I have recently posted a thread about how certain kinds of skepticism, what I would call "aggressive skepticism" damage scientific progress. Click
on the last link in my signature to see for yourself. There is a fascinating saga of how "skepticism" held up scientific progress for around 150
years. The way in which bats navigate was deduced through experiment, but because people couldn't understand (or hear) ultrasound, the explanation
was "debunked" and a theory proposed - without any kind of experimental proof to back it up
- that lasted for almost a century and a half.
So much of what "superpaul55" has posted applies to the "skeptical" camp.
Originally posted by superpaul55
The believer [in skepticism] suffers from a number of issues:
1) He believes himself to be mentally superior to most, this is why they talk of 'open mindedness' and 'enlightenment', they feel they have the
talent to bring us up to their level of thought at which point of course we will finally realise that aliens exist and run our government, no proof is
needed, its just obvious when you are that intelligent and can 'see throught the fog of deception. No proof is required.
Let's rewrite this:
1) He believes himself to be mentally superior to most, this is why they talk of 'scientific method' and 'proof', they feel they have the talent
to bring us up to their level of thought at which point of course we will finally realise that aliens/the paranormal/whatever are impossible, no proof
is needed, its just obvious when you are that intelligent and can 'see throught the fog of deception. No proof is required.
2) Everything that opposes his belief can be put down to either the stupidity of the human race or disinfomation agents, most humans are simply
the result of 'government mind control' - which most call education. They view the human race as a production chain, but of course only they can see
this due to their supreme intellect. Nothing can prove the disinfomation agents exist and that we are all purposely stupid, its just obvious, isn't
it. No proof required.
2) Everything that opposes his belief can be put down to either the stupidity of the human race or fakers, most humans are simply the result of
inadequate education... but of course only they can see this due to their supreme intellect. Nothing can prove the fakers exist and that we are all
purposely stupid, its just obvious, isn't it. No proof required.
If you look at the thread I started on UFOs and the paranormal and disinformation, you will note that ad hominem
attacks are the common coin of
the skeptics and debunkers. When confronted with actual evidence that, for example, the paranormal exists, they retreat behind criticisms of
experimental protocol that on closer inspection have no foundation.
For these people, scientific laws are just that: rigid laws to which the universe must adhere, rather than attempts to explain and predict data made
by people with only a couple of hundred years' collective experience in what we laughingly call "science" to draw on. One might draw all kinds of
psychological inferences about why these people are so desperate for security that they require absolutes to cling to... but why bother?
The point is that the skeptics confuse the map with the territory, as Korzybski so often demonstrated.
What I ask from someone on this forum is for them to explain why they believe there are aliens on this planet and there is a global conspiracy,
not a fury of links to paranoics web pages. Why do YOU believe it.
Maybe someone can make me change my mind.
I doubt very much that I will be able to make you change your mind. Skeptics have a habit of ruling out what others consider evidence, and of
demanding "proof", when what they really mean is "evidence" Charles Fort was particularly adept at mining this seam of "damned" evidence -
things that must have been made up because they can't have happened, therefore all the people who have seen these things must be delusional.
It's kind of insulting, really.
And it misunderstands the nature of scientific proof. Since the publication of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery
sixties, the accepted argument has been that you cannot prove
theories, you can only dis
However, here's why I believe that aliens exist and have come to this planet.
It's an idea whose time has come. This probably sounds fatuous, but when you look at the history of how Western man views the universe and his place
in it, you can see a gradual progression. First, the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and everything revolved around it. This is the obvious,
the natural conclusion to draw when you look up at the night sky and notice that the stars move, and that during the daytime, the sun moves across the
Galileo was tortured by the skeptics of his day for daring to suggest otherwise. We've come on a little bit from that, but if you look at what
happened to Wilhelm Reich, you'll see that we haven't come that
Then, the Sun was the centre of the universe... but that didn't last long. The cracks in the anthropocentric view were too big to be papered over
At the start of the 20th century, the debate was, "how did life start"? It is of note that despite many years of trying, we haven't been able to
create life in the laboratory. Some people might start to think that perhaps we're missing something, but there are still skeptics clinging to the
belief that if we just wait long enough, we could create life with a mixture of the primordial soup and lightning. Good luck.
What is beginning to emerge is that life is everywhere
. Nobel winner Chandra Wickramsinghe and Astronomer Royal Fred Hoyle suggested that this
was the case back in the eighties, and were roundly criticised by the establishment for saying so. Evidence mounts to prove them correct, but the bar
is raised high and the skeptics rally behind the cry of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - not Carl Sagan's finest moment, imo.
We'll come back to him.
So we can see a trend away from the anthropocentric view. We can also see a trend away from regarding things as "impossible" - like travelling
faster than light, obviously a sine qua non
for interstellar travel.
The Drake "equation" (I prefer the term "formula" myself, because it at least implies that this is a recipe of guesswork) suggests that there are
many civilisations out there... but where are they?
Back to the theory of bats' navigation that held things up for 150 years: I would suggest that a direct parallel to this is the theory of pulsars.
When the first pulsar was discovered, it was given the acronym "LGM-1", for "little green men", because the Joderell Bank people really thought
they'd found life. It was only when they'd decided to publish in Nature
that they thought, hang on, we'd better have a "scientific"
explanation for this.
Since then, the observed characteristics of pulsars suggest very strongly that at least some of these are artificial objects, and certainly the
physical model that purports to explain them looks increasingly weak. There is an excellent book on this called The Talk of the Galaxy
LaViolette which goes into considerable detail on this.
It's quite a case study of how data that contradicts an established model is routinely ignored.
The history and rituals of the Dogon tribe in Africa suggest that they were, as their legends maintain, visited by extraterrestrials from Sirius. For
example they know that Sirius is actually a triple star system, with the bright visible star, a much smaller white dwarf, and a "dark companion".
Facts emerging since the publication of "The Sirius Mystery" in the seventies by Robert Temple confirm this. Further, the Dogon (way ahead of the
allegedly "civilised" Western world, knew that the solar system was heliocentric, and their symbols for particular planets reveal knowledge only a
telescope would show - and they had no telescopes. For example, their symbol for Saturn is a dot with a ring around it, and for Jupiter, a dot with
four smaller dots (corresponding to the "Copernican" moons).
Then there's all the reports, all the photographs, all the video footage.
But all of that is faked, of course, in the world of the skeptics.
I would say that some is faked, some isn't. And if even a tiny proportion
of the avalanche of stuff out there ISN'T faked, then the skeptics
have a problem.
I'm running out of room, time and energy. But if you want to know why I think there's a cover-up, a good place to start is Richard M Dolan's
wonderful UFOs and the National Security State
, which uses publicly available documents and a keen sense of history to build a convincing
picture that such a cover-up exists. This is a solid piece of scholarship written by an academic historian who did his Master's at Cambridge - a
place not known for sheltering fools.
[edit on 18-12-2006 by rich23]