Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/1701-1800/1737

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-21 | 4.0 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!blackbush.xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-kl.de!sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de!kring
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptopathic lunatic fringe wackos will advance any deception
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:06:07 MET
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern
Lines: 62
Sender: (null)@(null) ((null))
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4nrh0i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <31A2B <[e-mail]> <4oaelp$[e-mail]> <4p7pl5$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pamuk.physik.uni-kl.de
X-newsreader: xrn 7.01-beta-20
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:88773 alt.paranet.ufo:54015 alt.alien.research:26365 sci.skeptic:73183

I set Followup-To: sci.skeptic.  Resume crossposting at your own
risk.

[older Zeiler posting:]
}This is a CLASSIC example of the skeptic logical trickery that I refer to
}regularly.  Everybody knows that, in 1996, the word "UFO" is totally and
}thoroughly synonymous with "alien spacecraft".

In article <[e-mail]>, Brian Zeiler <[e-mail]> writes:
}Mr. Fun wrote:
}> No, I don't believe "everybody knows that".  That would require another survey
}> to determine.  I suspect the majority of people don't really have a very clear
}> idea of what they "think" UFOs are.
}Are you an idiot, or what?  Ask anybody on the street what they think is
}meant by "UFO sighting", and they'll say something to the effect of "an
}alleged sighting of an alien spacecraft".
 ^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^

So a UFO is an alleged alien spacecraft, not an alien spacecraft.
The trickery is on your side.  When you mean "alien spacecraft"
you should say "alien spacecraft".  Nothing easier than that.
Avoids misunderstandings.

Otherwise you have no word left for unidentified flying objects.

The point being, if you have two separate words for two a priori
separate things (which could in some cases turn out to be not
separate a posteriori), you aren't in as great a danger of
assuming the conclusion and equating the two.  It's called
"proper scientific procedure."

What you do is like defining a variable O:=1 with the danger of
later confusing O and 0 and concluding 0=1.  Or giving two
different variables the same name, then confusing those.
(I've seen the second mistake a few times, having tought
math to engineer students for four years.)

Even if you watch your steps carefully, you can't prevent people
from knowing what the acronym UFO stands for and misunderstanding
you.  I'd even say you *ask for* misunderstandings with that
sort of vocabulary.

I found you generally have a sloppy writing style.  You don't
write exactly what you mean but something that sounds similar.
Using "UFO" for "alien craft" is just one example.  Maybe you
should write less and think more.

Of course, if you want to be misunderstood and with open eyes
run the risk of making the most easily avoidable mistake I can
think of, go on as you like.

Actually I don't expect you to learn anything from me.  I just
want to make that brick-headedness of yours more obvious to
others when you dismiss what I say.  Which will definitely
happen because you can't admit your opponents may understand
anything better than you, never.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
The difference between "qualitative difference" and "quantitative
difference" is a quantitative one.