• 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!

Bosley's Cop-out Antithesis

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

The Pair of Cats said:
I don't think that was what i was saying either. If you are someone reporting on an event whether you are a Cop, soldier or news reporter you will take into account the emotions prevelent at the time of any interview with witnesses or suspects. It's hard to fake true emotions (although some are very good at it).Your intuition or gut instinct will tell you whether you believe them or not. And it's your gut instinct that may lead you to finding the correct path to follow. Some of the best investigators in the world (police or otherwise) have finely tuned intuition or gut instincts and that's what makes them as good as they are.
Ask Don Ecker if his gut instinct came into play in any part of his life as a cop or otherwise.
Of course science comes into play here but what i'm advocating is a balance between science and emotion/intuition not a over reliance on either and in that respect i agree with trainedobserver.
Click to expand...

I wont disagree with any of that. But if you look closely at what you said you can see my point. I am absolutely certain that Don used emotion and intuition in his work as a detective. Every cop has a finely tuned BS meter. As I am equally sure that he never testified in court that the defendant was guilty because his intuition told him so and then offered no verifiable proof to back it up. That aforementioned BS meter severs as motivator to collect more information "scientifically" and/or testimony from verifiable and credible witnesses. I think the biggest point that Angel and I disagree on is that I am willing to accept consistent witness testimony as evidence (Angel, let me know if I am wrong) and he does not consider it reliable enough.

If I have the feeling Bob committed the murder but the fingerprints and testimony show that Sam did it, I gotta go with that physical evidence and eye witness testimony. I can then make a mental not to remember Bob for later.

Basically, evidence trumps emotion/intuition. I'll bet that Don had cases that there was no use of intuition at all. Sam's fingerprints, hair, and DNA matched so Sam did it. That holds up in court. No intuition necessary. But, the same can not be said for intuition. Evidence must be present.
 
Ron Collins said:
I wont disagree with any of that. But if you look closely at what you said you can see my point. I am absolutely certain that Don used emotion and intuition in his work as a detective. Every cop has a finely tuned BS meter. As I am equally sure that he never testified in court that the defendant was guilty because his intuition told him so and then offered no verifiable proof to back it up. That aforementioned BS meter severs as motivator to collect more information "scientifically" and/or testimony from verifiable and credible witnesses. I think the biggest point that Angel and I disagree on is that I am willing to accept consistent witness testimony as evidence (Angel, let me know if I am wrong) and he does not consider it reliable enough.

If I have the feeling Bob committed the murder but the fingerprints and testimony show that Sam did it, I gotta go with that physical evidence and eye witness testimony. I can then make a mental not to remember Bob for later.

Basically, evidence trumps emotion/intuition. I'll bet that Don had cases that there was no use of intuition at all. Sam's fingerprints, hair, and DNA matched so Sam did it. That holds up in court. No intuition necessary. But, the same can not be said for intuition. Evidence must be present.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with that Ron. My point of contention comes with the fact that humans are not infallible and we can't decide that something exists based solely on eyewitness testimony. Regardless of whether the witness is in the military or a gas station clerk, everyone can be fooled. I get frustrated when a UFO witness refuses to accept that what they saw could have a prosaic explanation. We need to accept that our mind can always be fooled - even experts.
 
These are three fantastic videos that correctly and succinctly present the skeptical/scientific viewpoint. It would be interesting to see similar presentations of the counter or "complementary" viewpoint. There are several other excellent videos on this fellows channel. Check them out.




The problem with anecdotes



 
Those are some great videos and explain skepticism and science perfectly. I would like to see how certain people here will counter point that.
It also reminds that sometimes I use incorrect terms to describe how I'm feeling. I have to remember not to say ghosts/alien abductors/ etc don't exist - I have to say that there's no proof that points to their existence.

Thanks Rick!
 
My son loves Alan Wake. He's been telling me for weeks to give it a try.

Comic Con became an annual thing for my son and I in 2004 and we've loved it every year. This year was one of the better years for us. Especially for me because my agent reps Neal Adams and Brian Pulido and I met both of them. The producer of the indie film being developed from my adventure pulp novel was there doing a documentary on the con and the best thing of all was the coronation of The Tilted Kilt as our new official Comic Con feeding and watering spot. Hooters just doesn't measure up anymore, boys. Also, my writing staff interviewed Bruce Campbell and some others so that was cool. That's why I get them press passes for them. I also met and talked business with Thelma from Good Times! She and Donna Summer were responsible for awakening my young interest in gals a bit more exotic than in my white suburban world, heh heh. Ultimately, even a weak year at the con is better than not going!
 
Yeah, I'm actually involved in the current development of a Neal Adams project with my agent, one result of my Comic Con business. I was on the phone much of today with it. I'm not even a comic book hero guy. I just know the guy with the money! :)
 
Ron Collins said:
No i do not think he acted inappropriately. I think the backlash was due to the number and diversity of the experiences and exacerbated by their more fantastical elements. That combination has always been aggressively challenged here. Not even Biedney was exempt from it as I am sure you recall.
Click to expand...

Now the dust has settled after the initial interview with Walter on the Paracast and the resulting threads, of which I was a part (and some of my own comments I cringe at on re-reading - why? Cos I was way too offensive really) I agree I felt at the time it was the number and diversity of experiences all at once in a single show. Since then I have listened to Walter on DMR, sometimes just hanging out sometimes anecdotes but examined gone into with a different approach, I don't feel quite the same as I did. For what it's worth I'd like to apologise to Walter for being so rude. I have reread The Old Straight Track (it is more to do with Watkins observations of Britains antiquities than energy lines, I still think the Ley Energy is random) but I've also started Reading Latitude 33 as on DMR Walter comes across as genuinely believing what he says and there are some fascinating stories.
 
Back
Top