When did this become the skeptics forum?

[Fcseven]

When I joined in '08 this forum was filled with people with an open mind. These days it seems like a hangout for debunkers and skeptics. Not that its a bad thing but these guys seem rude and angry. It makes this forum boring and uninteresting. Has anyone else noticed a change as well?

 

[Polterwurst]

Well, yes, there's sceptical people around here and one or two don't seem to be willing to accept the possibility that at least some phenomena might be real. But I really don't see the rude and angry part. That's probably because I've been exposed to real nasty rude and angry in a german forum. This is open minded heaven in comparison. People are mostly civil.

 

[kanakaris]

open mind is not the same as believing idiots like Billie Meier, W.Streiber , Romanek etc...

 

[Bob Watson]

I try to be civil and keep an open mind but it is hard when you got fraud hoaxs and scams everywhere!

 

[Randall]

When I joined in '08 this forum was filled with people with an open mind. These days it seems like a hangout for debunkers and skeptics. Not that its a bad thing but these guys seem rude and angry. It makes this forum boring and uninteresting. Has anyone else noticed a change as well?

For the record here, I firmly believe that a lot of the phenomena discussed here does exist as something real that goes beyond the mundane and in some cases represents technology or abilities that are not understood by the science of our time. The reason I seem skeptical is because I want to know the truth about these phenomena and in the absence of scientific verification, the process of critical thinking is the best tool we have to discern what is the most reasonable explanation. It's not identical to skepticism, but like skepticism it forces us to question our assumptions and theories to the extent that it is possible given the information we have to work with. It is essential that we apply this process to our understanding of these phenomena if we are to have any credibility. When used in the context of healthy inquiry, it can also be intellectually stimulating, which many people also find enjoyable.

Unfortunately because it is similar to skepticism, and because skeptics have gained a less than stellar reputation for sensitivity, there are times when the use of critical thinking can open old wounds. There are also times when it may cause discomfort for those who are heavily invested in a particular belief or are prone to making fabrications. Often it's not easy to discern why someone gets upset at being questioned about their beliefs or statements. But regardless, the intent should never be to demean or be rude or hurtful. I've suggested that we should use a little more discretion here sometimes. Of course I'm not perfect myself either, but this is just my opinion. Last but not least, the tone of the forum is set by those who participate, and it's good to see someone with your attitude stepping back in. If you want to see more of the stuff you like, pick some topics and a direction. Become part of the solution you would like to see .

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Just FYI: This forum becomes whatever the members make of it. Those who don't participate to advance their points of view shouldn't complain if those points of view aren't being expressed to the extent they'd like.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

But I really don't see the rude and angry part.

Lance can get a little gruff. I haven't been here long, so I don't know if it's customary or reactionary on his part.

I really try to fight saying something, in this forum, that is overtly skeptical. I often lose that fight.

When I do say things that follow that bent, it's because I would like to see more reputable figures in science take an honest look at some of the phenomena that the field might have ignored in modern times. I view that as a case by case scenario, as scientists have looked at many paranormal phenomena in a general sense. I think looking at things in a general light, though, is nonsensical when dealing with things that can't be immediately identified, quantified or, thus, classified. However, since so many cases in the case by case record contain nonscientific evaluations and the accepted practice of the suspension of disbelief, most scientists doing real work just don't care to look at these cases. I try to point things out that I feel are hurtful to that idea.

I hate the term "UFO," as it has lot of implications behind its use in the colloquial sense. I think unidentified phenomenon is a less muddled, all purpose label folks can apply to all paranormal instances. Calling things UFOs, spacecraft, ghosts, ape men, aliens, portals, gods, afterlives, etc is naive from a scientific standpoint. It implies knowledge beyond the possible, when given solely to hard, cold empirical data. These words and ideas are psychological projections placed on phenomena, both real and imagined, by people who have an emotional preconceived notion of the classification of these phenomena before they ever even make an observation. These words and ideas are unscientific, undeserved, and unhelpful.

This type of opinion/speculation based investigation is what keeps most real scientists away from the field. You can't take it seriously, in an academic arena, when most of the data that exists pertaining to it can be boiled down to speculative fiction.

I am aware that that is almost certainly never going to change. Given that, I revere the paranormal as a form of performance mythology. I really dig the paranormal, and I'm here to discuss lore (for the most part).

I can't speak for the other skeptics.

 

[mike]

Like Ufology i think there is something going on in regards to UFO's etc
But I also value the process of seperating wheat from chaff.

