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.

 

Skeptics are dangerous: here's why

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Rufus from Dogma

"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate."


Whether you believe UFO's are real, or you believe it is all nonsense, you are still BELIEVING in something, and beliefs are a dangerous concept, because they are hard to change.


An excellent point. I just watched that movie recently and I thought what 'Rufus' said made a lot of sense. It really applies well to this subject I think. Thanks for quoting that.




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat

I wouldnt cite Steven Greer on many things either. However, some of the witnesses that he has are just those credible military witnesses that you speak of.


I agree with you. It was too rash of me to dismiss all of Greer's witnesses out of hand. Many of them are very credible.



But just like you, I have a hard time believing certain things Steven Greer says and some of his witnesses. With that said, I don't think any of them have been proven wrong, and if you call yourself a skeptic - shouldnt the skeptical approach be used both ways? It seems to me people who calls themselves skeptics only use theyre skepticism when it suits them. Thats why I don't call myself a skeptic, I prefer the word logic.


I try very hard to remain in the middle of the road. And believe me, it's very difficult to do so. Part of me wants very badly to believe that there are aliens who will one day reveal themselves and help us with our problems. But I have to be pragmatic; it's the only way anything will get done. When I hear credible military testimony, I want to prove that it's true not on the chance that it isn't, but with the hope that I can then use it to show other people and help them learn.

I think of myself as skeptical, yes. But if I believe something is credible, then I have to believe it because the inconsistency will bother me endlessly. And I don't do it begrudgingly, either; I do it welcomingly.

I hope that this clarifies my point; I am working hard to find the real answers. If it turns out that the phenomena is real, no one would be more excited than I. And if it turns out that there are no UFO's, and that the things everyone is witnessing are ball lightning or military planes or whatever, then, well, I guess I'll have to go back to dreaming that they'll come some other way.

Because that's half the fun of this, isn't it?

[edit on 1/23/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sophismata
And the answer would be "No." Not a single mark in my back yard is from a unicorn. Even if I have 1000 marks in my soil, it doesn't really make sense to say that 99.9% of them are non-unicorn. They're probably ALL non-unicorn.


But if you saw a unicorn make a mark in your soil - Would you believe that a unicorn made an mark in your soil?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat

Originally posted by Sophismata
And the answer would be "No." Not a single mark in my back yard is from a unicorn. Even if I have 1000 marks in my soil, it doesn't really make sense to say that 99.9% of them are non-unicorn. They're probably ALL non-unicorn.


But if you saw a unicorn make a mark in your soil - Would you believe that a unicorn made an mark in your soil?


Well, here's the thing...If sophismata claimed to see a unicorn, the believers on these boards would be saying things like "That's great!", and "Lucky You!", or "You must be an Indigo Child to have such great perception of Magical Creatures!"... while the skeptics on this board would say "did you get photos, videos, DNA, or maybe the ID out of his wallet?"



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Well, here's the thing...If sophismata claimed to see a unicorn, the believers on these boards would be saying things like "That's great!", and "Lucky You!", or "You must be an Indigo Child to have such great perception of Magical Creatures!"


Some of the believers would - Not all of them.

You said it yourself:


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Imagine a spectrum. Think of Believers and Skeptics as two sides of this spectrum. On the far left end of the spectrum you have Closed-minded Believers.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Well, here's the thing...If sophismata claimed to see a unicorn, the believers on these boards would be saying things like "That's great!", and "Lucky You!", or "You must be an Indigo Child to have such great perception of Magical Creatures!"


Some of the believers would - Not all of them.

You said it yourself:


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Imagine a spectrum. Think of Believers and Skeptics as two sides of this spectrum. On the far left end of the spectrum you have Closed-minded Believers.

You're quite right...I should have said "many closed minded believers". I suppose I could have added that many closed minded skeptics would say, "So what? So you have a sample of unicorn DNA. What does that prove?"

EDIT:
Actually, i'd like to revise what I stated above (But I'll leave what I said up there for reference). You, DigThat, said not all believers would accept this with no proof. Well, in my book that person is a skeptic. A skeptic, IMHO, is a person who asks questions and examines the evidence logically before drawing a conclusion (or concludes that the evidence is insufficient.) "Skeptic" does not need to be a dirty word around here.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I present for your consideration two out of several discussions on this board that do a disservice to factual discovery surrounding photographic evidence of intra- or extra-terrestrial activity.

