My counterargument wasn't in any way a personal attack, sorry if it looked that way. It also has nothing to do with what I want.

It's about logic and reasoning. I seriously don’t think that the argument from parsimony applies in cases like these, at all.

It's true that, in the absence of data, anything can be anything. A macroscopic "object" zipping around could theoretically be a hologram. That's what the radars are for - to determine that the object is physical, by seeing if it reflects radio waves.

There are also all of the alleged crashes and materials and people touching craft or being physically affected by them, etc.

What I'm trying to say is that argument from parsimony can be ruled out, it isn't automatically valid no matter what, however weird the phenomenon is.

I'm sure many of the skeptics who use the argument even when it demonstrably isn't applicable mean well. What frustrates me is that I have seen skeptics, including the well-meaning ones, reject all kinds of evidence that they have been asking for.

An independent Czech thinker, speaker, writer, and creator.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.