Ben Radford, September 7, 2014

[wwkirk]

In contrast, to Schaeffer, Mr. Radford was far more agreeable in tone. I don't agree with his take on everything, but I don't mind hearing him.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In contrast, to Schaeffer, Mr. Radford was far more agreeable in tone. I don't agree with his take on everything, but I don't mind hearing him.

He also is willing to admit when he's wrong. Chris and I found a few errors or omissions in the book, and when we called him on them, he agreed to make the changes in future editions of his book. That is, of course, if there are future editions, which is never a certainty for any title.

 

[Randall]

Good show and thanks to @Christopher O'Brien for asking my question. I really liked his story about the crystal skulls!

In response to my question about building bridges between skeptics and ufologists, Ben's point on beginning with what qualifies as evidence is an important issue, but I also think it's still putting the cart before the horse. First we should establish what kind of analysis are were going to use based on the nature of the subject matter. After all, a surgeon's scalpel might be a fine tool if we're in an operating room, but if we're going to venture into the woods, we might be better off with a Swiss Army knife.

I would submit that ufology is much better suited to analysis by critical thinking than the scientific method because critical thinking is the Swiss Army knife of critical analysis. It doesn't exclude any evidence that might help move us closer to the truth, it can be applied to a wider range of issues, and it is widely accepted by academics as a valid tool for establishing how reasonable it is to believe one thing or another. The scientific method alone makes it far too easy for skeptics to simply dismiss the UFO phenomenon based on a very narrow set of criteria. If we're going to make any progress, we need to have the goalposts in range on both sides of the playing field.

In the spirit of tackling the above and other challenges that ufology faces, I hope Ben takes up the invite to join the forum.

 

[technomage]

To echo what you're saying: If an event only takes place once in a while and it's unpredictable enough to not be reproducible, you can't use the scientific method. So does that mean the event never happened? No, it means the scientific method is limited and can't be used for every kind of phenomenon. There are certain pre-conditions, which aren't met with the UFO phenomenon.

As you said, you can still use logic though. You just need senses and a brain.

 

[Elendil]

Listening to Radford after Sheaffer was a real refreshment. Radford comes off as a reasonable and balanced person, I think that anyone seriously investigating these topics would benefit from a discussion with someone like him representing the more skeptical side - apropos the building bridges theme. People like that who are willing to examine the evidence with an open mind and then present their more skeptical-leaning viewpoint can be useful in highlighting certain areas the original researcher might have neglected, therefore helping to advance both the research and the field.

I think it would be interesting to see sort of a "Best UFO evidence" roundtable episode featuring someone serious like Chris Rutkowski and/or some other non-jello researcher(s) plus Radford acting as a skeptical corrective. I also salute the forum invite.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

He also is willing to admit when he's wrong.

Not sure if Skeptiko's Alex Tsakiris would agree with that...

http://www.skeptiko.com/transcript-69-psychic-detective/

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, he did with The Paracast and in a follow-up email.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Well, he did with The Paracast and in a follow-up email.

That podcast I linked involved a joint exercise between Alex & Radford re. psychic detective Nancy Weber. Radford claimed that both of the police officers involved in a case in which Weber was able to provide very accurate information about a murderer, had told him that the psychic had been somewhat vague about the provenance of the killer --i.e. that "he came from the South"-- because he wanted to prove his point that psychics often provide ambiguous information in order to 'improve their chances', so to speak. But when they had the officers on the phone, both were adamant that Weber told them the killer had come from Florida, where he had killed another man --which happened to be true-- and that they both told that to Radford.

And then in this follow-up episode Tsakiris provided a small clip in which Ben spoke about that same case in the podcast of fellow skeptic Michael Shermer (around minute 13:00) ; and there he went on to say that Nancy had told the officers the killer "came from the South." In other words, he misrepresented the information the psychic provided to the police investigators, which turned out to be incredibly accurate.

So, it raises the issue: How reliable are professional skeptics in recounting the facts about a particular case? How far will they be willing to go beyond the "party line", considering they've created their reputation on the basis of skepticism toward anomalous phenomena?

I agree that Radford was very amenable in this interview, and I have no doubt he's been able to debunk a lot of cases; but the articles I've read from him in Discovery and other sites have given me the impression that he goes for the "low hanging fruit" of paranormal cases; the ones that are easy to take apart.