New Show Topic: Calling all Skeptics & Part-Time Skeptics

[Burnt State]

I invite anyone on the Paracast forum that considers themselves to be a "skeptic," to band together and propose a roundtable episode on a topic of your choosing to be taped and broadcast on the show. YOU pick the topic—we'll supply differing viewpoints and moderate the dialog. Get creative naysayers , let's educate folks...

While i don't define myself as purely skeptic or believer but sometimes both, I think this is too good an opportunity to pass by. I am increasingly interested and appreciative of The Paracast's level of interactivity with its listeners and forum posters.

Given some of the history of intense conversation between skeptics and believers on this forum, the topic I would like to suggest is, "What, if anything in the paranormal realm, can be proved?" with a discussion on what constitutes evidence vs. individual, anomalous experience vs. skeptical interpretations. I would like to see it narrowed down to UFO's, but that's just personal preference, where agreed upon selected historical case(s) are brought forward, and roundtable proponents support or debunk evidence based on their research and skills. The goal is to arrive at saying something concrete about select cases, the value of skepticism, and what would qualify as not just strange, but perhaps something much more than that?

Valued roundtable participants along with hosts: Jerome Clark & Lance Moody

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Well Burnt State, I agree with you - I'd like it probably just about UFOs, otherwise it might take too long to examine necessary evidence if we are talking about all paranormal topics.

There are a few UFO cases I never hear the skeptics tackle, all though there are quite a few, my top one is probably the Japan Airlines/Alaska incident and the English Channel with Capt. Ray Bowyer - 2 very compelling reports apparently.

 

[boomerang]

Sounds like a great idea. I agree that limiting the scope of topics would help keep things focused. Hauling out some of ufology's best cases for debate might keep noise levels down and also prevent the attempt of some skeptics to disprove the validity of the phenomenon by citing only witnesses and evidence that has been discredited. I say, let everyone do their homework and bring it on !

 

[Muadib]

I'm not a professional skeptic or true believer so I doubt I'd be interested in participating in a debate about individual UFO cases. I've always said that I think there is something to the UFO phenomenon but I don't know what and I don't think anyone else knows for sure either. The skeptic side of me comes out more when people make claims that they don't back up, jump to conclusions based on shaky evidence, or on topics like conspiracy theories.

Having said that I hope everyone who does participate has a good time.

 

[Randall]

"What, if anything in the paranormal realm, can be proved?" with a discussion on what constitutes evidence vs. individual, anomalous experience vs. skeptical interpretations. I would like to see it narrowed down to UFO's, but that's just personal preference, where agreed upon selected historical case(s) are brought forward, and roundtable proponents support or debunk evidence based on their research and skills. The goal is to arrive at saying something concrete about select cases, the value of skepticism, and what would qualify as not just strange, but perhaps something much more than that?

The whole idea of evidence vs. individual anomalous experience is faulty because anomalous firsthand experiences are evidence, and there are scientifically valid reasons for accepting them as evidence. There is a thread that attempted to deal with the value of firsthand human experience as evidence ( posted here ). Given this particular issue, I submit that in the suggested debate, the parameters for "evidence" and "proof" need to be defined well in advance. If proof is to be limited purely to independent scientific verification of material evidence, then we have insufficient evidence and we might as well concede the debate before it begins.

If however we accept firsthand experience combined with reports made by credible witnesses that include such things as radar returns, then we're on a whole other playing field. But does it qualify as proof? In my view it does. In the skeptic's view it probably doesn't ( or at least shouldn't ). After all, the role of the die hard skeptic is to doubt everything no matter what the evidence ( including their own senses ) suggests.

 

[boomerang]

I will cut to the chase and say I would love to hear a point by point debate between Lance M. and someone like Peter Robbins or Robert Hastings. I think it would make for some very interesting programming.

 

[pixelsmith]

please find a skeptic that isn't lance. ick.

 

[Wade]

If it does involve lance anyone interested in wagering how long it will take before he resorts to using the word dumbass ?