 

[Muadib]

I think the show itself attracts some of the more skeptical thinking people that are interested in paranormal phenomena because of its reputation for trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are many open minded people on this forum who are willing to listen, but if someone is making claims that don't have any real evidence to back them up, one of the forum members, or even one of the hosts, is going to point it out. Skepticism is important and the utter lack of skepticism among many in the various paranormal fields is one of the things that keeps this subject from real scientific consideration, in my opinion. I don't know any forum members, except maybe Lance, who I would classify as a traditional skeptic, we all have our areas of interest and different levels of belief in various aspects of the paranormal. I don't see the rude and angry part either, yes there are heated debates sometimes but everyone stays well within the rules of the forum. If you want to see an uber skeptical forum, go check out the JREF, or just ask Ufology about his experience there. This forum isn't like that, at all.

 

[stonehart]

For the record here, I firmly believe that a lot of the phenomena discussed here does exist as something real that goes beyond the mundane and in some cases represents technology or abilities that are not understood by the science of our time. The reason I seem skeptical is because I want to know the truth about these phenomena and in the absence of scientific verification, the process of critical thinking is the best tool we have to discern what is the most reasonable explanation. It's not identical to skepticism, but like skepticism it forces us to question our assumptions and theories to the extent that it is possible given the information we have to work with. It is essential that we apply this process to our understanding of these phenomena if we are to have any credibility. When used in the context of healthy inquiry, it can also be intellectually stimulating, which many people also find enjoyable.

Unfortunately because it is similar to skepticism, and because skeptics have gained a less than stellar reputation for sensitivity, there are times when the use of critical thinking can open old wounds. There are also times when it may cause discomfort for those who are heavily invested in a particular belief or are prone to making fabrications. Often it's not easy to discern why someone gets upset at being questioned about their beliefs or statements. But regardless, the intent should never be to demean or be rude or hurtful. I've suggested that we should use a little more discretion here sometimes. Of course I'm not perfect myself either, but this is just my opinion. Last but not least, the tone of the forum is set by those who participate, and it's good to see someone with your attitude stepping back in. If you want to see more of the stuff you like, pick some topics and a direction. Become part of the solution you would like to see .

Nail hit right square on the head Ufology.

Lost count on how many times I have said this but "I want to know not believe", this means you need to have a skeptical mined set to an extent.

 

[Muadib]

"I want to know not believe"

Exactly, belief is easy, to really find out what exactly, if anything, is going on in the various fields that encompass paranormal phenomena is a difficult proposition, though I would argue that while knowing is difficult, it is ultimately more satisfying than simple belief. Anyone can believe in anything, the question is: can you prove that belief is justified?

 

[cottonzway]

There is so much bullshit that it makes sense so many people are skeptical. That doesn't mean there are not legit things to consider, but the amount of pure bullshit outweighs that aspect of this subject.

 

[Wade]

Well I can tell you guys what I believe. I believe this is one of the best, most thoughtful, well articulated set of responses to a posting I have ever come across. We breech this subject a lot and there is the usual set of talking points and I've gotten kind of jaded on this one subject but this thread was a home run. Makes me glad to be here. I liked them all and I guess that is because it best describes my feelings, quite opened minded but conflicted about it. as I've posted before I've never been one of those guys who needs to hear touch smell etc.to consider that it exists even though I am leaning more towards the skeptical side...I think...you guys are rubbing off on me. but what I do feel secure in saying is whatever the true nature of this "force" is, be it swamp gas, em forces, altered states of consciousness by any means , et, or interdimensional, I do feel privileged on being a active participant in it in my own little way, as I'm sure anyone else whose ever experienced a ghost, bigfoot, ufo, uap deja vu or synchronicity have.

 

[Randall]

... I hate the term "UFO," as it has lot of implications behind its use in the colloquial sense. I think unidentified phenomenon is a less muddled, all purpose label folks can apply to all paranormal instances. Calling things UFOs, spacecraft, ghosts, ape men, aliens, portals, gods, afterlives, etc is naive from a scientific standpoint. It implies knowledge beyond the possible, when given solely to hard, cold empirical data. These words and ideas are psychological projections placed on phenomena, both real and imagined, by people who have an emotional preconceived notion of the classification of these phenomena before they ever even make an observation. These words and ideas are unscientific, undeserved, and unhelpful ...

