salmon already exist. To assert that they might exist in this wide universe in two completely independent areas is completely different to the first assertation.

We can compare that to a stawman.

I know what a strawman is - a misrepresentation of an argument created to disprove a point. You made this strawman quite well.

If you can show that I attributed this thinking to someone else, be my guest.

No, I respect you enough to believe that you wrote your post yourself.

 

[Dreamwolf]

Can I just say real quick that I haven't seen so much mud-slinging since I last watched CNN / Fox News?

 

[cardero]

Can I just say real quick that I haven't seen so much mud-slinging since I last watched CNN / Fox News?

I think much of the unwilling acceptance and sensitivity that comes from and with these conversations stems from the (dis)belief (fear?) that there could be other entities in existence that are more intelligent (better?) than humans.

 

[Dreamwolf]

I think much of the unwilling acceptance and sensitivity that comes from and with these conversations stems from the (dis)belief (fear?) that there could be other entities in existence that are more intelligent (better?) than humans.

Quite possibly! That begs the question, why is most people's first reaction to something different/weird/somewhat strange/unexplainable to lash out at the people who are willing to accept the possibility of that something? Do they associate the person who accepts the possibility with the possibility itself?

~Pay no attention to me, its 7:20 am and I haven't gotten any sleep yet.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

~Pay no attention to me, its 7:20 am and I haven't gotten any sleep yet.

Got it.

 

[rojse]

I think much of the unwilling acceptance and sensitivity that comes from and with these conversations stems from the (dis)belief (fear?) that there could be other entities in existence that are more intelligent (better?) than humans.

The assertation that intelligent life arrives on earth, forgetting to enslave the human race, start an interstellar war, steal all of our abiotic resources, or anything remotely reasonable, and gets down to the serious business of sharing technology with it's great buddies in the American government sounds far more arrogant to me than assuming that aliens don't exist.

As for me, I accept that intelligent life might exist outside of Earth, but whether it is able to, or even wants to, contact us is a completely separate question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, I respect you enough to believe that you wrote your post yourself.

I think that we're talking past each other.

I wrote the post myself, of course, but I did not attribute the thinking that leads to gun-wielding salmon to anyone else. If I did, then it would be a strawman.

 

[Maille]

Alens must have a reason to hide from humans. They must have been around longer than we have and know more about us. So They must know that if they are found out about by to many people that they could be captured and ect. Or maybe they want to take over so they make everyone who believes look crazy and when that happens they attack and humans lose the war and undergo slavery to the aliens that take over.