The majority of people seem incapable of engaging in (informal) logical reasoning...

Veeky Forums is even worse
Person 1:
>"I believe this UFO case was an alien spacecraft because reasons"
Person 2:
>"Are demons real too?"
Doing a Kaku right there. The correct way to argue is to address the points of the person with logical reasoning as you say. If UFOs really are bullshit then this should be easy yet time and time again Veeky Forums fails to do this.

No the correct way to argue is to strawman everything. It ridicules the argument and demoralizes the enemy.
now fuck off UFOfag

>It could be said that citizens of western democratic states take their democratic freedoms for granted and therefore no longer subject their government to the kind of tests (democratic process) described by the founding fathers

Kaku: Everything you have just said can be summed up as, you think American democracy isn’t perfect. I agree… I disagree with the principle. People were debating whether or not we should go to war in the press, in churches, in Congress and that’s a testament to democracy.

The point was: if people are able to voice an opinion on a matter such as going to war, however they are not consulted, is that considered democratic?

Kaku once again reframes the question and replies with a faulty conclusion.

It's funny that you gave a retarded argument in a thread about retarded arguments.

>the correct way to argue is to strawman everything. It ridicules the argument and demoralizes the enemy.

Well that's what Kaku did, so looks like he's doing it right.

> michio kaku is retarded arguments
wowowow everyone. mr "no PhD in particle physics" is here to englighten all of us lmao

>Kaku
>scientist
heh

>theoretical physicist
>science
smhtbh

logical reasoning requires intelligence. many academics are not intelligent. that's why they are wellfare leeches instead of making the world a better place in industry

My final thoughs are:

1) I hate debates like this one because they serve no purpose, perfect democracy is abomination and would hinder those who know how to obtain power in life. It will not happen and it cannot exist unless people become standardized units with equal abilities.

2) russian girl is :v

3) The appearance of democracy is just what the world needs.

The whole interview, seems to me is like two people arguing weather the king is naked or not, all the while remaining ignorant of the way life operates in the figurative wild we live in.

I suspect Kaku had to lower the ''appearance'' of his IQ just to be a little bit understood by the woman.

> Well that's what Kaku did
where did he do it ?

>Why do people only have a chance to practice democracy every four years? Why can’t they use the internet to vote on important issues like the arming of rebels in Syria?

Kaku: There have to be rules around who’s elected and how that happens… If you had an election every 6 months there would be chaos!

The host had literally just stated before this segment that:

>I am not questioning the electoral process here

Yet another strawman.

Kaku is such a wank puffin.

Appreciate the greentext for not making us watch the video.

Most people here acknowledge Michio Kaku as a meme, and all this discussion does is validate that notion even more. My point is that your last sentence doesn't really say anything Veeky Forums doesn't know... all you say is pretty much true.

I remember some people here making an analogy between the priests of a religion with popsci scientists, which I find quite apt. People will follow their sayings without critically examining them because "science". This has come to become quite accurate, even if science is not a religion. Oh well.

>Veeky Forums fails to do this.
no it doesn't. It's the first thing Veeky Forums does. When /x/ tards ignore what Veeky Forums says and build strawmen that they then proceed to tear down (which is the whole point of their threads, a false sense of achievement), then Veeky Forums proceeds with shitposting like you described.

I have been continually posting examples of this in plaintext and greentext for the duration of this short lived thread.

Just look at the thread.

>I suspect Kaku had to lower the ''appearance'' of his IQ just to be a little bit understood by the woman.

He failed to actually reply to a single question and relied on rhetoric, as well as fallacy.

I doubt he did that intentionally.

Ethos: appeal to authority/the credibility of the speaker.

This is rhetoric and is logically fallicious.

Kaku is essentially arguing in favour of a cyclical dictatorship; a new dictator every four years.

This is made most obvious in his last statements:

>Often the most popular decision is the wrong decision

he is either a brainwashed idiot or plain evil.
>WHO was behind 9/11? WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11? WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11?
for FUCKS sake, what a creep.
he also talks about "forces of darkness" vs "forces of democracy"..

I know, it's such a binary mindset, it's ridiculous.

> misinterpreting logical fallacies
PhD is not an authority dumdum. It's a verification that you understand a branch of science on a higher and more sophisticated level, which he does. And in this case it happens to be particle physics.

ure just mad coz u got nothing to show for these people that will make them take you seriously and ure just mad at him.