In one, a color photograph of the evening sky was compared to one recorded by a color camera on the Atlantis STS. The photograph from low earth orbit could not possibly be the moon because the photographer ‘thought it would be bigger.’ And when magnified, the blobs in both photographs had similar gross characteristics in shape (circular) and color (grey). Therefore, they both were not only extraterrestrial vehicles, but the same make, model, and color.
ATS Link

This is the pièce de résistance. Never mind the fact the Clementine data were available prior to the parties discovering them, NASA nevertheless conspired to hide it. Pick a digital filter and find the alien artifact of the day. Score a line between two pixels and proclaim discovery of encampments of extrasolar travelers. Anyone who attempted to explain the physics of photometry and remote sensing was lambasted.
ATS Link
That thread was very disappointing.

It appears similar photoreconnaissance have been performed also on Google satellite imagery to discern fascinating details of materiel and procedures surrounding ‘secret’ installations in desert clime.
ATL Link
Benevolent critiques of these analyses explaining how the limitations of the sensor or accumulation of error sources rendered these deductions inconclusive or invalid are ignored. The individuals who produce imagery with interpretation but accept no criticism from those much more learned in the phenomenology or technology surrounding it diminish the credibility of the subject, and cause those who might help substantiate scientifically to dismiss them out of hand in the future.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by W_Heisenberg
I present for your consideration two out of several discussions on this board that do a disservice to factual discovery surrounding photographic evidence of intra- or extra-terrestrial activity.

In one, a color photograph of the evening sky was compared to one recorded by a color camera on the Atlantis STS. The photograph from low earth orbit could not possibly be the moon because the photographer ‘thought it would be bigger.’ And when magnified, the blobs in both photographs had similar gross characteristics in shape (circular) and color (grey). Therefore, they both were not only extraterrestrial vehicles, but the same make, model, and color.
ATS Link

Very True...

It bothers me to no end when people analyzing a photo claim "it can't be the moon, the moon would be larger". I always suggest that they take their normal camera (no telephoto lens...that would be cheating) and snap a photo of a really big-looking full moon. Then develop / download that photo. People would be amazed as to how tiny the moon will look in the picture.

Another thing that bothers me is the assertion that stars should be visible in a normal photograph (at normal exposure times that is). These people, too, should take their camera outside on a dark starry, starry night and snap a photo of the sky (no extra long exposure allowed - again that would be cheating). Then come inside and download that photo. Aside from Venus or possibly Sirius, there will be no stars or planets visible in the photo.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
The skeptic in Ufology is dangerous because they give the governments power and they can manipulate the issue. The debate shouldn't be if UFO's exist, the only debate is are they extraterrestrial, interdimensional or both. The world is engrained with skepticism about ufology and that's because of people's personal belief systems. There's mountains of evidence that supports ufology and they exist without any reasonable doubt. When the Day of Visitation occurs the people will panic and the governments of the world will gain total control over them in order to protect them from the threat. The skeptic will allow this to occur because they don't allow for serious discussion and examination of ufology. Many of them want to discuss ufology as a myth or against the backdrop of an unreasonable standard. This allows them to give any unreasonable answer to suffice theirs and others belief systems. This will give governments total control. Like Reagan said, the governments would unite if they were faced with a threat from outside of this world. If there were serious dialogue about this situation and not ridicule the people would be prepared and educated about ufology and the more that's known would counter the governments spin. This is a dangerous situation and the skeptic has facilitated it. Look what Dr. Michio Kaku said a few years back:

Universities also discourage research by not granting tenure to
scientists who go out on a limb to study UFOs, said Dr. Kaku.

"It's a good idea," Dr. Kaku said, "to start asking these
questions only after you get tenure."

www.virtuallystrange.net...

What kind of nonsense is this? What happened to science being about exploration and seeking the truth? That's all baloney. Many of these people in the scientific establishment are skeptics. They are protecting their personal belief systems at the expense of reason. People will practically work for free to make sure the governments have what they need to protect us from what they will say is a threat. They will only be allowed to do this because of ignorance. People tend to ridicule what they don't understand so they don't have to look into the subject matter deeper. There's not a skeptic out their who can debunk ufology, they can muddy the waters by debunking a picture or a video and many people allow it because it supports their pre-existing beliefs. The skeptic has put the governments in a position to totally spin and control the situation and the masses will suffer because of it.

