Thoughts on why skeptics are good for Ufology

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I consider myself agnostic (neither believer nor skeptic).

Summary: (1) The skeptic plays a critical role in grounding our expectations of extraterrestrials in the event that we have the opportunity to interact with an alien species on a social level. Until that day, healthy debate is great. (2) But I feel we should show more compassion towards believers.

This topic has been discussed before in various threads. Here is a link to a thread which covers both sides:

ATS Thread 949968: Believers and Skeptics Please Read (by JayinAR)

I believe the common perception of a skeptic’s role is to act as a filter for the truth. This allows us to organize our observations and formulate a hypothesis. Ultimately, we reach the truth through a disciplined process we call the scientific method.

In my opinion, a live and let live approach would work better for this topic. I see no problem with people believing what they want. In fact, I would go a step further and suggest that we should have more compassion and understanding for people claiming contact with aliens. I have elaborated on this idea in my 1st ats thread:

ATS Thread 967254: Thoughts about people claiming contact (by compressedFusion)

If finding the truth is only a secondary role of the skeptic then what should the main role be? I would like to propose a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is correct. Also, imagine for a moment that people have been experiencing contact with extraterrestrial intelligence on a small scale. What happens in a scenario when contact opens up to a larger scale and we must interact socially? The first thing that would happen is a big bunch of “I-told-you-so”. It would happen from every faction in the believer camp. Every group from “space demons” to “space brothers” would instantly receive some degree of legitimacy. The varying beliefs and expectations would be a nightmare. Imagine the fear that would be spread by the people that claim they are demons. Imagine the hope for the people that claim they are angels. Their desire to spread their opinion would be increased tenfold due to the perceived ill-treatment in the past by skeptics. If you add the denier to the mix, who sees no need to imagine any of this, then we have reached a boiling point. The cycle of intolerance would be in full swing.

It would be a disaster. We would be better off with no myths, expectations, or stories biasing our opinion. And the skeptic performs exactly this role. They take the accepted world view that has been established through observation and discipline and slowly add to that view with rigor.

The thought experiment illustrates a time when opinions about ET are vitally important because it would affect all of us. Unbiased critical thinking would be a survival tool we would need to flourish with such contact.

Until that time, we will probably gain more from learning how to get along and accept each other’s opinions than focusing so intently on the fine art of the scientific method. No skeptic would be convinced without solid proof. Any argument or discussion which seeks to make this point will only be making a point that is already known by all.

Instead, hone the art of "polite skepticism" and continue the fine tradition of ATS.

The same holds true for "polite believers", but they are truly the underdogs. The pain, ruined lives, and isolation is all on their side of the fence whereas the skeptic comes from a position of social acceptance.




posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Skeptics are good to remind Ufology that the U stands for Unidentified,

Not the Andromeda reptilian galactic peace alliance or some other crap.

It could all just be government Dis-info to hide secret craft, or swamp gas.

It is why a critical eye is needed in all investigation.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Well written.


No skeptic would be convinced without solid proof.

My experience is No amount of proof will convince a skeptic.

By definition they're minds are made up. All people that claim to have seen one are "Beleebers", liars or nuts.

They nicely say "wheres the proof" but there is no proof as far as they are concerned. Until they see one and become part of the other camp that is. Then its not about belief.

But even then they may not be convinced. Even dismiss, ignore or deny it. For a lifetime they have insisted there is no such thing and they can't adjust that even when faced with it themselves.

I know. The people I was with that night argued back and forth about what we had just seen. Those arguments were fierce and even broke up friendships. I wanted to know, others wanted to forget about it. I wanted to talk about it, others wanted to remain silent.

It is a strong wall to breach to get over a life time of belief systems that can only think along one linear path.

Think about what it takes to deprogram people from religious cults, how hard a task that can be. We all have fixed thinking when it comes to certain subjects. That is why Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and the Movie "The Matrix" are so compelling.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Benrl and Intrptr thank you both for responding.

reply to post by benrl
 



benrl
Skeptics are good to remind Ufology that the U stands for Unidentified,
...


A reminder usually helps. In your opinion, who do you think needs reminding and what are the benefits? Do you think there is any potential downside?