In that NASA UFO thread the other day the OP was pointing out that papers have been published under the NASA name that not only entertain aliens as a serious possibility but even goes as far as to speculate on how they may work. Veeky Forums's only response was to point out that the CIA, a totally separate organization did research on psychics, a totally separate phenomenon. An actual argument would be to explain why the NASA study itself was bunk, not "it must be bunk because this other completely unrelated study turned out to be bunk". It's an even worse argument considering that you are using the work of a spying agency to gauge the work of a scientific agency just because they are both run by the same government.

I've seen a few of these threads and I have to say the "/x/ tards" are the better arguers despite their claims having less substance. Veeky Forums just storms in with the instant arrogant assumption that they are right and therefore never bothers to put together a proper argument.

He also said:

>forces of darkness, ignorance, torture and persecution

What, like Al Ghraib? Guantanamo? Rendition? Blackwater? JSOC? Afghan civilian man hunting?

back to ufo kid
this is a science board. no evidence = no credibility, and no those vague 3 pixel lights do not prove aliens

user, you argued with ethos (appeal to the credibility/prestige of the speaker) and then attempted to refute my criticism by arguing with ethos yet again.

>u got nothing to show for these people that will make them take you seriously

An argument is to be judged on its logical viability alone, regardless of who makes it.

If you judge the validity of an argument based on the speaker then logic goes out the window and you’re in the land of rhetoric.

First you have a theory. Then you search for proof.

:^)

> PhDs are meaningless and doesn't add anything to an individuals credibility at all.
So what exactly are you arguing against his claims ?

You're just proving his point.

>PhDs are meaningless and doesn't add anything to an individuals credibility at all.

His PhD in physics combined with his papers, mean that he is a proficient physicist.

>So what exactly are you arguing against his claims ?

Look at the thread user, I've posted numerous examples of his use of logical fallacy and rhetoric.

First you have a hypothesis, faggot.

I believe Michio may have sold out to the cabal.
Either way, he has an IQ of about 155, so he isn't a lightweight either.

How autistic are you exactly? There is no obligation for people to always engage in "logical reasoning". Sometimes people just use rhetoric, yes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_hypothesis

He doesn't have a point. he's just being a contrarian and attack science because he can't into science. Evident by the fact that he's an /x/tard

however you look at it, you definitely dont have evidence first, as YOU've said, my dear friend, whom I love very much.

>Sometimes people mislead and misinform using appeals to authority, emotion and surface reasoning and that's just fine.

Oh, ok then.

Dafuq are you guys talking about?

I was just letting user know that you have a hypothesis first, then upon finding evidence you have yourself a theory,

Aliens doesn't attack known science it merely adds to it.

yes sometimes they do. not everything is always a logical fallacy btw.

Sometimes people just talk, user. Sometimes people dont take the point of someone serious enough to engage in a formal debate. If a snarky interviewer would ask me such a stupid question I would also take the piss.

ITT: Idiots.

I feel your pain OP.

That is not at all what happened.
LMAO!!!
autism confirmed

> that obvious samefag
*cringe*

It's funny that you are changing the discussion to tangential rhetoric in a topic about changing the discussion to tangential rhetoric.

It's ok guys, you win.

You're everywhere, you run nations, corporations and so much more.

You are the majority, well done, you win.

That point is when I realized that all this time I've been calling him senile I was right. Someone needs to put him in an old folks home.

> im one of the rare free-thinking individuals whose above the sheep who can't comprehend my deep thoughts about universe and reality
Fedora not big enough.

No it was evidence of when Veeky Forums did the same thing. Naturally it will be concerning a past unrelated argument
aliens are a hypothesis, only tinfoils say it's a theory, what's your point? Anyway the guy above has a point, the discussion is veering off course.

>above sheep
>above

'Above' as in a higher degree of positive association, as governed by the positive and negative association circuitry in the brain.

'Above' as in a higher degree of prestige, which is considered important solely due to the fact that we are social primates who live in social hierarchies.

Above! Better than! Positive instead of negative! 0 instead of 1!

Your advanced binary thought processes are astounding user.

I agree with most of what you've said in this thread. However, I interpret some of the video content differently.

E.g.:

>Kaku: Name a better system than democracy! (missing the point)

It appears to me that this is a concession on Kaku's part of what the interviewer calls 'false agency' with respect to democracy, and that the point he is trying to make is that while democracy has this (and other) severe flaws, he cannot think of a better system.

In the end I guess it just boils down to what the two want to talk about, or what they think the other wants to talk about. Whereas the interviewer wants to talk about the drawbacks of democracy, Kaku wants to talk about the most beneficial political system, and since none of them clearly state this, they're really only talking past each other.

He is interpreting negative association and attempting to counter it, instead of actually replying to her questions.

I agree with your view of his intent, but he handled himself poorly. The only time he reminded me that he has any sanity was towards the end when he suggested a poll on a major issue like going to war will mostly draw out a short-sighted reactionary opinion, and I say this as someone very much against our recent wars.

