>>> Part 1 of 2...
 -=> Quoting James Root to Paul Andinach <=-
 -=> Quoting Paul Andinach to John Warner <=-
 
 PA> Your argument:
 
 PA> Either abduction reports are true, or all abductees are crackpots.
 PA> Abductees can not all be crackpots.
 
 PA> Therefore, abduction reports are true.
 JR> I don't think that is what he meant
   It is what I understood him to be saying. If he meant something
else, he wasn't very clear about it. (The reason I wrote the above was
so he could tell me if that's what he meant.)
 JR> and I'm sure that you don't think so either, and have an open
 JR> mind yourself as to the possibilities.
   I (like to think that I) do have an open mind to the possibilities,
but I think that of those possibilities, the possibility that all
abduction reports are true is *not* supported by the evidence.
 
 PA> The fault in that argument is that this is not an either/or
 PA> situation. Some of the stories could be true, and the rest false. Of
................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 PA> those that are false, some people could be crazy, some could be lying
 PA> outright, and some could just have been honestly mistaken.
 JR> What about those who *possibly* saw something, or experienced
 JR> something which was in actual fact happening and was in all
 JR> respects reality? Why do you discount that possibility?
   I don't.
 JR> What would the point be of so many people consistently lying as
 JR> you suggest?
 
   I did not intend to suggest that. I meant that while some people
may be lying, there may also be others that believe that they are
telling the truth, but aren't. False memory syndrome is a possibility.
So is mistaken identity. So is insanity, although I doubt it's a major
factor.
 JR> It at least, in the lowest level of understanding, causes us to
 JR> reflect on the possibility that it might be true are at least
 JR> part of a bigger picture which is not completely revealed to us
 JR> at this time.
   There is a difference between reflecting on the possibility that it
might be true, and insisting that it is true for no apparent reason.
   I tend to get irritated by people, like our Mr Warner, who fall
into the latter category.
 JR> You tend to forget that there are people out there (such as
 JR> myself) who have had at sometime in the past a sighting
 JR> experience, contact, or abduction , and that they beleive that
 JR> such things do in fact happen, and that there is substantial
 JR> evidence which to them remains as part of the mystery.
   I try not to forget that.
   But I'm a full-time psychology student, and a part-time student of
paranormal phenomena. I *know* people can be wrong, often without
realising it themselves. If that causes me to overlook a genuine case,
that's my loss, but I would prefer that than to unthinkingly accept
something that was not true.
 JR> Look at it this way. If we acheived the ability to find and
 JR> discover another planet out there in space, which in fact did
 JR> harbour intelligent life if not exactly the same but at the same
 JR> level of advancement as we in the 1940's, then what would our
 JR> reaction be to them not acknowledging that we existed?
   Is it relevant to consider how we would react? This is *aliens*
we're talking about. Inscrutable actions and reactions is part of the
definition.
 JR> More important than actually proving that they do exist, then is
 JR> the possibility that they might exist and for us to have the
 JR> intelligence and awareness that this probability might someday be
 JR> the truth and something that we will have to deal with in an
 JR> intelligent and sane manner.
   Sorry. There's probably a good point there, but I tend to have
trouble comprehending sentences that long. Could you please try to
rephrase it?
Paul
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------