Pathological Skepticsm.

[Giambattista]

You appear to feel that such an investigation would be a waste of time - not because of your own investigation or study - but because of mere proclamation.

Mere proclamation.

You once, in response to one of my posts, said that Stanton Friedman would be proud!

This reminds me of something he said on that website you linked to:

Debunkers seem to employ four major rules:


What the public doesn't know, we certainly won't tell them. The largest official USAF UFO study isn't even mentioned in twelve anti-UFO books, though every one of those books' authors was aware of it.


Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.


If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.


Do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.

Now, I'm sensitive to more skeptical ufologists and their qualms with persons like Mr. Friedman. He is not a man without controversy. But many of the things he said were very sensible.

Does anyone get tired of hearing proclamations, rather than investigations?

Attacking the people? Woo Woo. That about says it for personal, "ad hominem" attacks.

Who was it, Phlogistician? Woo Woos are all underachievers, attention-seeking morons, etc, etc.

From an article by a rather skeptical Susan Blackmore (Skeptical Inquirer):

Another theory is that abductees are mentally ill. This receives little or no support from the literature. Bloecher, Clamar, and Hopkins (1985) found above-average intelligence and no signs of serious pathology among nine abductees, and Parnell (1988) found no evidence of psychopathology among 225 individuals who reported having seen a UFO (although not having been abducted). Most recently, Spanos et al. (1993) compared forty-nine UFO reporters with two control groups and found they were no less intelligent, no more fantasy prone, and no more hypnotizable than the controls. Nor did they show more signs of psychopathology. They did, however, believe more strongly in alien visitations, suggesting that such beliefs allow people to shape ambiguous information, diffuse physical sensations, and vivid imaginings into realistic alien encounters.

Temporal lobe lability has also been implicated. People with relatively labile temporal lobes are more prone to fantasy, and more likely to report mystical and out-of-body experiences, visions, and psychic experiences (Persinger and Makarec 1987). However, Spanos et al. found no difference in a temporal lobe lability scale between their UFO reporters and control groups. Cox (1995) compared a group of twelve British abductees with both a matched control group and a student control group and, again, found no differences on the temporal lobe lability scale. Like Spanos's subjects, the abductees were more often believers in alien visitations than were the controls.

They did, however, believe more strongly in alien visitations, suggesting that such beliefs allow people to shape ambiguous information, diffuse physical sensations, and vivid imaginings into realistic alien encounters.

The question then, is do people who have sightings of UFOs have their beliefs influenced by their sightings? Is this enough to say that they are fantasy prone Woo-Woos that make up their stories for purposes of gaining attention?

These personal attacks on people don't necessarily invalidate their claims.

Both the UFO AND the abduction phenomenon needs to be addressed case by case. You can't say "I've proved one or two cases to be false, so I've PROVED THEM ALL!" Or is that how science works?

Recently, one of the preeminent theoretical physicists, Michio Kaku, said:

"Some people slam the door on the question of other civilizations visiting the Earth because distances are so far away. I say, 'Not so fast.' "

"When you look at this handful, handful of cases that cannot be easily dismissed. This is worthy. This is worthy of a scientific investigation. Maybe there's nothing there. However, on the off chance that there is something there, that could change the course of human history. So I say, ' Let the investigation begin.' "

 

[Gustav]

I dispute none of your probability statements above. None of those were in my list.
1) Almost certain.
2) Also, almost certain but far less common
3) Also, almost certain but even less common than general sentience.

Is an advanced spacefaring civilization the explanation for UFO's? Based on the absolute lack of evidence, no. Absolutely not.

nice
i like your certainty. lets now role play

While flying over Lake Michigan in 1981, TWA Captain Phil Schultz saw a "large, round, silver metal object" with dark portholes equally spaced around the circumference, which "descended into the atmosphere from above," according to his hand-written report. Schultz and his first officer braced themselves for a mid-air collision; the object suddenly made a high speed turn and departed.