Most of the rest was hard to watch, peaking at repeating "who did 9/11?" The frequent referral to barbaric extremes makes him sound very uneducated, as if this is universal outside of America. It does exist, and yet there are plenty of countries in which it does not. He would have done better to stick to arguments like censorship than coming back to "having your head chopped off."

It is OK. People have fun and dont just talk to exchange sterile informations. I hope you learned something today

Yes, there's also been countless other UFO case threads where OP points out how a respected scientist wrote this, or examined that /x/ theory, so it's worthy of investigation. The first thing that is dispelled in these threads is the appeal to authority. It doesn't matter if it's NASA that said it or Einstein, as long as there is no evidence and the possibility of such an event having occurred is close to zero, then there is no good reason to examine it. Just because the same argument wasn't included in one /x/ thread doesn't mean it hasn't been posted in every other thread, possibly to the same /x/ tards. If you want to bring evidence, good with me. If you think /x/ appeals to authority is a good argument, then I have nothing more to say. Pay attention to the other /x/ threads, not just the one.

>That’s a very American argument
So you expect him to take her serious after that bullshit?

>Post UFO case from Wikipedia
>"Hurr come back with an actual proper source!"
>Post UFO case from NASA
>"Hurr appeal to authority!"

Nothing I didn't already know.

>humans are idiots

Brb, returning to Vulcan.

She said nothing wrong. It's not news that burgers always point out there is no perfect whatever to justify their decadent shitty systems.

Do you also believe the recent pictures of Pluto are fake because trusting NASA would be "appeal to authority"?

>>"Hurr come back with an actual proper source!"
lol

You're strawmanning at this point. Trying to frame Veeky Forums as presenting only this argument instead of multiple ones. I never said Veeky Forums didn't say this. I said that Veeky Forums also presents actual arguments against UFO cases regardless of their source. Congratulations, you stumped people who weren't invested in the discussion in the first place and were there for a laugh/shitposting, while ignoring the substantial and universal arguments against UFO cases. This is the kind of false sense of achievement I referred to at my previous post.

Yes and no. Did he directly answer her questions? No. Did he skip her bullshit attempt to use his answers to these opening questions as proof later in their discussion that her stance is correct? Yes, he did. She was trying to use a propositional fallacy on him and he shut it down.

I'm not a burger and I can asure you that this is not exclusively an american narrative.
There is also really no such thing as a perfect democracy

The difference being having actual evidence of a space project and its photos and the project itself not being outside the realms of extreme possibility?

Laughable argument right there.

You act like it is impossible for people to witness a flying object that they cant identify.

I posted this case once and Veeky Forums kept parroting that it was a hoax despite all the evidence that it could not have been. The best part is they never gave any evidence as to why it was a hoax, it was just a blind assumption.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelland_UFO_Case

I was memeing for fun, but if you want to talk seriously, so be it. Of course there's no such thing as perfect democracy. Just like there's no such thing of perfect anything. The fact remains that the US and its citizens frequently use this argument to justify and often validate their wrongdoings, whether it is the atomic bombings or the invasion of the Middle East. I mean, we can't be perfect anyway, so there's no point in striving to be more peaceful or less lenient to our people, right? This rationale is deeply flawed, and that is what the woman pointed out to Michio, a critique which is spot on.

The point was, sometimes it indeed does matter who is saying something

>not being outside the realms of extreme possibility
This is meaningless, trips to Pluto were outside the realms of extreme possibility in the past. The whole refusal to believe in UFOs is based on the believe that nowhere in the galaxy is there technology more advanced than ours.

If the Russians had produced a picture of Pluto in 1950 the Americans would never have believed it because they had yet to even launch a space probe.

No I don't. I do act like it is impossible for people to witness a UFO and then proceed to form a plausible hypothesis that the UFO is ayy property.

I don't remember that case too well and I don't have the time to go through it right now. I do remember that it was a small town and all the "witnesses" could be plausibly assumed to have not witnessed anything, but word of mouth and mass hysteria caused them to say they witnessed something. Don't quote me on that though, I could be wrong.

The problem with these cases though, is that no matter how many people SAID they saw it, unless you have actual evidence of such an event having occurred, there is no way to prove it. Which is why I keep telling /x/ that you CANNOT prove ayys through UFO cases. They are fundamentally flawed evidence. Veeky Forums, along with me, will never accept it as evidence because of a few pixels and written testimonies. The hypothesis is way too implausible for the weak evidence to prove.

