UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

[Randall]

Do you actually sleep, ufology ? Just wondering ..

I try ... really I do . Actually, I often leave my system running and logged in while I'm sleeping, but it's not uncommon to find me awake at 2 or 3 am.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Excellent points above...sure to be lost upon the deluded and pious UFO buffs.

Thanks, Lance.

I think we're all paranormal and/or UFO buffs, here. Why else would we take time to write all this stuff? We all get something out of these stories -- be it entertainment value, believer support, or healthy debate -- and around that "something" we all make up a diverse collective. Even the "deluded and pious" fellows have a valuable place; without them, how would debates ever get heated and exciting? Every person in this forum, even the skeptical, have a place in the greater paranormal scene. Regardless of how each person experiences their particular interest in the paranormal, there always seems to be a lot of room and opportunity for good conversation, awesome stories, critical observation and, ultimately, friendly community.

 

[Burnt State]

 

[Burnt State]

Thanks, Lance.

I think we're all paranormal and/or UFO buffs, here. Why else would we take time to write all this stuff? We all get something out of these stories -- be it entertainment value, believer support, or healthy debate -- and around that "something" we all make up a diverse collective. Even the "deluded and pious" fellows have a valuable place; without them, how would debates ever get heated and exciting? Every person in this forum, even the skeptical, have a place in the greater paranormal scene. Regardless of how each person experiences their particular interest in the paranormal, there always seems to be a lot of room and opportunity for good conversation, awesome stories, critical observation and, ultimately, friendly community.

Irrationality has always been a feature of the UFO phenomenon. This thread started out as an examination of how irrational the debunker can get. And while not to draw any parallels, I still can't help but notice how the posts from the usually rational & sometimes irksome debunker, Lance Moody, have mysteriously gone missing. It is a feature of a forum this big; the older labyrinthine digital space has many odd nooks and crannies. Prophet of Occam, a missing member or diminishing absence, has an excellent discussion with ufology that really twists this thread out of the theatrical role Bob Lazar has played, another irrational character from UFO lore, and towards this excellent coda above.

I suppose the reason for continung to post here is encapsulated in the Prophet of O's last line. No matter the experience there is always a good story to hear, tell or dispell. Some say it's irrational to believe in UFO's. But then the study of high strange UFO cases promotes the notion that the UFO itself belongs to the domain of the irrational. An answer without a question perhaps, instead of the many questions we keep asking & no answers anywhere close in sight. Irrational thinking was always rejected historically, yet all acts of creativity involve irrational acts of metaphor; it invokes the magician, occult UFO ritual craft, a kind of witchcraft this whole paranormal UFO thing. Is it about changing how we think, I keep asking myself. Is it a creative agent?

 

[stonehart]

Nice post Burnt State .. For me rational or not one should not "believe in" anything but take the stand of I will accept things as they stand until further evidence says otherwise (hell I even take this stand with accepted scientific principles).
In all things UFO (even after having had a few good sightings myself) I keep a healthy level skepticism on the subject but I am not a skeptic in the classic sense it just pays to take all things with a grain of salt ... as I have always said here "I want to know not believe" a totally different mindset to many who are true believers (understatement there).
In the end one must accept the truth for what it is even if we don't like the outcome.. the truth is simply that and no amount of stamping of feet and putting ones head in the sand will change it.

 

[Randall]

Nice post Burnt State .. For me rational or not one should not "believe in" anything but take the stand of I will accept things as they stand until further evidence says otherwise (hell I even take this stand with accepted scientific principles).
In all things UFO (even after having had a few good sightings myself) I keep a healthy level skepticism on the subject but I am not a skeptic in the classic sense it just pays to take all things with a grain of salt ... as I have always said here "I want to know not believe" a totally different mindset to many who are true believers (understatement there).
In the end one must accept the truth for what it is even if we don't like the outcome.. the truth is simply that and no amount of stamping of feet and putting ones head in the sand will change it.

The thing is: The truth isn't always rational. Evidence isn't always obtainable. But sometimes belief makes irrational evidence true and obtainable.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Nice post Burnt State .. For me rational or not one should not "believe in" anything but take the stand of I will accept things as they stand until further evidence says otherwise ...
In the end one must accept the truth for what it is even if we don't like the outcome.. the truth is simply that and no amount of stamping of feet and putting ones head in the sand will change it.

