It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fair Skeptic Registry

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Well folks, here it is... Please feel free to nitpick, adjust grammar, spelling, suggest rewording, omissions, additions, etc...


Proposed Mission Statement



The Fair Skeptics will give equal, thorough, and careful consideration to any presentation of evidence he or she agrees to review. They will not exhibit bias, insult, or sensationalism in their findings. Their findings will be exhibited in a logical and rational fashion, with steps necessary to duplicate the results and the details necessary to understand the findings. Most importantly, the Fair Skeptic realizes the need for the free exchange and deliberation of information by all parties.



Fixed the spelling of "necessary."


Very nicely written, Libra. I'm a little bit with Hank on the "skeptic" label in general (I tend to think of myself as a critical believer) but... semantics. Overall I appreciate the mission statement, and just wish that the majority of contributors to the board took it on as a matter of common sense. But now I'm fantasizing.




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   


imo, there is no such thing as a fair skeptic. only people who can't use their common sense is a skeptic and those people are never intelligent with their thought process.

they might THINK they are but they're not, they're not even really thinking.


This definition more closely goes with "debunkers". Debunkers are basically the same as blind believers, yet they are blind disbelievers. Klass is an excellent example of this. He may come off as a skeptic, but he differs in that he ignores evidence that points in other directions, instead of acknowledging it. A skeptic should bring up the other evidence, and then explain why he/she is devaluing it.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
HankMcCoy, Gazrok, Intellien, and karl 12, welcome to to the thread. Although I'm unsure if any of you actually wanted to be members, or were just posing questions and ideas for the group to consider. If you could clarify, that'd be great.

Gazrok, I'm excited to see you in the thread. Having read many of your threads and investigations in the past, you were the model skeptic, and the reason I don't consider it a bad word. I really hope you'll join us, but if you decide not to, that's fine. I just wanted you to know you contributed to this group before the thread was ever posted.

Now to address some replies


Originally posted by HankMcCoy
...I don't know if I would like to be labeled as a skeptic. Once people are labeled and catlouged, it is harder for them to break out of those labels.



Originally posted by Intellien
imo, there is no such thing as a fair skeptic. only people who can't use their common sense is a skeptic and those people are never intelligent with their thought process.

they might THINK they are but they're not, they're not even really thinking.



Originally posted by skip_brilliantine
I'm a little bit with Hank on the "skeptic" label in general (I tend to think of myself as a critical believer)


These two lines of thought are precisely why the thread was created in the first place. I have seen more and more people unfairly label skeptics as bad people, unintelligent, and automatic nay-sayers in the last few months than anything else on ATS, and I want to change that perspective.

A Skeptic isn't a label.

Unintelligent is a label.
Thoughtless is a label.
Rude is a label.

Skepticism is a healthy line of thought that has provided for the survival of our species for...well, frankly since mankind had the ability to look at something and say "Hmmm, that might not be what we think it is."

When I read Project BlueBook accounts repeatedly dismissing every UFO phenomenon as "swamp gas reflecting the light of Venus" I am skeptical of their findings. When I am told by a government that they are doing something they can't tell us about, for their own good, I am skeptical of their words. When I approach a game of three-card monte, I am skeptical of my chances of winning.

That doesn't mean I automatically make a judgment about any of those things. It means I stop long enough to take a look, listen, and THINK about the evidence at my disposal. I am damned proud to be a skeptic because it means I am not automatically accepting everything I see at face value. And the idea that so many people are associating critical thinking with a lack of intelligence really pisses me off to no end.

The one and only goal I ever have in discussion on forums is to get people to think. And the statement that I don't think, because of seven letters arranged in a particular order being misinterpreted by the uninformed reader is, in my opinion, an expression of ignorance far beyond that of even automatic nay-saying.

So let's not confuse apples with oranges. A "skeptic" isn't a label any more than a "thinker" is a label, and should not imply negative associations from its use.

That is why I created this thread. To show ATS that there is a huge difference between what a skeptic actually is, versus what skeptics are accused of being.



Originally posted by skip_brilliantine
Fixed the spelling of "necessary."



Sorry about that, heh, that would be the old lysdexia kicking in...



[edit on 12/21/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   


Gazrok, I'm excited to see you in the thread. Having read many of your threads and investigations in the past, you were the model skeptic, and the reason I don't consider it a bad word. I really hope you'll join us, but if you decide not to, that's fine. I just wanted you to know you contributed to this group before the thread was ever posted.


Always considered myself in this category, so would gladly accept (I'm not one to invite myself to a party, hehe...). And thanks for the compliments, and I can throw them right back to many in this thread for their work in the past, especially those I've disagreed with from time to time.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

A Skeptic isn't a label.