 

[Burnt State]

This thread is really an offshoot of the show that Lance was on where he was entirely diplomatic & fairly courteous, as was Chris. Unlike the forum where insult seems to prevail I was really hoping hey were going to set onto a single case and chew it out in a similar courteous tone. So in my mind, Lance, or anyone talking the way he did on the show, works in this context. What I'd like to see ended is the debate that turns into yelling and insult - total time wasting.

It seems that the line between I know what I saw vs. I have another explanation for what you saw needs some burrowing into. I agree with ufology that some firsthand witness experience can be seen as evidence, but it remains anomalous. Individually witnessed events vs. multiple witnesses carry much more weight - I love the large mothership story that skirted across lakes and remote highways, witnessed by multiple people a various points in the Yukon - those types of cases deserve more consideration. The individual experience, without corroboration, remains as fantasy or a great story, unfortunately .

Independent science has also failed a number of times in its conviction of photos proven to be hoaxes, so what I'd like to hear between the skeptic and the proponent is a definition of what could be agreed upon as evidence of either non-human technology or non-human life forms at work in our midst. I think that a discussion around radar returns, trace evidence and other confirming elements could be combined with witness reports to perhaps establish a type of threshold that says something tangible. The skeptic is the person that needs to determine what a satisfactory threshold would look like.

 

[PCarr]

I have found that almost everyone considers themselves a skeptic on topics they dislike. The truth is we all have blind spots and confirmation bias. A real skeptic doubts himself first.

So, I consider myself a skeptic, and a REAL SKEPTIC, but maybe that is just one of my blind spots...

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I'm a skeptic action figure.

 

[Randall]

... It seems that the line between I know what I saw vs. I have another explanation for what you saw needs some burrowing into ...

Great post there because it is attempting to get a grip on the concept of what constitutes sufficient evidence, but I'm not really sure I have the right interpretation of what you mean by, "The skeptic is the person that needs to determine what a satisfactory threshold would look like." Is that a suggestion that skeptics should be granted the position of judging the validity of the cases? Or is it a suggestion that determining what a satisfactory threshold would look like, is what defines the level of a person's skepticism ( no matter who they are )?

While you're clarifying that, I'll comment on the issue of judging the validity of an experience. All experiences that humans have are personal and therefore nobody has purely objective judgment. Even the results from machines, which should be considered to be purely objective, are often interpreted in wildly different ways by different people ( e.g. statistical results ). In the end this question always boils down to the same thing: What's real and what's not. A convincing argument can be made that nothing is real and a convincing argument can be made that everything is real. Between these two extreme positions is where the skeptics like to play, and the more evidence is provided against their position, the more they deny that it qualifies as evidence. It's a very easy tact to take. It requires no real work. They can just sit back in their comfy chair and repeat the "show me the evidence" mantra over and over while moving the goalposts ever closer to the "impossible to prove" end of the field, while at the same time making the claim that they have no obligation to prove the negative.

But the reality is that their logic is flawed. They disguise this by making absurd allegories like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a teapot orbiting out in space someplace. But those allegories are flawed with respect to UFOs, and it's easy to see how flawed they are when we bring it back down to Earth. Suppose the teapot were on the kitchen stove as opposed to in orbit someplace. In that case the burden of proof is easy to take on in order to prove whether or not the teapot is actually there ( either of us could simply go look ). So Russell's Teapot allegory isn't exposing any fallacy of logic, but instead is entirely dependent on how easy something is to disprove one way or the other. When it gets too hard to disprove, skeptics invoke this allegory as if it makes some logical sense, but as we've just seen, it doesn't. It's simply a cop out because they don't want to do the work.

Keep in mind here that we're talking about UFOs and not some abstract entity in another dimension that is impossible to detect. UFOs are objects that are experienced and detected right here on Earth. So in the Russel's Teapot analogy, we just went from another dimension or orbiting Mars, to right here on Earth in this dimension, where they've been detected numerous times by witnesses and equipment. So the ufologists and the skeptics are actually on the same playing field, which makes the burden of proof equal on both sides. It's just as tough for a proponent to build a massive UFO detection network as it is a skeptic, but unlike the skeptics, at least the proponents have tried and found some evidence. By considering the totality of this evidence it is apparent to any reasonable person that UFOs ( alien craft ) are probably real. That may not be the same as knowing they are real from firsthand experience, but once we can accept that other people must know, then logically we also have no choice but to acknowledge the truth. This is why I make the point that there is a difference between being skeptical about UFOs ( alien craft ) in general, and being skeptical about individual cases. Skeptics who deny UFOs ( alien craft ) exist simply haven't done enough information gathering and study. If they have, then they're not skeptics, but deniers. However it is still entirely reasonable to remain skeptical about individual cases, especially new ones.