At the risk of (yet again) sounding like a fan boy, Burnt put into words EXACTLY how I feel, "belief" in something is one thing, acceptance of a particular possibility is another. There is a big difference, IMHO. Debunkers and agenda-driven skeptics are unable (or refuse to) understand and/or acknowledge this distinction. I couldn't have said what Burnt State said more succinctly and as eloquently. This post is the latest example that illustrates why so many of us here (myself included) consider Burnt (and many others here, btw) to be such valuable members of this forum community attempting to analyze and dissect the imponderable. There are many forums that cover these so-called "paranormal"mysteries, but the Paracast forum is among the very best available on the 'net because of you members. It's an honor to have you all here!

 

[technomage]

The thing is: The truth isn't always rational. Evidence isn't always obtainable. But sometimes belief makes irrational evidence true and obtainable.

The truth is always rational. It's our premises that aren't always rational because they're based on false or incomplete information.

 

[Randall]

The truth is always rational. It's our premises that aren't always rational because they're based on false or incomplete information.

Beware of absolutes, like the word "always", because the first thing someone like me does is look for an exception to the rule, and it usually doesn't take long to find one:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

- John Keats (1795–1821), British poet.
​

Indeed, when you experience beauty, you know it to be true that the object of such beauty is truly beautiful. Yet this experience, like many others, is not based on logic or reason. In fact it may be entirely irrational, but true nonetheless.

For more on truth: Correspondence Theory of Truth.

 

[technomage]

Beware of absolutes, like the word "always", because the first thing someone like me does is look for an exception to the rule, and it usually doesn't take long to find one:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

- John Keats (1795–1821), British poet.
​

Indeed, when you experience beauty, you know it to be true that the object of such beauty is truly beautiful. Yet this experience, like many others, is not based on logic or reason. In fact it may be entirely irrational, but true nonetheless.

For more on truth: Correspondence Theory of Truth.

Logic is simply a process for identifying what is real and what is not. If something is beautiful, you've identified it as being beautiful for whatever reasons so there is logic to it. Otherwise, you would be saying that there is no reason something is beautiful at all.

Plus, taking what you said about absolutes to your own points you made, we should be wary of absolutes sometimes but not others, so as to not be "absolute" about it.

 

[technomage]

Beware of absolutes, like the word "always", because the first thing someone like me does is look for an exception to the rule, and it usually doesn't take long to find one:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

- John Keats (1795–1821), British poet.
​

Indeed, when you experience beauty, you know it to be true that the object of such beauty is truly beautiful. Yet this experience, like many others, is not based on logic or reason. In fact it may be entirely irrational, but true nonetheless.

For more on truth: Correspondence Theory of Truth.

I'm pretty sure I don't disagree with what you're saying in principle (i.e. that many experiences can't be easily explained through a simply logical process). I just don't consider reality to be irrational or illogical as that doesn't make any sense to me. Reality simply "is" and our understanding of it may be based on logic or not. Nor do I want to imply that all of our understanding comes from a linear traditional logical process. But at some point, we need to use logic to validate our understanding and confirm if something is true or not.

 

[Randall]

Logic is simply a process for identifying what is real and what is not. If something is beautiful, you've identified it as being beautiful for whatever reasons so there is logic to it. Otherwise, you would be saying that there is no reason something is beautiful at all.

Plus, taking what you said about absolutes to your own points you made, we should be wary of absolutes sometimes but not others, so as to not be "absolute" about it.

Not really. This rabbit hole goes a long ways down. But I'll offer you the red pill and you can decide either to take it or not to take it. First, the process of identifying what is real and what is not, is a branch of metaphysics ( not logic ). Logic takes several forms ( Informal, Formal, Mathematical, and Symbolic ). Any beauty that is found in the practise of logic is not based on the math or the symbolism itself, but the feeling that working with logic brings to the practitioner, and that is entirely separate from the logic. Otherwise a calculator would know beauty ( it doesn't ). Also, if all beauty was based on logic alone then a thing considered beautiful by one person would be considered equally beautiful by everyone else. Plus, illogical things can be beautiful. So logic is quite separate from the experience of beauty.