You're not alone when it comes to the frustration surrounding the word "UFO", however numerous official and unofficial definitions, interpretations and examples of usage, from the word's inception to the present day provide overwhelming evidence that its primary use is to convey the idea of an alien craft. Its secondary purpose is as a reference to the subject matter of UFO reports. In the latter context, the subject matter may or may not be an alien craft and to date there is insufficient material evidence connected to any single report to confirm the existence of alien craft. Only when the reports are taken together and studied with some care does it become apparent that it is reasonable to believe that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. There is a more complete background on the word "UFO" on the USI website ( link in signature below ).

 

[Stagger Lee]

open mind is not the same as believing idiots like Billie Meier, W.Streiber , Romanek etc...

I'm thankful for those who expose the snakeoil salesmen out there, muddying the waters.. saves me alot of time from picking up one of their books, only to realize the same.

 

[mike]

 

[ProphetofOccam]

You're not alone when it comes to the frustration surrounding the word "UFO", however numerous official and unofficial definitions, interpretations and examples of usage, from the word's inception to the present day provide overwhelming evidence that its primary use is to convey the idea of an alien craft. Its secondary purpose is as a reference to the subject matter of UFO reports.

With that word in particular, I think my biggest gripe, paradoxically enough, is the letter "O." I think it presupposes and implies too much about reported phenomena before the report is even made. it suggests that if you see something strange in the sky, it's automatically an object. It could be many things that make the word "object" contextually inappropriate. I don't like the idea that is has to be "flying," either.

For instance, mirages don't fly and they aren't objects in most contextual situations. That being the case, if you are studying/investigating/researching a "UFO" claim, and people who make these observations are sociologically trained to recognize phenomena as "UFO's," the implications of the term leads both witness and investigator to presuppose that explanations like mirages and atmospheric light phenomena are weak or, in the very lest, last resort conclusions that should be reached once the Unidentified, Flying, and Object default hypotheses have been disqualified. Making those kind of default leaps isn't how good investigation and/or science is done.

"Unidentified" is a fair word to use. Anything someone doesn't recognize is unidentified to them. The key goal of such an investigation is to attempt to answer that unknown. Be it a spaceship or a truck's headlights, solving the "unidentified" portion of the riddle should be an untainted, unbiased procedure. It's in answering that unknown that differences regarding the qualification and classification of evidence comes into play, but that's beyond my point, here.

An investigation into the unknown should be just that. It's unfair and impractical to approach such an investigation presuming to know two piece of information, right off the bat -- what we're dealing with was flying and what we're dealing with is an object.

I think that automatic, psychological bias, caused by little more than vernacular, is what leads to the follow up assumption made by many researchers and experiencers that any attempt to disqualify a phenomenon as either "flying" or an "object," in many cases, is an attack on the witness and the field as a whole -- be that the resentment of debunkers or the perception of conspiracy. If someone is sociologically influenced into presupposing that any strange phenomenon they see in the sky is a "flying object (or, even worse, further into the colloquial implications, a vessel)," it's going to be the strongest message they receive from their own brain when they make such an observation. So, not only is their initial observation being informed by a colloquial bias, but any attempt to approach the sighting from any other direction will be taken as a suggestion that they were "wrong" in what they saw. That impression is so powerful that any contextually complex evidence suggesting that it might be faulty can be perceived as a "cover-up."

I'm not speaking to whether or not conspiracies are real or whether or not cover-ups happen. I'm speaking to the power of vernacular and the influence it has on human psychology and perception.

In our culture, UFO is a meme that has taken on influence well beyond its original intention. Ghost, Bigfoot, seamonster, etc, all suffer from the same meme influence. It just leads to too much bias, tainted observation, and fill-in-the-blanks reasoning from both witnesses and researchers.

When I say "I don't feel that many of the things considered to be a part of the paranormal are real," what I mean is, I don't have any reason to buy into the accepted memes. I am aware that strange things happen; sometimes, these things are beyond our ability, for various reasons, to explain them. I have yet to see a convincing piece of evidence, or hear a convincing argument, for why the accepted memes should be considered good explanations.

 

[Derik]

In my opinion (and I am no scholar or scientist) it's best to take in the evidence and follow it wherever it leads you. It's pretty foolish not to be a skeptic at some level until you have all of the facts from multiple sources, and do some down and dirty investigating right? As they say, iron sharpens iron. Without skeptics, this world would be a pretty boring place with everyone agreeing with one another all the time.

 

[RonReyes]

 

[Derik]

Yep that's the face. Hehe!