• 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!

Another Skepticism Thread - Audio

Free episodes:

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
So, all this skepticism ranting has been fun today - I enjoy defending my people despite the fact that I may not be completely intellectually equipped to do so well. So, why not have someone else explain my thoughts perfectly in the form of a podcast interview. This morning I downloaded a few old episodes of the Amateur Scientist podcast, one of which is with one of the leaders of the skeptical movement, Dr. Steven Novella. Here's a link to the interview. Please listen to it. It pretty much describes my philosophy perfectly.

The Amateur Scientist: Inside the Amateur Scientist Studio: Dr. Steven Novella

Thanks,

Angelo

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

Another great post about what skepticism is and can do:

Skepchick re Doing Is Important


What You’re Doing Is Important
July 14th, 2010 by Amy · 25 Comments


Sometimes being a skeptic can be difficult.

As skeptics we spend a lot of our time telling people that they are incorrect, that their beliefs are false. We do this not because we think we are better than anyone else but because we want to help people understand science and understand how things actually work so that they in turn will not get taken advantage of financially, have their health jeopardized or worse.

We skeptics are not contrarians, we try to make the world a safer place and to encourage advancements in technology and medicine. We strive for intellectual enlightenment not solely for ourselves but for everyone. We are one-part science communicators and one-part consumer protection advocates. But even with these idealistic good intentions we are often times the odd woman/man out at parties or around the water cooler. We are looked at as naysayers and argumentative, faithless, curmudgeons out to ruin fun and hope for everyone else. We are called know-it-alls or incorrectly considered close-minded. We are after all the ones that stand up and speak out when the majority wants to believe in homeopathy or angels or some sort of warm and fuzzy magical thinking. We burst bubbles, we dispel myths and sometimes we squash the fun of irrational fantasy. We explain how things really are. This outspoken bravery in the name of rationality often places us in the minority and that can be a very lonely and difficult place to be.



It is important to remember that while we rarely (if ever) get a thank you note or even a handshake for our efforts, what we are doing is important and it does make a difference. So next time your friend or coworker gives you a dirty look when you explain how homeopathy doesn’t work or how a chiropractic neck adjustment can give you a stroke or the fact that the real secret to ‘The Secret’ is that it is utter nonsense, think about the following letter that was sent in to us here at Skepchick.

The writer asked to remain anonymous but mentioned that he hoped we would share the story with other skeptics, activists and educators. This letter wasn’t just sent in to the writers here at Skepchick, it was sent in as a reminder to us all. What skeptics are doing is important.

I have a story — a very personal one — about how learning to think critically can be a matter of life or death.

My wife has been pregnant with twins. Yesterday was the 29-week mark. She went into the hospital after having been nauseated for a few days — they were worried about dehydration, so they brought her in for an IV drip. Because my wife’s doctor is awesome, she ordered a whole panel of lab tests, just to be sure there had been no damage.

What they found was HELLP syndrome, a form of severe preeclampsia. If it hadn’t been noticed until 24 hours later, it is very likely my wife would have seized and died at home, taking the twins with her. They prepped her for an emergency C-section. As a result of the doctor’s thoroughness, the quick and competent actions of the medical team, and amazing technology that resulted from decades of scientific research in medicine, both mother and twins are just fine.

What struck me is this: science-based medicine and our own critical thinking were key to saving my family. If we’d gone to a naturopath instead of a hospital, they’d all be dead. If we’d been big believers in homeopathy, they’d all be dead. If we’d sought the services of a “natural child birth” midwife instead of a team of doctors, *they’d all be dead*.

And not 10 years ago, before we’d learned to strengthen our critical thinking skills thanks to the skeptical community, we might have made any of those fatal decisions.

I’m telling you this because I think it’s important to understand that *what you do is important*. Science saves lives. Critical thinking *saves lives*. Helping people understand these things… it *saves lives*.