And yes I am saying that it's true that things can be beautiful without having any reason at all. We might try to provide reasons, like it's the color of a person's eyes, the symmetry of their features, the shine in their hair, the way the clothing is designed, and so on, but describing those things isn't describing beauty, it's describing eye color, features, hair, and wardrobe, that in their way also seem beautiful, and that in the end there is also no logical rationale for. Maybe it's just our internal programming? If so, what is it about neurons firing that makes us experience beauty? They've been trying to answer questions like this over on the Consciousness and Paranormal thread for hundreds and hundreds of pages, and philosophers have been asking the same questions for far longer than that.

 

[technomage]

Not really. This rabbit hole goes a long ways down. But I'll offer you the red pill and you can decide either to take it or not to take it. First, the process of identifying what is real and what is not, is a branch of metaphysics ( not logic ). Logic takes several forms ( Informal, Formal, Mathematical, and Symbolic ). Any beauty that is found in the practise of logic is not based on the math or the symbolism itself, but the feeling that working with logic brings to the practitioner, and that is entirely separate from the logic. Otherwise a calculator would know beauty ( it doesn't ). Also, if all beauty was based on logic alone then a thing considered beautiful by one person would be considered equally beautiful by everyone else. Plus, illogical things can be beautiful. So logic is quite separate from the experience of beauty.

And yes I am saying that it's true that things can be beautiful without having any reason at all. We might try to provide reasons, like it's the color of a person's eyes, the symmetry of their features, the shine in their hair, the way the clothing is designed, and so on, but describing those things isn't describing beauty, it's describing eye color, features, hair, and wardrobe, that in their way also seem beautiful, and that in the end there is also no logical rationale for. Maybe it's just our internal programming? If so, what is it about neurons firing that makes us experience beauty? They've been trying to answer questions like this over on the Consciousness and Paranormal thread for hundreds and hundreds of pages, and philosophers have been asking the same questions for far longer than that.

Offering me the red pill seems to imply that if I disagree with you, I am choosing to take the blue pill and therefore want to continue to live in the "make believe" world of the matrix. This is not so; I just may have a different point of view than you.

Identifying what is real and what is not real requires someone to do the identifying, so I would say that's epistemology (i.e. how we know what we know). I am not a philosopher so I can't comment on the formal categories.

I never said beauty was based on logic; I said it was logical that something would be beautiful. Just because one can't articulate the reasons why something is beautiful doesn't mean there are no reasons for it. It's based on some complex combination of the object we identify as beautiful and our perception of it.

As for the actual reasons for experiencing beauty, you yourself indicated some of the possible reasons. I don't believe that we experience beauty randomly and without any basis in physical law (which extends to our minds as well), that's all.

 

[Randall]

At the risk of (yet again) sounding like a fan boy, Burnt put into words EXACTLY how I feel, "belief" in something is one thing, acceptance of a particular possibility is another. There is a big difference, IMHO. Debunkers and agenda-driven skeptics are unable (or refuse to) understand and/or acknowledge this distinction. I couldn't have said what Burnt State said more succinctly and as eloquently. This post is the latest example that illustrates why so many of us here (myself included) consider Burnt (and many others here, btw) to be such valuable members of this forum community attempting to analyze and dissect the imponderable. There are many forums that cover these so-called "paranormal"mysteries, but the Paracast forum is among the very best available on the 'net because of you members. It's an honor to have you all here!

I "liked" @Burnt's post too, and I'm certainly not opposed to it's basic spirit. But at the same time, I'd like to dispel the idea that belief is a negative mindset ( it's not ). I'd also like to distinguish it from the idea of blind faith, which is entirely different. The key difference is in the other concept Burnt brought up, which is the concept of truth, and how that is determined. Those with blind faith believe claims are true based on faith in the claimant. They are different than those who believe claims are true based on evidence and critical thinking. The former is fraught with quagmires, errors, and deception, while the latter, although still possibly containing errors, are more likely to believe what is true, and if they are careful enough in describing the extent of their belief, they can be entirely justified in their belief, and this can be a very powerful motivator.

Take UFOs for example. I make no bones about being a believer in alien visitation. I believe this because I've seen something that can only be explained as some sort of alien craft, and because there are so many other good reports by other people from around the world spanning many years, it's simply not reasonable or rational to believe that it's not happening. Therefore it must be happening, or at least it must have happened in recent history, and that in-turn means that believing it's happened is an entirely reasonable stance to take. If I didn't believe that, then it would be the same as saying I don't really believe what I saw or that anyone else has seen something similar. I just can't do that. For me there's no room for "maybe" in there anyplace; and that certainty is what motivates me to discover more about it. We're not chasing fairy tales here. We both know that. So don't be ashamed to own it, and believe it.

