Elaborate Pareidolia and other Mysteries

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Just saying "Martians would have had to have done it", isn't necessarily a ridicule as much as it is highlighting the main point in the discussion. It could be "some ancient civilization either living on Mars, or who visited Mars in the past...." It's just easier to say "Martians". Seems valid to me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. But what you actually said was "Which is harder to believe: that this came about by divine intervention, or that the Martian Pareidolia came about by Martians trotting all over the surface of Mars etching images of Bill Clinton and the Flintstones? We've merely exhanged one deity for another." That's arguing against a legitimate hypothesis by making it appear absurd. In short, it's ridicule.

In the area of hypothesis formation, I've argued that it is inevitable (given survival of our species) that someday, the same kind of thing will happen on our own Moon. So there is nothing intrinsically improbable about interpreting what we are seeing on Mars as artificial. It is just unexpected. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><br />I agree. But what you actually said was "Which is harder to believe: that this came about by divine intervention, or that the Martian Pareidolia came about by Martians trotting all over the surface of Mars etching images of Bill Clinton and the Flintstones? We've merely exhanged one deity for another." That's arguing against a legitimate hypothesis by making it appear absurd. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As Ann Coulter would say: "<b>well yeaahh</b>!"

That doesn't mean I'm "ridiculing" it. There's a very fine line.

rd

By the way Tom, welcome back. We missed you.

rd

Yes, welcome back Tom.

Well, I guess I hit a nerve. Who'da thunk it. The problem, Tom, with your rejoinder is that the evaluation of <i>a priori</i> predictions depends on those same "appearances" that are insufficient to prove artificiality outright. This is the crux, and absent better evidence one way or the other it shall continue to be thus.

BTW, I did not intend my use of the term <i>Martians</i> to imply any ridicule, but simply to accurately refer to those who are supposed to have resided on Mars and created the various artifacts during their residence.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />As Ann Coulter would say: "<b>well yeaahh</b>!"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Richard, if someone doesn't write a doctoral dissertation on the correlation between political ideology and skepticism of UFOs, Global Warming, Intelligent Design and Martian artifacts, I think will.

"Dr." Rich

(Disclaimer: No trivialization of Tom's well-earned doctorate intended.)

Since this current debate began with the Clearwater Virgin images, I went back and labeled them for easy reference. Image 1, real pareidolia, and Image 2, elaborate "pareidolia."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Leaving aside the flim-flammed second image, and just sticking with the low-grade pareidolic image of Mary,[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
But why "leave aside" Image 2? This is precisely the essence of your whole "elaborate pareidolia" hypothesis. Namely, unsubstantiated, unprovenienced images are cavalierly and routinely considered as "proof" of elaborate pareidolia. But do a little digging and you always come up with an "Image 2" as the theory’s backbone. Addressing Image 2 is the <i>raison d'etre</i> for this topic. Why leave it aside?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Which is harder to believe: that this came about by divine intervention, or that the Martian Pareidolia came about by Martians trotting all over the surface of Mars etching images of Bill Clinton and the Flintstones?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of some people resembling other people. (And I do think mine are pictures of people who lived long ago in another place.) In any event, I never mentioned Bill Clinton; that can only mean you think one of my faces resembles Bill Clinton. Which one?

The more important point is that the relationship between "divine intervention" and pareidolia was not mine. It came from and was quoted from your camp, the "pareidolia camp." The kind of "scientists" who offer razzmatazz (and solipsism) as evidence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I stated quite some months ago that the reasoning of the artificiality proponents is essentially the same as that employed in Intelligent Design: [jr]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We disagree on this. ID is a religious theory. We invoke no deities and no miracles here. The possibility of sentient life outside of our small planet is a falsifiable scientific hypothesis with supporters ranging from NASA to Arthur C. Clark, to Carl Sagan.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think there's a fine line between "ridicule" and "talking".[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A balancing act you've mastered better than me, I'll grant you that one.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As Ann Coulter would say: "well yeaahh!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ann Coulter??? [}]I'd prefer the wisdom of Rodney Dangerfield.[]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Richard, if someone doesn't write a doctoral dissertation on the correlation between political ideology and skepticism of UFOs, Global Warming, Intelligent Design and Martian artifacts, I think will.

"Dr." Rich [jr]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A good place to start would be an analysis of Image 2, and proof of its “pareidolia-hood.”

Neil