August 30th Episode with Karl Mamer

[Frank Warren]

Mornin' CW,

I'm like 20 minutes in and after the following I'm kind of on auto-pilot:

"Based on his background does Kelly Johnson have more credibility then your average person seeing things in the sky?" (paraphrasing)

"No."

:frown:

How do you take someone serious after that?

I am now listening to the program as well, and am at the same point; David started out properly in trying to school Mamer about UFOs in using the cloud analogy (which I thought was great); however, going from there and then injecting a competent witness (Johnson) to shore up the notion that UFOs are real, is in essence going backwards.

To use David's analogy again, they're (David & Gene) trying to convince Mamer, that clouds are real.

This evokes the cliche:"Never argue with an idiot, he'll only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience!"

Now I don't employ the platitude in its rudest sense; only that Mamer's statements illuminate the fact of how ignorant he is on the subject matter.

The debate should be "what is the make-up of the cloud?" How did it come to be? etc.

To use another cliche, it's like talking "Trig" to a student who hasn't even started Algebra yet.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[swatcher]

I totally agree with David and Gene. The man has his mind made up. All the supporting data for the "paranormal" cannot be real, because the phenomenon is not real. His depth of knowledge of those "classic" cases was surprisingly shallow.


Mr. Karl = 100% amateur, no scientist.

 

[MrChud]

Thank you for this episode. I've been waiting for you to get a skeptic on the show. It's amazing how stock his responses were. It's as though there are skeptic talking points they all follow. There seems to be no individual thought among them. You hear one skeptic, you heard 'em all.

As you guys pointed out, they just can't say, "I don't know." They have to have an explanation for everything. And their whole attitude towards "personal experience" probably really gets my blood boiling the most.

David was right about comparing him to true believers and calling him a fundamentalist.

Now have Shermer on and have a go at him.

I am a skeptic, and I can and do say "I don't know". I also keep an open mind, but an open mind means you are willing to admit that there could be a plausible, mundane explanation, as well as an exotic one. We are all human, we can all be fooled, it's not even that hard to fool us.

 

[MrChud]

I totally agree with David and Gene. The man has his mind made up. All the supporting data for the "paranormal" cannot be real, because the phenomenon is not real. His depth of knowledge of those "classic" cases was surprisingly shallow.


Mr. Karl = 100% amateur, no scientist.

I don't think Mr. Mamer ever claimed to be a scientist, however you dont have to be one to employ the scientific method. I would also love to see Shermer or Shostak interviewed, I wonder if they would agree to come on?

 

[kipspritely]

Make sure to listen to the end of the show with Jim Delittoso. That part is way more interesting!

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Make sure to listen to the end of the show with Jim Delittoso. That part is way more interesting!

Tell me about it.

I'm glad I wasn't eating lunch when I edited the section about the finger. If you haven't heard the episode, I'll avoid the spoiler and suggest, folks, that you check it out.

 

[DrLogic]

Well I think the long and short of it is he just isn't very intelligent, certainly no where near as intelligent as he probably thinks he is.

Citing weak psychological examples, explaining the misinterpretation of Ockham's Razor (then going on to use the misinterpreted form to justify his thinking), and assuming that if the possibility exists that something is misidentified, then the probability of misidentification = 1. None of these actions have anything to do with science or methodological reasoning, so it is important not to look at this person as a representation of academia in any way.

A lot of times we take pains to separate skepticism with skeptical thinking. However I'd guess that most use the latter just a euphemism for critical thinking. In a world where ideas are constantly fluxing in and out and evolving as our understanding changes, the concept that someone personifies themselves as the 'skeptic' is as ignorant, if not more so than that of the fundamental debunker, a kind of rebel without a cause syndrome.

So we have a terms for the fundamentalist believers, fundamentalist skeptics and fundamentalist debunkers, all of whom in practice either appear to need no evidence, or are willing to twist said evidence in order to take a side. With those rather 'challenged' people aside, is it about time that we came up with a term for the rest of us that is less pejorative than 'modestly ignorant'?

 

[Gojira2006]

Karl Mamer is so egotistical - he said that he didn't want to call Gordon Cooper a liar . . . Well, he came as close to it as he could without actually saying it . . . :redface: Also, like many other sceptics, his conclusions are incredibly lame - Basically, because someone is exaggerating (or lying), we have to totally disregard not only just the event, but the entire phenomenon . . . That's like saying that because some soldiers exaggerated their exploits in World War II, World War II didn't occur . . .

 

[David Biedny]

You'll all love this...

http://www.amateurscientist.org/2009/08/doing-paracast-turnabout-is-fair-play.html



dB

 

[Cybernia]

I am a skeptic, and I can and do say "I don't know". I also keep an open mind, but an open mind means you are willing to admit that there could be a plausible, mundane explanation, as well as an exotic one. We are all human, we can all be fooled, it's not even that hard to fool us.