Thank you, and the skeptical community, for saving my family.
 
Angel although I respect you that is one of the problems. Why is it "your people?" It's not a football game. Either somebody has the "truth" or they don't. Fact is the individual experience of a person does count. NO, it doesn't mean you should teach it in school or put it in a science course. But, it doens't make it usless either. I've had dreams and a "skeptical" friend who was "floored" by the accuracy of one of em. Did he become a woo woo person...Not hardly. But, the fact is No I can't do it on cue. No I don't read minds. Yes, I've seen Auroas at times. No, I can't do it on demand. Will you ever convince me that the world is a cosmic accident? NO! Will I ever be able to "prove" "scientifcally" that I've had so called "paranormal" experiences? NO! Fact is I don't think there is "paranormal" I think what we call "paranormal" is actually part of the "experience" that being human is about. Yes, I beleive in God and yes I think we come from somewhere and go back to somewhere. Maybe pure "thought" or energy for lack of a better word. I am symphathetic to reincarnation. "why?" because I have always had "memories" but can I honestly prove it? NO. I think evolution and biology should be taught in schools. I also think there is a place for discussion (but in a Philosopy class not natural science) of the thoughts and cosmology that does point to "order" and "intent" (See Rodger Penrose and others.) But, a team? No not hardly. I'm a person and I have seen my white crow. But, I honestly think I'm a "skeptic" Many who call themselves "skeptic" are not. They are defenders of "orthadoxy" Atheist if you will. Nothing wrong with that on the surface but it is dishonest to call oneself a skeptic when you mean atheist. Not directed at you Angel just an observation about others I've seen on here. I don't always agree with Paul Kimball (see openminded man and banning discussion) but Paul is a true "skeptic" an Agnostic if you will. Jimmy randi on the other hand is a religous athiest. So, if there is a "team" I guess I'm a utility outfielder on the skeptical agonstic team. Not the religous athiest team. 8)

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

tyder001 said:
Angel although I respect you that is one of the problems. Why is it "your people?" It's not a football game. Either somebody has the "truth" or they don't. Fact is the individual experience of a person does count. NO, it doesn't mean you should teach it in school or put it in a science course. But, it doens't make it usless either. I've had dreams and a "skeptical" friend who was "floored" by the accuracy of one of em. Did he become a woo woo person...Not hardly. But, the fact is No I can't do it on cue. No I don't read minds. Yes, I've seen Auroas at times. No, I can't do it on demand. Will you ever convince me that the world is a cosmic accident? NO! Will I ever be able to "prove" "scientifcally" that I've had so called "paranormal" experiences? NO! Fact is I don't think there is "paranormal" I think what we call "paranormal" is actually part of the "experience" that being human is about. Yes, I beleive in God and yes I think we come from somewhere and go back to somewhere. Maybe pure "thought" or energy for lack of a better word. I am symphathetic to reincarnation. "why?" because I have always had "memories" but can I honestly prove it? NO. I think evolution and biology should be taught in schools. I also think there is a place for discussion (but in a Philosopy class not natural science) of the thoughts and cosmology that does point to "order" and "intent" (See Rodger Penrose and others.) But, a team? No not hardly. I'm a person and I have seen my white crow. But, I honestly think I'm a "skeptic" Many who call themselves "skeptic" are not. They are defenders of "orthadoxy" Atheist if you will. Nothing wrong with that on the surface but it is dishonest to call oneself a skeptic when you mean atheist. Not directed at you Angel just an observation about others I've seen on here. I don't always agree with Paul Kimball (see openminded man and banning discussion) but Paul is a true "skeptic" an Agnostic if you will. Jimmy randi on the other hand is a religous athiest. So, if there is a "team" I guess I'm a utility outfielder on the skeptical agonstic team. Not the religous athiest team. 8)

One last point on the above drama. I have known several doctors in my time. Beleive me at least one or two of those folks on that "life saving team" were praying in their minds.
 