I’m certain the accepted social position is U = unidentified. In fact, most people avoid this subject all together and if asked publicly they will laugh. U = unidentified has been my experience 90 out of 100 times at social gatherings. I would be surprised if society shifted their opinion if they weren’t reminded about the U = unidentified. It’s only on the fringes, such as ATS, where you see a different distribution.


benrl
It could all just be government Dis-info to hide secret craft, or swamp gas.

It is why a critical eye is needed in all investigation.


If confronted with the need to develop social interaction with an alien species in my thought experiment (ex. trade), which would be better. (1) Sort through the mess of our modern UFO/Alien mythos or (2) start from scratch?

reply to post by intrptr
 



intrptr
...
By definition they're minds are made up.
...


I think this is a mischaracterization of a true skeptic. By definition they require evidence to be convinced from their existing world view. Typically this view is the social norm or what is commonly accepted. In this sense they have their minds made up because they hold a base-line viewpoint (presumably established through logic) until further observations suggest otherwise.


intrptr
...
They nicely say "wheres the proof" but there is no proof as far as they are concerned. Until they see one and become part of the other camp that is. Then its not about belief.

Those arguments were fierce and even broke up friendships
...
It is a strong wall to breach to get over a life time of belief systems that can only think along one linear path.


This is a very good point. And it touches on the need to move beyond just skepticism in a social setting.

Thank you for your kind words.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Well written.


No skeptic would be convinced without solid proof.

My experience is No amount of proof will convince a skeptic.

Incorrect (both of you)
What you can gather is evidence. if the evidence is enough to go over that watermark between speculation and absolute, then a skeptic would be satisfied.
A skeptic would treat it like a juror in a trial. a person saying something happened without any physical evidence is just someone stating something. A grainy picture that could be a thousand different things also is not very good evidence. Basically if it could be something else more mundane, then chances are it is...best to dismiss it and seek out more "damning" evidence.

I wonder if "believers" would make good jury members..probably not if they use the same reasoning skills they use for ufos.

You lot are not describing skepticism. Not sure what word to use there. I don't like how the word skeptic is becoming synonomus with the religious types whom will not just dismiss bad evidence, but adamantly deny the possibility of the subject. I tend to name them religoskeptics.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



A skeptic would treat it like a juror in a trial. a person saying something happened without any physical evidence is just someone stating something.

My example referred to my own experience one night when even my friends and I argued about what we had just seen. There was no room for dis belief, we had all just seen it. But even then, there was denial, anger and "shut ups" going around the circle. It became so heated, the people next to us that saw it too that we didn't know split out of fear or whatever.

This sighting created animosity amongst people that were good friends for years. It caused an eventual break up of our group and to this day I don't know where they are.

Then yes there are the religoskeptics (nice term). But they just believe what they are told, that everything unknown is of the devil, period.

No convincing them either. I know. My brother lived in a haunted house for years and claimed he didn't think it was haunted, finally he sold out for (reasons unknown) but still will not talk about it. When I want to clown him I ask, why did you move out of that perfectly good home that you renovated again? Silence…

The skeptic in denial of the evidence in his face…



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The role of the skeptic is actually very diverse depending upon the level of skepticism the skeptic has.

If we were to put it on a line graph, on one end, you have your "Believers", who not only believe in UFOs, but firmly believe that every UFO MUST BE ALIEN LIFE, who will accept every single photo, every single video, every single story (from simple eyewitness account of something in the sky to full blown abductions). They will not accept any alternate theories as to what a UFO might be, or that people would even create a hoax to gain attention, money, etc.

That's one far end of the line.

On the other far end of the line, you have the Deniers. They are the people that say there are no such things as UFOs. Period. Every sighting must have a rational explanation that must be mundane and terrestrial in origin. That there is no alien contact at all.

That is the other far end of the line.

In between is where you skeptics are, and they are not right in the middle either, but rather have many varying degrees of that skepticism.

Being a skeptic does not mean you're closed minded. Far from it. The only ones that are closed minded are both the absolute believers and absolute deniers. For in their world, it must be all or nothing.

A skeptic asks questions. A skeptic seeks answers. A skeptic listens to all those answers. A skeptic looks for evidence.

A skeptic is a person that keeps certain things in mind: There have been people who have created hoaxes. There have been incidents which really did have a natural explanation that was not a stretch. There have been incidents that defy ALL reasonable explanations.

