Who's Skeptical?

[Rick Deckard]

From the 'Skeptics Toolbox' - The Skeptic's Toolbox - Workshop in Eugene, OR

Suppose you were given the power to change people's minds? This power would enable you to get people to believe whatever you want; to make them feel and act towards any issue in any way you desire.

I think we need to promote critical thinking. We need to get more people really thinking and analyzing claims of the paranormal and *other misinformed ideas* (my emphasis). One of my favorite ways is to bring new participants to the Skeptic's Toolbox.

If this is what being a 'skeptic' means then count me out.

I'm neither a 'skeptic' nor a 'believer' - I choose to think for myself.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

This thread reminds me of the "Bologna Technique" I read in Sagan's Demon Haunted World. Sagan didn't really use it when it came to his own conclusions about the paranormal though, which I found interesting.

Do as I say not as I do.

 

[Raevenskye]

if you're starting out by saying "claims of the paranormal and other misinformed ideas" then you're not thinking critically, either! it's still the old no-proof-is-good-enough thing.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I often see them conclude what they can't prove. As an example they say aliens have never visited the planet. That can't be proven. They say, burden of proof lies on the claimant. Yet they don't prove that claim. Why James Randi doesn't simply say that he isn't convinced over "All of these people are charlatan snakes that feed off the gullible" is rather fanatical and dogmatic. He can't prove that. He doesn't know of all alleged psychics after all. It could exist, he just hasn't seen it, or refuse to accept it. I would agree if he said, some or many are snakes etc. This has been proven in a matter of speaking.

I've heard Joe Knickel state that the chances of an alien crash at Roswell is "zero to none". This over confidence hurts him. He'd be more respected if he wasn't so arrogant.

 

[Raevenskye]

I often see them conclude what they can't prove. As an example they say aliens have never visited the planet. That can't be proven. They say, burden of proof lies on the claimant. Yet they don't prove that claim. Why James Randi doesn't simply say that he isn't convinced over "All of these people are charlatan snakes that feed off the gullible" is rather fanatical and dogmatic. He can't prove that. He doesn't know of all alleged psychics after all. It could exist, he just hasn't seen it, or refuse to accept it. I would agree if he said, some or many are snakes etc. This has been proven in a matter of speaking.

I'm with you. I think that a lot of psychics are charlatans that feed off the gullible...there are a lot that aren't that way at all. Randi is blinded by his own skepticism. He'd never allow "proof" if he had all the proof in the world. Too many skeptics follow his path. I'm a beliver in a lot of supernatural things, but I always look for a logical solution first. Sometimes it is what you think...sometimes not.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Even Sagan said we need to be careful about people like Randi. They hinder progress with the extreme nay saying. He also said that benefit can come from people like that too. We need skeptics, but not ones who are as zealous in their disbelief as some are gullible in their belief.

 

[Raevenskye]

People who are fanaticallly skeptical totally turn me off as much as people who believe everything without question. I usually tune out both sets, and try to find a middle ground.

 

[Rick Deckard]

People who are fanaticallly skeptical totally turn me off as much as people who believe everything without question. I usually tune out both sets, and try to find a middle ground.

Absolutely - this is where I am right now

 

[musictomyears]

It's a complicated issue...

First of all, there are crooks and liars in every field - absolutely every field. Doctors, lawyers (you knew that! ), builders, musicians (oh yes!), politicians (no really)...

But the bigger problem is this: Who, in their right mind, is going to risk their reputation, if not their career, by going out and admitting they saw a UFO/talked to an alien/were abducted to Zeta Reticuli? Who is going to be stupid enough to draw the worst ridicule imaginable, by their peers and the general public?

Exactly.

So who are the characters, a lot of the time, who go out and shout about their alleged experiences? People who don't have a career they could loose, or reputation to defend, to begin with.

There are some extremely reputable individuals who will never publicly speak about their UFO/paranormal related experiences. They either keep very quiet about it, or, at the very most, talk amongst selected peers.