Angel although I respect you that is one of the problems. Why is it "your people?" It's not a football game. Either somebody has the "truth" or they don't. Fact is the individual experience of a person does count. NO, it doesn't mean you should teach it in school or put it in a science course. But, it doens't make it usless either. I've had dreams and a "skeptical" friend who was "floored" by the accuracy of one of em. Did he become a woo woo person...Not hardly. But, the fact is No I can't do it on cue. No I don't read minds. Yes, I've seen Auroas at times. No, I can't do it on demand. Will you ever convince me that the world is a cosmic accident? NO! Will I ever be able to "prove" "scientifcally" that I've had so called "paranormal" experiences? NO! Fact is I don't think there is "paranormal" I think what we call "paranormal" is actually part of the "experience" that being human is about. Yes, I beleive in God and yes I think we come from somewhere and go back to somewhere. Maybe pure "thought" or energy for lack of a better word. I am symphathetic to reincarnation. "why?" because I have always had "memories" but can I honestly prove it? NO. I think evolution and biology should be taught in schools. I also think there is a place for discussion (but in a Philosopy class not natural science) of the thoughts and cosmology that does point to "order" and "intent" (See Rodger Penrose and others.) But, a team? No not hardly. I'm a person and I have seen my white crow. But, I honestly think I'm a "skeptic" Many who call themselves "skeptic" are not. They are defenders of "orthadoxy" Atheist if you will. Nothing wrong with that on the surface but it is dishonest to call oneself a skeptic when you mean atheist. Not directed at you Angel just an observation about others I've seen on here. I don't always agree with Paul Kimball (see openminded man and banning discussion) but Paul is a true "skeptic" an Agnostic if you will. Jimmy randi on the other hand is a religous athiest. So, if there is a "team" I guess I'm a utility outfielder on the skeptical agonstic team. Not the religous athiest team. 8)

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------



One last point on the above drama. I have known several doctors in my time. Beleive me at least one or two of those folks on that "life saving team" were praying in their minds.

You're entitled to your opinion. I say "my people" because I share a similar philosophy to them. I don't always agree, but the philosophy is similar. A skeptic, the way I see it, and the way the people above see it, is someone that will not accept something without proof. That's it, that's all. We are open-minded in that if you can prove something to us, we will accept it.

Thanks.
 
A skeptic wants prove, prove yet when i presented the case of the Belgium triangle to Angel to prove a point. He never responded and yes he is not obligated to respond to me, but he is obligated to respond when he claims there is no prove of off-world visitors. You Angel please explain how an object verified by the Belgium Air-force could have moved from a stationary point of 6,000 feet to 3,300 in 2 seconds (official report from the Belgium government) that is 46G Force of gravity, a human would have died instantly from that flight Maneuver and the object did no fall in a tumble, it flew off over Belgium, and was tracked near Kent England, that was the last sighting of this object.

It amazes me how dumb the public can be. When Jets from Different countries start chasing this objects and its officially documented as having occurred. A skeptical position been adopted to cases of this nature seem illogical to me personally!!
 
You're entitled to your opinion. I say "my people" because I share a similar philosophy to them. I don't always agree, but the philosophy is similar. A skeptic, the way I see it, and the way the people above see it, is someone that will not accept something without proof. That's it, that's all. We are open-minded in that if you can prove something to us, we will accept it.

Thanks.

Wow, that's a very rigid definition of skepticism. How does one even function like that?

Man: What did you think of that movie?

Woman: I liked it.

Man: Prove it!

99.99% of anything I've ever accepted I did so without proof and without even thinking about it. Intuition makes the world go around.

But anyway, this outlook would work fine if mankind was aware of everything there is to know. But we aren't. Our knowledge is but a pebble in an endless ocean of the unknown. Those unknown spaces are not awaiting our confirmation to exist, they do so regardless. And where does this viewpoint leave room for intellect? After all, the genesis of everything is an idea. Validation comes later.
 
