Bad Skepticism - An Example

[hopeful skeptic]

A friend sent me a trial episode of a podcast called "The Skeptics [sic] Guide to the Universe" by a group of people calling themselves the New England Skeptics Society. I stated on another thread that I only subscribe to one skeptical podcast, and this is a good reason why. A member of the panel made this statement about UFOs and UFO believers:

"Nobody ever sees anything specific. I mean, no UFOs ever with nuts and bolts....it's always a blob of light. They never see windows, never see people in them, never see them on the ground, or up close...they...they take photos of these light blobs up in the sky - faked photos, usually - and call it a UFO."

Now, this is an example of bad skepticism. How many factual errors in this paragraph can one count? Even discarding the host's complete lack of knowledge about UFO reports, he misses the most obvious point: Objects of interest, up in the sky, objects which can't be identified, are - by definition - UFOs.

Skeptics who insist that paranormal believers provide evidence for their claims (I'm among them, obviously) have a concurrent responsibility to understand fully the nature of the claim, and not use ignorance and ridicule as a basis for a reasoned discussion. This is a fairly good example of someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of UFO claims, save from what he has learned from others. He has made up his mind already, and can't be bothered with even the possibility that some evidence for UFOs actually exists. This fellow is not a skeptic - a critical thinker - at all. He is a debunker, and there is a difference.

Bad debunker! Bad, bad, bad!

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Don't worry. Be happy.

Regards
Gwops

I guess the Apple Festival let out a little early today?

 

[Rick Deckard]

A friend sent me a trial episode of a podcast called "The Skeptics [sic] Guide to the Universe" by a group of people calling themselves the New England Skeptics Society. I stated on another thread that I only subscribe to one skeptical podcast, and this is a good reason why. A member of the panel made this statement about UFOs and UFO believers:

"Nobody ever sees anything specific. I mean, no UFOs ever with nuts and bolts....it's always a blob of light. They never see windows, never see people in them, never see them on the ground, or up close...they...they take photos of these light blobs up in the sky - faked photos, usually - and call it a UFO."

Now, this is an example of bad skepticism. How many factual errors in this paragraph can one count? Even discarding the host's complete lack of knowledge about UFO reports, he misses the most obvious point: Objects of interest, up in the sky, objects which can't be identified, are - by definition - UFOs.

Skeptics who insist that paranormal believers provide evidence for their claims (I'm among them, obviously) have a concurrent responsibility to understand fully the nature of the claim, and not use ignorance and ridicule as a basis for a reasoned discussion. This is a fairly good example of someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of UFO claims, save from what he has learned from others. He has made up his mind already, and can't be bothered with even the possibility that some evidence for UFOs actually exists. This fellow is not a skeptic - a critical thinker - at all. He is a debunker, and there is a difference.

Bad debunker! Bad, bad, bad!

Couldn't agree more - I've asked this several times before here; how do you investigate a transient event such as a UFO sighting and arrive at a satisfactory conclusion?

I've also said this too - if the day ever arrives where a 'credible' organisation (at least in the public sense of the word) such as NASA openly acknowledges the UFO 'reality', these 'debunkers' will u-turn so fast that their heads will spin. In effect, they are not interested in 'the evidence' but only *who* is presenting that evidence. They need permission from the 'established authority' on what is 'rational' before they can change their beliefs.

I know some of you here don't like the term 'sheeple' but I have to say that I am so disappointed that in todays 'enlightened' society so many people just 'go with the flow' without thinking about where they are heading...

 

[DBTrek]

I've also said this too - if the day ever arrives where a 'credible' organisation (at least in the public sense of the word) such as NASA openly acknowledges the UFO 'reality', these 'debunkers' will u-turn so fast that their heads will spin. In effect, they are not interested in 'the evidence' but only *who* is presenting that evidence. They need permission from the 'established authority' on what is 'rational' before they can change their beliefs.

