Top 10 Skeptic Tricks

[The Pair of Cats]

Phil, I have a ton of respect for you. You have always been a smart and even minded guy. But, I honestly don't understand the logic here. When people start lumping me in with the Tin Foil Hat Crowd or obvious whack jobs and then use it as a basis to discredit all of Ufology I get pissed. I take it personally and I ain't alone. How is it different for Angel or Lance. I have seen 5 posts today where people involved in flaying Lance and Angel for their treatment of Bosley and O'Brien use intentionally insulting and disparaging remarks about a particular person or persons they personally disagreed with or otherwise had low opinions of. Yet they do it and there is a huge backlash. It's not right. We should recognize that.

I stand by my comment Ron. Lance has been guilty of debunker style tactics. Angelo has reacted as if the "list" was posted specifically for him which seems to indicate a little guilt there.

I admit i have been guilty of Ad Hominem attacks myself. I don't think I am alone in that respect. In my case it is usually in response to someone's unwarranted attack on a guest or other forum member. I know that does not make it right but nonetheless it has happened.

Ad Hominem, on this forum at least seems to have a wide range when it comes to its application and reference to its use. It seems that if you disagree with someone and question their methods you can be accused of an Ad Hominem attack. In this sense I agree with lance. His use of the good old Ad Hominem is legendary. If you start an unwarranted Ad Hominem attack on someone (as lance did with Chris O'brien) then you should be prepared for a backlash as I'm sure lance was. As I would be if I had.
Don't get me wrong I am not condoning Ad Hominem tactics but I am not about to let it's unjustified use on someone slide on by either.
I don't think there is a problem with calling bullshit on someone for their remarks or actions if warranted. Although I agree with you, somewhat, that there is should be a limit as to how far you go in that respect.

Initially this whole discourse was started with the introduction of a list which describes what methods or tactics are or have been used by "sceptics" I think that the use of the word "sceptic" in this scenario is wrong and the word used should have been "debunker". But I also believe that if you truly understand the word sceptic then the list will not phase you because its descriptions of tactical use will seem foreign to you.
If Angel and lance are "true sceptics" in every sense of the description then they wouldn't feel so slighted . But some of their posts in this discourse indicate that they are not. Maybe for them it's like looking into a mirror.
Don Ecker has called them both out in a series of posts for their either badly worded posts or their outright debunker like tactics. And in lance's case his outright disrespect and bad manners.

It is also notable and commendable that both have appologised for their actions in this debate.

I realise, Ron, that as a moderator you have an functional interest in the smooth running and harmonious existance of these forums and I respect that! To that end you are doing a fine job!

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

I love how some folks think they are being clever by defining what a true skeptic is.

And for them the only acceptable skeptic is someone who believes in the paranormal!

It's like a white guy telling African Americans what they need to do to truly be black!

Lance

Then what is your definition of a true sceptic, lance?

 

[Walter Bosley]

I think the best skeptic is someone who, though they may not accept the paranormal, understands that others do. The best skeptic can be critically expressive at the described experience without being disrespectful to the experiencer. The idiot who got off the maturity train in junior high school is the one who attacks someone's character because they accept something the idiot doesn't. Just like how those who insist Roswell was an ET issue get so flared up at any other explanation. Same moronic behavior there. The point is, leave the emotion and insults out of the criticism and your skeptical viewpoint will get through better.

Yes, it works both ways, but the topic at hand happens to be the displayed behaviors of the naysayers. When the true believers act stupid and attack others, I'll speak out against them, too.

Signed,

Mister I Saw A Friggin' Goddess On A Mountainside And Simply Can't Provide Evidence

 

[Anaximander]

To me the evidence I have seen for UFOs (using the colloquial sense of the term) is quite poor. But I will keep looking.

Maybe you'll see one for yourself.

I finally saw one last year (after decades of looking), and I thought I was having a stroke.

The other witnesses joked that we were having a mass hallucination. Maybe we were....

 

[justcurious]

Just a though....

Assuming (for a moment) that there is an intelligence behind (some) UFOs;

Its elusive attitude, the fact that it always stays outside the reach of rationalism and thus will never be accepted by the majority of people whose paradigm is that everything can and should be expressed by numbers, could very well be intentional. Its irrationality acting as a sieve, a filter to sort the minds that are able to encompass its "para-rational" nature.

|
|
|
|

I hope this won't offend anyone...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

@Anaximander

I LOVE YOUR AVATAR!

It makes me want to hug you.