 

[Rick Deckard]

But the bigger problem is this: Who, in their right mind, is going to risk their reputation, if not their career, by going out and admitting they saw a UFO/talked to an alien/were abducted to Zeta Reticuli? Who is going to be stupid enough to draw the worst ridicule imaginable, by their peers and the general public?

Exactly.

Exactly indeed - which is why we need to change people's attitudes (not beliefs) towards the subject. Is it really *so* ridiculous to suggest that we are not alone in the universe? No, I don't think it is ridiculous at all and once people get over *that* mental 'hurdle' all the other possibilities are then open for honest discussion.

I think the argument for the 'ETI reality' can be made with logic and reason - I think the UFO 'circus' turns so many people away that it should be put to one side until there's a general acceptance of the *possibilities*. Only then can the 'ETI hypothesis' of UFOs be sensibly discussed 'in the open' without fear of ridicule and loss of personal/professional credibility.

 

[CapnG]

Possibilities are not the same as realities. Most sane individuals are perfectly capable (and willing) to accept the notion of life on other planets as a possibility. Even die-hard religious types will usually bow to the notion that bacteria may exist in space. Dealing with the tangible reality of alien life (espescially intelligent alien life) is a completely different matter. Even if you plead the case on a one-on-one basis to everyone on earth, I doubt it would make a difference.

As Agent K says in Men in Black: "A person is rational. People are dumb, panicky animals... and you know it!"

 

[musictomyears]

I think the UFO 'circus' turns so many people away that it should be put to one side until there's a general acceptance of the *possibilities*.

Yes.

But there is also soooo much hypocrisy from otherwise credible professionals, it makes me sick.

A few years ago, I attended a series of lectures on astronomy at Auckland University, NZ. The lectures were part of an adult education programme. The course was advertised as covering the possibility of extraterrestrial life as well, and the tutor was an eminent and widely published astronomer from Texas.

The man lectured very competently on the solar system, as one would expect, and was friendly and affable. On the fourth night or so, the talk came to hypothetical life on other planets. I think he mentioned statistics, he certainly mentioned the physiological requirements for life in general... However, his talk was firmly rooted in the realms of theory, probability, and possibility. I listened carefully to every word he said, and when he finally invited questions, I raised my arm. I said to him that I felt a bit schizophrenic right then, listening to him, as if on one side ET life was nothing more than a distant possibility, yet on the other there are many people who claim they not only saw UFOs, but even talked to aliens. I told him about videos that show UFOs flying around over Area 51, for example, and that there was a great deal of information available on the subject. He listened politely, but basically shrugged off my points, and maintained that talking about ETs was a mere hypothetical exercise, and that was that.

So, after the end of the lecture, I walked up to his desk, and asked him if he had heard of the NASA videos "The Smoking Gun", published by the UK UFO Magazine. He said he hadn't, but when I described the contents of the videos, he said he would look them up on the internet. He still appeared entirely dismissive of the subject, and little interested.

But guess what?

In the moment the last student had left the lecture hall, he suddenly turned around and looked me straight in the eye. He started telling me about a colleague he used to have, back in Texas - another professional astronomer. He told me that his colleague had told him that, one night, when he was driving back home from the observatory, did he see the most enormous, black UFO hovering above the motorway, the size of several football pitches. The colleague told him that he would never, ever, publicly talk about this event, because he knew that this would cost him his job.

There you have it. Orwellian doublethink at its worst.

 

[Rick Deckard]

There you have it. Orwellian doublethink at its worst.

A double-plus good post...

We have very tightly controlled subject curriculums in our schools over here in the UK - the teachers have to stick to the 'approved' subject matter or face disciplinary procedures. Now, of course this is a perfectly reasonable system to ensure that the level and quality of teaching is consistent throughout the country, but it also allows the governing bodies to define the 'consensual' reality.

I've heard it described as a 'prison for the mind' - I suppose if you've been in school for 10 to 15 years, being taught the same rigid view of the world, it then becomes difficult to think 'outside of the box'. It must be even harder for teachers who have been in the school environment pretty much all their lives.