I find the opposite to be generally true. Most debunkers are interested in "the evidence", and find a startling lack of it presented by the UFO community. If NASA comes foward and openly acknowledges the "UFO reality" we can assume they will do so with evidence in hand. To do so otherwise would be suicidal.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Just look to the "skeptics" from SETI for great examples of ignorance and poor skepticism. They do little to no investigating or research, yet comment on the matter, want aliens to land in their back yard before taking it seriously, refuse to investigate til proven (part of the reason to investigate in the first place), make assumptions out the wazoo, yet pick on the other side for doing so. Make claims that progress hasn't been made, and use that against the field, meanwhile over looking the fact one could use SETI's lack of progress against them.

My favorite is Jill Tarter using the fact see mistook the moon for a ufo once against the reality of ufos. I hope she wasn't an astronomer at the time btw. I'm a ufo nutt and night owl. I've never mistaken the moon for a ufo. Tarter needs to clean her teeth first then join in on the discussion. Her breath smells bad.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Just look to the "skeptics" from SETI for great examples of ignorance and poor skepticism.

And a frightful lack of imagination. I like SETI, applaud their efforts, but don't enjoy listening to them berate any other thought on the topic.

My favorite is Jill Tarter using the fact see mistook the moon for a ufo once against the reality of ufos. I hope she wasn't an astronomer at the time btw. I'm a ufo nutt and night owl. I've never mistaken the moon for a ufo. Tarter needs to clean her teeth first then join in on the discussion. Her breath smells bad.

That was from the Peter Jennings special, right? I seem to remember she was in a plane when this occurred, but I wonder if she was just a passenger, or an experienced pilot? I guess I can see how it could happen, but I'd probably keep that story to myself, you know?

CSICOP passed off the JAL1628 incident by saying the JAL pilot reporting two distinct objects passing around his plane, changing position, etc., while he himself was changing position, and the objects affected returns on radar, were planets. Planets.

God. What's next? Swamp gas?

 

[Rick Deckard]

I find the opposite to be generally true. Most debunkers are interested in "the evidence", and find a startling lack of it presented by the UFO community. If NASA comes foward and openly acknowledges the "UFO reality" we can assume they will do so with evidence in hand. To do so otherwise would be suicidal.

-DBTrek

Is there a "startling lack" of evidence? Wow, there's an *awful lot* of people wasting their time then...


...what is this site about? - UFO EVIDENCE - Scientific Study of the UFO Phenomenon - have they made all this up?

David B has stated that he's seen one of these things up close - do you believe him? Does he have to hand over a 'chunk' of it first?

 

[DBTrek]

Is there a "startling lack" of evidence? Wow, there's an *awful lot* of people wasting their time then...


...what is this site about? - UFO EVIDENCE - Scientific Study of the UFO Phenomenon - have they made all this up?

David B has stated that he's seen one of these things up close - do you believe him? Does he have to hand over a 'chunk' of it first?

Everyone has to "hand over a chunk of it" as you say. Whether they see angels, Jesus, bigfoot, dinosaurs, or UFO's. Otherwise what we have is an unsupported claim. Granted that unsupported claims seem to be more than enough 'evidence' for large segments of society there will always be a few of us that are convinced humans make errors, or even on occaision <gasp> lie.

-DBTrek

 

[Rick Deckard]

Everyone has to "hand over a chunk of it" as you say. Whether they see angels, Jesus, bigfoot, dinosaurs, or UFO's. Otherwise what we have is an unsupported claim. Granted that unsupported claims seem to be more than enough 'evidence' for large segments of society there will always be a few of us that are convinced humans make errors, or even on occaision <gasp> lie.

-DBTrek

Of course, that assumes some or all of the following:

• the 'phenomena' is 'solid' in a nut-and-bolts sense of the word
  
• that it is made of some 'remarkable' material that 'couldn't be made with our current technology' - if it turns out to be 'mundane' then it doesn't matter where it came from, no-one will believe the 'non-rational' explanation of it's origin - let us hope ETIs don't use earth-like alloys to build their craft...
  
