• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Skeptics...a philosophical discussion


Randi rarely touches the topic of UFOs because that's not something that he's interested in disproving. Belief that UFOs are something paranormal does not hurt anyone. I'm sure that most people here are all for Randi's quest to out fraudsters (like Sylvia Browne) and to ultimately find someone that can prove the existence of the paranormal (with the million dollar challenge). To those that have mentioned above that he has deliberately lied, I would like to know when, since from what i understand, he's not one that fudges data to prove his point. I know Shermer was a fundamentalist Christian and then he saw the light (so to speak). He does come off as a bit of an asshole, and I don't agree with some thing he says (such as his politics - he's ultra libertarian), but I share his point of view when it comes to the paranormal.

Most skeptics don't really care about UFOs like they do about garbage like psychic powers and all that. That's something that can be proven to be false by testing the claimant. UFOs can't be tested and most skeptics (including Shermer and Randi, and Dunning) like to leave them as unknown, or use the most plausible explanation until something better can be used instead. As an example, if the lighthouse explanation for the Bentwaters case is proven to be wrong by new evidence, say a clear photographe of the craft, then they will gladly scrap the original explainable and use the new evidence. That's what science does.

Here's the latest from a recent article . . .

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, says there's no tangible evidence of visits from other planets. "The evidence is so fleeting, so thin, so fraught with human error," he says. "People have fantastic imaginations."

It's like Pat Moynihan said, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." The facts are pretty clear, humans have been documenting visits from extraterrestrials for thousands of years, all around the world, right up to today.

The other was this "debunk" about backwards messaging in rock albums towards the end here . . .


You can debate until the cows come home about this particular one, which is hardly the most famous as he wrongly claims, but this has been been going on in rock albums for decades, artists have said they've done it. It's usually for a laugh but to hear Shermer in this, you'd think this phenomenon is due entirely on "fantastic imagination." Well, yeah . . . by the artists who did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backmasked_messages

I haven't really listened to him that much, but the bit I've seen is, if not deliberately dishonest, fraught with sloppiness.
 
I am proud to call myself a skeptic and it's all just a matter of semantics anyway. Like ufo means something unidentified in the sky to some and an alien vehicle to others. I know that one of the types of ufo exists and am waiting for decent evidence of the other kind. I like listening to the Paracast and do not think that other listeners have the right to run me off just because my questions make them uncomfortable. It's a free country.

Great leaping tricksters! I believe we got a true skeptic loose among us!

Hellz, yes, I'm a skeptic and proud to be one, even if it's kind of a dirty word around here. True critical thinking is thin on the ground on this forum, but the advertisers know who they're dealing with, you may be sure. This is just the place to sell non-genetically-modified seeds, GM crops being a government conspiracy to fuck with our DNA and all.

It will be a true mystery to many here how you are able to marginalize human testimony just because it contravenes all of the known laws of physics. The norm around here is that if somebody makes a bizarre claim, it's up to physicists to rewrite the rules to accommodate the new data.

And there's way too many vivid stories about the Wee People for there to be nothing in that. When good people say that they see these things, they just can't be mistaken or telling stories. You can see that, right? If three people claim to see the same thing, why, you can just put it in the textbooks.

All in all, a great post, but I have to say that Mrs MacDaddy can read my mind at a rate of about 96% so you may be a little low on your ESP estimate.
 
Which you can get on eBay for $4.95 + $4.00 shipping. I doubt many were printed or that they made much if any money on it.

Yes, but they tried. If it was such a terrifying experience, why would they choose to relive it in comic book form? Anyway, it doesn't prove anything one way or another, but it is an interesting fact.

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Here's the latest from a recent article . . .



It's like Pat Moynihan said, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." The facts are pretty clear, humans have been documenting visits from extraterrestrials for thousands of years, all around the world, right up to today.

The other was this "debunk" about backwards messaging in rock albums towards the end here . . .