As a real skeptic all this description of what one is is sort of funny. Yes, one cannot rule out anything. But after looking at the evidence, I can assign in my own mind a probability of whether something is likely.

I have done so.

To me the evidence I have seen for UFOs (using the colloquial sense of the term) is quite poor. But I will keep looking.

Right now I assign the probability as very low. Near zero.

Lance

Lance just basically described the real skeptical movement that people like Shermer and Randi have pioneered. I can name plenty of skeptics that are part of it, but go to this site for a humourous take on it.

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Skeptic Trumps: James Randi

There's a list of names on the side under "skeptic trumps." Those are the people I consider skeptics. I know that most people here will call those people debunkers, and I'm fine with that.

@Phil
With regards to the list, I didn't feel that it was an attack on me, but more on the philosophy that I follow. What I find funny is I've seen similar lists from skeptics with regards to the Creationist movement. To be honest, most skeptics don't really fight the "UFO battle" anymore because there's nothing much to say. There's no real proof of anything, whereas when it comes to creationists and anti-vaxers we can put them in their place with hard core science.
I hope that explains my position. So unless someone specifically asks me to, I'll TRY to no longer talk about the skeptical movement, with the hopes of smiling and nodding when someone here gets it wrong.

 

[trainedobserver]

...
Mister I Saw A Friggin' Goddess On A Mountainside And Simply Can't Provide Evidence

I believe you. I know of no one who actually thinks you are lying or that requires any sort of evidence from you to accept that you saw what appeared to you for all intents and purposes to be a goddess on a mountain side. Without more information about what you actually mean by that in a metaphorical or theological sense its hard to say much about it beyond discussions on the peculiarities of human perception.

Do I believe in literal gods and goddesses? Not in the classical sense, however I do recognize the possibility that there are things, including possible non-human intelligences, that humanity through one means or another, has mis-labeled, or misinterpreted as such.

 

[Ron Collins]

Just a though....

Assuming (for a moment) that there is an intelligence behind (some) UFOs;

Its elusive attitude, the fact that it always stays outside the reach of rationalism and thus will never be accepted by the majority of people whose paradigm is that everything can and should be expressed by numbers, could very well be intentional. Its irrationality acting as a sieve, a filter to sort the minds that are able to encompass its "para-rational" nature.

|
|
|
|

I hope this won't offend anyone...

I think this is kinda what the trickster theory covers. The concerted and elaborate effort to disguise intentions and confound observation. From a tactics standpoint, that is the goal of every surveillance camouflage and concealment effort. Honestly, I haven't really worked out how I feel about this aspect.

Though it is through this avenue that you can link High Strangeness with UFO research. While I find the High Strangeness stuff interesting, it is precisely its lack of conformity or consistency that keeps me from really looking at it in depth. I guess I tend like my mysteries to be physical manifestations. Perhaps I need to expand my interests. It's just that I consider that a separate phenomenon from Ufology and as such seems a bit daunting.

You might want to start a different thread for this discussion. I think it might be a good topic.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I think this is kinda what the trickster theory covers. The concerted and elaborate effort to disguise intentions and confound observation. From a tactics standpoint, that is the goal of every surveillance camouflage and concealment effort. Honestly, I haven't really worked out how I feel about this aspect.

Though it is through this avenue that you can link High Strangeness with UFO research. While I find the High Strangeness stuff interesting, it is precisely its lack of conformity or consistency that keeps me from really looking at it in depth. I guess I tend like my mysteries to be physical manifestations. Perhaps I need to expand my interests. It's just that I consider that a separate phenomenon from Ufology and as such seems a bit daunting.

You might want to start a different thread for this discussion. I think it might be a good topic.

Maybe Dr Joe Nickell would be a good skeptic guest debate with Professor Stanton Friedman on a number of topics regarding Science and Ufology?

 

[CapnG]

To me the evidence I have seen for UFOs (using the colloquial sense of the term) is quite poor. But I will keep looking.

Right now I assign the probability as very low. Near zero.

Tentative Skeptical response #12: I haven't personally seen it, therefore it isn't real.

 

[Decker]

Thanks for the above, Phil.



In the end I thought about it and decided that Don is right about the ad hominem attacks and I am going to try to stop using them altogether. I am doing this because I think they weaken my arguments. And I think they are wrong.

I will leave it to others to decide what to think about the fact that Don uses such attacks all the time. They don't bother me and you won't find me self righteously demanding apologies from him or anyone else.

I gonna try to stick to the evidence and keep it civil.
I'm sure you'll still find me annoying.
Thanks,
Lance

Well, that may be so, but I would appreciate your pointing to which Ad Hominem attack you refer to.