 

[PCarr]

The whole idea of evidence vs. individual anomalous experience is faulty because anomalous firsthand experiences are evidence, and there are scientifically valid reasons for accepting them as evidence. There is a thread that attempted to deal with the value of firsthand human experience as evidence ( posted here ). Given this particular issue, I submit that in the suggested debate, the parameters for "evidence" and "proof" need to be defined well in advance. If proof is to be limited purely to independent scientific verification of material evidence, then we have insufficient evidence and we might as well concede the debate before it begins.

If however we accept firsthand experience combined with reports made by credible witnesses that include such things as radar returns, then we're on a whole other playing field. But does it qualify as proof? In my view it does. In the skeptic's view it probably doesn't ( or at least shouldn't ). After all, the role of the die hard skeptic is to doubt everything no matter what the evidence ( including their own senses ) suggests.

I think proof is an extremely strong claim, implying logical inevitability or evidence so strong that it establishes something as a fact. I prefer not to use the word at all in this context.

Evidence for a hypothesis simply means that the some measurement or object we agree is correct is more likely if the hypothesis is true than if it is not.

http://disownedsky.blogspot.com/2012/11/stories-conjectures-evidence-and-proof.html

Because of the vagaries of human memory, which can be outright false, and the existence of people who just make things up all the time, and aren't even aware that they're confabulating, I take the experience of a single individual as very weak evidence at best, and more likely no evidence at all. BTW, as deputy director of Aerial Phenomenon Investigations, I interview UFO witnesses all the time, so this isn't pure abstraction on my part.

 

[Decker]

Because of the vagaries of human memory, which can be outright false, and the existence of people who just make things up all the time, and aren't even aware that they're confabulating, I take the experience of a single individual as very weak evidence at best, and more likely no evidence at all. BTW, as deputy director of Aerial Phenomenon Investigations, I interview UFO witnesses all the time, so this isn't pure abstraction on my part.

... and sometimes a cigar is just that ... a cigar....

Decker

 

[PCarr]

... and sometimes a cigar is just that ... a cigar....

Decker

Sorry, that's too subtle for me. What are you referring to, exactly?

 

[Randall]

I think proof is an extremely strong claim, implying logical inevitability or evidence so strong that it establishes something as a fact. I prefer not to use the word at all in this context.

Evidence for a hypothesis simply means that the some measurement or object we agree is correct is more likely if the hypothesis is true than if it is not.

http://disownedsky.blogspot.com/2012/11/stories-conjectures-evidence-and-proof.html

Because of the vagaries of human memory, which can be outright false, and the existence of people who just make things up all the time, and aren't even aware that they're confabulating, I take the experience of a single individual as very weak evidence at best, and more likely no evidence at all. BTW, as deputy director of Aerial Phenomenon Investigations, I interview UFO witnesses all the time, so this isn't pure abstraction on my part.

Good post, however what is implied by such statements e.g. "vagaries of human memory" is that there is some other completely reliable comparison upon which base our assessment. It further implies that this other thing involves some kind of data gathering mechanism other than humans. But when we look at the actual reliability of non-human forms of data storage we find that they too are subject to failure, faults, corrupted data, distortion, degradation and noise. Furthermore the instances of mechanical forms of memory having such problems are probably in the millions on a daily basis. I'm a PC tech so I'm not making any exaggeration.

My own memory and most people's I know has outlasted the countless numbers of hard drives and memory modules I've thrown in the recycle bin. What is often forgotten is that humans are amazing creatures and although we aren't perfect, we are actually more intelligent and efficient sensory input and recall mechanisms than any other thing on the planet. This isn't pure abstraction on my part either. It's backed by solid science.

