Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
I just wanted to point out that your post says you are quoting me. You are not. You were actually quoting "Tyder001" on post #76 in his response to my post #75. I have edited your post to reflect this accurately.
I would only say that when a guest represents the information as fact then they should be judged by their ability to produce evidence to support that assertion. If they preface it by saying it is their opinions and very few facts on only spattering of anecdotal evidence exists then my issues with them decrease proportional to that admission. The field, (I do believe this is a field of study. However diluted, it exists.) is rife with examples of jackasses with dubious threads of tenuous evidence that represent it all as obvious facts arrived at through a clear progression of discovery. At that point the onus is on them.
I do understand that there is an undercurrent of mysticism or otherwise unverifiable phenomena in these topics. However, where I differ is that instead of labeling it as such and moving on I believe in trying t apply current understanding and always searching for the angle that is testable. This is, in my opinion, the way we keep the subject matter from evolving into a faith. (no pun intended...honestly)
You've touched upon a peeve of mine regarding some attitudes on this forum. Look, I'm all for scientific, rational exploration of what we call the "paranormal", as well as the UFO question. But you can't sepnd every minute of every episode yelling "But... THE PROOF! Can you privide EVIDENCE?!" It's fine to ask probing questions but at a certain point you've gotta have a dialog.
Look, it's up to US, as listeners, to decide how credible we find the guests, and to do additional research if we want to take it further. The hosts can only do so much before the show becomes a cross-examination rather than a radio show.
And besides, not everything has to be scientifically provable, or confirmed by five eye-witnesses who provide signed statements and video footage from three different angles, to be interesting. Things are what they are. I have no problem with speculation or anecdotes, because I recognize them to be just that.
I would only say that when a guest represents the information as fact then they should be judged by their ability to produce evidence to support that assertion. If they preface it by saying it is their opinions and very few facts on only spattering of anecdotal evidence exists then my issues with them decrease proportional to that admission. The field, (I do believe this is a field of study. However diluted, it exists.) is rife with examples of jackasses with dubious threads of tenuous evidence that represent it all as obvious facts arrived at through a clear progression of discovery. At that point the onus is on them.
I do understand that there is an undercurrent of mysticism or otherwise unverifiable phenomena in these topics. However, where I differ is that instead of labeling it as such and moving on I believe in trying t apply current understanding and always searching for the angle that is testable. This is, in my opinion, the way we keep the subject matter from evolving into a faith. (no pun intended...honestly)