Are there believers posing as skeptics?

[5tomidnite]

A couple of years ago I was looking for podcasts about monsters. This was around the time when discussing redheaded giants descended(?) from the Annunaki was the current thing. I came across a skeptical podcast discussing it. The guest was a archeology professor (I don't remember his name). This is the second time I've heard this person discussing the subject. He said the giant mummies found in the caves (I don't remember where they were located) were perfectly expected. According to him when the muscle and tendon on a corpse finally fully dry out the pressure they apply on the bone they are connected to ceases and the bone stretches. Therefore it is not unusual to find mummies that are eight feet tall.

The both times I heard him discussing the subject he said not to take his word for it. He said that like he tells his students, the people listening to him speak should look these things up for themselves. So I did. What I learned is that once the muscles and tendons get so dry that they no longer apply pressure on the bones they cover, the bones themselves are dry and they stay the same size. So this made me wonder. Was this professor lying to get name recognition or was he a believer pretending to be a skeptic and trying to spread misinformation among the skeptics of the subject?

This leads me to wonder are there people circulating misinformation among the "skeptical community" as there are those spreading it in the "believer community"?

If anyone has any examples of this I would be interested in reading about them.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Bob Watson]

this is hard to answer. I saw a craft. I want to beleve. I want to keep an open mind but the evidence is not there. The evidence of my own own eyes shows that indeed a object of unusual make flew by. the evidence of my reseach and the help of others shows my thought that the object was human make has been borne out. the feild is ripe with fraud. there are those who's mental health must be challanged. and there are those who with to enrich themselves there might be those out there spreading disinformation and those who seek the truth. we must watch and judge for ourselves.

 

[Wade]

A couple of years ago I was looking for podcasts about monsters. This was around the time when discussing redheaded giants descended(?) from the Annunaki was the current thing. I came across a skeptical podcast discussing it. The guest was a archeology professor (I don't remember his name). This is the second time I've heard this person discussing the subject. He said the giant mummies found in the caves (I don't remember where they were located) were perfectly expected. According to him when the muscle and tendon on a corpse finally fully dry out the pressure they apply on the bone they are connected to ceases and the bone stretches. Therefore it is not unusual to find mummies that are eight feet tall.

The both times I heard him discussing the subject he said not to take his word for it. He said that like he tells his students, the people listening to him speak should look these things up for themselves. So I did. What I learned is that once the muscles and tendons get so dry that they no longer apply pressure on the bones they cover, the bones themselves are dry and they stay the same size. So this made me wonder. Was this professor lying to get name recognition or was he a believer pretending to be a skeptic and trying to spread misinformation among the skeptics of the subject?

This leads me to wonder are there people circulating misinformation among the "skeptical community" as there are those spreading it in the "believer community"?

If anyone has any examples of this I would be interested in reading about them.

Thank you for reading.

I can't answer that false believer/skeptic thing but if I was in his class I would have jumped all over that bone stretching statement. That could probably happen when they are softer at birth but how could bone possibly grow after death, which means no more tissue regeneration either natural or from a congenital defect? Is it possible it could just be a matter of a professor testing his students reactions or to see if they're awake and turned on and willing to challenge anything thrown at then ? Maybe besides being a archeology assignment there was a psychological element to it ?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The host of the Skeptico podcast fits that description.

 

[exo_doc]

That's a hard question. It's been loudly proclaimed by believers for years that there are Government "Agent Provocateurs" mixing in with believers who tell wild and crazy stories so the general public would just dismiss ANY UFO researchers as crazy.
If that was the Gov's plan, it's worked marvelously hasn't it?
But for a believer to pose as a skeptic? For what purpose? What would be the gain? I'd be interested in anyones opinion about that.

 

[Polterwurst]

The host of the Skeptico podcast fits that description.

Sorry, but no. Where does Mr Tsakiris pretend to be a skeptic? In one of the recent shows he's even said he's on the believer side. If it's because of the name of his show, that's actually "skeptiko" (two Ks), which is derived from the old greek word "skeptikos" (to examine closely) and has none of the connotations the modern word "skeptic" has. You could say he's a little too accepting of some claims but he's not being dishonest or posing as anything.

Speaking of which, I think there's debunkers posing as skeptics, too...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think we need to define the word "skeptic" in this case, because I don't think we're talking about the same. The people I call skeptics are those you might call debunkers. To me, Joe Nickel is a skeptic, is he a debunker to you? Same thing goes for Michael Shermer and James Randi - they are all skeptics in my book.

 

[Polterwurst]

I must admit that I haven't heard of Joe Nickel before. Shermer and Randi to me are definitely debunkers. I'd call them skepticists instead of just skeptics. Excluding all para-scientific possibilities. I am pretty skeptical myself when I look into or hear about any new claim, but I wouldn't want to be compared to them. Don't get me wrong, I think both are perfectly entitled to their opinions and they have done much good debunking real charlatans and frauds. But sometimes they just overdo it. IMO.