Respectfully, I would like to disagree. Skeptic, Believer and Non-Believer are labels and these labels polarize the community into two areas that compete for the third. Those that believe, those that do NOT believe, compete for the attentions of the larger group, those that are skeptical.

While you are looking for skeptics, make sure you are getting skeptics, and not believers or non believers. Although, there are skeptical believers, they tend to be the ones that are more prone to leap toward the extraorinary and have a harder time accepting the rational and the non-believer tends to lean more toward the mundane and has a harder time embracing things without explaination.

Look for those that are willing to believe, but will look at the rational before the extraordinary, I truly feel that THAT is the best way to be a 'healthy skeptic'.

(And as of right now, I am not interested in being a PART of this per se, but I am not opposed to helping out if/as needed.)



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I think we're getting bogged down in definitions which dont mean a damned thing...this is getting worse then corporate america.

You investigate a case, and present data that evaluates and consequently supports the most likely answer. The data you present in supprt of whatever you outcome is, has to be duplicatable, and any process or witnesses have to be independantly verified.

Simple as that. What we ought to be evaluating is the protocol of investigations, and getting standards set if this is going to go forward.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
"The criteria is my magic "DELETE" button that will wipe out such unwanted posts. " == Springer

What many have done on ATS is to provide a service by giving their
research and evidenced opinions to the public for free in a public forum in
the name and spirit of the truth. At what point do these efforts become
"unwanted" ? This is NOT a T&C question. The example for this question
would be a missing 24 page in depth discussion containing NEW
information concerning the Roswell Incident. If those who have such
things posted are the arbiters of when to delete it, seems the membership loses out. Or the "Delete" button can be hit by accident, perhaps ?


How did I miss this??? A 24 page in depth discussion containing NEW information on Roswell was deleted???? At ATS???






"It's pretty easy to spot the "un fair", posting history is great data set to start with." == Springer

Unless that, too, is "deleted". In the example I offered above, the author
of the deleted topic has himself been deleted. But unlike the WITD affair,
all the posts in his topics by others are gone as well. It is one thing to
adhere to rules of conduct, but quite another to arbitrarily decide which
content is desirable.
Dare I even use the Moon Photo thread as another example ? That
modern replay of the great 1835 Moon Hoax, rehearsed in 2005 on
fantasticforum.com ?



What has happened here? More information is needed please. If there is indeed NEW information on Roswell - are you saying that ATS has deleted that information? Why?



PS - This topic caught my eye - but this post of nightwing's - that appears to have been ignored by all here - needs to be addressed. What's going on?

PSS - If this is too far off your topic - I can start a new thread as this needs to be addressed. Let me know.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   


What has happened here? More information is needed please. If there is indeed NEW information on Roswell - are you saying that ATS has deleted that information? Why?


I've been a bit AFK lateley, but I'm unaware of this. A search of nightwing's posts on Roswell is highly recommended, as he's (hope the gender is correct there) always brought up some excellent points.

Nightwing, please let me know what info you're talking about, as I can't imagine such a post being "deleted"...



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.

www.ufoskeptic.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I would love to be a part of this!

Some of my qualifications: I don't take very many things at face value--not even pretty women (hmm, maybe especially pretty women). I am mostly college-educated (I haven't finished my degree in Comp. Sci. yet, i.e. haven't graduated yet), but I did think about getting a physics minor, but right now I just want to graduate. Science defines me rather well. Ever since high school, I've been a course or two ahead of my peers with science courses. When I do research for a post, especially for a new thread, I'm pretty thorough, which I hope is evident from my posting history (e.g. a topic from Social Issues in PTS, or this one on evolution).

Also, I'm a bit of a romantic. I like the idea that extraterrestrials might find us interesting. That doesn't mean, of course, that I accept any accounts or photographs that easily. I take the term UFO at face value--unidentified flying objects--which could possibly be of terrestrial origin.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Skeptic - 1. One who practices the method of suspended judgment, 4. engages in
rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method,
2. shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based
on prior beliefs, 3. and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.
== provided by Scramjet76

Excellent. For me, its a bit out of order, but its still a full deck. (The numbers
I added above) Your source reference, Scramjet, has too many "httpslashes" in it
but you can still get there by editing the address line. Its an interesting reference
and has appeared in this area before. To make use of your definition for myself,
I will re-write it slightly and change the sequence
(Numbers from above.)
1. Select starting assumptions that do not bias the effort.
2. Determine the hypothesis testing to be done.
3. Perform the testing, and validate the results/data/evidence
4. Draw logical conclusions from the results.

"If there is indeed NEW information on Roswell - are you saying that ATS has
deleted that information? Why? " == Shawnna

Not quite, Shawnna. I am selecting my starting assumption without the bias of "intent".
My starting assumption (first paragraph you quoted) is that through some circumstance
(random/accident) that an unusual thread/threads has dissappeared.