Well, then you'd never make it as a professional skeptic. What I should have said is "pseudo-skeptics." Those are the guys who have hijacked the term skeptic. Shermer, Randi, Nickels, et al. They are no more skeptics than the man in the moon (who exists btw).

I am not a skeptic but I am skeptical when stuff doesn't smell right. That might come from the old journalism saw, "If someone tells you your mother loves you, check it out." But I am also willing to give the benefit of the doubt sometimes which the pseudo-skeptics don't do.

They also are very quick to accept "official' explanations of things if it buttresses their view. Where is their skepticism then?
If someone tells me they saw some weirdness, I won't automatically assume they are either mistaken, liars or hallucinating. if someone tells me they saw "lights" or somesuch I might lean toward a mundane explanation. If someone tells me they saw an actual physical craft, that's another story.

And this whole pseudo-skeptic mantra of "science, science, science," makes me want to strangle someone.

"Honey, eat your pancakes."
"How do I know these are indeed pancakes? "Let's do some experiments to see if they really are pancakes or if you're mistaken."
"But, I made them."
"Ah, I can't take your word for it, since memory can be faulty. You may just think you made them."

 

[DrLogic]

You'll all love this...

http://www.amateurscientist.org/2009/08/doing-paracast-turnabout-is-fair-play.html



dB

Well I had a look over it. Firstly I think his concept of 'I'll believe it when I see it' is more accurately put as 'I'll believe it when Wikipedia tells me its so'.

The biggest problem I would have with his retort would be his habit of twisting a story, categorizing anyone who questions anything as bona fide nut-jobs, and the overall stance of: 'Well the account by person A points to an unusual event, while the account by person B is more prosaic, ergo person B is correct' - utter nonsense, I'd go as far as to say idiocy in fact.

As I said that would be the biggest problem I have with it, if it were for the fact that the really pertinent issue in his argument is yet again his flagrant misinterpretation of Ockham's Razor, which appears to be the basis of the entire line of thinking.

No sensible person takes 5 potential arbitrary conclusions as entities and then invoke Ockham's Razor to argue that one of them is not possible. The whole point is to recognize the knowns and unknowns as entities, then attempt to minimise the unknowns before drawing up the potential conclusions. In effect, the conclusions are nobody's business to be making up arbitrarily, as they are an output of the process, not an input. Thank goodness not everyone thinks like him otherwise we would all still be living in caves saying 'the sun god did it!'

What I think we can all agree on is that the unknowns far outweigh the knowns in this particular subject, the output of which is inevitably a high number of potential conclusions, with a low accuracy. Sadly, some people are happy to ignore real critical thinking in order to look as if they have the answer to any question...

 

[MrChud]

You'll all love this...

http://www.amateurscientist.org/2009/08/doing-paracast-turnabout-is-fair-play.html



dB

Well I read it, and it was fair and factual imo. I may not agree with all his conclusions, like the Johnson sighting (cloud? lol) but was aware of the problems of the other 2 cases, and wasn't suprised to see his rebuttal.

In the end I agree with most of his reasoning, the points about anectdotes and eyewitness testimony are well documented. Still part of me wants to believe, and that part keeps me looking.

 

[marmer]

Yeah it was frustrating but David was on top of things.
Basically hes a "...it can't be true, therefore it isn't" person. I cant believe he cant even accept the possibility that Gordon Cooper actually saw what he said he saw. So Marmer cant even accept that maybe the US Govt has advanced craft like that. Clearly he associates 'UFO' or 'disk/diskoid' shape silent craft with aliens/ETs.

Just to be clear. I am marmer, with a username derived from my real name, which I have proudly used everywhere since 1983.

Karl Mamer (only one "r") is someone else altogether.

 

[jimbo83478]

As James Fox says, "I think if one [UFO] landed on the White House lawn...I think there would be people out there that still wouldn't believe it."

Of course, I would have liked to have heard Gene and David convince Mamer of what I believe to be true about those particular incidences, but swaying someone else to your side isn't the point. I think this episode provided great value in illuminating how we can put ourselves in a box if we aren't careful. As James Hetfield said of touring with Guns n' Roses, "We learned what not to do."

I would suggest bringing him back on the show now that he has reviewed those 3 particular cases, but I think that may just be more annoying than listening to him the first time round...

 

[Drew UK]

I read his statement and in some instances there was some very useful contributions that he had to make.

However, there came across a fear to accept an account since the enlightened world offers no explanation - and that in consequence any evidence that could be construed as contrary must be disbanded, immediately and without hesitation - unless concrete proof can be gathered right here and right now.

By declaring the premise that humanity is naturally deviant and with a huge propensity to lie - and any complexity can be dispensed with using this as the final answer and of all truth.

This is not a new methodology, and it certaintly is not science - by any means. And, would be an extremely dangerous course to follow in any modern civil context especially in legal matters.

How would anybody recieve a fair trial under this warped examination?