“The day Science begins to study nonphysical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence.” NIKOLA TESLA


It seems to me that skeptics are both a gift and a burden (sometimes). It really depends on the skeptic. There are honest skeptics who truly want to find the truth, and there are those skeptics who simply have an egotistical need to debunk everything they cannot physically understand. The "good" kind of skeptic keeps the field of ufology honest and on their toes. I think this is a blessing.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I want to illustrate an example of how I approach the question of whether something is legitimate or not.

I'll first consider the work done with respect to the Roswell incident. 1) There was credible testimony by many people in a number of different fields including farming, military, and communications. 2) The Sci-fi channel preformed a study that concluded that large portions of the desert in Corona had been moved around at sometime in the past. 3) The changing government explanation, and the inconsistencies in the government's explanation, specifically with respect to Mogul. Conclusion: something crashed, it's not what the government says it was, but the details are really sketchy.

Compare that to the O'Hare UFO photo they're talking about across the hall. 1) There is an anonymous poster who joined the forum merely for the purpose of posting the photo. That makes it impossible to check the veracity of the poster. 2) The photo is blurry, but that doesn't immediately discount it; the picture was taken on a camera phone allegedly during less than optimal conditions. However, there is no testimony against which to judge the photo, and there is relatively little context in the photo to judge it on its own merits. 3) It does seem to be an airport, and I will even concede that it is probably O'Hare. But that fact alone does not imply that it was taken on the same day and was of the same UFO. Conclusion: probably bunk unless someone can come forward to corroborate the photo. Ideally one of the eye witnesses would come forward and say "That's exactly what I saw!"

Notice here: emphasis on the facts, circumstantial evidence, and a conclusion that is fair, not totally definite, and still open to evolution. I think that is the difference between a reasonable skeptic, and those who are beholden to their beliefs.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
"You must be an Indigo Child to have such great perception of Magical Creatures!"... while the skeptics on this board would say "did you get photos, videos, DNA, or maybe the ID out of his wallet?"


Dude, you almost owed me a new laptop, as I was eating a spoonful of cereal and milk while I read that and laughed so hard I thought I was gonna choke on a cornflake.

And another poster asked what I would do if I saw an actual unicorn. Not to dodge the question, but I don't think that's an apt comparison to the ufo/alien "experiences" folks around here have. More apt comparisons would be:

What would you think if you fell asleep one night, woke up (so you think) to see a unicorn in your bedroom, forgot what happened after that, and then woke up the next morning?

What would you think if you looked really far out into the woods, at night, and saw a vaguely linear(ish) thing and then the next day found what looked like horse hoof prints?

Would either of these make your seriously think you'd seen a unicorn? They wouldn't do it for me.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It bothers me to no end when people analyzing a photo claim "it can't be the moon, the moon would be larger". I always suggest that they take their normal camera (no telephoto lens...that would be cheating) and snap a photo of a really big-looking full moon. Then develop / download that photo. People would be amazed as to how tiny the moon will look in the picture.

Another thing that bothers me is the assertion that stars should be visible in a normal photograph (at normal exposure times that is). These people, too, should take their camera outside on a dark starry, starry night and snap a photo of the sky (no extra long exposure allowed - again that would be cheating). Then come inside and download that photo. Aside from Venus or possibly Sirius, there will be no stars or planets visible in the photo.


I agree. As someone with some experience in astrophotography, I can confirm the phenomena.

It is blowing my mind to look at the O'Hare discussion and seeing people manipulating the photo with color filters, and presenting that as evidence of something. I don't know what they're trying to do, but speaking as someone with limited experience analyzing photos, I can't imagine that anything they're talking about contributes to explaining it.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
You, DigThat, said not all believers would accept this with no proof. Well, in my book that person is a skeptic. A skeptic, IMHO, is a person who asks questions and examines the evidence logically before drawing a conclusion (or concludes that the evidence is insufficient.) "Skeptic" does not need to be a dirty word around here


You have to distinguish between people who believs that, to qoute Stanton Friedman: "SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft. Most are not." - And the people that believes that every light in the sky is.