 

[Polterwurst]

I'm afraid even rationality is kind of a subjective thing.

If I have experienced things that seem to very strongly indicate that there are "things between the heavens and the earth" which are ignored by modern western mainstream science, would it be rational to just pretend they didn't happen?
Maybe it would be socially wise (in a skeptical environment like mine) but my own rationality says otherwise.These things happened, I heard those kids say these extraordinary things, show unusual behaviour, so I have to dig deeper.

If it's your opinion that none of this can possibly be true, because your rationality says so, that's fine. Believe it or not, a few years ago I was thinking along the same lines. But now I think rationality is just one way to see the world. As is scientism. They might be closer to the truth than most other world-views, but they might also fail to get the big picture.

 

[nameless]

are there film critics posing as film makers?
are ufos unidentified flying objects or flying saucers?

 

[5tomidnite]

are there film critics posing as film makers?
are ufos unidentified flying objects or flying saucers?

1st question - don't know

2nd question - unidentified flying objects

 

[5tomidnite]

I think we need to define the word "skeptic" in this case, because I don't think we're talking about the same. The people I call skeptics are those you might call debunkers. To me, Joe Nickel is a skeptic, is he a debunker to you? Same thing goes for Michael Shermer and James Randi - they are all skeptics in my book.

At first I had written this long response but at some point unbeknown to me I lost my connection to the server and was logged out. I couldn't post the response. Since then I took more time to consider what you wrote. I have to say Polterwurst has essentially responded for me. However what I should add is that I noticed you might have inadvertently answered my question. CSICOP or CSI as they now call themselves. Notice they dropped "Scientific" from their name. They are a good example of people circulating misinformation among the "skeptical community". The thing is that I actually applaud their desire to counter people from taking advantage of their fellow people using paranormal claims. That is noble. However the ends don't justify the means.

Keep in mind I'm going by what I've read about them, the million dollar challenge, and the things James Randi himself has said as well as things said by his followers.

 

[5tomidnite]

That's a hard question. It's been loudly proclaimed by believers for years that there are Government "Agent Provocateurs" mixing in with believers who tell wild and crazy stories so the general public would just dismiss ANY UFO researchers as crazy.
If that was the Gov's plan, it's worked marvelously hasn't it?
But for a believer to pose as a skeptic? For what purpose? What would be the gain? I'd be interested in anyones opinion about that.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a disbeliever. I realize I may not have been clear on that.

1st question - I'd say it worked. People may like to watch documentaries speculating about the subject or fictional works about it but where are the large masses demanding disclosure or the large companies with divisions dedicated to proving aliens exist?

2nd question part a) - to make the skeptics look stupid or ignorant same as it does to believers; part b) direct people to their cause.

 

[5tomidnite]

I think we need to define the word "skeptic" in this case, because I don't think we're talking about the same. The people I call skeptics are those you might call debunkers. To me, Joe Nickel is a skeptic, is he a debunker to you? Same thing goes for Michael Shermer and James Randi - they are all skeptics in my book.

I will define what a skeptic for the purpose of this thread. You are very right to point it out that a definition is needed.

For purposes of this thread I'm using Skeptic in the popular sense meaning a debunker ie.: someone who has already made up their mind that a claim about a fact or a situation is false so begin their research efforts with disproving the claim in mind.

Having said that my personal view is this:

- There are two extremes: the "true believer" (automatically believes the claim and nothing will sway them to the contrary) and the "true disbeliever" (automatically disbelieves the claim and nothing will sway them to the contrary)

- between them: the "skeptical believer" (tends to favor that the claim is true but requires proof before they actually accept it is true and will accept that the claims is false if shown by the evidence) and the "skeptical disbeliever" (tends to favor that the claim is false but requires proof before they actually accept it is false and will accept that the claims is true if shown by the evidence)

Regardless of which you are you have a bias towards one extreme or the other. However an actual skeptic just requires proof before coming to a conclusion either way.

I hope this response is better than the other I posted earlier.

 

[Wade]

That's about as good attempt to put a face on the definitions of skeptics and believers as I've seen.I was struggling to do the very same thing. Hope you don't mind if I reference it from time to time

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I will define what a skeptic for the purpose of this thread. You are very right to point it out that a definition is needed.

For purposes of this thread I'm using Skeptic in the popular sense meaning a debunker ie.: someone who has already made up their mind that a claim about a fact or a situation is false so begin their research efforts with disproving the claim in mind.

