Suggested Guests

[Rob]

BTW, I'm not saying that the current scientific method of inquiry has perfectly explained all UFO phenomena. That is exactly my point and why I thought it a good idea that Shermer would make a good guest. I am aware that he isn't a scientist himself, but that doesn't exclude him from understanding what science is and does. All I'm saying is that the scientific method, when employed correctly, is all we've got to honestly examine supernatural or paranormal claims. I can't help it if you don't want to hear the results.

Wow, what can I say? I really never expected to have a discussion with one of Shermer's 'cheer-leaders'. Do you agree with him when he states that trained pilots are no better observers than ordinary civilians?

Tell me, why does Shermer poke fun at those that consider the ETH to be a perfectly rational *possibility* to explain some UFOs? Is that part of the standard scientific method, to ridicule those that offer a hypothesis that you can't/won't accept even though you can't categorically rule it out?

Why is it unscientific to consider the possibility that some UFOs may be craft flown by an ETI? Isn't science about exploring possibilities? At what point can you rule out the ETH? An absence of proof is not proof of absence - isn't that a key rule of the scientific method?

There's nothing scientific in Shermer's approach - he's already ruled out the ETH.

Careful now, you're starting to sound like those you dislike. If you actually read what I wrote when suggesting Shermer, you'll see that I said he said some dumb things, like your trained pilots point.

A 'cheer-leader' for Shermer? Well, for one thing, my rather hairy unattractive and untanned legs won't look too good in a short skirt. If you're willing to finance a good waxing so that I may give it a go, then feel free to send the money. The other thing is that if you can't take a little ridicule about ET's, then I suggest you take a long walk and think through exactly what it is you want Shermer (or anyone else sceptical of such extraordinary claims) to ask of you.

Just because you may agree with someone on a particular topic doesn't mean you're their cheer-leader. If I agree with Hitler that it's a good thing to be a vegetarian, does that make me pro-Nazi? I think not.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Careful now, you're starting to sound like those you dislike. If you actually read what I wrote when suggesting Shermer, you'll see that I said he said some dumb things, like your trained pilots point.

A 'cheer-leader' for Shermer? Well, for one thing, my rather hairy unattractive and untanned legs won't look too good in a short skirt. If you're willing to finance a good waxing so that I may give it a go, then feel free to send the money. The other thing is that if you can't take a little ridicule about ET's, then I suggest you take a long walk and think through exactly what it is you want Shermer (or anyone else sceptical of such extraordinary claims) to ask of you.

Just because you may agree with someone on a particular topic doesn't mean you're their cheer-leader. If I agree with Hitler that it's a good thing to be a vegetarian, does that make me pro-Nazi? I think not.

Right, that looks like a diversion to me. Now could you answer my specific points?

 

[Rob]

Careful now, you're starting to sound like those you dislike. If you actually read what I wrote when suggesting Shermer, you'll see that I said he said some dumb things, like your trained pilots point.

A 'cheer-leader' for Shermer? Well, for one thing, my rather hairy unattractive and untanned legs won't look too good in a short skirt. If you're willing to finance a good waxing so that I may give it a go, then feel free to send the money. The other thing is that if you can't take a little ridicule about ET's, then I suggest you take a long walk and think through exactly what it is you want Shermer (or anyone else sceptical of such extraordinary claims) to ask of you.

Just because you may agree with someone on a particular topic doesn't mean you're their cheer-leader. If I agree with Hitler that it's a good thing to be a vegetarian, does that make me pro-Nazi? I think not.

Right, that looks like a diversion to me. Now could you answer my specific points?

I already have. I'll divert you back to re-read.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I already have. I'll divert you back to re-read.

I tell you what, I'll make it easy for you and list them again.

1. Do you agree with him (Shermer) when he states that trained pilots are no better observers than ordinary civilians?
2. Why does Shermer poke fun at those that consider the ETH to be a perfectly rational *possibility* to explain some UFOs?
3. Is it part of the standard scientific method, to ridicule those that offer a hypothesis that you can't/won't accept even though you can't categorically rule it out?
4. Why is it unscientific to consider the possibility that some UFOs may be craft flown by an ETI?
5. Is science about exploring possibilities?
6. At what point can you rule out the ETH?
7. An absence of proof is not proof of absence - isn't that a key rule of the scientific method?

Now you make it easier for me and show me where you answered each specific point. Thanks.

 

[Rob]

I already have. I'll divert you back to re-read.

