Perhaps its easier for some to believe that it must all be hoaxes of misinterpretations ... than the thing it really is.
Sorry, no. That's not really how that works. It's not a matter of what's easier, that doesn't even begin to touch on anything I've presented to you. This is the same mistake you've made with the definition of being a skeptic. You're boiling it down to something so simple it's practically condescending, not to mention plainly incorrect. Boiling down a deduction based on research done on things that actually exist isn't just deciding one day that it's easier to deem things a hoax. I've examined the facts on both sides and done the research -- much as skeptics do -- and deduced my position from there.
Plausible isn't enough for some.
Then I wish them a happy existence living in a world full of improbability, where it's just as acceptable to believe in the barely-evidenced than it is in what is heavily supported by fact. I rather enjoy my time living in reality, I'd recommend it to anyone.
What if there was one thing ? How many things should be needed to take the matter seriously as a THEORY, not fact THEORY.
And I don't mean taken seriously by EVERYONE... just taken seriously by SOME ?
What if there was one thing that was beyond our current capability to explain it? Oohh, I don't know, I'd probably say something reasonable. Say, maybe, "This thing is beyond our current capability
to explain it," and then follow it up with research using things we can actually observe and measure rather than making the first wild leap I can possibly conceive and then convincing everyone that it MUST BE IT if silly old science can't explain it! But that's just me. Because I'm aware that science does not at any point in time have the answers to every single thing ever, but rather continues to evolve its understanding of particular subjects over a given period of time.
You right to choose your intentions, their interpretation, and have right to believe what you do from your mindset, your belief set suits you.
Others are right to choose their intentions , their interpretation and belief sets.
Yes. At base, this is correct. However, if you are equating all methods of deduction, all forms of logic, and all beliefs/theories/whatnot as equal just because you can make it your opinion, I have to very strongly disagree. Not all opinions are equal in standing even if you still have your right to hold it. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Assuming believers are "primed" to insert alien implications before mundane explanations is an insulting assertion, if you wish one to take you seriously you probably should take them seriously also.
Not really, no. I don't have to take someone's views seriously at all. I can respect
them, I can understand that they can hold whatever opinion they want even if it's absolutely ridiculous, but never do I have to actually take it seriously if it's pseudo-science that has very little convincing research done and even less solid evidence. I don't have to take aliens any more seriously than I have to take moon-cats a la Avatar.
Besides, if there are believers here who would like to claim offense to what I'm saying, I'd love to intelligently debate the subject based on the facts that are out there in order to sort out whatever insult I may be inferring, but until then...
But actually, what you're describing is exactly what's happening in this case. People believing in improbable supernatural causes before thinking it could be something much simpler and more realistic. It is what it is.
Bacteria can explain milk curdling perfectly, there is no need for alien inferring.
Some ufo/paranormal cases are not as easily explained through known science.
Plausible explanations within our current scientific knowledge can be treated as "possible" and because its without need of more theories
it can be treated as more likely than thus "explained"
So clearly any gaps we have in knowledge in science is okay to fill in with pseudo-scientific fluff with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. We still don't quite have a complete grasp on how gravity works, so it's probably okay to start feeding people information on how there could be aliens living under the earth's crust that we can't see who are somehow keeping us from floating into space, right? We can't just say "we don't know, but we're working on it" because that's not nearly as exciting as saying that there's some elusive being manipulating our earth. We can't stand the unexplained -- we have to have something to fill that void NOW.
Honestly, your assertion on "alien THEORY" is incredibly tiresome and isn't really serving to make any point except...yes, it's a theory. And a very shoddy one, at that, full of incredibly large gaps -- bigger gaps than the ones that science can't fill. It's a theory in the loosest sense of the word, the layman's term, certainly not the scientific usage of the word (if this confuses you, there is a stickied thread in the Elliquiy U section on the subject). By that definition, I could claim that Amelia Earhart was abducted in midair and shot off to a mystery planet with Tupac Shakur and the Lindbergh baby, rustle up some "unexplained mysteries" that silly old science can't (and therefore probably will never!) explain, and then expect to be taken just as seriously as alternative explanations that have much more solid and tangible and realistic evidence.
None of your definitions thusfar have been particularly accurate starting with your view of what skepticism is and most especially your views on evidence and truth. If we're going to fundamentally argue about "How do we know if what is true is true?! What if everything we know is wrong?!", then that is one seriously large gap of conspiratorial thinking that I cannot even begin to bridge and it's tiresome to even seriously discuss if all you can come to is fluff about objectivity. If someone's truth is that milk curdles from milk-dwelling aliens, that is self-delusion and it does not change the actual, factual
truth that it is due to bacteria converting lactic acid. I'm sorry to say there is nothing subjective there.
Edit: Oniya's post basically says it all, but more succinctly. Thank you.
Edit edit: changed objectivity to subjectivity...that's what I get for writing in p&r past midnight...