 

[Randall]

Offering me the red pill seems to imply that if I disagree with you,

The red pill blue pill wasn't a reference to whether or not you agree or disagree with me, but to the deceptive complexity of the issue. I'm actually confident that given some time to reflect further, as I noticed you did in your follow-up post, that you would soon realize that the concept of beauty is more than skin deep.

Identifying what is real and what is not real requires someone to do the identifying, so I would say that's epistemology (i.e. how we know what we know). I am not a philosopher so I can't comment on the formal categories.

How we know what we know certainly ties into the issue as well.

I never said beauty was based on logic; I said it was logical that something would be beautiful.

Why? And let's not forget that this was in response to the suggestion that, "Truth is always rational". I maintain that it is true that something can be beautiful for no rational reason.

Just because one can't articulate the reasons why something is beautiful doesn't mean there are no reasons for it. It's based on some complex combination of the object we identify as beautiful and our perception of it.

Logic requires that we can articulate the reasons. On the other hand, sometimes, as with beauty, there aren't any reasons other than that it is what it is, a pure experience. Overthink it and you lose it.

As for the actual reasons for experiencing beauty, you yourself indicated some of the possible reasons. I don't believe that we experience beauty randomly and without any basis in physical law (which extends to our minds as well), that's all.

I'd certainly agree that without our minds we wouldn't experience beauty, but that isn't the crux of the issue. The truth is that we experience beauty even when there are no rational reasons for it, I would go so far as to say especially when there are no rational reasons for it.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

I "liked" @Burnt's post too, and I'm certainly not opposed to it's basic spirit. But at the same time, I'd like to dispel the idea that belief is a negative mindset ( it's not ). I'd also like to distinguish it from the idea of blind faith, which is entirely different. The key difference is in the other concept Burnt brought up, which is the concept of truth, and how that is determined. Those with blind faith believe claims are true based on faith in the claimant. They are different than those who believe claims are true based on evidence and critical thinking. The former is fraught with quagmires, errors, and deception, while the latter, although still possibly containing errors, are more likely to believe what is true, and if they are careful enough in describing the extent of their belief, they can be entirely justified in their belief, and this can be a very powerful motivator.

Take UFOs for example. I make no bones about being a believer in alien visitation. I believe this because I've seen something that can only be explained as some sort of alien craft, and because there are so many other good reports by other people from around the world spanning many years, it's simply not reasonable or rational to believe that it's not happening. Therefore it must be happening, or at least it must have happened in recent history, and that in-turn means that believing it's happened is an entirely reasonable stance to take. If I didn't believe that, then it would be the same as saying I don't really believe what I saw or that anyone else has seen something similar. I just can't do that. For me there's no room for "maybe" in there anyplace; and that certainty is what motivates me to discover more about it. We're not chasing fairy tales here. We both know that. So don't be ashamed to own it, and believe it.

Well said Ufology! It's a tiresome game adding the caveat that not all reports are true and not all believers use common sense and good judgement. But to the flip, it's become cultish now to say "I believe in nothing." Hell, I believe I woke up today, I believe I'm watching T.V, why in the hell can't I believe that the sheer probability of reports having at least one correct says it's ok to believe.

 

[Randall]

Well said Ufology! It's a tiresome game adding the caveat that not all reports are true and not all believers use common sense and good judgement. But to the flip, it's become cultish now to say "I believe in nothing." Hell, I believe I woke up today, I believe I'm watching T.V, why in the hell can't I believe that the sheer probability of reports having at least one correct says it's ok to believe.

Bravo!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

it's become cultish now to say "I believe in nothing." Hell, I believe I woke up today, I believe I'm watching T.V, why in the hell can't I believe that the sheer probability of reports having at least one correct says it's ok to believe.