I tell you what, I'll make it easy for you and list them again.

1. Do you agree with him (Shermer) when he states that trained pilots are no better observers than ordinary civilians?
2. Why does Shermer poke fun at those that consider the ETH to be a perfectly rational *possibility* to explain some UFOs?
3. Is it part of the standard scientific method, to ridicule those that offer a hypothesis that you can't/won't accept even though you can't categorically rule it out?
4. Why is it unscientific to consider the possibility that some UFOs may be craft flown by an ETI?
5. Is science about exploring possibilities?
6. At what point can you rule out the ETH?
7. An absence of proof is not proof of absence - isn't that a key rule of the scientific method?

Now you make it easier for me and show me where you answered each specific point. Thanks.

Lets make something clear, I don't know much of Shermer apart from a couple of interviews, a few videos and some articles he's written. I'm not his f*çking spokesperson. You seem rather more (ill?) informed of his views than I. What does that tell you?

As for the rest, you're guess is as good as mine. The point I'm trying to convey is lack of physical evidence. Peroid. No proof, nothing to examine. Until that shows up, sitting on our arses typing this stuff back and forth is kinda fun, but its getting old quick.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Lets make something clear, I don't know much of Shermer apart from a couple of interviews, a few videos and some articles he's written. I'm not his f*çking spokesperson. You seem rather more (ill?) informed of his views than I. What does that tell you?

As for the rest, you're guess is as good as mine. The point I'm trying to convey is lack of physical evidence. Peroid. No proof, nothing to examine. Until that shows up, sitting on our arses typing this stuff back and forth is kinda fun, but its getting old quick.

Hmmm. You still didn't answer any of my basic questions. Then you fob me off with the "I'm not his spokesman". I'm interested in your answers, not Shermer's - but I think it's clear to everyone that you have no intention of answering them.

But you're right about one thing, dealing with pseudo-skeptics who constantly dodge basic questions *does* get old very quickly.

 

[Rob]

Hmmm. You still didn't answer any of my basic questions. Then you fob me off with the "I'm not his spokesman". I'm interested in your answers, not Shermer's - but I think it's clear to everyone that you have no intention of answering them.

But you're right about one thing. dealing with pseudo-skeptics who constantly dodge basic questions *does* get old very quickly.

I'm afraid you may be embrassing yourself, and in public. Such statements sound like proof of your poor rationale.
I'll humour you though, for what my opinion is worth, which isn't much. No dodging is going on here.

"Do you agree with him (Shermer) when he states that trained pilots are no better observers than ordinary civilians?"
No - and yes. (I'll say it again, this was something I thought he said which was dumb). I do see his point though, humans can be mistaken, whoever you are. It's not black and white.

"Why does Shermer poke fun at those that consider the ETH to be a perfectly rational *possibility* to explain some UFOs?"
Euh, well, is Billy Meier's explanation perfectly rational to you? Well it is if you're completely off your head. What about the less ridiculous (insert other ETH explanation of UFO's here) claims? Well, until you've got the proof, I suggest you grow a thicker skin.

"Is it part of the standard scientific method, to ridicule those that offer a hypothesis that you can't/won't accept even though you can't categorically rule it out?"
Pretty much the same question as above. I'm assuming you don't buy the Meier case, but can you categorically rule it out? Besides, your question is more of a personality thing about Shermer. Ask him. I would say no, but as my mother says, if you don't laugh, you'll cry.

"Why is it unscientific to consider the possibility that some UFOs may be craft flown by an ETI?"
Again, anything goes here until proof is found. If you mean that Shermer says it's unscientific that this is possible, then I don't know that. If this is what he's saying, then that's why he'd make a good guest, right?

"Is science about exploring possibilities?"
Absolutely. So is science fiction, mind you.

"At what point can you rule out the ETH?"
Why are you asking me this? I'd say, whenever you feel like it. Or when an alien tells you it's bs (joke).

"An absence of proof is not proof of absence - isn't that a key rule of the scientific method?"
Are you saying I lack imagination? We all need to keep those logical fallicies in mind when talking about the scientific method.

I hope you don't feel fobbed off now. See, we're not all that different in opinion after all.

It's Friday night and I'm off down the pub!

 

[Rick Deckard]

I hope you don't feel fobbed off now. See, we're not all that different in opinion after all.

It's Friday night and I'm off down the pub!