How much of history that is taught in school is 100% accurate? What do the Germans teach their children in respect of World War 2? How about the Japanese? I don't actually know the answer, but I would hazard a guess that they don't dwell on 'certain events' while they might over-emphasize others...which makes me wonder about the accuracy of our historical record of the various wars...how doe's it go again "the first casualty of war is the truth"?

What must it be like living in China where *everything* is closely scrutinised by a 'ministry' and the flow of information is closely controlled by 'approved' groups? You *have* to think within 'approved boundaries' or face prison or worse...

...I don't know what the answer is to the UFO problem. What I do know is that while scientific research is primarily funded by 'big business' the truth will be kept locked away until it's either no longer a threat or it offers no further advantage to the 'keepers'.

 

[Manu]

That's a great story.

This attitude is so overwhelming in almost every scientific discipline, that it is more accurate to not label them as scienes.

 

[grannysmith]

The problem is that these people are not 'skeptics' at all - they are 'disbelievers'. 'Skepticism' is 'doubt' not 'denial'.

 

[musictomyears]

The problem is that these people are not 'skeptics' at all - they are 'disbelievers'. 'Skepticism' is 'doubt' not 'denial'.

That's a good one - a "disbeliever": Someone who knows something to be true, but publicly says that it can't be proved.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

It's a complicated issue...

First of all, there are crooks and liars in every field - absolutely every field. Doctors, lawyers (you knew that! ), builders, musicians (oh yes!), politicians (no really)...

But the bigger problem is this: Who, in their right mind, is going to risk their reputation, if not their career, by going out and admitting they saw a UFO/talked to an alien/were abducted to Zeta Reticuli? Who is going to be stupid enough to draw the worst ridicule imaginable, by their peers and the general public?

Almost every abductee you know of.

Anyone who's had a job at the time they gave their interview about a sighting on tv, radio, or had their face in the newspaper etc.

Here's some names. Feel free to dismiss those that don't fit the criteria. I know at least some should.

David B, Dan Ackroyd, Whitley Strieber, John Mack (if he counts), Sammy Hager, Gordan Cooper, Budd Hopkins (had two ufo sightings and was/is an artist), Ed Walters, Jimmy Carter, John Travolta and his wife, John Lennon, Rosie O Donell, Reagan, James Mcdivit. John Velez, Ray Fowler etc.

Just type up alien abduction at youtube and have a look at all those people coming forward. Stupid or not in their right mind? Rosie is. The rest aren't imo. I think the right frame of mind tells one to go forward with such matters and only the stupid sell out and don't.

 

[musictomyears]

Almost every abductee you know of.

Anyone who's had a job at the time they gave their interview about a sighting on tv, radio, or had their face in the newspaper etc.

Here's some names. Feel free to dismiss those that don't fit the criteria. I know at least some should.

David B, Dan Ackroyd, Whitley Strieber, John Mack (if he counts), Sammy Hager, Gordan Cooper, Budd Hopkins (had two ufo sightings and was/is an artist), Ed Walters, Jimmy Carter, John Travolta and his wife, John Lennon, Rosie O Donell, Reagan, James Mcdivit. John Velez, Ray Fowler etc.

Just type up alien abduction at youtube and have a look at all those people coming forward. Stupid or not in their right mind? Rosie is. The rest aren't imo. I think the right frame of mind tells one to go forward with such matters and only the stupid sell out and don't.

Sure. I don't know about the others, but Jimmy Carter backtracked later, didn't he, when a reporter pressed him on the exact details of his encounter. I remember watching a clip with Carter dodging questions about it.

Yes, there are some who will risk their career for the truth, and all power to them. Most professionals, however, aren't that brave. Call them stupid, sell-outs, or just cowardly - they will choose job security over the pursuit of truth any day.

Which is why I seriously doubt that humanity, as a whole, is ready for those kind of revelations. If our best educated classes can't handle them, but wet their pants at the prospect of engaging with races from other planets, how are lesser informed people supposed to react?