12 ms·
Please look up the "argument from ignorance", because that's what you're doing.
by empyrrhicist 3y ago
Please look up the "argument from ignorance", because that's what you're doing.
- david-gpu 3y agoI'm not saying "we don't know have X data, so Y must be true/false, I am saying there is a perfectly plausible explanation for why if data from military sources did exist then it wouldn't automatically be known to the public. Because that is the argument that was being made by the comment I was replying to. If you have a more detailed criticism I would be happy to address it.
- empyrrhicist 3y agoReplace "true/false" with "probably/reasonable to consider" and you're doing exactly that. You're using uncertainty to elevate an implausible hypothesis for consideration.
- david-gpu 3y agoThe comment I replied to was stating that if alien vehicles visited Earth then the military would be aware of it, with the implicit assumption that if the military was aware of UAPs then the it would inform the public. My counterargument is that if the military detected UAPs then they would have both a strong incentive not to inform the public and the means to keep it secret. Thus the (public) absence of (military) evidence is not evidence of absence. Happy to address any other misunderstandings.