• the 'intelligence' doesn't notice that you've just nicked a piece of their property
  
• the MIB haven't got to you first
  
• that the 'material' will be available for *all* to study and not locked away in a vault somewhere

There could be *tons* of physical evidence locked away in vault somewhere - as long as it stays out of the public gaze, you can continue to deny the possibilities...

 

[DBTrek]

Of course, that assumes some or all of the following:

[*]the 'phenomena' is 'solid' in a nut-and-bolts sense of the word

Not at all. Science accepts photons, plasma, sound waves, etc. None of those are 'solid'.

[*]that it is made of some 'remarkable' material that 'couldn't be made with our current technology' - if it turns out to be 'mundane' then it doesn't matter where it came from, no-one will believe the 'non-rational' explanation of it's origin - let us hope ETIs don't use earth-like alloys to build their craft...

We're able to identify "mundane" materials as coming from Mars, comets, meteorites, etc. The fact that something is mundane doesn't exclude us from determining that it is from outer space.

[*]the 'intelligence' doesn't notice that you've just nicked a piece of their property

Huh?

[*]the MIB haven't got to you first

The who? Are you kidding me? Like . . . Will Smith?

[*]that the 'material' will be available for *all* to study and not locked away in a vault somewhere

How would one possible gather all the evidence and hide it in a vault? That would assume they knew the location of all the evidence and had a vault large enough. Not to mention the means of moving it all and making sure none of it ever escapes their grasp.

There could be *tons* of physical evidence locked away in vault somewhere - as long as it stays out the public gaze, you can continue to deny the possibilities...

There could be fifty-three belly-dancing naked angels in my boxer shorts - as long as it stays out of the public gaze you can continue to deny the possibilities . . .

-DBTrek

 

[Rick Deckard]

Brilliant arguments - every one of them - I'm stumped - you're far cleverer than I.

I have no reply.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

And a frightful lack of imagination. I like SETI, applaud their efforts, but don't enjoy listening to them berate any other thought on the topic.



That was from the Peter Jennings special, right? I seem to remember she was in a plane when this occurred, but I wonder if she was just a passenger, or an experienced pilot? I guess I can see how it could happen, but I'd probably keep that story to myself, you know?

CSICOP passed off the JAL1628 incident by saying the JAL pilot reporting two distinct objects passing around his plane, changing position, etc., while he himself was changing position, and the objects affected returns on radar, were planets. Planets.

God. What's next? Swamp gas?

I'm glad we're listening too.

Another annoyance. Many ufologist supported SETI for awhile. SETI has hardly returned the favor.

It was on Jennings I think yes, but I knew about it before via another documentary and read about it. I can't recall the name. It was even more ridiculous though. She goes from making a mistake to concluding everyone else has to be mistaken. She gives commentary on tv as a scientist, but has done no scientific investigating on the matter (read a few books at best she admits). She must be psychic to know aliens aren't here with the lack of research and investigating she's done..... Her ego is so massive it would suck a black hole in.

 

[CapnG]

The trouble with SETI is they're all about SETI (the organization) and not about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Simply put, if it were confirmed that UFOs (some of them, even ONE of them) were alien space craft then SETI's mission is utterly pointless and worthless. What a crushing blow to their collective egos. Better to poo-poo any and every UFO report then than possibly admit they may be wasting their time...

 

[hopeful skeptic]

The trouble with SETI is they're all about SETI (the organization) and not about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Simply put, if it were confirmed that UFOs (some of them, even ONE of them) were alien space craft then SETI's mission is utterly pointless and worthless. What a crushing blow to their collective egos. Better to poo-poo any and every UFO report then than possibly admit they may be wasting their time...

If tomorrow actual evidence for UFOs emerged, or everyone had the (for some ungodly reason hoped-for) "White House Lawn" event, I suppose SETI could go on, looking for other civilizations - especially if the single confirmed alien ship was occupied by people who didn't reveal anything about the rest of the galaxy to us. I suppose they could go on.

