I've listened to the main show twice today. Don Ecker is always a lively and enjoyable raconteur. His appearances are frequently my favorite episodes. He provides a valuable public service by unequivocally calling out the frauds and hoaxers. I am just gutted that I wasn't able to participate in this show!
Chris mentioning Greg Bishop's new mantra "Do Not Engage," and Randall's subsequent observation that people's beliefs aren't rational but are almost totally emotionally-driven was spot-on. We only need look at our current political climate for definitive proof. On a related note, it also smacks of "Confirmation Bias."
The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.
The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.
There was a fair amount of talk about "debates" on the show. I don't know how realistic this suggestion is but it would be fantastic if occasional future episodes of The Paracast, or maybe the more free-wheeling, uncensored After The Paracast, would feature two (or more) qualified guests that would debate some of the more hot-button or disputed issues in the UFO and/or paranormal fields. Other podcasts I listen to have occasionally featured episodes where multiple guests have an informed, respectful debate on controversial UFO, paranormal or "alternative history" topics. I realize that many guests might be reluctant to defend their research, positions and beliefs in a public forum but anyone that operates with intellectual honesty should be willing to step into the arena and vigorously defend their ideas. Again, I understand it is easier said than done to book those type of guests but it would make for an interesting and educational show. For me, it ties in to what Chris O'Brien was saying about the futility of changing people's minds (so do not engage), it's almost impossible to achieve that by just talking at someone from one side, but listening to a well-argued debate can, in some cases, be persuasive. Hearing a "point/counter-point" discussion is often very illuminating. Often I'll listen to a guest or a speaker and think, based on my limited knowledge or understanding of the subject being discussed, that the person makes a lot of sense, and then I'll see follow-up comments in the forum expressing differing interpretations, or opposing information, that gives me a more informed understanding of the topic that was initially discussed, which ultimately may give me a completely different take-away than my early understanding from the original discussion.
I must also admit, my self-aware personal bias definitely leans towards "I want to believe," and the subsequent viewpoints that generally entails, though in large part thanks to The Paracast I am no longer the ETH proponent I was 10 years ago, and I sometimes get frustrated at Randall's dogged pragmatism and level-headed skepticism, but if I am being completely honest, I appreciate his approach, regardless of whether I always agree with him or not, because it makes me a better thinker about the subjects discussed and keeps me intellectually honest by making me frequently check and acknowledge my own existing biases.
, so I hope that my comments were taken in the spirit they were intended.
.