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

In 1997, a Swissair Boeing 747 over Long Island just missed a glowing white, cylindrical object speeding towards the plane. According to a FAA Civil Aviation Security Office memorandum, Pilot Philip Bobet said that "if the object was any lower, it may have hit the right wing." (link link link)

let us assume that these reports are factual. (if you cannot, explain why)
put yourself in any of these pilot's shoes and attempt an explanation of the phenomena. is there a possibility that in any one of your working hypothesis, you would include an et origin for the ufo? if not, why? keep in mind too, your high degree of confidence in the probability equations previously mentioned.

thanks

 

[Gustav]

No. Different nonsensical subject altogether.

which is exactly my point.. the only commonality is a wholly subjective characterization. you would think a scientific approach would not allow emotional considerations to taint or bias, an investigation into a "different subject," ja?

a few examples of pathological skepticism....

santa claus gambit This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.

debunkery-by-association: Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example.

what do you think?

 

[Giambattista]

let us assume that these reports are factual. (if you cannot, explain why)

Let's just assume, like good skeptics, that these reports are BULLSH*T!

Okay, seriously, let me guess...

Pilots aren't trained observers.
Even SCIENTISTS can be fooled! How much more easily are pilots fooled, then?
It was probably an experimental craft with which they were unfamiliar, and so they misidentified it as something "out of this world!"
Were they intoxicated?
Do they lie often? Are they cheating on their wives?
Can I actually talk to these pilots?
Can you get them on the phone for me so I know if they're real or not?
Someone probably fabricated these stories to further the Woo Woo agenda.

Are these plausible or likely explanations???
Hear that buzzing? The HIVE IS ACTIVE!!! EEK!

Just a little sarcasm, to spice things up!

 

[Gustav]

Sure. Ancient as in "the aliens built the pyramids" and other nonsense.

you would be well served if you desist from reading tabloids and allowing the crackpots to define the terms and content of debate. i mean....moon hoax?

jesus fucking wept aka nigger puhlease!

 

[Gustav]

This issue is WAY to complicated and unsolved to be making grand proclamation's any way or the other at this point.

you are being too hard on phlog.

this reminds me of a quote by marx....
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!"

 

[superluminal]

This all comes down to probabability. If you view the probability of life forms visiting us as high you will see ETI as a resonable explanation for some UFO's.

As little as we know about our own solar system we are in no position to make grand proclamation's one way or another yet. We can make grand proclamation's, but doing so and then citing a "Lack of evidence" as the reason for our proclamation's seems to me, to be rather stupid.

So, lack of evidence leads others to make "grand proclamations" that UFO's are aliens? Now that's stupid. Look, people see things. They think "oh, that's odd" Why would they jump to the conclusion that aliens are about? Especially when there are so many phenomena that occurr in the sky? Simply because they can't think of a more prosaic explanation right away?

My point is, why make any proclamation at all? There's no compelling evidence that UFO's are alien spacecraft. There's tons of evidence for hoaxes, sincere misidentification, hallucinations, and actual brain dysfunction.

So I will ammend my "proclamation". Claiming UFO's are alien spacecraft is silly based on the current state of evidence. There.

 

[superluminal]

nice
i like your certainty. lets now role play

While flying over Lake Michigan in 1981, TWA Captain Phil Schultz saw a "large, round, silver metal object" with dark portholes equally spaced around the circumference, which "descended into the atmosphere from above," according to his hand-written report. Schultz and his first officer braced themselves for a mid-air collision; the object suddenly made a high speed turn and departed.

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

In 1997, a Swissair Boeing 747 over Long Island just missed a glowing white, cylindrical object speeding towards the plane. According to a FAA Civil Aviation Security Office memorandum, Pilot Philip Bobet said that "if the object was any lower, it may have hit the right wing." (link link link)

let us assume that these reports are factual. (if you cannot, explain why)
put yourself in any of these pilot's shoes and attempt an explanation of the phenomena. is there a possibility that in any one of your working hypothesis, you would include an et origin for the ufo? if not, why? keep in mind too, your high degree of confidence in the probability equations previously mentioned.

thanks

1) You do know that the weakest form of evidence is eyewitness accounts?

2) You do know that the weakest form of argument is "argument from authority"?