Decker

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, that may be so, but I would appreciate your pointing to which Ad Hominem attack you refer to.

Decker

Well, you called Phil Klass an asshole and Carl Sagan disingenuous. I don't know much about Klass, but from having read and watched Carl Sagan,one of my personal heroes, I can say that he was one of the most genuine people to have ever been in the public eye.
Those are the two that stood out to me most.

 

[Walter Bosley]

My second wife called me an asshole a few times

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I'm just replying to the original post...I've not read everything in between due to time, so if I'm repeating, I apologize. Just link the paragraph that addresses this tactic, that I use frequently.

#11 - You're asking way too much of me to believe this. This isn't a matter of belief or paradigm, but when someone comes to me making said-outrageous claims with nothing more than anecdotal evidence, I have a hard time simply believing them just by word-of-mouth. I call to mind the "bridge for sale" analogy; If I walk up to someone looking to buy a bridge in New York and tell them I have a bridge for sale for a mere $3,000, are they going to believe me? Are they going to give me $3,000 site-unseen? Is there a bridge? Is it for sale? Is it really mine to sell? Are they going to call me a fool? Accuse me of lying about the bridge even though they've never seen it nor it's location? There are a lot of reactions and a lot of dynamics to every such claim.

If I wantonly believe, I'm considered gullible and mis-guided, most likely justifiably so. If I wantonly disbelieve (or sometimes, simply question the claim) I'm considered a debunker and a skeptic, again, perhaps, justifiably so. For me, it comes down to an individual choice based on the evidence that YOU present to ME and what each, individual piece of evidence weighs on MY scale.

The original post continuously referenced research into psi. Ironically enough, I did a research paper that asked the question, "Was Practical Application of Psi Ever Proven by the Field of Parapsychology?" I found pages of reference, each from several scientific, peer reviewed journals claiming the negative-result factor in which, on several occasions, those that conducted the Gansfield research admitted to discarding negative or null result tests, most times out of ignorance and not out of malice. It would appear that someone is lying; either the researchers or the papers written by the skeptics. You can't have both in this case. Even IF the null or negative results were not discarded, evidence of psi, or precognitive ability, was on such a low scale it was NOT considered 'practical' in any sense of the word. Meta analysis showed a statistical variance that was, very clearly, irrelevant in real-world scenarios. Something was there but it was so small it was insignificant and unimportant. That aside, I also stated several other medical and scientific articles for test results, most done with either virtual environments or fMRI's, in which there were 0 positive results for the existence of psi.

Of course, every bit of my own research and every evidence I gathered could be filtered through and discarded for this reason or that reason....or any reason listed on the original Top 10 posting. In the end, you're not going to convince a believer to question and you're not going to convince a skeptic to believe. Myself? I'm agnostic by the true definition of the word; such things cannot be proven nor disproven through current means nor technology, but if someone held a gun to my head and asked me, "Do(es) psy/ghosts/UFO's/Bigfoot/etc... exist???" I would reply, "No." I've never seen a bit of evidence to prove the existence of such things, but I've not seen evidence against such things, either, so I would fall back on my own DEFAULT experience that they do not. Does that make me confused or non-committal? To some, yes, it does. To me, no, it doesn't. It makes me a realist. If YOU believe you saw a ghost or a UFO, or a goddess in the side of a mountain, that's fine, but that doesn't mean I have to believe too, just because you worked for the CIA or whatever validation you toss in my face. I don't consider that enough validation to believe such a claim.

Does that make me a skeptic (one that's decision-confused?) I suppose if you want to get upset about my doubt, sure, but the positive side of skepticism is the ability to question everything, even open-mindedly. If you shut that down than you might as well go listen to Coast-to-Coast. Me? I'll continue to question, be doubtful, and cling to (some) of those Top 10 techniques, sometimes happily so.

One thing I will agree with is the disrespectful and disgraceful use of ad-hominid attacks by skeptics. Just because you don't believe in someone's story does not give you the right to call them crazy, stupid, or what-not, at least not without further proof of such (medical records?) Attacking someone personally for their claims of experience is one of the lowest forms of countering a claim I can imagine. Skeptics who do that are no longer skeptics; they're just assholes. Argue your point to the point you cannot or are not willing to argue any more, then move on, convinced or not of the other side. Just don't lower yourself to trying to bully someone into shutting up by attacking them personally. That just show's that you're the idiot at that point.