A skeptic is one who keeps an open mind that something could be true.......and at the same time, could be completely false.

Here is another thought exercise:

Three people are standing in a field: A "Believer", A "Denier", and A "Skeptic"

An object appears in the sky, does all sorts of maneuvers that defy physics, then lands in front of the three people.

A hatch opens up and a figure wearing a suit with a helmet steps out......and lifts it's face visor.

The "Believer" will be swooning with the "I Told You So!" all over the place. If the face in the visor is alien looking, it will be doubly so. If the face in the visor is human looking, the "Believer" will still be convinced it's an alien, or a human/Alien hybrid, or a human that was trained by aliens.........even if on the side of the craft is the letters USAF (United States Air Force).

The "Denier" will insist that what they are seeing is a government secret air craft....or that all three must have been drugged and are experiencing a hallucination. If the face is alien looking, they will insist it's a mask, and that this must be a hoax, a trick of some kind. No way that this can be real.

The "Skeptic" will take it all in.....and will quickly be asking for a camera to take pictures, looking at the craft wondering if it's alien or super government secret. Looking at the figure, if they see a human, they'll lean towards Secret Government air craft....and want to get the person they see talking. If it's alien looking face, they will certainly be demanding a camera, and now leaning to think that this is extraterrestrial in origin.

However, the "Skeptic" will also be wondering in the back of their mind if their food was drugged and if this event is real.....or something they are imagining. They'll also wonder if this is some sort of elaborate hoax

That's because: Skeptics question everything.

I'm a skeptic. I know there are events out there that defy any explanation. I also know that there are a LOT more events that have a perfectly good explanation, and none of them involve aliens. Many of them involve people with RC helicopters with LEDs.....or having a good time using After Effects to add that special something to a video....because they know there are plenty that will eat it up and swallow it whole.

I'm not one of those people. The first thing I do however, is not discount it and throw it out. I'm not a "Denier".

No, instead the first thing I do is start seeing if there is a reasonable explanation. I go down a list and start checking things off it they don't fit. If I find something that fits, I pursue that and see if it holds up as the explanation. If it does not hold up, then it might be wrong.
When I get to the end of the list, if nothing fit, then by process of elimination, what I'm looking at is UNIDENTIFIED.

Being UNIDENTIFIED, and seems to be flying, that would make it a UFO then. No argument there.

That means it MUST be aliens, right?

Wrong. I'm a skeptic, remember? Question everything. It means it's UNIDENTIFIED. We do not know WHAT it is. Sure, could be aliens........or it could be some black ops craft that is super ultra secret (but is being flown around in public....uhm.....)... or it could be several other things. We just don't know, hence the usage of the word UNIDENTIFIED.

This is normally when someone jumps up and says "You don't believe in alien life then!"

Oh yes I do. Universe is way to big to have just us in it, in my humble opinion.

Even if a UFO landed, an alien stepped out and waved to the world, and was on CNN.....as a skeptic, my first thought would not be: oh wow! All those UFOs must be aliens!

No, my first thoughts would be: is this real? Can we get independent confirmation on this? Is someone creating a elaborate hoax?

And even once it's confirmed, and not a hoax.....I would still have questions: Where are you from? What are you doing here?

And most importantly: Are all these other UFOs aliens too? Are you aliens abducting people? If so: why?

For a skeptic, the questions never stop.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The skeptics are healthy for UFOlogy, or else the believers would believe anything.

I have seen so many believers watch a obviously fake or obviously plane,boat, bird UFO video and say it's the best they ever seen.

I have heard so much BS from "respected" UFO researchers who's only goal is to convince, not proff, propably cause they are blinded by believe or cause it's business and they pick up anything, even the fake stuff.

So many stories(Full of holes), so many videos(Full of pixels) and still not a single proff of Alien visitation at all.

Can you hear i'm a skeptic


But, i'm not blinded by my skeptic look at Alien UFO's, i'm just very cautious of what i see/hear and will search for or take a plausible Earthly explanation before jumping to Aliens but i still see every video and read every story cause like a believer...I wish.
edit on 23-3-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Thanks for your reply


I think this is a mischaracterization of a true skeptic. By definition they require evidence to be convinced from their existing world view.