What Karl Mamer is proposing is simply a witchhunt on witnesses - we throw witnesses tied up and tossed into a body of water - if they are not liars they will drown, if they are liars they will survive and surely be put to death - or they can confess to being liars.

Skeptism is one thing, unwarranted and unhealthy blind distrust of our fellow citizens is another - outsiders must be rejected and everyone must conform to the principle set of beliefs is not a view that I particularly share.

That aside, of course people do lie - and the correct procedures and examination must still continue to eliminate these from the investigation.

Karl Mamer may be prosecutioner but as a juror i'm not convinced on all the cases he brings to my attention.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Well i thought this was a fairly good episode... although the idea behind it was great, and it could have been greater. I think its a really good idea to get 'skeptics' on, although I think it would be great to give them 3 great cases and then listen to their take on it.
I know this risks things getting a bit 'Larry King' but I think if it is done in a respectful and responsible manner like it was in this episode then it can be useful.


It slightly annoyed me from the begginning that he spoke of himself as a skeptic like it was a hobby or something. It made him basically sound like someone will disagree with anything that isnt straight down the centre 'normal'... thank god all people arent like this or we would never have gotten anywhere, especially in theoretical science.


As for this:

You'll all love this...

http://www.amateurscientist.org/2009/08/doing-paracast-turnabout-is-fair-play.html

I actually think he came up with a lot of good points here, and a lot of points that the 'ordinary person' in the street would think. I know from speaking to some of my friends that they had similar concerns.

Of course he spoke a whole load of nonsense on top of this, both in the show and in that article.

 

[CapnG]

Mostly I was thinking this:

Citing weak psychological examples, explaining the misinterpretation of Ockham's Razor (then going on to use the misinterpreted form to justify his thinking), and assuming that if the possibility exists that something is misidentified, then the probability of misidentification = 1.

In fact he says as much in the article David posted:

"If Gene and David present 20 accounts from astronauts and pilots seeing something in the skies or in space that they cannot identify, I'm still not going to accept a new entity. I need them to eliminate hoaxes et al."

He's clearly demonstrating motivated reasoning, starting from the position that UFOs are crap and working backwards from there. No evidence will ever be good enough because it might be hoax or misidentification and therefore it is.

Doesn't it ever occur to him that if some UFOs really do represent an "other" and that other is demostrably superior in every way that counts, that it is under no obligation to show up in a lab and be processed?

His comments about "expert observers" are particularily taxing. If your car is not working properly, who's opinion would you consider more valid: a mechanic's or a manicurist's?

One other thing that irked me was the use of terminology, I really wish David had just spelled it out for him. He gave him plenty of leads but did not definitively say "UFOs does not mean flying saucers". It was danced around but never stated in exactly those terms and it should have been because Karl kept using the term "UFO" in that context and only that context.

The Jim part of the show was great but hey, with Jim I expect great.

About the episode he mentioned with Wendle and "Connor" you might want to watch this:


I said might, mind you...

 

[Gojira2006]

You'll all love this...

http://www.amateurscientist.org/2009/08/doing-paracast-turnabout-is-fair-play.html



dB

Mamer quotes The Skeptical Inquirer's theory that "however well trained a pilot is, he'd have to be trained in about a half dozen fields to make him truly an expert observer of aerial phenomena." He goes on to list the attributes one would need -

Astronomy

Atmospheric science

Aeronautics

Physics

Physiology of Visual Illusions

Human Psychology

Visual Perception


So pilots should keep quiet - unless they're trained to the standards that the The Skeptical Inquirer demands of being able to identify aerial phenomenon . . . I wonder where the captain of US Airways Flight 1549 was trained to make him realize that his plane was experiencing the aerial phenomenon of a bird strike . . . I guess it was just dumb luck that the plane landed safely in the Hudson, certainly not to the skill & experience of Captain Chesley Sullenberger . . .

 

[swatcher]

I don't think Mr. Mamer ever claimed to be a scientist, however you dont have to be one to employ the scientific method. I would also love to see Shermer or Shostak interviewed, I wonder if they would agree to come on?

He posts on a site called the amateurscientist.org

 

[Capnkumquat]

I thought it was an excellent episode.

In the past, the show has brought the doe eyed believer, the supercredulous, the hoaxer, and the money grubbers on to "expose" them to the community. I think it was just as important to show a dyed in the wool DISBELIEVER.

My guess is that Mr. Marmer does not believe anything written in a history book. Surely we do not KNOW scientifically, or can prove through some feat of abstract logic that the Norman Conquest was finalized and occured at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. No, of course not, we rely on the authority of those WHO WERE THERE, and wrote down what THEY SAW.

If this phenomenon could be put in a lab and subjected to scientific method, we wouldn't be having this problem now would we Mr. Marmer. This is a fleeting, ephemeral phenomenon that waits for no man. It is not some microbe to be put in a petri dish, tested, classified, and studied by Bill Nye.

Good show, I think you showed a denyer, and a disbeliever to be just as silly as someone who believes everything.