A skeptic wants prove, prove yet when i presented the case of the Belgium triangle to Angel to prove a point. He never responded and yes he is not obligated to respond to me, but he is obligated to respond when he claims there is no prove of off-world visitors. You Angel please explain how an object verified by the Belgium Air-force could have moved from a stationary point of 6,000 feet to 3,300 in 2 seconds (official report from the Belgium government) that is 46G Force of gravity, a human would have died instantly from that flight Maneuver and the object did no fall in a tumble, it flew off over Belgium, and was tracked near Kent England, that was the last sighting of this object.
It amazes me how dumb the public can be. When Jets from Different countries start chasing this objects and its officially documented as having occurred. A skeptical position been adopted to cases of this nature seem illogical to me personally!!


I know very little about this case, so please read a skeptical view on it here: The So-Called A Critical View - SkepticReport

The part you may find most interesting is this:

First of all there are the “mysterious” radar signals recorded on board a F-16 on March 30-31, 1990. An incident which received world-wide publicity.

A physicist, Professor Meessen (now retired), who joined SOBEPS when it was founded in 1971 and who was convinced from the start that UFOs are from another world, has spent several months studying these recordings (4)

In VOB, professor Meessen wrote:

“The conclusion that logically imposes itself is that ANY HYPOTHESIS OTHER THAN THAT OF UFOs IS TO BE EXCLUDED AT VIRTUALY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (emphasis in original text).”
He also wrote:
“…I think the only reasonable hypothesis is that of unidentified flying objects, the performances of which indicate an extraterrestrial origin.” (5)
This is what ten Belgian scientists referred to in their press-release as an extravagance. According to them, there were several inconsistencies in the analysis conducted by this physicist and one of these scientists even told me that no university student would ever pass with honours for such an ambiguous work, full of contradictions.

It is important here to underline that the F-16 pilot saw no UFOs at all. I spoke with some of his friends who had laughed with him about the UFO hypothesis. Had it not been for the SOBEPS team, these so-called mysterious radar returns would have been labeled as ordinary “angels”. Another important thing is that at one point the “return” remained unchanged on the screen while the plane was maneuvring, which is indicative of an instrument failure. This is also what Lieutenant-Colonel Salmon from the Belgian Air Force Electronic War Center remarked when he was interviewed by journalists of Science & Vie Junior in 1992. And this is also what I had written in an article that the ten scientists had chosen to add to their press-release in October 1991. (6)

Now, SOBEPS has published a second voluminous “report” about the so-called “Belgian UFO wave”. Not very surprisingly for those who were well informed, compelled as he was by the hard facts, professor Meessen distanced himself from his previous conclusions and admitted that very peculiar atmospheric conditions were probably the cause of the F-16 radar incident. He did it with a lot of verbose explanations, but he did it. (7)

Meessen’s first conclusion was given world-wide publicity. Not his laborious retractation!

May I add that in their press-release, in October 1991, the ten Belgian scientists who had criticized professor Meessen’s conclusion had already written :

“The analysis made by Mr. Meessen seems to indicate that it could be a meteorological phenomenon whereas the (supposed) occurrence of subsonic speeds and sudden accelerations made by material objects is far from convincing.” (2)
One should take into account that these mysterious signals (from a supposedly 100 % real extraterrestrial UFO!) constituted the ONLY “physical evidence” (not counting the Petit-Rechain picture I shall speak about later) that SOBEPS had gathered for its famous first book which journalists were influenced to announce as the “new bible on UFOs.”

So, whether that explanation is the correct one or not, it shows that there are other possibilities, and that the original explanation was retracted. Of course, it could be that the government was doing a hush job (said with snarky skeptic sarcasm...) :)

Hopefully that satisfied your request.

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Wow, that's a very rigid definition of skepticism. How does one even function like that?

Man: What did you think of that movie?