Thats optimistic. I have witnessed ghosts firsthand with others and it is really amazing how some react to it. Its not like any of us expected this to happen but when it did, some will lie right there to your face and say they didn't see anything. Even though you know they did. Others want to dismiss it as something… but lets not talk about it. Or lets get out of here.

Or they privately admit it to you but in pubic go back to feigning disbelief.

I think the word skeptic is a nice cover for some that don't have any faith in anything beyond their limited 5 senses. Its a security blanket for them. The unknown is frightening. Some are scared of the dark let alone a spirit, alien craft or visitor.

And they cover that by claiming they are 'skeptic'. Its a safe haven. "I ain't saying there is and I ain't saying there isn't." That kind of thing.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Skeptics are like the msm.

Any sighting won't be taken seriously until that sh1z is front page on the BBC. When that happens, it's real. When it's some doomy ufo believer blog, no one cares.

I guess what I'm saying is the phenomenon gets more real when the skeptics get on board.
edit on 24-3-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
SaturnFX, thank you for your reply. I'm a bit confused about your criticism. Your basic point seems to be that skeptics are open minded and evaluate the evidence:



by SaturnFX
Incorrect (both of you)

What you can gather is evidence. if the evidence is enough to go over that watermark between speculation and absolute, then a skeptic would be satisfied.


I feel like I made the same point. Here:


by compressedFusion
By definition they require evidence to be convinced from their existing world view.

they hold a base-line viewpoint (presumably established through logic) until further observations suggest otherwise


Could you please clarify where you believe our positions diverge?



by SaturnFX
...
A grainy picture that could be a thousand different things also is not very good evidence. Basically if it could be something else more mundane, then chances are it is...best to dismiss it and seek out more "damning" evidence.


My overall point is two-fold

1.) The social aspect of our growth
2.) We only need to establish truth when all of us are affected. Otherwise, see (1)

This isn't just about grainy photos. If this were just about impersonal photos and videos I don't think this topic would even cross my mind. It is also about people claiming direct experiences. In my estimation, these people perceive the rest of society to be fairly hostile.

reply to post by eriktheawful
 


erik, I will try to condense your points and respond. Please let me know if I misinterpreted them

(points by erik categorized by me)

1.) skeptics serve many purposes and skepticism exists on a continuum
2.) in the middle they are open-minded to either possibility and ask questions
3.) A denier, believer, and skeptic meet an alien face to face.
4.) start with the reasonable explanations first and knock those off the list if they don't fit
5.) Criticisms to the ETH is not a claim that there is no alien life
6.) The questions never stop

I think (3) and (6) are the most relevant. I don't disagree with (1) and (2). I failed to recognize points (1) and (2) in my OP to better focus on (3). I think your point about 3 is the same as mine. In my opinion, this would be the most important role. It might play out just like you said. We both agree on this and it was my main thesis in the summary of my OP. Point (6) is why skeptics will be such a great resource. So keep up the good work!

Until such a time like (3) please consider the social aspect. I have read many threads with people complaining about the hostility they feel from skeptics. It's natural because a skeptic desires proof and somebody with an experience wants to be understood and not isolated. If you consider the social implications then it puts an undue burden on them. Why is it undue? Because no amount of anecdotal evidence would be sufficient to convince somebody. Until you have a situation like (3) you are left with a vacuum between both parties.



by Mianeye
I have seen so many believers watch a obviously fake or obviously plane,boat, bird UFO video and say it's the best they ever seen.


I liked your response it was lighthearted. I think, in the end, it only truly really matters what we believe when we are confronted with a situation that effects us on a global scale.



by intrptr
Thats optimistic

I understand how you feel. I have read many of your posts while lurking. I only rarely pop up to say something. The fighting and disagreement is a symptom of the bigger problem. It's not just skepticism there is also fear. There is the fear of being different.



by canucks555
When that happens, it's real. When it's some doomy ufo believer blog, no one cares


If such an event ever occurred we would need all the critical thinkers we can get. We would have a lot of material, fear, hope, and irresponsibility to sort through.
edit on 23-3-2014 by compressedFusion because: Changed until to when



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
The term bandied about is "Pseudoskeptic".

It does apply. The level of proof watermark is unfortunately an entirely subjective thing and most people who self-identify as skeptics do have an impossible standard of proof, because they believe the subject itself to be somewhat impossible.