"Nightwing, please let me know what info you're talking about, as I can't imagine such a
post being "deleted"... == Gazrok

Excellent, thanks Gaz. One of the tests to be accomplished relates to "memory" of events.
The membership at large AND the site admin/mods are potential data sources, using
this starting assumption.

But to answer your comment without biasing the data, try this:

Gaz, how about a sample interchange from one of the missing threads ? Note the first
remark IS YOURS.

"1. NO other Mogul balloon recovery (presuming for the moment that's what one believes
Roswell to be) BEFORE or SINCE ever involved a military cordon (independently verified
by numerous witnesses)" == Gazrok

Do you realize, Gaz, that you have provided the spark for a selective legal proof for the
Roswell Myth ? == Responder



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
As was explained when it happened, Simon Gray accidentally deleted all the posts one Member made while trying to do something else in the admin control panel. We have since moved that damnable "delete all posts" button to the bottom of the console rather than the top where it was accidentally hit by two other admins in the past as well.

The worst part is when you delete a Member's posts, any threads they were the O.P. on are gone completely (which is the intent of the button - for trolls/spammers) which is exactly what happened to that awesome thread.

We searched in vane for a copy of it in the back up but it was too late once we realized that thread was part of what was deleted, the back up we had was "post deletion".

My comment about my "magic delete button" was in reference to disruptive or insulting posts, in other words ONLY violations of the TAC. There has never been a single thread or post deleted here that was not a violation of the TAC, except for human error, PERIOD.

I understand the paranoia ignorance of the facts can cause but nightwing's insinuation is personally insulting and accusatory and 100% FALSE.

Thanks for jumping right in there and running that insult as far as you could take it Shawnna. Nice, real nice...


HOW STUPID would you have to be to purposely delete a Roswell thread in the Aliens and UFO forums?!
Look through this forum, what do you see?

Nightwing, you are quoting it, do you have a copy of that thread?! We would be forever GRATEFUL if you would pass it on to us or better yet, copy/paste it into a new thread and get it back up. I would LOVE to have that damn thread back!

Springer...



[edit on 12-24-2006 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer

Thanks for jumping right in there and running that insult as far as you could take it Shawnna. Nice, real nice...


You seem wont to interpret every post I make related to something on ATS as an intentional insult Springer - why is that?

My post was NOT intended as an insult to ATS. It was to simply ask what the heck nightwing was talking about as it appeared others in this thread were ignoring and/or avoiding his post.

It really is that simple. If you have any issues with me, you have my email. Working through those issues offline seems more appropriate to me.





Originally posted by Springer

HOW STUPID would you have to be to purposely delete a Roswell thread in the Aliens and UFO forums?!
Look through this forum, what do you see?


I'll assume that is a rhetorical question and you don't really expect an answer.

Always,
Shawnna



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpringerNightwing, you are quoting it, do you have a copy of that thread?! We would be forever GRATEFUL if you would pass it on to us or better yet, copy/paste it into a new thread and get it back up. I would LOVE to have that damn thread back!


You've got the words right there from the man himself. Is there a way to get that thread back up - obviously it won't get deleted based on what Springer has stated right here.

I'm very interested in reading this thread on Roswell data - should it be possible to get it back up!

-Ry



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
If there's still room, i'd be happy to help.



In recent times theres been huge a wave of bogus videos and such from users claiming to present evidence towards their case. (Partially thanks to 'youtube' and other video blog sites becoming ever more popular).



I have skills and experience in video editing and have worked with various industry standard software, leading me to immediate conclusions on various evidence presented.


Anyway, a team of experts will definitely come in useful.





[edit on 24-12-2006 by Spreadthetruth]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   


Gaz, how about a sample interchange from one of the missing threads ? Note the first
remark IS YOURS.

"1. NO other Mogul balloon recovery (presuming for the moment that's what one believes
Roswell to be) BEFORE or SINCE ever involved a military cordon (independently verified
by numerous witnesses)" == Gazrok

Do you realize, Gaz, that you have provided the spark for a selective legal proof for the
Roswell Myth ? == Responder


Actually, I'm no lawyer, but the above statement wouldn't be a legal proof for what crashed at Roswell, it would only be the spark for proving it was not a Mogul balloon. Also, I should have stated, "In my research, I've seen no evidence of a military cordon or other limited access measures employed in the recovery of a Mogul balloon".

Admittedly, there is some passion in my Roswell threads that at times are not perfect legal arguments. I was shooting more for information providing than proving a case, which is why I also included many of the troubling portions, such as some of the more unreliable and discredited witnesses, etc.

It's funny though, as the debunkers (not skeptics) are so quick to demand even more evidence, yet they will blindly accept statements like Moore's about the flowery tape (he claims this was mistaken for the I-beams and heiroglyphs), etc. I have repeatedly attempted to research this, and still I have found no evidence of any such tape, ever used by a toy company, and then used in a government project.