I think people see "UFO", but read "flying saucer full of ayy lmaos".
With all the legit cases all over the world, only an ignorant waves this phenomenon away as /x/ shit

>The whole refusal to believe in UFOs is based on the believe that nowhere in the galaxy is there technology more advanced than ours.
This is incorrect. The refusal to believe in UFOs stems from the implausibility of ayys having visited us or being here right now and we have absolutely no evidence of their very existence. At this point, you might as well replace ayys with God and you won't notice a difference. It's unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific.

>trips to Pluto were outside the realms of extreme possibility in the past
This is the meaningless argument. As technology progresses, some hypotheses and technological propositions become more and more plausible to our eyes. Ayys however, remain just as implausible as time passes because no strides have been made to prove their existence, anywhere.

Ignoring (in some cases) hundreds of eye witnesses who independly described something very similar sounds like wilful ignorance to me.

>Did he skip her bullshit attempt to use his answers to these opening questions as proof later in their discussion that her stance is correct? Yes, he did. She was trying to use a propositional fallacy on him and he shut it down.

Highlight that in greentext.

Display the basis for that commentary, as I have done for Kaku's.

How are ayys "implausible" again?

>eye witnesses

This is Veeky Forums not /hearsay/.

Eye witness testimony not a reliable source of evidence.

> the atomic bombings or the invasion of the Middle East
I thought the excuse for that was "we must fight for our freedomz". The US is constantly running out of freedomz

She didn't use propositional fallacy once.

Thats why you can just dismiss all those cases, right?
There was a time when there was no hard evidence for giant squids. Only observations and testimony.
You know, science can also be the search for evidence and explanations

Well, they had to justifiy it somehow to their population I guess. In reality, it was just unnecessary muscle flexing towards the Soviet Union as a prelude to the Cold War. I say unnecessary because at the next diplomatic summit when that subhuman Truman met Stalin, Stalin remained completely unfazed by the "accomplishment" of the US. A few years later, the Soviet Union would come to have more nukes than the US. What a waste.

You know what I mean. Ayys as in aliens having visited Earth or floating above the deserts. I really hope you're being intentionally dense if you're asking about what I mentioned in this post.

As I said, it doesn't matter whether they were telling the truth or not. There is no evidence. Unless you have a clear video of the UFO with an alien head peaking out of the window, there's nothing more to say.

>You know what I mean
No. How the fuck are aliens implausible? "lol u dense" is not an answer

Yes, and science has found that human beings are fucking terrible and reporting what they saw.

The misinformation effect, cognitive transfer and in-attentional blindness leave us susceptible to a very high degree of cognitive error.

We also retrospectively infer what we saw, in relation to the testimony of others.

Therefore, eye witness testimony is not a reliable source of evidence.

>could be plausibly assumed to have not witnessed anything
They all reported that the thing shut down their car. This takes it a step above merely seeing lights which as you say could just be an illusion.
>word of mouth and mass hysteria
All the reports were made independently in the same few hours long before the media got wind of it.
>unless you have actual evidence of such an event having occurred, there is no way to prove it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident
Fused sand from a jet blast
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
Tracked on radar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident
Irradiated people
> because of a few pixels and written testimonies
Veeky Forums being lazy and disissive as usual. I posted a UFO movie from 1950 (so not photoshopped) and you can tell from just moving lights whether it's reflections and even how fast the thing is traveling. Obviously hypersonic speeds are going to rule out aircraft of the time. This demand to see the alien's face before you believe is ridiculous. Take a picture of any fast moving plane in the sky and it will just be a fuzzy light.

>There is no evidence
see

>As technology progresses, some hypotheses and technological propositions become more and more plausible to our eyes
Yeah like warp drive.

>hundreds of cases
>all over the world
>independend descriptions that are very similar
>even testimonies from military, Nasa and pilots
>
>Hurr durr, they all must have misremembered it

I will agree that a single eye witness isnt reliable, but at some point you are just becoming ignorant when you wave it away. And I'm not saying it is aliens

Good God. Aliens floating above deserts are implausible because the trips from any nearby star systems to Earth is very difficult to make, not to mention it's something which we should have been able to detect. The assumption now is that ayys are hiding in the Earth... somewhere? In the atmosphere? I don't even know anymore. With our technology, we would have been able to spot them instantly. I honestly don't know how ufologists make the argument work.

If we assume that ayys are gods of technology then there's no reason to assume they wouldn't have the technology to hide from urban dwellers claiming to have seen aliens in UFOs. Unfalsifiable.

A plausible argument for giant organisms can be made now, even if it couldn't be back then (it was implausible back then/ we didn't have the knowledge to form a hypothesis, the claims of giant squids were just as meaningless as ayy claims). Aliens on the other hand...

