• 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 on Skeptics - Pseudoskeptics Revealed


Forums New posts
Great Link - Let's Post That Video Here - Fantastic


So who are the Astroturfers in the Anti-Ufology crowd?​
 
Last edited:
Just to check out how bad it's gotten, I went onto Wikipedia to view the Ufology article and ran straight into what appears to be changes made by biased opinionated skeptics who insist on classing ufology as a pseudoscience when it's not, and no sooner had I made the edit to reflect a more objective opinion that is in keeping with the facts, someone changed it back, and I suspect that it is probably part of the "Guerilla Skeptics" movement on Wikipedia.

At this point I seem to be the only "guerilla ufologist" who is attempting to undo their damage to the field. If anyone else is interested in collaborating on keeping skeptical opinion fair minded and accurate with respect to ufology on Wikipedia, please add yourself to this thread and let's get a plan together. We want skeptics to be fair minded and accurate rather than anti-ufology. I have a couple of ideas, and would welcome some participation.
 
Last edited:
Ron Away said:
What do you have in mind?
Click to expand...
My thinking is to monitor the UFO articles for anti-ufology content as opposed to fair minded skepticism, and to edit those parts out. The article I worked on this morning was the entry on Ufology, which was introduced as a "pseudoscience", a sure-fire skeptic's buzz-word, which with respect to ufology, is a highly opinionated skeptical position rather than information based in fact. But no sooner had I fixed it than it was changed back, and this happened several times. This wreaks of the "Guerilla Skeptics" in action, and somebody needs to fight back.

It won't be that hard because they're focusing on everything they deem to be woo, while we only need to focus on ufology, which is a small sub-section, and all we need to do is cut the offending text and paste in the more accurate text. No content creation required. To begin with, if we can get even 2 or 3 people to monitor just one article and fix it whenever skeptics do their damage, we should be able to stay ahead of them. Behind the scenes we can try to get them to be more fair minded and fact based rather than anti-ufology.
 
What is a fair minded approach to ufology? I am not sure we could get much of a consensus about that.

In the past year we have seen the Slides Debacle implicate even some of the stars who appear at conferences and lead many to question the state of ufology. I have seen any number of things accepted without crucial thought - from the claims of a "space pilot" who is serving a life term for murder,to those who use highly questionable methodologies for their research. Certainly I have seen pseudo science advanced as science. And ultimately we are talking about something that encompasses everything from those who promote Majestic 12 to the study of folklore or the trickster.

While I do not want to get into a debate into any of the specifics, it seems like the best way to get people to be fair minded and fact based is to make sure the facts that are represented are based on solid research and critical thought.

But ufology has yet to come to any kind of resolution - so defining what might be an "accurate text" is a Herculean objective.
 
Back
Top