Everyone would be infatuated with their shiny, new toy, though. They'd overlook SETI like the box of socks you used to get at Christmas, and move on to the toy.

 

[derekcbart]

Actually, getting back to your original point, The Skeptics Guide To The Universe is a really great skeptical podcast. Sometimes people mistake their having fun and joking and being sarcastic with not taking the various subjects seriously, but if you follow the show on a regular basis then you will learn a lot about the topics they cover and also learn about the many logical fallacies that believers tend to use when making their arguments. If you cannot structure your argument without using logical fallacies then it is your argument that is at fault not the listener of your argument.

That's just my two cents.

-Derek

 

[Ankhes]

Everyone has to "hand over a chunk of it" as you say. Whether they see angels, Jesus, bigfoot, dinosaurs, or UFO's. Otherwise what we have is an unsupported claim. Granted that unsupported claims seem to be more than enough 'evidence' for large segments of society there will always be a few of us that are convinced humans make errors, or even on occaision <gasp> lie.

-DBTrek

I believe the same. Asking for evidence is only to be expected.
And there is a big difference between being a skeptic and being a cynic. Many people confuse the two. I am skeptical but not cynical. At least not usually! I will be open and interested enough to hear a claim, but if credible evidence is not forthcoming, I do not see the point in deciding to believe it. I will not accept something on blind faith. It is just not in my nature to do so.
I once read a book professing that the Earth is hollow. Evidence? None. Therefore I do not see a point in believing that it is despite how much the guy insists that it is.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I will not accept something on blind faith. It is just not in my nature to do so.

Wow, your schooling days must have been traumatic.

 

[DBTrek]

Wow, your schooling days must have been traumatic.

Only if he went to Catholic school.


-DBTrek

 

[Tom Levine]

The trouble with SETI is they're all about SETI (the organization) and not about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence...

I'm not sure I entirely agree with half of that statement.

That said, will someone please send me an mp3 of that last signal they caught a few years back...You know, the one that had a television signal inside a radio signal, which contained all of those blue-prints on how to build a giant machine that can send us off to Vega, and then the middle of the universe using pre-made worm-holes from previous generations of genius civilizations from millions of years ago, and then her Dad shows up on a beach and...

What? Oh, yeah. That was a movie. Gee, didn't Carl write it? how unscientific. Worm-holes, jeez! What an imagination on THAT guy.

Look, SETI hasn't produced anything tangible for us yet. But, there is great value in pure research. Sometimes, results aren't all that matters. Whether or not a signal is found, our inquiry into this enormous question must include pointing our eyes, and our ears, towards the sky.

Meanwhile, while they go on doing their thing, nothing should stop the rest of us from doing ours.

One little suggestion though, Seth: On behalf of all of us fans of radio...If I'm getting nothing at 1530AM, Usually I just spin the dial. You should try it sometime. But hey! That's just me.

 

[Tom Levine]

And in light of what I just said, and int he spirit of this thread, let me post a section of SETI's FAQ from their website. I don't really know what the heck this has to do with radio-astronomy. Perhaps this will help highlight some of your concerns with regard to "Bad Skepticism" on the part of SETI Institute. That said, enjoy (I guess):

"5 - Is someone hiding aliens?

"We don't think so. Many Americans (and quite a few citizens of other countries) are convinced that extraterrestrials may be buzzing the countryside in their spacecraft, or occasionally alighting in the back yard to abduct a few humans for breeding experiments.

"This would be of enormous interest and importance of course, and (in our opinion) impossible to hide, particularly if it's happening internationally. The presence of aliens on our planet is not something you would want to hide: it would be the biggest science story of all time, and tens of thousands of university researchers would be working away on it. However, despite the popularity of aliens on both silver and phosphor screens and a half-century of UFO sightings, the lack of credible physical evidence has made it difficult for serious scientists to believe that UFOs have anything to do with extraterrestrial visitors. "