The Hill: The Pentagon is lying about UFOs • Hacker News Board

Re: The Hill: The Pentagon is lying about UFOs

#21

Post by orwin » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:36 PM UTC

jskdndbwkd wrote: post #19

diego_moita wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long ago I heard the same argument in a Brazilian television show presenting a debate between "UFO specialists" and astronomers. One astronomer posed that same question: "Dude, our job consists of staring at the sky for nights and nights with very powerful equipment and we never saw those things that you keep finding with naked eyes. How do you do that?". The "ufologist" just did a "deer in the headlights" look.

[flagged]

This is the most likely possibility. Amateur astronomers (as well as professionals) never saw an inkling of UFOs in space. So either UFOs are cloaked in space and decloaks in the atmosphere, or they come from earth.

If i push a bayesian reasoning far enough, i'll say i think weird theories involving lizard people, Atlantis or hollow earth (or illuminaties or... etc) are sightly more plausible than those involving extraterrestrial beings. Most plausible is that none of them is correct, but still.

Re: The Hill: The Pentagon is lying about UFOs

#22

Post by DEADMINCE » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:48 PM UTC

Loquebantur wrote: post #18

DEADMINCE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Only when the authority isn't authoritative. Authority is not inherently bad, and in some cases what an authority recommends is going to be significantly better than whatever conclusion an individual comes to via their 'enlightenment'. Maybe you're smart and great at critical thinking and have a high level of self-confidence that you could investigate an issue and reach…

It's certainly not true for the "authorities" in question here. Meaning, they indeed aren't "authoritative", as you would have it. You essentially refuse to seriously check for that. I guess, because you have so little confidence in what your peers would do if they found out? Authoritativeness isn't reliably conveyed ex officio. Putting your head in the sand isn't a solution for that.

> It's certainly not true for the "authorities" in question here. Meaning, they indeed aren't "authoritative", as you would have it.

Weird use of scarequotes. And yeah, no one is claiming the person who wrote the opinion is an authority. You made a generalization though, and that's what I was responding to.

> I guess, because you have so little confidence in what your peers would do if they found out?

Found out what? I don't even have confidence that most of my "peers" would think it's important to check in the first place.

Re: The Hill: The Pentagon is lying about UFOs

#23

Post by Andrex » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:58 PM UTC

Loquebantur wrote: post #5

Andrex wrote: post #3

Title: "The Hill:..." Article: "THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL" :thinking_emoji:

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. It is particularly fallacious when the topic is 'scrutinizing actions of authorities'. I find it highly worrisome, people apparently prefer to be told what to think by "authorities" than to learn how to rationally check and judge arguments for their validity. It's tribalism vs enlightenment.

I actually appreciate The Hill's opinion section and contributor editorials, as they regularly pierce my bubble and expose me to some, frankly, batshit opinions and bad ideas. But I think in moderation that's a good thing.

But I give more weight to The Hill's actual authors and editors. The name means something to me. Same as The Times, The Post, or (formerly) GiantBomb.

Re: The Hill: The Pentagon is lying about UFOs

#24

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 05, 2024, 11:10 PM UTC

Loquebantur wrote: post #5

Andrex wrote: post #3

Title: "The Hill:..." Article: "THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL" :thinking_emoji:

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. It is particularly fallacious when the topic is 'scrutinizing actions of authorities'. I find it highly worrisome, people apparently prefer to be told what to think by "authorities" than to learn how to rationally check and judge arguments for their validity. It's tribalism vs enlightenment.

[deleted]

Re: The Hill: The Pentagon is lying about UFOs

#25

Post by threatofrain » Sun, May 05, 2024, 11:14 PM UTC

Loquebantur wrote: post #12

collingreen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A far less extreme take could be that a random agitator writing an opinion piece has a lot less of a reputation to lose than a publisher or professional journalist.

"Reputation" is a crude social heuristic. It's also authority in disguise.

No it's not. The police have authority. Your doctor has credibility. Your doctor doesn't order you around. The doctor's reputation is an aggregation of the public's mood.

Re: The Hill: The Pentagon is lying about UFOs

#26

Post by dvh » Mon, May 06, 2024, 6:29 AM UTC

If it had beyond human capabilities it means pilot judged the size incorrectly. Pilots are routinely flying in a plane-sized objects among other plane-sized objects and tends to subconsciously assign plane size to everything they see. It was a drone or a bird or small balloon.