I think its really the other way around.. Most of the so called Fair Skeptics deep down believes that flying saucers probably exists, but dont want to be giving the impression to the general public (and to an extent, themselves) that they are one of the "cooks" that believes everything and anything said, concerning the subject. I'll quote myself here:


Originally posted by DigThat
Now people who claims they are skeptical that Unidentfied Flying Objects - or more precisly, flying saucers is something that is real; why would they then spend so much time on the subject, if they didnt think there would be anything to it? I mean what would be the point? I'm also skeptical to stories of indivduals I dont trust. Does this make me skeptical if flying saucers exist?


Personally, its more then a belief that indeed flying saucers are something that is real. Its nothing like seeing one for yourself (no, I dont expect anyone to take my word for it, here.) Do I believe that most of them are alien space craft? Yea, because after pondering the different possibilities of what they may be, this is what makes most sense to me. If its proven that they are something else, I stand corrected.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat
I think its really the other way around.. Most of the so called Fair Skeptics deep down believes that flying saucers probably exists, but dont want to be giving the impression to the general public (and to an extent, themselves) that they are one of the "cooks" that believes everything and anything said, concerning the subject.


I agree, I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that was the end. On the other hand, I am not going to definitively state that manned flying discs is what we'll find.

Everyone can speculate about what it might be. I just don't hold out my speculation as dogma. If that makes me political, then so be it; I think that's the pragmatic way to get people interested in the subject.

Some would argue that pragmatism is the strategy of the government and those who want to see disclosure stopped. Well, look at who's winning right now. Idealists and ideologues are running the joint, and we've never been farther from disclosure.

Is it selling out? Maybe. But is the goal here disclosure? It appears to me like some would have it be making everyone else think what they think.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Just for the record, I think that it gives more to try discuss this subject with you who calls yourself "skeptics" (Well, maybe not that Spawwwn character) - then it is to discuss the matter with the "blind believers". They arent open for discussion.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by DigThat]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Some would argue that pragmatism is the strategy of the government and those who want to see disclosure stopped. Well, look at who's winning right now. Idealists and ideologues are running the joint, and we've never been farther from disclosure.

Is it selling out? Maybe. But is the goal here disclosure? It appears to me like some would have it be making everyone else think what they think.


And how is skeptics anyhow different? Offcourse you try to make people see it from your perspective, isnt that the meaning of a discussion? Sometimes you learn from others, sometimes people learn from you?

I think you're partly right. But I dont see how the skeptical approach will bring disclosure, not if you mean on a short term basis. Maybe on a very long term. People have just to much other stuff to worry about.. I think that way would not work until we have to stopped fighting wars and stopped arguing over trivial matters.. I may be wrong

I think the disclosure project was a very good concept in trying to force disclosure. It certainly created a media buzz, and I think thats what you need in todays society. However, they made a mistake when they brought on witnesses like Clifford Stone who started talking about the "nordics" and stuff. Even if hes telling the truth, if they want people to come to the realization, or should I say be open to the possibility, that flying saucers are real, and "we're not alone"; They should have started with witnesses that seems more credible and a less "out there". But I cant really critize them when they atleast made an effort, and I havent.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat
I think you're partly right. But I dont see how the skeptical approach will bring disclosure, not if you mean on a short term basis. Maybe on a very long term. People have just to much other stuff to worry about.. I think that way would not work until we have to stopped fighting wars and stopped arguing over trivial matters.. I may be wrong


That is never going to change. We're going to be moving through the stars and people will still be worried about their plants and their kids. Not everyone has the capacity or the time to think about these big issues. It then falls to us, those who are interested and want to take an active role, to provide them with the information that they need so that they can draw their own conclusions. Maybe that's hand-holding, but when is the last time you checked out the plant where your food was made? Probably never; you leave that job to the government because a) they know what they're doing, and b) you don't care.

The skeptical approach works because it is not radical (people fear radical change) and it is based in scientific, objective evidence that people don't have to pay money to Steven Greer to examine.



I think the disclosure project was a very good concept in trying to force disclosure. It certainly created a media buzz, and I think thats what you need in todays society. However, they made a mistake when they brought on witnesses like Clifford Stone who started talking about the "nordics" and stuff. Even if hes telling the truth, if they want people to come to the realization, or should I say be open to the possibility, that flying saucers are real, and "we're not alone"; They should have started with witnesses that seems more credible and a less "out there". But I cant really critize them when they atleast made an effort, and I havent.


I agree. That is why I want to be part of a group that will take the science in a new direction.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join