Because of this situation, when we have a solid witness, we can consider their memory of events as good evidence, and often we don't need every last detail to be able to make a judgment call on what happened. Now all that being said, It also doesn't hurt to have corroboration from other witnesses and mechanical devices. The more the better. But let's not forget that there is a reason that when a ground radar picks up an unknown target they still want "visual confirmation".

 

[PCarr]

Good post, however what is implied by such statements e.g. "vagaries of human memory" is that there is some other completely reliable comparison upon which base our assessment. It further implies that this other thing involves some kind of data gathering mechanism other than humans. But when we look at the actual reliability of non-human forms of data storage we find that they too are subject to failure, faults, corrupted data, distortion, degradation and noise.

It is possible to perform reliable, ethical, repeatable experiments involving human memory that all responsible researchers will agree are methodologically sound, "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." You can take a Bayesian look at it, assigning a reasonable rate of error to the instrumentation (no good scientist would fail to do this), and the results are robust. No experiment has to be error-free to be valid.

What is found then? Human memory is unreliable, the accuracy of memory is uncorrelated with the certainty the subject feels about the memory, and false memories can easily be confabulated or implanted. There is a large literature on this.

 

[Randall]

It is possible to perform reliable, ethical, repeatable experiments involving human memory that all responsible researchers will agree are methodologically sound, "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." You can take a Bayesian look at it, assigning a reasonable rate of error to the instrumentation (no good scientist would fail to do this), and the results are robust. No experiment has to be error-free to be valid.

What is found then? Human memory is unreliable, the accuracy of memory is uncorrelated with the certainty the subject feels about the memory, and false memories can easily be confabulated or implanted. There is a large literature on this.

Another good post. And I have no argument with the information in and of itself. But you've completely glossed over the point of my last post. To be more concise: When we are making a comparison of what information to use in order to base an opinion, the implied case that the weaknesses of human memory are sufficient to make them worthless is simply not supportable. Although there are weaknesses in human memory, it is still usually very reliable, and there is plenty of evidence for that as well. It's just that the skeptics like to forget that part when it suits them.

Language is a prime example. With little effort we recall and use words from a database of thousands of words. Not only that we use them intelligently as a form of communication. It's also not uncommon for us to remember many more things perfectly well. Plus we have intelligent memory correction ability. When we are searching for the right memory we can often determine which one must be right based on cognitive association. We also have memory augmentation in the form of record keeping. These records are not subject to the problems that living memory has. So sure ... we're not perfect, but we're also far from useless.

However the downplaying of human ability is a typical approach of Skeptics, except when it works in their favor not to do so. For example, when someone brings up the idea that ancient humans didn't have the ability to create some of the artifacts associated with the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis, suddenly our frail error prone dim light bulbs of a brain become shining examples of the power of the human mind.

Returning briefly to the point again, when we are making a comparison of what information to use in order to base an opinion, and we compare the reliability of the human mind with the reliability of machines, we find that both types have flaws and are prone to errors, but that humans tend to outlast most of the devices so far invented. The vast majority of types, photos CDs, memory modules, paper and other common mechanical memory storage disintegrate or fail long before the average human lifespan.

Lastly, as you pointed out, every experiment has a margin of error, and that when using the scientific method that error is reduced as much as possible. Again, no argument there, but let's not suddenly move the goalposts all the way to the end of the playing field. Nobody is saying that written accounts of rare transient phenomena are as good as repeated experiments under controlled conditions ( although in some cased they could be ). The point is that the absence of that kind of evidence does not equal the absence of all evidence, and that when it comes to UFOs ( alien craft ), the remaining evidence, when studied carefully, is sufficient enough to make it reasonable to believe they are real.

 

[PCarr]

Another good post. And I have no argument with the information in and of itself. But you've completely glossed over the point of my last post. To be more concise: When we are making a comparison of what information to use in order to base an opinion, the implied case that the weaknesses of human memory are sufficient to make them worthless is simply not supportable. Although there are weaknesses in human memory, it is still usually very reliable, and there is plenty of evidence for that as well. It's just that the skeptics like to forget that part when it suits them.