Having said that my personal view is this:

- There are two extremes: the "true believer" (automatically believes the claim and nothing will sway them to the contrary) and the "true disbeliever" (automatically disbelieves the claim and nothing will sway them to the contrary)

- between them: the "skeptical believer" (tends to favor that the claim is true but requires proof before they actually accept it is true and will accept that the claims is false if shown by the evidence) and the "skeptical disbeliever" (tends to favor that the claim is false but requires proof before they actually accept it is false and will accept that the claims is true if shown by the evidence)

Regardless of which you are you have a bias towards one extreme or the other. However an actual skeptic just requires proof before coming to a conclusion either way.

I hope this response is better than the other I posted earlier.

Thank you for clarifying this.

I would also argue that your examples may not necessarily be of a believer "posing" as a skeptic (or vice versa) but rather an example of either a profound ambiguity if not an absolute dichotomy between singular beliefs or thoughts. This is not an uncommon occurrence. I also suspect is even more common by those who have been trained to think - and only think - a certain way or following a certain line of logic yet find in doing so that this leads them to theories or ideas that they are not ready to accept. We have seen this happen in science and religion all the time, especially when one tries to overlap the other. We also see this in political discourse. It's part of the human condition and is generally at odds with truly critical thinking.

Unfortunately at this time, ANY discussion of the "paranormal" is automatically widely considered to be at odds with critical thinking, whereas I would argue that much of what is considered "paranormal" will one day be considered "normal" and backed by hard science. For this reason, I support scientific inquiry into the paranormal, even if those answers may be beyond what we are willing to accept. It also means I would like us to turn a critical eye toward those making paranormal claims.

 

[5tomidnite]

this is hard to answer. I saw a craft. I want to beleve. I want to keep an open mind but the evidence is not there. The evidence of my own own eyes shows that indeed a object of unusual make flew by. the evidence of my reseach and the help of others shows my thought that the object was human make has been borne out. the feild is ripe with fraud. there are those who's mental health must be challanged. and there are those who with to enrich themselves there might be those out there spreading disinformation and those who seek the truth. we must watch and judge for ourselves.

Yep...ultimately all we can do is judge for ourselves.

 

[5tomidnite]

That's about as good attempt to put a face on the definitions of skeptics and believers as I've seen.I was struggling to do the very same thing. Hope you don't mind if I reference it from time to time

Feel free to reference it. Shout it from the mountain tops if you'd like

 

[5tomidnite]

Thank you for clarifying this.

I would also argue that your examples may not necessarily be of a believer "posing" as a skeptic (or vice versa) but rather an example of either a profound ambiguity if not an absolute dichotomy between singular beliefs or thoughts. This is not an uncommon occurrence. I also suspect is even more common by those who have been trained to think - and only think - a certain way or following a certain line of logic yet find in doing so that this leads them to theories or ideas that they are not ready to accept. We have seen this happen in science and religion all the time, especially when one tries to overlap the other. We also see this in political discourse. It's part of the human condition and is generally at odds with truly critical thinking.

Unfortunately at this time, ANY discussion of the "paranormal" is automatically widely considered to be at odds with critical thinking, whereas I would argue that much of what is considered "paranormal" will one day be considered "normal" and backed by hard science. For this reason, I support scientific inquiry into the paranormal, even if those answers may be beyond what we are willing to accept. It also means I would like us to turn a critical eye toward those making paranormal claims.

Yeah I couldn't help but notice how poorly I worded my thread. But as Chris O'Brien says, the Paracast Forum is filled with brilliant and thoughtful people. Following that theory I hoped you would all get passed my writing shortcomings. You have from what I can see.

My essential thought on the matter is that we readily accept that on the believer's side of paranormal claims that there is dishonesty or misunderstanding in claims made. However when I listen or read things on the disbelievers side of the equation it seems that people accept whatever claim is made to refute the original claim regardless of how stupid or contrary it is when you apply a moment of critical thinking. I wondered if there are examples of disbelievers calling foul on "their own". You know here on the Paracast Chris and Gene won't just allow a guest to make a claim without calling them out on it or at least pushing for some kind of proof. On the skeptic podcast where the archeologist in my example made his claim about the bones neither host even asked him why we don't find more giant mummies if bone stretching is the case.

I have to say that I went looking for the podcast in question so I could post a link to it so people could judge for themselves or correct me if I've misinterpreted what was said. If anyone reading this can direct me to forums or podcast or any other medium where skeptics genuinely take themselves to task like here I would appreciate it.

 

[Randall]

Is it even possible to pose as a skeptic? Skeptics typically require evidence, and that evidence usually speaks for itself. So posing as a skeptic would end up leading any so-called believer down the same path as a genuine skeptic. Recently I seem to have found myself in this exact same situation, occupying the role of our resident skeptic. But at the same time, I also believe strange things do happen. So although it seems oxymoronic, it does seem possible to be a skeptical believer. I also tend to think I'm not alone. Here on the Paracast forum, the community seems far less polarized one way or the other, and capable of a depth of discernment that often moves us forward rather than merely entrenching positions.