• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

A satisfying example of a debunker 'getting it'

Free episodes:

Gareth

Nothin' to see here
Found this article thru Mac Tonnies' twitter, and I thought some others might find it interesting. The author essentially points out why he has never given the UFO phenomenon any real time, and then explains why he all of a sudden thinks there might be something to it.

I found it a satisfying read, as its an example of one of 'them' (debunkers) finally looking at the evidence and coming around to 'our' (skeptical accepters of the UFO reality) side.

First 3 paragraphs are quoted.

The Nightshirt - “They†Are Not “Themâ€: A Hybrid View of the UFO Presence

For many years I was skeptical of the UFO phenomenon. I was persuaded by SETI pioneers like Carl Sagan: It’s pretty certain that the universe is full of intelligent civilizations, but the vast interstellar distances and the vast timescales involved in traversing them made the notion of an alien presence in our skies seem (to me) silly. I tended to agree with science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem, particularly the view put forth in his great novel Fiasco. Civilizations will pass through a very brief “window” of maybe a couple centuries duration when they simultaneously have the technology required to communicate with other civilizations and still have an interest in doing so. After this, they will either have destroyed themselves/exhausted their resources or will have become “lotus eaters,” having solved all problems of material scarcity and retreated into virtual worlds of pure imagination, no longer caring who else is out there. Given the limitations on the speed of interstellar travel coupled with the fact that different civilizations’ histories will be wildly out of sync with each other, radio transmissions might be sent and received, but any actual two-way contact between different technological civilizations will be a tremendous statistical rarity despite the vast number of such civilizations that must arise.


I held to the view, in other words, that we would probably never make contact with an alien race, except perhaps by eventually finding its million-year-old ruins or fossils on some long-dead planet. The alternative, Star Trek-like universe teeming with roughly similarly advanced civilizations with similar agendas seems to defy both what I believed and, really, what I thought was most awe-inspiring: a sense of profound cosmic aloneness, despite infinite worlds and minds spread across unbridgeable distances.


As I’ve come to delve into the UFO stuff over recent months, however, I’m convinced that my old view requires revision. The evidence is overwhelming that Earth is being surveyed by alien craft. They are seen all the time, by perfectly sober and sane people. I saw them on two occasions, less than a month apart, this summer, and dutifully made my reports (obviously, this was a big factor in my revisiting the whole question). They are seen particularly often by pilots, astronauts, police, and people in the military. The latter four groups, for decades under explicit or tacit gag rules, are finally starting to talk openly about their experiences. It is becoming clear that the superpowers have gathered a lot of data that they have suppressed—for the very sensible reason that political control and social stability rest on governments seeming to be in control of their people’s security and destiny, an appearance that evidence of more advanced cultures in our airspace irrevocably punctures.
 
While it was interesting speculation, it was little more then sci-fi fantasy naval gazing. :D Also I don't see any evidence he was a debunker or a skeptic, he writes like a true believer.
 
While it was interesting speculation, it was little more then sci-fi fantasy naval gazing. :D Also I don't see any evidence he was a debunker or a skeptic, he writes like a true believer.
The "true believers" are the fundamentalist skeptics, with their belief driven agenda, who are incapable of looking at the subject with a open mind. Someone like Greer could of course also be classified as a "true believer".
 
I dunno, I think there's a lot to be said for making the distinction between the concepts of 'fundamentalist believers vs fundamentalist debunkers' and 'open minded vs closed minded'.

The former group, either side of the argument think they have all the answers. While the latter group, not necessarily coming forward with answers, rather, they mainly disagree on the number of possibilities.

Personally I feel being open minded to the possibilities is probably more important than really putting a label on which side of the fence your sitting.

The article seemed to me to read very much like 'I used to be a skeptic because of xyz, but now I'm a believer, and the ET's are visiting us because of xyz...'

Rather than a debunker getting it, seems more like a skeptic that didn't get it who is now a believer who doesn't get it.

Just a thought.
 
I'm going to stop believing in things I don't like. Maybe then they will go away.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
Warning: Beware of skeptics who become believers.

I read a book some time ago called "A Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. The first message he tries to send is that he was a skeptic, apparently a hard core one. Then in one visit to the Discovery Institute, his whole outlook on science and everything he learned in school was not only in jeapordy, but just dismissed. With one visit he threw evolution in the junk drawer. He somehow became convinced that what he thought was true was a lie and that God, more specifically Jesus Christ, was responsible for all that he now saw in life and nature.

I have to wonder what kind of skeptic he really was. The book is full of the "partisan" thinking that allowed him to see the real light. Uh huh, right, .. skeptical are you?? I'm not saying that Eric W is in the same boat, but just to be wary when people tell you that they used to be skeptical. It might not be the case.

As Logic said, "just a thought".
 
I believe I am skeptical, but I am skeptical of that belief.
Has someone said that before? If not, they should have.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
I'm going to stop believing in things I don't like. Maybe then they will go away.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

I tried that with my ex-wife. It didn't work.
 
So, no one knows who this guy is? How did you come to the conclusion he was a debunker or a skeptic for that matter? I'm sure if the topic were titled "A satisfying example of a believer 'getting it'" people would be up in arms questioning the validity.

I smell a rat...considering this guy could be virtually anyone and there's no background info to back the "debunker" claim.
 
Johnny Nobody. No you made good points Jose.

I agree - dude could be anyone claiming he was a certain way then flipped just to make his arguments seem more compelling.

Without even thinking about it I put this dude in the skeptic/debunker category in my head. Sort of put a Seth Shostak overlay over him. Then with that assumption done and dusted I kept reading and the rest is history.

Whoever the guy is, I think its safe to say that he isnt really a debunker like Shostak/Oberg etc. And he didnt really come around to more of an open mind through careful analysis of the research. No, he saw some weird shit he couldnt explain and it changed his mind.

But hes a nobody so we shouldnt care anyway (seriously). Like I said, I just got the article off Mac on twitter.
 
Would be good to find out more about him to see if there's a progression in his opinion. You never know, he may be the grandaddy of all debunkers.
 
I believe I am skeptical, but I am skeptical of that belief.
Has someone said that before? If not, they should have.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

I dunno. I remain skeptical about that!:)
 
Back
Top