I do not consider this to be an area of deductive reasoning because we cannot expect the guvmint to just open up their hangar 18 or whatever and show us what they got so we can deduce for ourselves. Therefore, that makes this an area of INductive reasoning rather than DEductive reasoning. The difference is similar to the difference between criminal and civil law--the burden of proof for a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas the burden in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence"
In the case of UFOs, the preponderance of the evidence is very strongly on the side of flying saucers being secret weapons from the tail end of WWII. The very best book on UFOs is this one (and I've read dozens of books on UFOs): http://www.amazon.com/Intercept-UFO-Story-Flying-Saucers/dp/0523008406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414871213&sr=8-1&keywords=renato+vesco+%22intercept+ufo%22 I have noticed that the vast majority of people who believe in the ExtraTerrestrial hypothesis will not lift a finger to check out opposing evidence such as Renato Vesco's book. Such philosophical intransigence turns this inductive area of inquiry into something more like a religious discussion. On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > From Kevin, > > > > > ***I'm in the first category. > > > A place to start > > > > https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=%22chariots+of+the+gods%22+debunked&oq=%22chariots+of+the+gods%22+debunked&gs_l=hp.3..0.2626.11049.0.11245.33.33.0.0.0.0.267.3634.13j16j3.32.0....0...1c.1.58.hp..4.29.3229.0.F-v4djhiG2Q > > > > Looks like my hard drive restoration onto a brand new 2TB Segate hard > drive was successful. It was, however, a bumpy ride. Lots of colorful > swearing on my part. I suspect at one point during the restoration > procedure I did not properly ground myself when I inadvertently touched the > motherboard. It caused a 3.5 hour restoration procedure to fail with only 6 > minutes left to complete. I had to start from scratch again. Wasn't too > happy about that. >:-0 > > > > Daniken does give me the impression that he is a skilled bullshit artist > who knows how to sell books. Perhaps some of his ideas are interesting if > not taken to extremes. > > > > On the other side of the fence there are debunkers like the late Philip > Klass and James Randi. When it comes to the matter of UFO investigation > these two individuals seem inept at actually following the principals of > the deductive reasoning. On a related matter, I recall Randi, after > attending what I believe was an APS conference held in Baltimore where Pons > and Fleishman were interviewed, Randi gave a nudge, nudge, wink, wink to > Carl Sagan who was also in attendance. Apparently Randy walked away > convinced that the whole cold fusion matter was bullshit, just after > listening to a few questions that had been directed at P&F from the > audience. Randi didn't like the way P&F occasionally prefaced some of their > replies with: "Well. that's a very good question." From Randi's POV that > obviously meant these two chemists had to be incompetent because from > Randi's POV they were incapable of answering the skeptic's questions. From > Randi POV if they were constantly being reduced to prefacing their > responses in such a manner it meant they didn't know what they were doing. > From my POV, it's a classic case of how a magician perceives how most > people act: from slight-of-hand, deflection & deceit. Case closed! > Apparently, it didn't take Randi very much deductive reasoning to make up > his mind on the CF matter. As purveyors who claim to follow the process of > deductive reasoning, I think they give the process a black eye. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BemTGkjl6U > > > > Fascinating. > > > > Live long and prosper. ... \\V/ > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