You're right, we're not that different after all, although my main point was about accepting the ETH as a *possibility* - if Shermer accepts the *possibility* then why is he ridiculing others that also accept the *possibility*. If he doesn't accept the possibility, then how can he square that with applying the scientific method?

Yes, we all want proof, but if the 'scientific community' isn't looking for it because they've dismissed the ETH out of hand, then no proof will ever be found - remember John Greenewald, Jr's anecdote on the last paracast about meeting the scientist on the plane. She said ETIs don't exist because if they did she would have heard about it.

When you have a few minutes, read this short article about how the scientific community refused to believe that the Wright brothers had invented a 'heavier-than-air flying machine'. They wouldn't even go and see for themselves - they were so arrogant as to believe they knew best.

I do accept that BM *could* be telling the truth about his experiences, but one should look at the *probability* that he is lying. A lot of his photos that he claims are authentic are obviously fakes - this reduces the *probability* that he is telling the truth.

There are too many people in this field who claim that they are skeptics but who categorically rule out many possibilities - I think Shermer is one of those people and since you appeared to be agreeing with his opinions, I didn't see anything wrong in asking you to clarify your position. I want to know what it is that makes people think this way - I feel it is an important aspect of the whole UFO debate.

It *might* be interesting to get Shermer on the show, but when you ask someone to step outside of their 'comfort zone', they often dodge the difficult questions - see the Michael Horn paracast shows for a prime example.

 

[Rob]

Let me just say that since the niche being carved by The Paracast is increasingly skeptical of subjects and interviewees that don't fall into the "comfort zone" of the hosts (that's a good thing), that at least the shared concept of rational critical analysis that is often employed on the show could create enough commom ground between Gene, David and Michael Shermer to make for an interesting exchange. From that starting point (even if you may not agree on the particular flavour of skepticism), you would expect that the questions you're asking of Shermer would most probably be asked by David or Gene. I seriously doubt that anybody would be staying in any comfort zone. The concept and practice of skeptical inquiry within ufology will, until proof, always be a rough ride, so why not confront the beast head-on and get Shermer on the show?! If he's happy enough to go head-to-head with Stanton Friedman on C2C, I'm sure little ol' Paracast won't scare him...

I read your linked article, the difference being that these were critics of inventors and inventions, not paranormal/supernatural claims, but sure it's obvious that scientists can be arrogant, short-sighted and wrong, but the point is that Science is a methodology. I urge you to read these explanations of how to argue and logical fallicies here.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I urge you to read these explanations of how to argue and logical fallicies here.

I've seen this before in other articles. Yes, it describes a 'way of thinking', but it mustn't be held up as the *only* 'way of thinking'. A tactic of pseudo-skeptics is to say that ETIs can't be here because the distances between star-systems is too great, when what they really mean is that the distances are too great for *us* - they hold up the sum of our scientific knowledge and understanding and make their minds up based on the assumption that we fully understand how the universe is organised. The 'scientific method' and the ready-made procedures defining 'how to think' lock them into that way of thinking.

Now, I'm not saying throw away logic or critical thinking, I'm just saying that science mustn't write off ideas simply because they don't have an equation to describe it or that it breaks some other well established 'model' - see 'dark matter' and Newton's theories on gravity.

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Personally, the problem I'd have with having Shermer as a guest is that he's not someone who has waded through years of investigation exploring the subject of ufos and finally come to the conclusion there is nothing to it, rather he is a "true believer" in not believing. His mind is made up from the start, and he has no respect for people who think otherwise. In fact, from what I've read, Shermer is not all that knowledeable about the topic to begin with.

If the guys want to have on a ufo skeptic, I would prefer they find someone who is well versed in the history of ufology and all the major cases. Yea Shermer is perhaps the most famous professional skeptic, but I don't think he contributes anything to our understanding of the phenomena (not that people like Horn or Greer or Sereda add anything useful - well I take that back, a lot of the Disclosure witnesses have been very enlightening)

It occured to me that a great guest to have on, if Michio Kaku is not available, would be some other physicists/scientists who are experts in areas of cosmology, string theory, the nature of time, quantum theory etc.

A guest like that would be great becuase it would help shed some light on all the pop-science you hear thrown around ufology about time travel, faster than light travel, other dimensions etc.

People constantly throw out "Oh they might be from another dimension" or they "travel through other dimension" without really knowing what that means. From what I've read, certain theories do postulate additional dimensions exists, but they have nothing to do with what people think. Those hypothetical dimensions are wrapped tightly at a quantum scale and have no real relevance to the macro scale physical dimensions we exist it.

