How should this UFO claim be weighted?

[trenton]

I am making this post because I had a deep conversation with a Yoga instructor. The class was canceled sense not enough people showed up. We instead had a long talk about how we understand reality. We talked about many things including what I have termed metaphysical relativism. Currently, I haven't figured out which metaphysical context would most accurately describe my relationship with reality, but I have noticed that depending on these presuppositions they hold radical implications in terms of how worldviews form and are contextualized. Presently, a big range is open for me and I'm not really sure how to navigate this big terrain. I'm also trying to do genuine inquiry rather than just believing what Leo says.

During this talk, he eventually mentioned UFO sightings. He claimed that he had seen a UFO twice with the most convincing encounter being the second one with his girlfriend present. He described a detailed account of a massive ship that appeared to be flying sideways. His girlfriend took out her phone and tried to record the UFO. It looked like it was recording so there would be clear proof. The sighting lasted for about two minutes. However, when they looked at the video used for proof, it was just a black screen as if the entire film was just deleted and blacked out with no sound. It sounds like if there is intelligent life on those spacecrafts, they are capable of interfering with the radio waves from our phones, thereby preventing us from using the evidence.

This is when I started to experience cognitive dissonance. I have already seen disclosures from the military regarding many UFO sightings. Part of me uses those sightings as evidence that UFOs are real. At the same time what this Yoga teacher claims still sounds like a big claim despite there being other convincing supporting evidence for it. How should we address UFO claims like these in the event that intelligent life is capable of undermining our capacity to get this evidence?

This is a problem with our relationship to proof. If something is true but cannot be proven, then how does one know if it is true or not without direct experience? The story could be fabricated, but I myself have stories which cannot be proven which are nevertheless true. It includes scenarios of organized criminals manipulating evidence such that I can't prove it was them. This involved set up and frame up scenarios which exploit how our society uses proof while weaponizing those evidentiary standards against victims. In both these cases and the UFO cases, it involves outside actors with a capacity to undermine our evidence.

Are there other situations that might involve inherently limited evidence that are nevertheless true? I know Leo has covered God extensively. Therefore, I have identified three scenarios with this kind of proof problem and there are probably many others. This includes UFOs interfering with radio waves and preventing recordings, organized criminals manipulating evidence to frame victims, and God which is true but cannot be proven through outside means.

[Leo Gura]

In the case of empirical questions, you need evidence and proof to be sure.

Proof is not bad. It is just limited and rarely available.

The UFO topic is an empirical question. The only way to be sure is with empirical evidence.

The only way to be sure about UFOs is to see one for yourself, up close.

#RaidArea51

Edited 34 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[trenton]

@Leo Gura so it sounds like at the end of the day if evidence is destroyed in the case of empirical questions, the answer is simply that we don't know. Otherwise there are countless UFO stories that could easily be fabricated.

Part of what concerns me is that it sounds like for empirical questions, even if evidence could theoretically demonstrate the claim, practically evidence will often be lost or destroyed. The passage of several thousand years will one day make all of this ancient history with many unprovable claims.

I seem to be looking at the limitations of empiricism even if a claim is theoretically provable but practically complex enough that it isn't discovered until the evidence is gone. It suggests that there are an endless number of empirical facts which are true but won't be proven even if they theoretically could be.

[Hojo]

5 minutes ago, trenton said:

@Leo Gura so it sounds like at the end of the day if evidence is destroyed in the case of empirical questions, the answer is simply that we don't know. Otherwise there are countless UFO stories that could easily be fabricated.

Part of what concerns me is that it sounds like for empirical questions, even if evidence could theoretically demonstrate the claim, practically evidence will often be lost or destroyed. The passage of several thousand years will one day make all of this ancient history with many unprovable claims.

I seem to be looking at the limitations of empiricism even if a claim is theoretically provable but practically complex enough that it isn't discovered until the evidence is gone. It suggests that there are an endless number of empirical facts which are true but won't be proven even if they theoretically could be.

This is like 90 percent of history as well. Its all anecdotes and stories without evidence.

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, trenton said:

It suggests that there are an endless number of empirical facts which are true but won't be proven even if they theoretically could be.

Of course.

Most true things are not provable. Can you prove that I just took a shit? Good luck with that.