4 ms·

I doubt there are sea serpents beyond the poisonous sea snakes I have personally seen and which are not contested by anyone. However, using this same, common "

I doubt there are sea serpents beyond the poisonous sea snakes I have personally seen and which are not contested by anyone. However, using this same, common "debunking" methodology, I can debunk the existence of airplanes by pointing out that sightings of alleged airplane lights in the sky can be explained by hypothesizing they actually saw the planet venus and swamp gas. Concluding then that airplanes don't exist doesn't really follow from this though.

tokenadult 15y ago
Don't you think it makes a difference that there are many other forms of evidence for the existence of airplane lights in the sky? http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/landing_nav/POL14.htm http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/landing_... http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0263.shtml http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0263.shtml http://www.google.com/imghp?q=airplane+lights+at+night http://www.google.com/imghp?q=airplane+lights+at+night AFTER EDIT: Thanks for your reply, in which you wrote, The argument that because one imagines an alternative explanation, therefore something is debunked; is fallacious. I don't read the submitted article as making a fallacious argument of that nature. From what I know of the author's other writings, observer reports are examined for plausibility on the basis of all available evidence, including evidence about how human observers can misperceive things they think they are observing. If someone tells me, "I see a moving light in the sky," I can respond with, "Let's look at how it moves, and see if it is an airplane or a satellite." If the observer says, "It's neither; it's a spaceship from another star system," my response would be "What evidence do you have for that?" The point is that the observer of something unusual (a sea monster never observed by a professional biologist, or even an experienced fisherman) should have more evidence than the bare observation for a claim that something that unusual exists.
- droithomme 15y ago
  That is a separate issue. Obviously airplanes exist. The argument that because one imagines an alternative explanation, therefore something is debunked; is fallacious. Hopefully all can understand this.
  - breadbox 15y ago
    It would be much closer to say: All existing evidence has alternative, and much more plausible, explanations. Therefore, something is not debunked per se, but it loses much of its weight.

tokenadult 15y ago

Don't you think it makes a difference that there are many other forms of evidence for the existence of airplane lights in the sky? http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/landing_nav/POL14.htm http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/landing_... http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0263.shtml http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0263.shtml http://www.google.com/imghp?q=airplane+lights+at+night http://www.google.com/imghp?q=airplane+lights+at+night AFTER EDIT: Thanks for your reply, in which you wrote, The argument that because one imagines an alternative explanation, therefore something is debunked; is fallacious. I don't read the submitted article as making a fallacious argument of that nature. From what I know of the author's other writings, observer reports are examined for plausibility on the basis of all available evidence, including evidence about how human observers can misperceive things they think they are observing. If someone tells me, "I see a moving light in the sky," I can respond with, "Let's look at how it moves, and see if it is an airplane or a satellite." If the observer says, "It's neither; it's a spaceship from another star system," my response would be "What evidence do you have for that?" The point is that the observer of something unusual (a sea monster never observed by a professional biologist, or even an experienced fisherman) should have more evidence than the bare observation for a claim that something that unusual exists.

droithomme 15y ago
That is a separate issue. Obviously airplanes exist. The argument that because one imagines an alternative explanation, therefore something is debunked; is fallacious. Hopefully all can understand this.
- breadbox 15y ago
  It would be much closer to say: All existing evidence has alternative, and much more plausible, explanations. Therefore, something is not debunked per se, but it loses much of its weight.