Language is a prime example. With little effort we recall and use words from a database of thousands of words. Not only that we use them intelligently as a form of communication. It's also not uncommon for us to remember many more things perfectly well. Plus we have intelligent memory correction ability. When we are searching for the right memory we can often determine which one must be right based on cognitive association. We also have memory augmentation in the form of record keeping. These records are not subject to the problems that living memory has. So sure ... we're not perfect, but we're also far from useless.

I never said human memory is worthless. I rely on mine all the time, although I have learned to augment it when I require high reliability.

What we are actually talking about is uncorroborated human memories as scientific evidence, and I don't think the jury is still out on that - it is very weak evidence at best (likelihood ratio close to 1) and downright misleading in many cases. If you have dealt, as I have, with people who are fantasy-prone, you know their memories are a slippery path right down the rabbit hole. I have also dealt with completely normal people who get all kinds of important details wildly wrong.

Fresh memories are better, and corroborated fresh memories are better yet.

Best advice: if you experience something you think is anomalous, write it down or record a voice memo without delay. Report it to a competent investigator same day. If there were other witnesses, do NOT discuss it until you have written down all you remember.

 

[Randall]

I never said human memory is worthless. I rely on mine all the time, although I have learned to augment it when I require high reliability ... What we are actually talking about is uncorroborated human memories as scientific evidence, and I don't think the jury is still out on that - it is very weak evidence at best (likelihood ratio close to 1) and downright misleading in many cases.

Forgive me but I don't think that your calculation of the liklihood ratio to a value "close to 1" is based on any objective set of data. If so, then by all means point me to the calculations. In the meantime, the idea that uncorrorated data provided from memory can't be used in scientific studies is not supportable, at least not if you believe that statistics is a science. It's done all the time. If you're interested in a ststistical breakdown of UFO reports you might be interested in the study done back in the 1950s using USAF data ( The Battelle Memorial Institute Study ).

If you have dealt, as I have, with people who are fantasy-prone, you know their memories are a slippery path right down the rabbit hole. I have also dealt with completely normal people who get all kinds of important details wildly wrong.

Nobody will dispute that people can get details wrong. The issue is that simply because we can get it wrong doesn't mean it happens with such frequency or severity that we can't depend on the information our brain provides. There seems to be overwhelming evidence that most of the time our sensory input, intelligence, memory and recall works well enough for us to make decisions that are reasonably accurate. Given the trillions of decisions going on at any given moment on the planet, quantifying this statement in precise numbers is simply not possible, but we can still use some examples to illustrate the point beyond any reasonable doubt. Consider accident statistics:

Although we might be tempted to think that traffic accidents are a great example of why we get things wrong, according to insurance company estimates the average driver will only experience an accident once every 17.9 years. That means the average driver makes millions of decisions based on a combination of perception and experience before one thing goes wrong that is bad enough to cause an accident ... and even then the estimates aren't specific about who's at fault, only that claims are submitted.

There are other examples as well. I've already mentioned language and how we remember and use thousands of words daily. Let's add to that what we do for a living. As a really common example, speaking from personal experience, I used to work retail and when I first started I thought that the number of products was overwhelming, but it wasn't long before I knew whether or not we carried the product, and if we did, its location, price, and often times even its product ID. If you're old enough you might even remember the days before bar code readers when the grocery store clerk simply remembered the product and the price. And that's just for grocery store clerks. The list of examples goes on and on and on until at some point no reasonable person can deny that although we can make mistakes, our minds are quite simply amazing. Your blog says you're a space systems engineer ... my god ... that must make you a freaking genius ... you must know and recall and use a huge amount of complex data with precision ... very impressive.

Fresh memories are better, and corroborated fresh memories are better yet. Best advice: if you experience something you think is anomalous, write it down or record a voice memo without delay. Report it to a competent investigator same day. If there were other witnesses, do NOT discuss it until you have written down all you remember.

Your best advice is certainly sound advice an you come across as an very intelligent person with a sincere interest in knowing the truth. So all I would add is that it's also important not to be so focused on either the negative or positive possibilities that one or the other colors your entire view of a particular subject matter. Lastly, you've certainly kicked the discussion up a notch and it's really great to see people of your caliber posting here. I hope we see more. Now I have to go study-up on Bayesian probability theory ... thanks for that ( my brain hurts already ), and finish my updates on the USI website.