-=> Quoting Paul Andinach to Fred Austin <=-
 >>> Part 1 of 2...
 
 -=> Quoting Fred Austin to Paul Andinach <=-
 
 FA> Open mind or a closed one. State would you consider acceptable. Or
 FA> is this just to leave yourself loopholes...
 PA> I would consider as acceptable evidence any evidence that, after
 PA> close study, I believed to be real and true evidence. It would have
 PA> to pass tests designed to eliminate the possibility of fraud and show
 PA> that the evidence was real. 
 PA> Sorry if that sounds clumsy, but it's difficult to explain in
 PA> generalities. It would be easier to explain why I considered that a
 PA> specific piece of evidence was or was not acceptable. 
    Ok, you desire close scrutiny, is this a personal scrutiny, you need
to be there in  person?
 FA> If it is acceptable  in a  court of  law,
 FA> then it is acceptable in the argument of UFO's.
 
 PA> Indeed. But when has anyone ever produced evidence of an alien
 PA> visit that would stand up in a court of law?
    Circumstantial.  I believe that was the point.  Evidence comes in  many 
forms.  A witness for example.  His testimony.  His credibility.
 PA> So? It still has to be a high standard of evidence.
    What does high standard mean?  Does that imply if General so-so of  the 
military says I saw one fly by once, does that mean high standard?
 FA> It is the skeptic viewpoint that only a skeptic can determine
 FA> what is valid and not.
 PA> It is the skeptic viewpoint that skeptical thinking has the best
 PA> chance of determining the truth. Credulously accepting anything
 PA> you're told will not find the truth. Clinging to a belief despite
 PA> evidence that there is a more likely alternative will not find the
 PA> truth.
    Illogical.  Negative thinking does not render the truth any faster than 
positive.  But do not misunderstand me, I have  no great  love for  the ah, 
over zealous...
Clinging to a belief without even looking at the evidence
 PA> will not find the truth. (And is not skeptical thinking, despite the
 PA> large number of skeptics who think like this sometimes - we are, after
 PA> all, only human.)
 Good, you are only human, remember that when you decide to chuckle at some
perhaps over zealous people....
 FA> We  do not ask you to believe anything.
 PA> Excuse for a moment while I go off somewhere and laugh.
    Ah, perhaps I should go out somewhere and chuckle.  Just  when I  wrote 
the line above, if you wish to be preached to you are in the wrong place,
I am not here to save your soul.....
 PA> My mind is made up that I want compelling evidence before I
 PA> believe. This is a very important issue, so I set my standards high.
    Well all we have are the people Paul, that is all.
 FA> All of us in this echo have no credibility.
 PA> Your credibility is only as good as the evidence you provide for
 PA> what you ask me to believe. 
    You do not wish evidence.  You wish to meet reality.  This medium  does 
not offer that.  In never can.   Only you  yourself if  you are  that 1  in 
10,000 may see that reality one day.  Then you can question yourself.  That 
is all there is...
 FA> So Paul, I would like to know what you are looking for.
 PA> The truth.
    It isn't coming Paul, unless its ID-4......
 PA> What is so difficult?
 PA> I saw a strange object, it was moving through the sky, and I
 PA> couldn't identify it. It was, in short, an unidentified flying object.
 PA> I could venture all sorts of ideas about what it was. It could have
 PA> been a plane, a satellite, a flying saucer, a glowing duck the size of
 PA> Manhattan. It could have been Santa Claus ironing out the bugs in a
 PA> new sleigh. But all I *saw* was a small light moving across the sky,
 PA> with nothing to suggest what it was. 
    Well Paul, a small light, could be a satellite.  Do you think it was  a 
satellite. Was it's behavior odd etc.. Was it Santa.  Was  it too  far away 
to say anything.  Fine. Then you are most  likely correct.   Nothing to  be 
concerned with.  At least make the effort to say, well most likely  this or 
that.  That is fine with me.  
 PA> scientific note, I accept the existance of gravity, the
 PA> electromagnetic spectrum, electricity, magnetism, the induction
 PA> effect, heat tranferance without physical contact, the germ theory of
 PA> disease, and many other such ideas. 
    In other words you are a  follower. Hard  science.  Of  course.  Except 
there is a fallacy.  Nothing is  in stone  Paul.  We  have not  reached the 
limit of science.  Discoveries are always being made.  And sometimes  those 
who have been branded fools, are the ones to lead.   Even in  science.  For 
the weak point of science that you so strongly insist on, is still people.
And as you have said repeatedly "people make mistakes", and  therefore that 
goes also for your revered scientists........
Happy Trails,
Fred.
 Internet: Fred.Austin@juxta.mn.pubnix.net   
           Fred.Austin@sphinx.hughestech.com 
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------