Likewise, while there is a a quantum theory that stipulates reality does split off into parallel planes of existance (the Everett Many Worlds Interpretation) I've never seen any theories that discuss if those realities can mix or intertwine..

Time travel is another much loved ufo topic - a legitimate expert on the subject of time might be a great guest. I'm not talking about self-proclaimed kooks, but actual credited experts at major univerities. Lets hear what a guy at Cal-Tech or MIT has to say about time travel or alternate "dimensions"

 

[nikki630]

I realize the chance of this happening are pretty slim, but how about Richard Dawkins as a guest.

Before I get jumped on, let me explain. On many shows of the paracast, the idea of a god-force is brought up in one way or the other, as well as David mentioning that it is perfectly OK to believe in the "god-myth" but UFOs are considered to be just silly.

I think Dawkins could give some much needed scientific perspective on the god-myth.

Just thinking

 

[BrandonD]

I realize the chance of this happening are pretty slim, but how about Richard Dawkins as a guest.

Before I get jumped on, let me explain. On many shows of the paracast, the idea of a god-force is brought up in one way or the other, as well as David mentioning that it is perfectly OK to believe in the "god-myth" but UFOs are considered to be just silly.

I think Dawkins could give some much needed scientific perspective on the god-myth.

Just thinking

Richard Dawkins is a bulldog for the religions of darwinism and atheism. One tell-tale sign of a religion is that you can reasonably assume a person's stance on nearly every other subject based upon their allegiance with that particular ideology.

In short, I'd be willing to bet $$$ that he doesn't give credence to a single paranormal subject, so what use would he be on the Paracast? If someone wants to hear a "scientific" perspective on god that's fine, but that would fit alot better over at the Atheicast.

 

[nikki630]

Richard Dawkins is a bulldog for the religions of darwinism and atheism. One tell-tale sign of a religion is that you can reasonably assume a person's stance on nearly every other subject based upon their allegiance with that particular ideology.

In short, I'd be willing to bet $$$ that he doesn't give credence to a single paranormal subject, so what use would he be on the Paracast? If someone wants to hear a "scientific" perspective on god that's fine, but that would fit alot better over at the Atheicast.

I suspect you are right in saying that he gives little credence to anything paranormal and that would fit in with his Atheism. My point is that the god-myth itself is paranormal and that much of what we hear on the Paracast calls on this belief. I think having someone on to discuss those beliefs fits in very well with the show's premise.

There have been other guest on the Paracast that have only a passing association with the paranormal, so that should not dismiss him as a guest. I still think it would be an interesting discussion to hear Gene and David interview him.

Of course this is pretty much a moo point, as much as I admire and respect Gene and David, and as great I think their show is, the likelyhood of Richard Dawkins being on the program is pretty small.

 

[ondafritz]

Just wondering if anybody has mentioned Stan Gordan. Also known as Mr. Kecksburg?

Stan is a Pittsburgh area Ufologist and cryptozoologist. Stan knows more about Kecksburg than anyone. I've heard a few interviews with him and he seems to be a good listen. I don't know the guy but I could send him an email to see if he would be interested.

 

[BrandonD]

Just wondering if anybody has mentioned Stan Gordan. Also known as Mr. Kecksburg?

Stan is a Pittsburgh area Ufologist and cryptozoologist. Stan knows more about Kecksburg than anyone. I've heard a few interviews with him and he seems to be a good listen. I don't know the guy but I could send him an email to see if he would be interested.

That would be awesome, I still remember being in high school and seeing the Unsolved Mysteries episode about Kecksburg. I'd love to hear more about it.

 

[Poi]

Dr. Gary Schwartz is one of my favorite interviews. The guy is willing to test anything paranormal and talk about his findings. He's enthusiastic and yet, he believes other scientific venues should conduct tests to verify or debunk.

 

[Goody]

*Riley Martin
*Linda Moulton Howe
*Lou Gentile
*Charles Hall
*Travis Walton
*Bill Chalker
*Mary Rodwell

 

[tommyball]

If Riley Martin gets on this show, it should be taped for Comedy Central.

Gene, David and Riley... that's comedy gold.

-todd.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

If Riley Martin gets on this show, it should be taped for Comedy Central.

Gene, David and Riley... that's comedy gold.

-todd.

David is the comedy genius in our little organization. Howard Stern can keep Riley