You can debate until the cows come home about this particular one, which is hardly the most famous as he wrongly claims, but this has been been going on in rock albums for decades, artists have said they've done it. It's usually for a laugh but to hear Shermer in this, you'd think this phenomenon is due entirely on "fantastic imagination." Well, yeah . . . by the artists who did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backmasked_messages

I haven't really listened to him that much, but the bit I've seen is, if not deliberately dishonest, fraught with sloppiness.

Oh well, I happened to find his TED talk one of his most interesting presentations. I don't really need to defend him - the fact that he was allowed to make that presentation speaks for itself. i.e. Only the best and brightest are allowed to speak at that conference.
 
Yes, but they tried. If it was such a terrifying experience, why would they choose to relive it in comic book form? Anyway, it doesn't prove anything one way or another, but it is an interesting fact.

For what it is worth, my personal correspondence with some of these folks and I think the literature bears this out as well, has shown that some of them feel compelled to share the experience. Sometimes they even have a "message" to deliver. I wouldn't discount it on the basis that they wrote a book about it.
 
You can debate until the cows come home about this particular one, which is hardly the most famous as he wrongly claims, but this has been been going on in rock albums for decades, artists have said they've done it. It's usually for a laugh but to hear Shermer in this, you'd think this phenomenon is due entirely on "fantastic imagination." Well, yeah . . . by the artists who did it. Wikimedia Error I haven't really listened to him that much, but the bit I've seen is, if not deliberately dishonest, fraught with sloppiness.

I'm not sure what you're quibbling about. I'm not all that familiar with Shermer but the video you posted seems like about 14:11 of entertaining common sense to me. Are you saying that the backwards talk is deliberate by Led Zepplin? Are you quibbling about his opinion that this is the most famous?

Honestly, if you can look at that video and find deception and dishonesty, I don't understand how your brain works. This is not meant to be an insult. I sincerely can't imagine your mindset here.

What do other posters think?

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------

You can dismantle a lie or wrong conception by presenting your arguments in a logic and coherent way

Would that that were so. Randi's challenge is the only way to back down some of these people. The arguments given by the claimants for not applying for the $1 million prize are laughable.
 
I'm not "proud" of any of my opinions or other attitudes--they are what they are. Being "99.999%" sure of anything "paranormal" tends to shut off possibilities, however remote. I try not to believe or disbelieve in anything; my opinion changes with new information and how reliable I find it to be. Perhaps my perception of open-ended inquiry leaves the door open, which I find more enjoyable.

I am 99.999% sure that there were moon landings. I can't be 100% sure because I didn't go there.:D

Great post, Greg! I also neither believe or disbelieve in any of it. I believe that some things are possible, some not.
 
Great post, Greg! I also neither believe or disbelieve

I agree with you Phil that it was a good post, but I can personally say that there's plenty of stuff that I don't believe, and I say that with confidence. There's also stuff that I believe with confidence, such as the fact that vaccines work, the Earth revolves around the Sun, there has never been an advanced civilization that lived on Mars, and the list goes on. I'll let you guess at what I don't believe, and I think a previous poster put up an extensive list in this thread.
 
I'm not sure what you're quibbling about. I'm not all that familiar with Shermer but the video you posted seems like about 14:11 of entertaining common sense to me. Are you saying that the backwards talk is deliberate by Led Zepplin? Are you quibbling about his opinion that this is the most famous?

Honestly, if you can look at that video and find deception and dishonesty, I don't understand how your brain works. This is not meant to be an insult. I sincerely can't imagine your mindset here.

I'm not sure what you're quibbling about. Shermer clearly scoffs at backwards messaging in rock albums yet I provided a page filled with examples of it, some of which the artists themselves say, yeah we did it. What's his point? He was able to fake a UFO photo! Wow! Round of applause! Howls of laughter! I guess he proved that UFOs are all a bunch of self delusion and nonsense didn't he?

It's certainly admirable that he was able to so easily create such a convincing fake [/sarcasm] on that but so what? It's pretty amazing what impresses the skeptical mind.
 
