Why a pair? Why not Eric the Red?
Why a pair?
The short answer:
A discussion of differences between skeptic/‘believer’ pairs might help reveal to a key target audience that “the” skeptical view as represented by movement skeptics doesn’t necessarily represent the scientific view of UFOs, and that those who believe this topic warrants serious scientific investigation aren’t any less rational than skeptics.
Longer answer:
I don’t have any expectation that some of these skeptics could be dislodged from their seeming dogmatism. But, it might be useful to hypothesize a ‘moveable middle’ of under-informed skeptics, open-minded academics, scientists not swayed by more dogmatic and ideological forms of skepticism, and the like. The goal then should be to nudge them away from ignorance and over-confident skepticism toward some kind of agnosticism or even probabilistic but provisional acceptance of the ETH.
As we know, many skeptics enter this discussion with the presumption of a rational defect(s) existing somewhere in the ufologist’s worldview. The assumption is that but for some fallacy committed by the ufologist, some systematic bias or soft-headedness that produces a distorting will to believe, the ufologist would be a skeptic on the UFO question—the only “scientific” view possible. I suspect that the assumption of faulty cognition on the part of ufo believers/investigators is one of the main reasons behind mainstream elite rejection of ufological research.
Why or how might this change with skeptic/ufologist pairings? I don’t know that it would, of course, but the forced juxtaposition of a debate might allow for more direct probing than the setup of hosts and a single guest. (It might also attract more open-minded skeptics when one of ‘theirs’ is in a potential debate.) I think Gene and Chris do a decent job of straddling the line between criticism and open listening and curiosity. But they do face the constraint that if they were too critical of guests this would deter future guests from coming on the show. Plus, however else they might specify their views on UFOs, they are not dogmatic skeptics. Because of these two factors the hardcore skeptics or those who have simply adopted the mainstream intellectual view on the UFO topic could easily convince themselves that the show is nothing more than an echo-chamber for believers.
So, I’m wondering if some of these pairings might not force such skeptics to confront the reality that their skeptical confidence isn’t so easily established, and that they need to take a more nuanced and complex view. These discussions/debates might entice a few open minded skeptics to investigate beyond the confines of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast or Skeptic magazine.
It is possible to be knowledgeable about the weaknesses of human perception, memory, judgement, reasoning, and the psychology of belief, and still come to the conclusion that this topic is worthy of serious scientific exploration. It’s one thing to have single guests speak on this topic, which has certainly played a key role in my education. But always in the background lurks official dismissal of UFOs. Let’s bring the most visible voices of official dismissal into a confrontation with its most articulate and knowledgable critics. Will these debates help move the UFO topic past the skeptic blockade? Who knows.
Why not Eric The Red? I’m not sure how much I have to add to what’s already been said by others. I’m a couple of years off, at least, from learning what I need to know to say more that’s worthwhile.
Well done! Very interesting.
I am loathe to 'parade' that as I'm not sure that is an interest of the majority on this forum. I'm also a skeptic when it comes to the paranormal and ufology. I'm sure Gene and Chris would vet us to see if we would fly in a radio interview for this constituency. Interesting idea. I'd be up for it under the right conditions but I'm more inclined to listen than talk myself.