However, all of this is really for another thread....


Echoing Springer's sentiments above...I forgot how pesky the location of that "delete all posts" button was, and thank goodness it's not there any longer. Never hit it myself, but came damn close to doing so accidentally before. If there's anyone who has it (some thread that was deleted in such a way), and they repost it, much thanks.
(and worth at least an Applaud...)


[edit on 26-12-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I've been afk for a while on this post on purpose. I signed on, then waited to see what kind of fall out would occur.

I have seen the usual amount of corporate image input. First we need to define fair skeptic, then we have to make rules on who and who can meet those qualifications. I think that's flummery (a new favorite word). I think that this group will tend to be self governing. There will be those who require a larger amount of proof than others. There will be those who require a good deal less proof. Does this make them "bad"???? No ... It will tend to keep us all honest.

I spend a good deal of my time teaching Kenpo (a fighting, or martial art) and have to spend some time grading and ranking people. Most of the time, when a person tests for her/his initial black belt, it is done within the confines of the school itself with other senior students in attendance. However, when a person begins to climb the black belt ladder, acquiring degrees, as it were, it is usually done by senior members of her/his school, and very senior black belts from outside of the particular school.

There are all levels of "skepticism" within that group of senior black belts. There are some who feel it is ok to give the belt by virtue of the fact that the person testing has fulfilled all the minimum requirements (technical skills and time in grade) ... There are some who want to see the minimum skills met and a little more (bringing along other students to varied levels within the black belt ladder). And still there are more who feel that the very senior ranks can only be filled by those who have performed all the minimum requirements, brought along the other students to senior belt levels, and have an added feature of having had an positive impact on their community specifically, and the world of Kenpo in general.

And so ... The testing and requirements are either met or not and a vote is taken as to whether or not the "testee" should be granted her/his rank. Usually, even to the most hardened and cynical senior black belt, there comes a time when it is obvious that the testee has met the requirements for promotion. And a majority opinion can and will carry the day.

That is much the same way that I see this group. There will, probably, never be a complete agreement by 100% of all the members, but there will, I believe be enough opinion, either for or against the object of study, by a majority of members to garner a fair opinion.

The other side of that coin is that, even with a preponderance of evidence, for or against, and a declaration, for or against by the fair skeptics, there is still a large chance that they can be wrong. After all, at one time, everyone knew that the world rested on the back of a huge turtle. And then there was the small incident for a short time where everyone but a few skeptics knew the world was flat and the center of the known universe.


I am in support of this group, for what it is worth, and am glad to see people that I consider to be honest, fair, and staunch signing up... People who's opinions I respect even if I do disagree. I am also excited to see the people who may require less evidence to say "yea" sign up. We will, I do believe, keep us all honest.

Being a little harder to satisfy, myself, I can honestly say that I am hoping that some of the slats will be kicked out from under me.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I'm not so sure the intention is to provide a "verdict" on cases (other than ferreting out the obvious ones), but really more of a concerted effort to do the research, look at the facts, and provide information, along with stating our interpretations of what the data could mean.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm not so sure the intention is to provide a "verdict" on cases (other than ferreting out the obvious ones), but really more of a concerted effort to do the research, look at the facts, and provide information, along with stating our interpretations of what the data could mean.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by Gazrok]

Hi Gazrok,

I agree, but anything that a group like this puts out is going to be seen that way by any given number of people. I didn't mean to imply that what the group is doing should be considered a verdict. I was, for better or worse, simply responding to some of the tone I had seen in some of the posts here.

I can't imagine that anyone would think that this group would see itself as the final arbiter on any given situation, unless it were an obvious hoax. Even then, there will be people who will swear by it and decide that we are under the control of the Masons, the UN, the CIA, the New World Order, the Zetans, the Reptilians, etc.

I mainly wanted to express my concept that it shouldn't be so tightly tied to any set of defined principles that tend to exclude some who might, honestly, see themselves as fair minded skeptics. I guess I hate to see a group with a formalized entrance exam, a narrow entrance of formalized pre-defined requirements that would exclude people, who might, otherwise, add something that we might all miss, or govern themselves out of being in the group.

Sometimes I am not as eloquent or as clear as I'd like to be.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Without some standards then ANYONE can be accepted. But if that is the case then why assign a special designation to the members such as "fair" skeptics. The very terms indicate that a distinction is being made between those who are FAIR and IMPARTIAL in the way they evaluate evidence, and those who are not fair but tend to base their judgements on their preferences and preconceptions. If no requirements are set forth then the whole venture is pointless. Then any bigoted debunker could become part of the registry. That would defeat the whole purpose.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join