"let us assume that these reports are factual. (if you cannot, explain why)"

By factual do you mean that the report itself is accurate or that the testimony is sincere and true? I accept that the repot itself is true, but the content is always suspect per (1) above. You want me to put myself in the shoes of the pilots? Ok. In no particular order:

1) I was drunk and misinterpreted a satellite reentry.

2) I was sober and misinterpreted a satellite reentry.

3) I was bored and needed a bit of excitement so I made up a story

4) I was in need of some cash and a good "UFO" story is always good for some publicity income

5) I really did see something I can't explain. Since I'm the credulous type and easily swayed by the media, I conclude that an alien spaceship buzzed my jet.

I could go on but you get the point. Nothing matters but physical evidence and repeatable controlled experiments and observations.

 

[superluminal]

which is exactly my point.. the only commonality is a wholly subjective characterization. you would think a scientific approach would not allow emotional considerations to taint or bias, an investigation into a "different subject," ja?

a few examples of pathological skepticism....

santa claus gambit This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.

debunkery-by-association: Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example.

what do you think?

I think you are correct and that these techniques are used.

"lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones"

Who decides what is moderate and what is extreme? In my opinion there is as little credible evidence for Santa Clause as there is for alien spacecraft. Eyewitness testimony is scientifically useless.

As for "debunkery by association" I am happy to take each and every instance on its own merits.

 

[Gustav]

Okay, seriously, let me guess...

proof of psychic phenomena.
i rest my case

 

[superluminal]

you would be well served if you desist from reading tabloids and allowing the crackpots to define the terms and content of debate. i mean....moon hoax?

jesus fucking wept aka nigger puhlease!

What do you mean here? I just listed a bunch of "theories" to discuss. Are you "deciding what is extreme and what is moderate"?

Why dont you tell me exactly what we're debating here? Ok? I thought we were examining the state of UFO claims and such. Are you losing your focus Gustav?

 

[Gustav]

superluminal

confucius say: I, as yet, have no solid experimental proof of this postulate.

despite that.......what would you like to see happen? a discussion?
point here is, on that hand there is flexibilty, on this one, rigidity
if my observation is accurate, reconcile please

Are you losing your focus Gustav?

perhaps, i've been known to get that way
pardon

 

[Gustav]

5) I really did see something I can't explain. Since I'm the credulous type and easily swayed by the media, I conclude that an alien spaceship buzzed my jet.

super
just what i was looking for
yet a mere hypothesis would have sufficed
why do you need a definitive conclusion when you perhaps have, only a visual?

Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

comment? do you not feel this might be in fact, commonplace?

 

[superluminal]

super
just what i was looking for
yet a mere hypothesis would have sufficed
why do you need a definitive conclusion when you perhaps have, only a visual?

I don't. I think it's wise to withold judgement until definitive evidence is available for or against a claim. If people make claims for the existence of a thing, with no scientific evidence, they should be taken to task for it.

Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim.

Of course not.

If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

Again, of course not. All that matters is scientific evidence.

comment? do you not feel this might be in fact, commonplace?

Unfortunately, yes. That dosen't affect the issue at hand though. What exactly is "pathological" skepticsm?

 

[btimsah]

So, lack of evidence leads others to make "grand proclamations" that UFO's are aliens? Now that's stupid. Look, people see things. They think "oh, that's odd" Why would they jump to the conclusion that aliens are about? Especially when there are so many phenomena that occurr in the sky? Simply because they can't think of a more prosaic explanation right away?

My point is, why make any proclamation at all? There's no compelling evidence that UFO's are alien spacecraft. There's tons of evidence for hoaxes, sincere misidentification, hallucinations, and actual brain dysfunction.

So I will ammend my "proclamation". Claiming UFO's are alien spacecraft is silly based on the current state of evidence. There.

Much better! I just want to avoid those grand proclamation's for or against ETI visiting us - as though any of us know as a fact?

 

[btimsah]

Mere proclamation.

You once, in response to one of my posts, said that Stanton Friedman would be proud!

This reminds me of something he said on that website you linked to:



Now, I'm sensitive to more skeptical ufologists and their qualms with persons like Mr. Friedman. He is not a man without controversy. But many of the things he said were very sensible.

