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 1 hour 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.

[Hojo]

This make me think of the saying extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.

I think of that sea animal video that was posted and about the light being changed and you can see the animal.

Making the claim extraordinary events requires extraordinary evidence doesn't work if they've always been here. 

The person could argue that its not an extra ordinary event and they have always been here.

This saying is a corruption of science.

Science not going hard looking for aliens is very strange.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hojo

[Leo Gura]

Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary openmindedness.

[Hojo]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary openmindedness.

There is no, there has got to be another way to see the aliens with science, cause they are close minded.

But looking for a stupid fish? 100 million dollars.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hojo

[Leo Gura]

The UFO issue is more complicated than ordinary science because it involves human deception.

Looking for a fish, the fish is not actively trying to deceive you. But the government is.

Scientific method does not deal with active deception.

Edited 58 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

@Leo Gura Have they tried a giant floating 20 sided cube, every side a different kind of light and different colour flashing and moving. With a camera facing everything side of the cube.

Maybe they would check it out.

They havent tried anything, they looking outside the planet and solar system before trying anything. There are ways to communicate with intelligence if its here. Or bait it.

2 Things baiting eachother high intelligence, and we could be able to see it. We could start worldwide alien noticing events where countries all have their different techniques.

Edited 51 minutes ago by Hojo

[trenton]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

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

If you took a shit in the toilet and flushed the toilet, then the evidence is gone. We will never know which shit is yours due to the shit being mixed with other shit. You also could be lying and it could have been a piss even if we had your water usage and tracked your toilet flushes.

[trenton]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Scientific method does not deal with active deception.

I don't remember this being mentioned in deconstructing science. You might have mentioned it elsewhere.

I know there is the polygrapher which can be decieved by a psychopath due to how they are neurologically wired. It is the closest attempt I have seen along with body language which also fails due to ambiguous signals. In courts there are homicide investigators who could find counter evidence to the murderer's alibi.

I have a vague sense of what your frame of reference is with the scientific method breaking down when evidence is deliberately tampered with, suppressed, and falsified. This is probably why to this day courts haven't figured out how to handle frame up scenarios when the evidence all points the wrong way. Currently developed countries still haven't found a good solution to countless frame ups due to compromised evidence being inherent to such cases.