Woman: I liked it.

Man: Prove it!

99.99% of anything I've ever accepted I did so without proof and without even thinking about it. Intuition makes the world go around.

But anyway, this outlook would work fine if mankind was aware of everything there is to know. But we aren't. Our knowledge is but a pebble in an endless ocean of the unknown. Those unknown spaces are not awaiting our confirmation to exist, they do so regardless. And where does this viewpoint leave room for intellect? After all, the genesis of everything is an idea. Validation comes later.

You know what I mean, at least I hope you do. You tell me you liked a movie, that'a an opinion. You tell me that aliens are visiting and when I question it you assert that it is true, I want proof.
And I've said that we don't know everything, thinking that we do is silly. Look at stuff like String Theory - it's insane if you think about it, but there are brilliant people trying to prove that theory. They're doing real work and they're making amazing breakthroughs.

Regards
A
 
The point of view of the colonel De Brouwer, now general, should be interesting too...
Did I hear "we could relate one visual observation with radar" ? (0:50)

 
I know very little about this case, so please read a skeptical view on it here: The So-Called A Critical View - SkepticReport

The part you may find most interesting is this:



So, whether that explanation is the correct one or not, it shows that there are other possibilities, and that the original explanation was retracted. Of course, it could be that the government was doing a hush job (said with snarky skeptic sarcasm...) :)

Hopefully that satisfied your request.

Surprised you haven't familiarized yourself with that one more because it is one of the strongest cases on record. I just read what you quoted there, didn't bother going to the full article. First of all, there were thousands of witnesses to a triangular craft with lights at the tips and a red light in the center. If I'm remembering correctly the object was tracked by 5 radar stations on the ground and then with the on-board radar systems of two jets. At one point one of the jets achieved a lock-on but the object instantly plummeted several thousand feet in altitude. That timing seems pretty coincidental to me if it was merely a weather phenomenon. There is an excellent book about this incident called UFO: A Deadly Concealment by Derek Sheffield.
 
The point of view of the colonel De Brouwer, now general, should be interesting too...
Did I hear "we could relate one visual observation with radar" ? (0:50)


Angels link contained no material from the Belgium Air force. Marc Hailet the author of this write-up is debunking the claims of SOBEPS, A Private Belgium UFO group.
 
You know what I mean, at least I hope you do. You tell me you liked a movie, that'a an opinion. You tell me that aliens are visiting and when I question it you assert that it is true, I want proof.
And I've said that we don't know everything, thinking that we do is silly. Look at stuff like String Theory - it's insane if you think about it, but there are brilliant people trying to prove that theory. They're doing real work and they're making amazing breakthroughs.

My primary point was that I simply don't agree with your definition of skepticism. It doesn't match official definitions of it either. I was trying to think of a word that might match what you seemed to be describing. I came up with absolutist and googled that but it didn't match. There has to be a word that does though.
 
My primary point was that I simply don't agree with your definition of skepticism. It doesn't match official definitions of it either. I was trying to think of a word that might match what you seemed to be describing. I came up with absolutist and googled that but it didn't match. There has to be a word that does though.

If you actually read and listened to my original post, you would see how people in the skeptical movement define it.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

There is reports in this link that came directly from the Belgium Air force,and what their pilots observed on the night of the 30 and 31 march 1990

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/belgium.htm

Listen to the audio clip and look of the images of the radar returns from the jets.

I don't know what to tell you. Obviously you don't like the information I found. Niether of us were there, so we'll have to choose to believe one account over another. The one I read discussed what the pilot thought - that being that it was not an alien space craft. It said they laughed about it. There are so many contradictions, it's hard to figure out who to trust.
 
I don't know what to tell you. Obviously you don't like the information I found. Niether of us were there, so we'll have to choose to believe one account over another. The one I read discussed what the pilot thought - that being that it was not an alien space craft. It said they laughed about it. There are so many contradictions, it's hard to figure out who to trust.