Oh well, I happened to find his TED talk one of his most interesting presentations. I don't really need to defend him - the fact that he was allowed to make that presentation speaks for itself. i.e. Only the best and brightest are allowed to speak at that conference.

Interesting thing that you bring that up. Here's the talk biochemist Karin Mullis gave in 2009. Mullis received the Nobel prize for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), a process that allows the amplification of specific DNA sequences. But he also likes to stir the pot with his controversial claims, as can be seen in the video when he begins to discuss his disbelief in HIV-AIDS and anthropogenic global warming --aside from 9/11, you can't go more heretic than that nowadays! :cool:


As Greg wrote when linking the video at TDG: "Mullis has a dislike of paradigm enforcement in the halls of science, and in particular the current system of grants-based science. In his words, "Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," and not for what they have actually discovered."
 
I'm not sure what you're quibbling about. Shermer clearly scoffs at backwards messaging in rock albums yet I provided a page filled with examples of it, some of which the artists themselves say, yeah we did it.

Simple question: do you believe that the Led Zepplin example shown in the video was purposefully planted by the band or anyone else?
 
Interesting thing that you bring that up. Here's the talk biochemist Karin Mullis gave in 2009. Mullis received the Nobel prize for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), a process that allows the amplification of specific DNA sequences. But he also likes to stir the pot with his controversial claims, as can be seen in the video when he begins to discuss his disbelief in HIV-AIDS and anthropogenic global warming --aside from 9/11, you can't go more heretic than that nowadays! :cool:


As Greg wrote when linking the video at TDG: "Mullis has a dislike of paradigm enforcement in the halls of science, and in particular the current system of grants-based science. In his words, "Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," and not for what they have actually discovered."

Thanks for that info, and I stand corrected. Even though he has a nobel prize, his views on certain topics are ridiculous. I guess I should have said the "best and brightest" in a specific field. The work he received his Nobel prize for is stellar, his personal views are terribl
 
Thanks for that info, and I stand corrected. Even though he has a nobel prize, his views on certain topics are ridiculous. I guess I should have said the "best and brightest" in a specific field. The work he received his Nobel prize for is stellar, his personal views are terribl

Y'all probably know but Kary Mullis has claimed experiences that sound very much like alien abduction. With that in his profile he is bound to be skeptical of the scientific establishment since its perspective is "Saucers are impossible" and that anyone saying otherwise should be made a laughing stock by default, former reputation and/or accomplishments be damned. Case in point, Edgar Mitchell had a good reputation in just about every circle you can think of. Now even simple journalists that interview him snicker throughout as though they feel his UFO statements are definitive proof that they are brighter than he is. For any other scientists out there my advice would be if you have an experience of some sort ya'd better adhere to the unwritten rule of silence or you will be pushed to the outside instantly.
 
Thanks for that info, and I stand corrected. Even though he has a nobel prize, his views on certain topics are ridiculous. I guess I should have said the "best and brightest" in a specific field. The work he received his Nobel prize for is stellar, his personal views are terribl

Perhaps, but to me someone like Mullis forces me to ponder just why it is that such an undoubtedly intelligent and brilliant man —much more brilliant and intelligent than me— would even arrive to conclusions that are completely in opposition of the current scientific dogma.

Is it because it shows that brilliancy is not a perfect shield against flagrant error? the eccentricity often accompanied with genius? Or maybe these "heretics" do tend to prove, from time to time, that the edifice of scientific consensus is not at sturdy as it is often believed —emphasis on "believed".

I'm reminded that Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the most brilliant scientist in all of human history, spent the last years of his life devoted to the alchemical study of the Bible. And there are many examples of scientific luminaries that often had controversial beliefs —Francis Crick believing life was seeded by alien beings in the distant past, German physicist Hermann Oberth publicly claiming that flying saucers were spacecraft coming from another galaxy, and so on and so forth.

Oh! how about notable skeptic James Randi doubting of anthropocentric climate change? yeah, that one tends to be rarely mentioned :rolleyes:

Do we have the right to apply an "utilitarian" selection of these men and women's intellectual contributions? saying "well, in this he was absolutely right, but on this other thing he was an idiot"? Can we not see that such selections are based on another specific system of bias, that will almost certainly be thought as laughable by future generations?

