lancemoody
Skeptic
---
Last edited:
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!
Terrific episode, nice to hear both sides discussing the subject intelligently and respectfully. Radford came across as a true skeptic, curious and objective. It was very good to hear that both 'sides' knew each others' work, and were able to not just find common ground, but to consider all open options.
Also kudos to Chris for being willing to answer Ben's question with his thoughts on the power of collective thought… I'd be very interested in hearing more on that particular subject from Chris, Nick Redfern, maybe Jon Downes, and maybe have a table discussion about it with a smart skeptic like Radford.
Is it powerful enough to even manifest a real solid three dimensional object or creature?
Yeah, well from my brief back & forth with Mr. Radford, I form a different opinion of him. I find Mr. Radford is not a skeptic. He is a believer. He uses his faith-based belief as any religious person would. He claims he performs his research scientifically. His approach, I found, is anything but scientific. His arguments are simplistic and qualitative with little or no use of math or logic. He forms qualitative opinions based on his beliefs and uses technical-sounding language to push them. He appears really fond of using straw-man arguments on you when his viewpoints are stressed, as you would expect from someone with his degree in psychology.Radford came across as a true skeptic, curious and objective.
Yeah, well from my brief back & forth with Mr. Radford, I form a different opinion of him. I find Mr. Radford is not a skeptic. He is a believer. He uses his faith-based belief as any religious person would. He claims he performs his research scientifically. His approach, I found, is anything but scientific. His arguments are simplistic and qualitative with little or no use of math or logic. He forms qualitative opinions based on his beliefs and uses technical-sounding language to push them. He appears really fond of using straw-man arguments on you when his viewpoints are stressed, as you would expect from someone with his degree in psychology.
Again, my opinion of him, is formed from my brief interaction with him and from his other writings. Every encounter since then has been consistent with the opinion I originally formed. I understand, Ben makes his living from his beliefs. So it may not be all that surprising that he counters with hysterics when some of his arguments are exposed as hot air. Still, press this guy a little and you may be in for an eye-opener as to his reaction.
Check some of the old ATS threads re the Jerusalem UFO; I don't know if they're still available. A lot appeared to have been taken offline. Check some of his 'answers' to my points (again regarding Jerusalem). Look at the comments section in the Ben's CBS article re Jerusalem. Again, the question is not whether Jerusalem was real or not; that is irrelevant. There is no definitive proof either way. Rather, it is the approach and the logic being used.Can you please provide examples?
That is a silly question, Angelo. Read Ben's CBS news and Discovery articles. You know the answer, why ask the question? But I take it for the point you are trying to make.Did he think the Jerusalem UFO was bogus (which it is) or something?
[
Check some of the old ATS threads re the Jerusalem UFO; I don't know if they're still available. A lot appeared to have been taken offline. Check some of his 'answers' to my points (again regarding Jerusalem). Look at the comments section in the Ben's CBS article re Jerusalem. Again, the question is not whether Jerusalem was real or not; that is irrelevant. There is no definitive proof either way. Rather, it is the approach and the logic being used.
What ircks me is that Ben is intelligent enough to fully know the logic he uses in his arguments is flawed, yet he proceeds with them. He attempts to denigrate people not agreeing with his viewpoints using, not legitimate arguments, but again, flawed logic. He should know better.
That is a silly question, Angelo. Read Ben's CBS news and Discovery articles. You know the answer, why ask the question? But I take it for the point you are trying to make.
No one is ever going to please everyone all of the time.Anybody both 'sides' could agree on?
Lance, ok you're asking me to do the digging. Fair enough; I brought it up. Still, be more specific in your question. Example of what? Of Ben acting badly? Check the CBS news articles as a start.@softbeard
Again, is there any chance of examples?
I don't fault Ben for being a believer or his viewpoints. But he should not attempt to disguise his faith as skepticism.Same is true of the 'believer' side.
No, Angelo. The answer to the question; "Did he think the Jerusalem UFO was bogus (which it is) or something?". Of course Ben thought it was bogus. He wrote a whole article (an atricle which myself, along with a lot of other people, thought was completely bogus) stating that he thought the Jerusalem UFO was a hoax.I actually didn't know the answer
No, Angelo. The answer to the question; "Did he think the Jerusalem UFO was bogus (which it is) or something?". Of course Ben thought it was bogus. He wrote a whole article (an atricle which myself, along with a lot of other people, thought was completely bogus) stating that he thought the Jerusalem UFO was a hoax.
I looked up Noetic Science. From what I was able to gather from it, I don't really think that's what I had in mind. I may have missed something though. I wasn't thinking about individual beliefs or psi abilities. I don't think humans have the ability to create reality or change reality with the power of conscious thought or will. There is zero evidence that is possible.That's sort of what Noetic Science is about. There are some interesting theories with regards to that. I don't think there's anything that points to it even being theoretically possible, but no one thought that multiple universes were either.
Angelo, I think you are mis-reading what I said and jumping to conclusions about my statements. I never said his article was hysterical. It probably does not help your career path as a writer to submit articles to CBS news that sound hysterical. What I claimed was that some of Ben's rebuttals in discussions with people, have been hysterical.Yes, he did write an article about it which is quite articulate and reasonable. You said he sounded hysterical.
This is a perfect example of Ben's use of straw-man arguments. The MUFON investigation looked at a almost-certainly hoaxed and silly-looking CGI video purporting to be a close-up of the Jerusalem UFO. They debunked the video. Then Ben turns around and starts gloating, "Aha! See! It's a hoax, so ìt`s all a hoax!" Frankly Angelo, if you can't see the straw-man in this; well, like I told Ben, "Welcome to the True-Believers club. I`m sure you and your new-found faith will be very happy together."According to a statement, "MUFON's chief Photo and Video Analyst, Mr. Marc Dantonio, stated 'I firmly believe that the UFO was not real, for many reasons...this video and the other Jerusalem UFO Videos are in my opinion hoaxes." Dantonio cited several reasons for his conclusion, some of them echoing points I made in my analysis published in O'Neill's piece six weeks earlier.