While actual skeptics do exist and are open to the possibility of alien visitation and are not thrown by pop culture contamination of the subject, most will approach a fringe subject with the following mentality:

"I don't know what this was, but it was definitely NOT aliens/bigfoot/ghosts."
This is not the mindset of scientific inquiry.
edit on 23-3-2014 by Unresponsible because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Well written.


No skeptic would be convinced without solid proof.

My experience is No amount of proof will convince a skeptic.

By definition they're minds are made up. All people that claim to have seen one are "Beleebers", liars or nuts.


Pot and kettle mate!!!! I am the sceptic of sceptics just look at my posts re this subject BUT although I don't believe that Mog from Zog goes on day trips to Earth or ever has done there is bound to be life out there somewhere.

The real problem on here and the internet in general is all you need to do is link to a BS youtube video with a dot of light at night and it is Mog from Zog.

We have seen hundreds of videos/pictures of lights above cities at night and the person that posts the video/picture is ALWAYS the other side of the city, answer this why at the time of these events don't we get video/pictures from below or very near the location of the event.

Then we have the youtube idiot using a video camera on auto-focus and when the camera cannot focus on the dot of light we get the classic morphing ufo video


Then not forgetting the 3 lights so its a triangular craft videos/pictures well guess what 3 lights can only make 2 shapes a triangle or a straight line it doesn't mean there is anything solid between the lights.

Then of course we have the youtube CLOWNS that film with their low quality night-vision equipment near airports and claim they are Mog from Zog.

Remember the site motto and see my sig for 2 REALLY GOOD bit's of advice.

Just to add I joined here because I was told I would see good evidence but when it comes to video/photography most people on here and from the links they post DON'T understand those subjects, I do hope one day to see the real deal on here if I do I will back it 100%
edit on 24-3-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-3-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


scepticism is a good thing and is necessary for ufology but many sceptics are venemous and attack belief on an emotional level. Likewise with the current debate on religion. True scepticism looks at the facts and makes a careful judgement but many people ignore the facts and will not engage with them. They are determined to undermine things without considering the facts. As Stanton Friedman puts it; "I have my mind made up, don't bother me with the facts". This is not true scepticism, it is a kind of vandalism that is rooted in arrogance and beligerance. It has no place in ufology and should be challanged wherever it appears.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


scepticism is a good thing and is necessary for ufology but many sceptics are venemous and attack belief on an emotional level. Likewise with the current debate on religion. True scepticism looks at the facts and makes a careful judgement but many people ignore the facts and will not engage with them. They are determined to undermine things without considering the facts. As Stanton Friedman puts it; "I have my mind made up, don't bother me with the facts". This is not true scepticism, it is a kind of vandalism that is rooted in arrogance and beligerance. It has no place in ufology and should be challanged wherever it appears.



Well Stan the man got some FACTS wrong and to honest it was a total waste of time him being on here because we learned nothing new!!!
edit on 24-3-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Yes, you understood my points very well.

I'll only add this:

Because the vast middle of people are skeptical covers a large spectrum of that line I pointed out, you also have how they react will be just as varied as the types of skeptics too.

You'll have many that try to remain as polite as possible and try to remain as objective as possible. I consider myself one of these, as I always try to take into consideration that when I reading things on the internet, I can not see or hear the information the person is posting. I can not hear the different tones in their voice, nor see their facial features and body language. The amount of misunderstanding someone is huge in this case.
I always try my best to avoid insulting someone. There is no reason or call for it, even if that someone may come back at me in an abusive manner. It gets us no where and serves no purpose.

However, you will have those that are insulting, making fun of, or belittling those on here. They are not helping, but are in fact hurting this field of study just as much as those that are faking or lying about it, in that they may make people that truly experienced something shy away, due to fear of being ridiculed or attacked.

Of course skeptics also experience insults and ridicule too. You've already seen it here in your thread.

Personally I just shrug at it and move on. I've had my say, presented my findings. If I find more information I'll bring it here still, and do my best to ignore the insults, unless they prove way out of line. Then I hit the ALERT button here on ATS.

Some however will not react that way. They'll either come back at those that insult them, which is not good of course. Or worse: others will stop offering their critical thinking. Why do so if you're going to get abused?