Angel were did you read that? In the link i provided there is official reports from the "Belgium Air Force" on what was observed and seen from the ground and the sky. It is on record also, officials from the military of defence(Belgium) made some enquires in relation to this incident over Belgium. The American Embassy in Belgium was contacted and was asked on the night of March 30 and 31, did the US have flying objects of a classified nature over Belgium Airspace? They got an "Official on the Record" Reply... No.

Angel this is a big deal when another country approach's another country over security matters. It wasn't a hoax, try to understand the gravity of what i just wrote please?
 
Angel were did you read that? In the link i provided there is official reports from the "Belgium Air Force" on what was observed and seen from the ground and the sky. It is on record also, officials from the military of defence(Belgium) made some enquires in relation to this incident over Belgium. The American Embassy in Belgium was contacted and was asked on the night of March 30 and 31, did the US have flying objects of a classified nature over Belgium Airspace? They got an "Official on the Record" Reply... No.

Angel this is a big deal when another country approach's another country over security matters. It wasn't a hoax, try to understand the gravity of what i just wrote please?

Please read my post responding to your original request (post number 6, second quote). The person who wrote that studied the case for years and he has provided a satisfactory explanation without resorting to non-human alien spacecraft. He could be wrong, we can never know for sure, but I'll stick with the explanation that doesn't involve something that we can't prove to be true i.e alien visitors.
 
Please read my post responding to your original request (post number 6, second quote). The person who wrote that studied the case for years and he has provided a satisfactory explanation without resorting to non-human alien spacecraft. He could be wrong, we can never know for sure, but I'll stick with the explanation that doesn't involve something that we can't prove to be true i.e alien visitors.

I'll trust the Reports that came officially from the "Defence Department of Belgium" over some guy who writes for a Skeptic website on the internet. Not because i want to "Believe" but due to the fact they backed up there shit with evidence. There opinion, the (Belgium Air force) was this object was most likely of Extraterrestrial origin due to the way it evaded their Aircraft.
 
I'll trust the Reports that came officially from the "Defence Department of Belgium" over some guy who writes for a Skeptic website on the internet. Not because i want to "Believe" but due to the fact they backed up there shit with evidence. There opinion, the (Belgium Air force) was this object was most likely of Extraterrestrial origin due to the way it evaded their Aircraft.

No problem.
 
I just figured that there's no way you'll trust the article, even thought it's much more recent that the official report. No worries.

The problem I have is. Marc Hailet tried to debunk the sightings with reliable information, while in the same vain, equally and valid information was left out by him.. I will explain what i mean. Marc constantly referred to a report released by Colonel Salmon (MAJOR back then) of the Electronic war centre. Marc was concluding from what he read in there report that "All" the radar takes were mistakes. Three out of the Ten abnormal registrations were probable mistakes, but the other seven, were never explained in the report released by Colonel Salmon and Gilmard.

I can't find the name of this pilot anywhere who said it wasn't a Genuine UFO he was chasing.

Realistically Angel what would the Belgium Air force be chasing Birds clouds get real!!!
 
The problem I have is. Marc Hailet tried to debunk the sightings with reliable information, while in the same vain, equally and valid information was left out by him.. I will explain what i mean. Marc constantly referred to a report released by Colonel Salmon (MAJOR back then) of the Electronic war centre. Marc was concluding from what he read in there report that "All" the radar takes were mistakes. Three out of the Ten abnormal registrations were probable mistakes, but the other seven, were never explained in the report released by Colonel Salmon and Gilmard.

I can't find the name of this pilot anywhere who said it wasn't a Genuine UFO he was chasing.

Realistically Angel what would the Belgium Air force be chasing Birds clouds get real!!!

Realistically? I'd say it probably isn't extra-terrestrials either. We really can't be sure, can we, since we weren't there. Even with being there, the human mind is easily fooled.
 
Back
Top