Does anyone get tired of hearing proclamations, rather than investigations?

Attacking the people? Woo Woo. That about says it for personal, "ad hominem" attacks.

Who was it, Phlogistician? Woo Woos are all underachievers, attention-seeking morons, etc, etc.

From an article by a rather skeptical Susan Blackmore (Skeptical Inquirer):



They did, however, believe more strongly in alien visitations, suggesting that such beliefs allow people to shape ambiguous information, diffuse physical sensations, and vivid imaginings into realistic alien encounters.

The question then, is do people who have sightings of UFOs have their beliefs influenced by their sightings? Is this enough to say that they are fantasy prone Woo-Woos that make up their stories for purposes of gaining attention?

These personal attacks on people don't necessarily invalidate their claims.

Both the UFO AND the abduction phenomenon needs to be addressed case by case. You can't say "I've proved one or two cases to be false, so I've PROVED THEM ALL!" Or is that how science works?

Recently, one of the preeminent theoretical physicists, Michio Kaku, said:

"Some people slam the door on the question of other civilizations visiting the Earth because distances are so far away. I say, 'Not so fast.' "

"When you look at this handful, handful of cases that cannot be easily dismissed. This is worthy. This is worthy of a scientific investigation. Maybe there's nothing there. However, on the off chance that there is something there, that could change the course of human history. So I say, ' Let the investigation begin.' "

Exactly. That is, in part why I made this thread. When we look at the great discoveries made over time, one wonders how these pathological skeptics would ever discover anything new?

For a pathological skeptic will not investigate the potential for something to be true, untill it's allready been proven! - Seriously, think about that one.

 

[phlogistician]

Phlogistician, I see what your saying but that's only one side of the issue - a one-sided debunkery attempt.

When I said I wanted to prove such a thing, I suppose the better word would be too investigate it's potential to be true. I cannot (you cannot either) investigate such a thing, if I debunk it before I even start.

The best way to investigate such a thing would be to consider all angles and possibilities from the start and then see where the evidence leads.

All I was doing as narrowing the scope of any investigation into when it was feasible for any such conspiracy to have occurred, because I really doubt that Victorian era MIB set off in Airships to UFO crash sites, and managed to get there, and conceal any evidence, before the locals, and the local press.

That said, it's rather convenient for those that like to involve themselves in such conspiracies, that the era for such information control was recent history. I would argue that the era is also over, because of the tools now available to the general public to disseminate information.

But, if you want to make a case for Victorian era MIB, go for it. Bearing in mind, that we only had an organised Police force in London since the 'Metropolitan Police Act, 1829', so to organise a national, let alone international organisation to stifle talk about aliens is well, ludicrous.

But please, if that's the way you want to go, feel free.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician

If the best you can do is a personal attack againist Empty instead of logically refuting his statements the only place you have won is in your own mind.

Empty bangs on about honour, respect, and hard work.

He desn't abide by this code however, claiming to have spent time in jail, and claiming to be in possession of an illegal firearm. So he's either a liar, or a miscreant.

Therefore I've given him as much logic as he deserves.

 

[duendy]

Empty bangs on about honour, respect, and hard work.

He desn't abide by this code however, claiming to have spent time in jail, and claiming to be in possession of an illegal firearm. So he's either a liar, or a miscreant.

Therefore I've given him as much logic as he deserves.

oh, mr phlo, you are going all righteous and indinant aren't ou. you talk about respect....? YOU who are part of an evil fukin machine that hastrampled over everyone, and other species. shittin on people, poisoning everythng. making life a livin hell. a prisonplanet. YOU talk about respct. you are a fukin koker....and a hypocrite of thehighest order

 

[shaman_]

oh, mr phlo, you are going all righteous and indinant aren't ou. you talk about respect....? YOU who are part of an evil fukin machine that hastrampled over everyone, and other species. shittin on people, poisoning everythng. making life a livin hell. a prisonplanet. YOU talk about respct. you are a fukin koker....and a hypocrite of thehighest order

Because scientific method is responsible for all the evil in the world right duendy? If it weren't for science we would be muuuch better off right?