>warp drive
Don't make me post the /x/ bingo picture.

Mickey Cuckoo needs to fucking off himself. He's a meme, and the meme needs to die.

>"Hey chief Crazy Foot your claims of white men in giant boats from across the ocean are implausible because the trip across the ocean is impossible to make in our canoes"

>(it was implausible back then/ we didn't have the knowledge to form a hypothesis, the claims of giant squids were just as meaningless as ayy claims)
I see. It seems you only think it is reasonable to research things that are already researched. I'm glad that most people are more curious and open minded than you

>implausible because the trips from any nearby star systems to Earth is very difficult to make
What? So it basically is implausible because you assume the aliens are lazy? I dont even believe Aliens were ever here. But the idea that aliens are implausible sound absolutely silly to me.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident
>Fused sand from a jet blast
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
>Tracked on radar
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident
>Irradiated people

You've missed the point completely. Some of these cases claim the evidence was turned in and disappeared, which is not encouraging towards their plausibility. Anyway, let's assume these cases actually happened. What then? Does that mean it's aliens? Didn't think so. That's the point. UFOs cannot prove aliens, at least UFO cases as we know them. Veeky Forums doesn't deny UFOs exist, we just assign earthly explanations to them. You're the one making the claim it's aliens (assuming you didn't misunderstand my argument), do you have proof?

>you can tell
I don't know specifically what you are referring to, but this is not an argument. Do you really think your "movie" assuming it's real, would just be ignored if it was in fact evidence of impossibly fast aircraft (my point here is that explanations have been proposed, I just don't know what they are because I don't know what you are referring to)? EVEN THEN, it would be more plausible to assign an explanation of a black project than aliens. NOT. CONCRETE. PROOF.

>This demand to see the alien's face before you believe is ridiculous.
This is the standard of proof science demands. You either claim to be scientific and accept it, or you don't.

>Take a picture of any fast moving plane in the sky and it will just be a fuzzy light.
That's the ufologists problem, not mine.

I'm obviously missing the reference. Care to explain?

>People will follow their sayings without critically examining them because "science".

I see this everywhere. The worst of course has to be the crap coming out of NIH and their non-traditional medicine institute.

People are so terrified to question anyone with a degree in something other than womynz studies, and too lazy to really learn and look deeply into the matter.

I think one problem is that there's no continual practice in logic and rhetoric. Knowing some basic rules is easy, but learning them deeply and using them regularly is something else. It doesn't help when you have the one place where you're still allowed to make a mistake -- right here folks -- and you have people arguing with each other over what a strawman is. It quickly gets confusing and overwhelming, so for a crowd already needy for instant gratification, they forget about it and continue with their lazy ways.

Maybe we need a /logicgen/.

>and you have people arguing with each other over what a strawman is
To me it looks like most people who use these terms a lot, use them incorrectly. It's like they dont really care about logic but wether saw it once in the /pol/ sticky or something and just want to use it as a convenient way to dismiss argument.
The most common crime in this aspect has to be confusing a simple insult with the ad hominem fallacy

>I see. It seems you only think it is reasonable to research things that are already researched.

I pity you if that's what you got from my post. What I want before researching things is evidence that there is in fact something there, something to look for, even something miniscule. If we lived in the perfect world with all the money to research something no matter how fantastic, then we could search for UFOs or aliens. As it stands out, we need something to point us to a direction, something to tell us that a phenomenon is worth researching. Do you think marine biologists set out to find Cthulhu before sending robots in the oceans? No, they are attempting to find organisms that are explainable by science/plausible.

>So it basically is implausible because you assume the aliens are lazy?

Okay. So, we have a problem, a missing gap in explanation in UFOs, right? We don't know what they are. There are several explanations that fit our limited observations. Aliens are pretty far down the list. You know what's at the top of the list? Meteorological phenomena and black projects. You could also propose that God made us and evolution is just a "theory". Thing is, evolution fits our observations the best way possible, while we have no proof for God. One explanation is supported by evidence, the other isn't. One is plausible, the other isn't. That is how science accepts mainstream "theories".

>something to look for, even something miniscule
Well to me all the testimonies from all those cases lead me to think that there might be a legit phenomenon. We cant always have the luxury to start with the evidence. Sometimes it is more like detective work. It might be something completely different from case to case. It might be russian spy technology or a weather phenomenon or fucking nothing. I just think a scientist shouldnt dismiss something from the get go.

>We don't know what they are.....

Well thanks for explaining all the stuff I already know. Just because other things are more plausible (no shit!), doesnt mean alien lifeforms are completely implausible (what you claimed).