October 13, 2013 Shop Talk

[billmodlinwnc]

Actually, Ufology, Ford is an excellent example. So is Bill Gates, someone else I think might raise your bile. They saw that there was only one way to proceed, not nessesarily with their product, but with their model. I firmly belive the only way any of this is going to proceed is with observation through technical means. After that achives it's goal, reaching a tipping point in public acceptance of the existance of the phenomena, then the other things we desire like congressional hearings will occur. But first you must answer the age old question, "Where's the beef".

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Further to a point made above by Burnt State - I'd love a show, or part of one, in which former skeptics are interviewed. That is, people who were totally skeptical of the UFO or other paranormal phenomena who went onto have an experience that made them completely change their minds.
It could be a good UFO sighting, an apparition, BEK, bigfoot etc.

 

[FletcherMunson]

On the flip side, I would like to hear a show with someone who was once a believer, but who is now a skeptic. In my opinion, this sort of interview would be more informative and not just simply confirm a belief system. It could offer a chance to take a real look at the "field", and its shortcomings.

Also, shouldn't everyone be a skeptic, even if they have had an experience?

 

[Randall]

On the flip side, I would like to hear a show with someone who was once a believer, but who is now a skeptic. In my opinion, this sort of interview would be more informative and not just simply confirm a belief system. It could offer a chance to take a real look at the "field", and its shortcomings.

Also, shouldn't everyone be a skeptic, even if they have had an experience?

When it comes to skepticism, it all depends on where you draw the line between what is reasonable and what isn't. Friendly constructive skepticism is a valuable tool. Using that tool to beat others over the head and embarrass them is another matter, and I've seen both kinds in action. In other words there is a point where it's reasonable to believe some things even if they haven't been scientifically approved and distributed to the masses.

 

[FletcherMunson]

When it comes to skepticism, it all depends on where you draw the line between what is reasonable and what isn't. Friendly constructive skepticism is a valuable tool. Using that tool to beat others over the head and embarrass is another matter, and I've seen both kinds in action. In other words there is a point where it's reasonable to believe some things even if they haven't been scientifically approved and distributed to the masses.

To me, real skepticism is never used to "beat others over the head and embarrass". I've always considered that to be debunking.

In my mind, true skepticism is the most desirable mental framework, because it is a flexible approach that allows me to look at the elements of a subject and consider possibilities without coloring those possibilities in with belief.

I feel like belief is just as detrimental as debunking to any subject.

In fact, in my personal opinion, belief and debunking are the major problems in the UFO field. Many believers tend to rush to paint the picture before they finish drawing it. And, once that is done, the believer becomes just as rigid as the debunker.

The tendencies to believe or debunk are understandable. After all, the UFO picture may never be completely drawn. And, it's comforting for believers and debunkers, alike, to feel that they have the answers.

The problem with both sides is once these people feel the questions have been answered, they stop asking real questions. I mean, once you believe that UFOs are ETs, then there is no use in considering something like Persinger's work as anything but debunking, because it does not involve an alien body or wreckage.

Likewise, once you come to the conclusion that all UFO experiences are mass hysteria or hallucination or misidentification, then you can't possibly consider books like Albert Budden's works as anything but pure fantasy.

Of course, none of this is new to any member of this forum. I'm mainly just clarifying my previous, horribly incomplete post. But, sometimes, I do feel that the terms "skeptic" and "debunker" are lumped together a bit too liberally when addressing the UFO subject.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

On the flip side, I would like to hear a show with someone who was once a believer, but who is now a skeptic. In my opinion, this sort of interview would be more informative and not just simply confirm a belief system. It could offer a chance to take a real look at the "field", and its shortcomings.

Also, shouldn't everyone be a skeptic, even if they have had an experience?

Yes indeed - and why not both come to think of it? People who have had complete 180's in their thinking related to the paranormal. I think there is a good show in that somewhere?
What say you?

 

[Randall]

Yes indeed - and why not both come to think of it? People who have had complete 180's in their thinking related to the paranormal. I think there is a good show in that somewhere?
What say you?

I don't see why a person can't be both a believer and a skeptic. I consider myself to be one such person when it comes to UFOs ( alien craft ). So far as I'm concerned UFOs are as real as airliners, and I'm not skeptical about the reality of airliners. Though I might be skeptical of individual claims about the observations of particular UFOs and airliners. In other words belief and skepticism aren't mutually exclusive. Skepticism is simply an attitude that should provoke further inquiry before beliefs about things become part of our worldview.

So maybe what you're really looking for is someone who was once a believer but instead of now being a skeptic, has gone all the way to being a denier.

 

[Randall]

To me, real skepticism is never used to "beat others over the head and embarrass".

I agree with you, but try telling that to some of the people over at the JREF.

I've always considered that to be debunking.

Actually I think debunking can be as constructive as skepticism. All that is required is for the facts to be true. When it comes to abusing skepticism or debunking, I think it moves away from what you call "real skepticism" or debunking and into intellectual and/or psychological bullying. When online it's no less than cyberbullying. When it doesn't go as far as bullying, but is no longer skepticism, then it's often manifests as outright denial based on offhanded dismissal. So the most accurate description IMO is that we have UFO deniers, and cyberbullies posing as skeptics and debunkers. Mind you there are also those who we hear called the "true believers" who can be equally as bad. So the behavior is not something unique to skeptics. Lastly we have a sort of gray zone where discussion can become somewhat tense or heated and take on an undesirable aura, and yet not be either offhanded denial or cyberbullying. That's the zone where moderators hone their skills at being fair judges of what's happening.

 

[fahrusha]

As I was listening to this episode, specifically the part about cameras and hope for better UFO photos, I noticed a small but glaring oversight in the discussion. Many folks have reported that in attempting to take a UFO photograph their cameras did not work or their batteries were mysteriously drained. I believe I even heard Christopher O'Brian say as much on a different episode or show. Certainly that should have been mentioned as a factor.
I'd agree that many people can not or do not want to take their eyes off what may be a transient phenomena long enough to fumble for their camera or run inside to get it.
Thanks also to Gene for the explanation of pixels and the new iPhones. Wish I had one.
Fahrusha

 

[storge]

One must be a skeptic and and open to observation at the same time, critical and receptive, as we all are, some saying it is a function of the two hemispheres of our brain, sort of a two-in-one deal.

On the other hand, excessive skepticism and debunking can be fun and even instructive, if not taken too seriously after the deed is done. I'm thinking about Dave McGowan's Moon Doggy series, wherein he casts doubt, uncertainty and aspersions upon the moon shots. Is Hoaxland hallucinating entire integalctic civilizations in single pixels? Is Jay Weinder hallcuinating glass-bead-game screens in Apollo footage and cryptic alchemical explanations in Kubrick's films? Weidner represents the fun and instructive side of excessive belief, perhaps. Or is it skepticism taken to unprecedented levels?

I think DoD and DOE specifically have kept long-standing secrets which haven't leaked and which are only spoken of in code even by people in the know. At the same time, I think they, the secret keepers at the top, realize that "two people can keep a secret, so long as one of them is dead" is true in the long run. And in the long run we're all dead, and hence many secrets will be kept forever, as they always have been. Don't kill the messenger with a plasma cannon, I'm just sayin.

I'm commenting here because I think it was in this episode that Gene mentioned another paranormal internet radio show attacking the Paracast, and I'd like to know more, if it isn't a big secret. Who are these jerks and where can I complain?