From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:35:02 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland

In article <1b21i9INNbq3@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> 
|> Fine.  Please give us at least one *REAL* example of your hypothetical
|> "extreme skeptic."  If you can't, then this is just a straw man.
|> 
> 
|> As well you should be.  Now, perhaps you can provide some evidence (sorry, but
|> there's that pesky word again) that there are or recently have been
|> extraterrestrial spacecraft in the vicinity of Earth?
|> 
|> 
|> How about some specific examples?
|> 
 
|> I think it's on the FAQ.  That should give you a hint.  The fact that you don't
|> know makes it appear that you decided to post your ill-founded flame against
|> skeptics without even reading this group for any length of time.  Sounds like
|> pure prejudice on your part to me.
|> 
|> 
|> Yup.  There exists a substantial body of evidence and hearsay that Zeus et. al.
|> exist, too.  For that matter, there's a large body of hearsay that strange
|> things have happened over the last few decades in a town called Castle Rock,
|> Maine (would Stephen King lie to us?).  So what?
|> 
|> 
|> That's true.  That's why skeptics don't say "this doesn't exist," they say
|> "I've got no reason to believe it exists until you provide some evidence."
|> 
|> 
|> And none that have provided hard evidence that they are valid.  Can you get
|> that through your skull?  No hard evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft; no
|> hard evidence of someone having Uri Geller-like powers (well, not moreso than
|> any competent stage magician can manage); no hard evidence that "alternative
|> medicine" works better than placebos.  And lots of instances of each of these
|> where it's been shown that what we were dealing with was out-and-out fraud.
|> So when you hear yet another totally unsubstantiated claim, what's the best way
|> to bet?
|> 
|> 
|> We work with what evidence we have.  It's impossible to prove a negative the
|> way you're asking us to.  I guess you believe that reindeer can fly, eh? 
|> After all, we hear reports of this phenomenon every winter.  Of course,
|> nobody's ever given any hard evidence that *NO* reindeer can *EVER* fly. 
|> That'd be impossible to do.  So you then, if you're to be consistent, would
|> have us believe that there's a non-negligible chance that *SOME* reindeer *CAN*
|> fly.
|> 
|> 
|> I guess it must be possible for some reindeer to fly, then.  Lots of
|> circumstantial evidence (all those gifts under trees every December 25) and
|> hearsay (we hear stories about it every winter), so by your criteria, we should
|> believe that at least nine reindeer are capable of flight.
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
|> 
|> Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
|> understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
|> unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
|> organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
|> hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Carl,
	Next time leave the nitrous oxide alone!

I won't respond to abuse. If you can rewrite this in a more discursive
manner, fine. Otherwise PISSOFF!

Mark :(