Just food for thought.
 
Oh! how about notable skeptic James Randi doubting of anthropocentric climate change? yeah, that one tends to be rarely mentioned

The thing is though, once the evidence showed that he was wrong, he changed his opinion. That's the point. If he was dishonest he would have clung to his previous notion. That's what science is about - being able to adapt to new discoveries.
 
Perhaps, but to me someone like Mullis forces me to ponder just why it is that such an undoubtedly intelligent and brilliant man —much more brilliant and intelligent than me— would even arrive to conclusions that are completely in opposition of the current scientific dogma.

Is it because it shows that brilliancy is not a perfect shield against flagrant error? the eccentricity often accompanied with genius? Or maybe these "heretics" do tend to prove, from time to time, that the edifice of scientific consensus is not at sturdy as it is often believed —emphasis on "believed".

I'm reminded that Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the most brilliant scientist in all of human history, spent the last years of his life devoted to the alchemical study of the Bible. And there are many examples of scientific luminaries that often had controversial beliefs —Francis Crick believing life was seeded by alien beings in the distant past, German physicist Hermann Oberth publicly claiming that flying saucers were spacecraft coming from another galaxy, and so on and so forth.

Oh! how about notable skeptic James Randi doubting of anthropocentric climate change? yeah, that one tends to be rarely mentioned :rolleyes:

Do we have the right to apply an "utilitarian" selection of these men and women's intellectual contributions? saying "well, in this he was absolutely right, but on this other thing he was an idiot"? Can we not see that such selections are based on another specific system of bias, that will almost certainly be thought as laughable by future generations?

Just food for thought.

That's a good point. Everyone I've met, no matter how smart they are, have been wrong about something. And the opposite is true as well.
 
That's what science is about - being able to adapt to new discoveries.

100% in agreement. And also keep looking. Always always keep looking...

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

One other thing I'd like to contribute that might be useful for the discussion. This article from Scientific American: (with emphasis included by me)

As of this writing, the precise nature of Marc Haus*er’s transgressions remains murky. Haus*er is Harvard’s superstar primate psychologist—and, perhaps ironically, an expert on the evolution of morality—whom the university recently found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct. Harvard has kept mum about the details, but a former lab assistant alleged that when Hauser looked at videotapes of rhesus monkeys, in an experiment on their capacity to learn sound patterns, he noted behavior that other people in the lab couldn’t see, in a way that consistently favored his hypothesis. When confronted with these discrepancies, the assistant says, Hauser asserted imperiously that his interpretation was right and the others’ wrong.
Hauser has admitted to committing “significant mistakes.” In observing the reactions of my colleagues to Hauser’s shocking comeuppance, I have been surprised at how many assume reflexively that his misbehavior must have been deliberate. For example, University of Maryland physicist Robert L. Park wrote in a Web column that Hauser “fudged his experiments.” I don’t think we can be so sure. It’s entirely possible that Hauser was swayed by “confirmation bias”—the tendency to look for and perceive evidence consistent with our hypotheses and to deny, dismiss or distort evidence that is not.


The past few decades of research in cognitive, social and clinical psychology suggest that confirmation bias may be far more common than most of us realize. Even the best and the brightest scientists can be swayed by it, especially when they are deeply invested in their own hypotheses and the data are ambiguous. A baseball manager doesn’t argue with the umpire when the call is clear-cut—only when it is close.


Scholars in the behavioral sciences, including psychology and animal behavior, may be especially prone to bias. They often make close calls about data that are open to many interpretations. Last year, for instance, Belgian neurologist Steven Laureys insisted that a comatose man could communicate through a keyboard, even after controlled tests failed to find evidence. Climate researchers trying to surmise past temperature patterns by using proxy data are also engaged in a “particularly challenging exercise because the data are incredibly messy,” says David J. Hand, a statistician at Imperial College London.