Cultish? that's a good one... Personally, I accept the high probability that I experienced "waking up this morning," watching the cards game today, etc, but there is always that weird possibility that my reality could be a construct designed to trick me into "believing" that these things things actually happened. Do I believe this to be absolutely true? No, I do not. I've always looked at the concept of "belief" (in all its forms) to be a self-limiting, knee-jerk assumption that precludes us from all of the other potential possibilities that undoubtedly exist, therefore I chose to use different languaging to express where I draw the line when describing my personal reality view. I know, I'm just a weird dude, but as the good doctor said: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Cultish? that's a good one... Personally, I accept the high probability that I experienced "waking up this morning," watching the cards game today, etc, but there is always that weird possibility that my reality could be a construct designed to trick me into "believing" that these things things actually happened. Do I believe this to be absolutely true? No, I do not. I've always looked at the concept of "belief" (in all its forms) to be a self-limiting, knee-jerk assumption that precludes us from all of the other potential possibilities that undoubtedly exist, therefore I chose to use different languaging to express where I draw the line when describing my personal reality view. I know, I'm just a weird dude, but as the good doctor said: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

Cult (a version of definition),a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
I think the word very much fits our modern day version of Ufology. Out of sheer boredom or frustration or whatever, the new and favorite line is "I believe nothing", therefor I'm open to everything! I think anyone who has an open mind maintains the ability to see another clue to the puzzle if it surfaces. But to stay braced for the tsunami that's not projected to hit is to tie your energy up in a constant state of flux, never really moving the ball forward. But I'll explain this only in regards to myself at this point. Enough data and research tells me that we have had foreign craft in our sky's. That is my belief. Where they are from, who they are, what they want, all the above, I have no idea's at this point. I read the reports as well as other people's belief's but still do not see a solid body of evidence to support the next layer of this phenomena.
This field of study however is like having a lead ball tied to my leg while trying to sift through the data. And it's almost entirely human made! Ego's, short lived fame, back slapping groupies, and yah, even the schizophrenic's odd attraction to all things alien. It almost seems inevitable that the latest trend leans towards "all things possible" out of sheer boredom with no ship having landed. But I'm not bored yet, sorry, I'm just not. I still can't believe all the research and data that's laying around unread by so many on this subject. But hey, call me materialistic, if anyone needs a label. I like data, correlation, etc. Historically, on any major breakthrough mankind has had, it's been off the backs of those willing to study the subject, not the people studying the subject. And those breakthroughs weren't had from staying saddled in the "I'm open for anything" position. Instead it was through following trains of data, thought, to push through the other side. (In some ways we say the same thing here).
There is no consensus that I see on the most basic question, is there something flying around in our skies. Despite worldwide correlation, we are still discussing whether this is mass hysteria, personal delusions, chemical trips, fatigue, power of suggestion, etc. However, it seems odd that we've collectively allowed the pile on of all these various possibilities on a subject that clearly makes the normal person uncomfortable, yet seldom elsewhere in society do we bundle these conditions. We've tossed out critical thinking in favor of philosophizing all potentials, as though we've become the directors of the next blockbuster alien hybrid matrix chemical delusion.
The trickster is "us" playing on "us." Belief is the propellant that moves a problem forward towards conclusion. But belief's suffers "us" and can just as easily be abused as any other form of action/thinking.
I wrote too much, lol.

 

[Proust]

Hello Paracast, long time listener first time caller. I thought I'd weigh in on this one though.

Well said Ufology! It's a tiresome game adding the caveat that not all reports are true and not all believers use common sense and good judgement. But to the flip, it's become cultish now to say "I believe in nothing." Hell, I believe I woke up today, I believe I'm watching T.V, why in the hell can't I believe that the sheer probability of reports having at least one correct says it's ok to believe.

Reports of an experience, even a large volume of reports, don't on their own make it reasonable to believe the experience is real or even plausible, it's actually a logical fallacy, and in the context of any paranormal phenomenon a very elementary logical fallacy. For instance, I could apply that same value to the notion that Angels must be real because of the sheer number of reports of them appearing at gas stations or scorched by blessed toaster ovens on to breakfast items. Or that the sheer number of survey answers that Sherlock Holmes was a real detective means that he wasn't a fictional character, or that Canadians live in igloos (do they?) because of the number of people who for whatever reason report to believe that. A paranormal phenomenon isn't in the same category of "I'm watching T.V" because --not to put too fine a point on it-- you can invite me over to verify the existence of your T.V. You can sit in front of it and demonstrate to me your watching it. I can go to my parlor and see a TV for myself (or I could if I owned one) and surmise that it's reasonable that you have a T.V. too. I can have an engineer explain to me the technology of a T.V. and then go to a factory where T.V.s are made and see it happen in real time. What you can't do is produce an alien space craft or any of the side-dishes.