 

[Decker]

Well, you called Phil Klass an asshole and Carl Sagan disingenuous. I don't know much about Klass, but from having read and watched Carl Sagan,one of my personal heroes, I can say that he was one of the most genuine people to have ever been in the public eye.
Those are the two that stood out to me most.

Oh, okay. Yes, you are correct except in this case I can prove my assessment that Phil Klass was an asshole and Sagan was disingenuous concerning UFO research.

On Klass, did you hear the last interview I conducted on Jan. 25th (I believe that was the date) when he blew up screaming Bullshit - Bullshit - Bullshit and hung up the phone after I corrected him? Did you hear my debate with him on the Frederick Valentich UFO case and Klass called him a "drug-smuggler" because he had 4 life preservers on board his aircraft? Klass was not only an asshole but a world-class one.

Wikipedia Valentich disappearance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sagan I will go into later. Right now I don't have the time.

Decker

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Oh, okay. Yes, you are correct except in this case I can prove my assessment that Phil Klass was an asshole and Sagan was disingenuous concerning UFO research.

On Klass, did you hear the last interview I conducted on Jan. 25th (I believe that was the date) when he blew up screaming Bullshit - Bullshit - Bullshit and hung up the phone after I corrected him? Did you hear my debate with him on the Frederick Valentich UFO case and Klass called him a "drug-smuggler" because he had 4 life preservers on board his aircraft? Klass was not only an asshole but a world-class one.

Wikipedia Valentich disappearance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sagan I will go into later. Right now I don't have the time.

Decker

Alright, so it's okay to discredit everything they have ever done because of what you think of them. If you think that's okay, no problem. I don't agree.

 

[Decker]

Alright, so it's okay to discredit everything they have ever done because of what you think of them. If you think that's okay, no problem. I don't agree.

Angelo, this is a circular argument. I tell you the facts of why I assess someone like Klass and you make excuses for why he was a total turd. "He did good things .... he was a prince of a guy ... he wrote great skeptical books." Okay I got it .. I got it. As long as he is on your side of the aisle ... that's fine and cool .. no matter what a genuine jerk they guy was. (Ask Jim McDonald .. oh wait .. he is dead.)

Well, I guess I will always have Vienna.

Decker

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angelo, this is a circular argument. I tell you the facts of why I assess someone like Klass and you make excuses for why he was a total turd. "He did good things .... he was a prince of a guy ... he wrote great skeptical books." Okay I got it .. I got it. As long as he is on your side of the aisle ... that's fine and cool .. no matter what a genuine jerk they guy was. (Ask Jim McDonald .. oh wait .. he is dead.)

Well, I guess I will always have Vienna.

Decker

That's fine Don, although please don't make it look like I said things that I never said. I actually said that I didn't know much about Klass, other than I've heard that he did a lot for the skeptical community, but I certainly never said "he was a prince of a guy" or that he "wrote great skeptical books." You're putting words in my mouth and that isn't fair to me. However, I'll gladly say all those things about Sagan, any day of the week.

I just feel as though there seems to be a double standard there. God forbid I question the back ground of someone in the military, but it's okay for you to say Carl Sagan is disingenuous, using the fact that he was an atheist against him. What's wrong with being an atheist anyway? We're all atheists in one way or another, and as Richard Dawkins says, "Some of us just go one god further."

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Mr. Ecker and Mr. Ioren, I've noticed that you are both Moderators. You could, technically, ban one another.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Ask Jim McDonald .. oh wait .. he is dead.

Hi Don,

I don't have much use for Klass, although I agree with Angelo (and others, like Bruce Maccabee and Brad Sparks), that he did offer some things that were useful when it came to the UFO discussion. I also agree with you that he was an ass on far more than a few occasions.

And I also agree that what he did to Jim McDonald was way below the belt, and should forever tarnish Klass' reputation in the disbeliever / fundamentalist debunker ranks, if they were truly honest. But your implication that Klass was responsible for McDonald's death, if that's what you're doing (and it seems like it to me), is just as wrong-headed. McDonald had well-documented problems in his personal life that went far beyond his battle with Klass. His was a tragic case, but what Klass did and said was nowhere near the prime motivating factor for his suicide.

Paul

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Mr. Ecker and Mr. Ioren, I've noticed that you are both Moderators. You could, technically, ban one another.

That was hilarious! Thanks for that laugh.
I respect Don way too much to ever ban him, even if he wasn't a mod. He's done way more work in this stuff than I have ever done (I've done none), and just because I disagree with someone does not mean he doesn't have a valid point. I'm not sure if that makes sense.