There have been many threads on here that I look at. There are many that I have opinions on. There have been those that I quickly spotted something that showed an explanation.....but did not bother posting because of the mud slinging that would start, or had already started in the thread.

So my enthusiasm for joining the discussion evaporates quite quickly. I shrug and move on. Why contribute and put up with the abuse? Even when I try to remain as polite as I can, it still ensues.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
if the aliens want you to know they are around
you will know
in my circle everyone involved just handed me the footbal and basically said
if anybody can figure this out its going to be you...

and here I is

do i write to convince the skeptics?
no
I write for any one who resonates with similar experience because
that is how elements of the situation are added together to get the whole picture

have skeptics helped in this process?
yes
how?
the stricktly scientific term for assistance from the opposite camp is:
the joy of giving them the rasberry:
I know something you don't know! neener neener neener!


oh btw
when one is having tea with a snotty skeptic, one always has the option of of peening the sob with a real flying saucer ...
chinette dishware preferably...they bounce well without breaking
edit on Monam3b20143America/Chicago32 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on Monam3b20143America/Chicago53 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



The only ones that are closed minded are both the absolute believers and absolute deniers. For in their world, it must be all or nothing.

You forgot to add one category at the end of the believer side, past the moon pie believers.

Witnesses. To a witness, the case is closed there is no other possibility. They have seen them and to them its not a matter of believing anything.

Only a skeptic would terminate a scale with absolute believers and not consider where actual witnesses should be placed. Only a skeptic has no room in their mind for that possibility.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



The only ones that are closed minded are both the absolute believers and absolute deniers. For in their world, it must be all or nothing.

You forgot to add one category at the end of the believer side, past the moon pie believers.

Witnesses. To a witness, the case is closed there is no other possibility. They have seen them and to them its not a matter of believing anything.

Only a skeptic would terminate a scale with absolute believers and not consider where actual witnesses should be placed. Only a skeptic has no room in their mind for that possibility.



A witness is a person who gives testimony as to something they saw.

A witness could be a "believer", a "denier", or a "skeptic"

The term "witness" does not belong on the line, because anyone can be a witness to something.

It's how the witness describes what they saw and what they do with that information that then places them in the different class of "believer", "skeptic" or "denier"

A witness is a person standing outside, looks up, and sees something. If it is something that they do not understand, their reaction to it will vary:

Believer: I saw something. It is something I've never seen before, and can't identify right away, there for it MUST be aliens!

Denier: I saw something. It is something I've never seen before, and can't identify right away, but it MUST be Venus, or a lantern or swamp gas.

Skeptic: I saw something. It is something I've never seen before, and can't identify right away, there for I should investigate it to see if I can figure out what it is. Let me note the time and direction of view. Let me now take a look at astronomical things that might be it. If those fail to identify it, let me now see if it's something terrestrial like an air craft. While I'm doing this, I should try to find other witnesses and see if they also saw something, in the same direction and if it behaved the same way. If I can find no reasonable explanation for what I saw, then yes, it is a UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object......meaning I have no way to explain it, nor can I say without a doubt what it is.

Again: anyone can be a witness regardless of whether they are a "believer", "denier" or "skeptic".

Eyewitness Testimony: this will be treated different by the three classes too:

Believer: Will completely believe anything they are told...almost always without question.

Denier: Will completely disregard anything a person has to say, if that is all the person has.

Skpetic: Will listen to or read the testimony. Will then see if they can find evidence that can go with the testimony, and see if that evidence either supports the testimony or conflicts with it. Will also consider the source of the testimony: is it from a habitual liar? Is it from someone that stands to gain a lot from giving the testimony? Is it from someone who has nothing to gain, and everything to loose instead?



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Well that is the conundrum isn't it and the division between the two. Once you witness something out of this world you know…

But someone who has never seen anything like it can only believe (thats right believe) there is noo such thing.

That makes the skeptic a kind of believer of sorts too… only they will deny that which also puts them at the other end of your scale.

My point in this thread which you seem to have overlooked is that even when faced with the proof in their face, not all skeptics change their "belief system". I know because I have been with them when stuff happens and they refuse to alter their position.They remain in denial. Science and religion minded both.

My point is people will still deny something.

My other point is knowing surpasses believing.






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join