Two factors make combating confirmation bias an uphill battle. For one, data show that eminent scientists tend to be more arrogant and confident than other scientists. As a consequence, they may be especially vulnerable to confirmation bias and to wrong-headed conclusions, unless they are perpetually vigilant. Second, the mounting pressure on scholars to conduct single-hypothesis-driven research programs supported by huge federal grants is a recipe for trouble. Many scientists are highly motivated to disregard or selectively reinterpret negative results that could doom their careers. Yet when members of the scientific community see themselves as invulnerable to error, they impede progress and damage the reputation of science in the public eye. The very edifice of science hinges on the willingness of investigators to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.


The best antidote to fooling ourselves is adhering closely to scientific methods. Indeed, history teaches us that science is not a monolithic truth-gathering method but rather a motley assortment of tools designed to safeguard us against bias. In the behavioral sciences, such procedures as control groups, blinded designs and independent coding of data are essential methodological bulwarks against bias. They minimize the odds that our hypotheses will mislead us into seeing things that are not there and blind us from seeing things that are. As astronomer Carl Sagan and his wife and co-author Ann Druyan noted, science is like a little voice in our heads that says, “You might be mistaken. You’ve been wrong before.” Good scientists are not immune from confirmation bias. They are aware of it and avail themselves of procedural safeguards against its pernicious effects.

So with science is a) adapting to new information; b) always keep looking; and c) trusting credentials, but not too much ;)
 
Simple question: do you believe that the Led Zepplin example shown in the video was purposefully planted by the band or anyone else?

Maybe . . . and yes, I've heard the Obama thanking Satan speech. It's certainly no secret that in those days Jimmy Page was very interested in Satanism to the point that he bought Aleister Crowley's former home and had an ownership interest in a Satanist book shop. If Shermer was serious about proving it all hokum, it should have been simple enough to take a tape of him talking, run it backwards and find "hidden" messages . . . but he didn't nor did he talk about the instances I've pointed to, but why let the facts get in the way of a good laugh?
 
Maybe . . . and yes, I've heard the Obama thanking Satan speech. It's certainly no secret that in those days Jimmy Page was very interested in Satanism to the point that he bought Aleister Crowley's former home and had an ownership interest in a Satanist book shop.

This is from Wikipedia:

The band itself has for the most part ignored such claims; in response to the allegations, Swan Song Records issued the statement: "Our turntables only play in one direction—forwards". Led Zeppelin audio engineer Eddie Kramer called the allegations "totally and utterly ridiculous. Why would they want to spend so much studio time doing something so dumb?"<sup id="cite_ref-50" class="reference">[51]</sup> Robert Plant expressed frustration with the accusations in a 1983 interview in Musician magazine: "To me it's very sad, because 'Stairway to Heaven' was written with every best intention, and as far as reversing tapes and putting messages on the end, that's not my idea of making music."
 
This is from Wikipedia:

The band itself has for the most part ignored such claims; in response to the allegations, Swan Song Records issued the statement: "Our turntables only play in one direction—forwards". Led Zeppelin audio engineer [51]</sup> Robert Plant expressed frustration with the accusations in a 1983 interview in Musician magazine: "To me it's very sad, because 'Stairway to Heaven' was written with every best intention, and as far as reversing tapes and putting messages on the end, that's not my idea of making music."

You mean the Eddie Kramer who engineered or produced all those Hendrix albums . . . the ones that don't have any backwards guitar on them?

The Swan Song and Plant quotes read like non-denial denials. Every turntable I've ever seen or heard of only plays in one direction too. To listen backwards, you have to turn it manually. Plant was the main lyricist and was Mr. Flower Power. I'm sure anything like that wouldn't have been his idea. Of course, Pink Floyd acknowledged that the backwards message on The Wall is there, but that they didn't do it . . . even if the voice does sound an awful lot like Roger Waters. They also say they didn't write Echoes as their own score to the Beyond The Infinite sequence in 2001 . . . .

 
Back
Top