Arguing with skeptics

Take a look at this. Why can't a discussion go 3 pages without the name calling and insinuations of UFO belief = ignorance ?

It's obvious to me these people haven't thought for 5 minutes about UFOs but are oh so anxious to prove me the idiot. It's funny to watch them lose their temper and name call, meanwhile dismissing every single witness in UFO history as a nutcase.

www.genmay.com...

Why? Well that's simple really. Forums are very similar to UFO reports for some strange reason. For every interesting report, there's at least 10 pixel size blurs that's translated into a hyperdimensional 2 seated Andromedan recon saucer that is 100% confirmed to abduct chicken for the purpose of genetically engineering their masterpiece: El Pollo Diablo.

Originally posted by merka
El Pollo Diablo.

I knew it !

Yeah I didn't expect to convince anyone. Especially there. I was posting for my own amusement. But the common tactics are uncanny.



[edit on 5-6-2007 by Schaden]

Well yeah, its common tactics. They dont have any better response. It is clear that the people dismissing everything havent read a single report or dismissed them before even starting. It is quite interesting to simply read UFO reports with an open mind and there are many that cannot be discounted easily (or with great effort for that matter).

The only issue I have is that today, its so difficult to confirm whether something *actually* happened, unidentified or no. I mean I could write the most interesting UFO report ever here on the internet on a sighting, it would be very difficult for you to know if it happened or if its pure fiction.

Just to clarify...what you're really arguing with is "debunkers", not "skeptics". Debunkers go into any case with a preconceived notion that the explanation is something mundane. Skeptics wait to see what the evidence suggests, but need to see a lot to conclude unexplained or possible alien spacecraft.

For example, I went into the Mantell case thinking it was a classic UFO case. My research led me to conclude a Skyhook balloon was the likely culprit.

Conversely, I originally went into the Roswell case thinking I'd find more evidence supporting the Mogul explanation, but the research illustrated that the Mogul explanation was flimsy and didn't support the observed actions of the military.

Folks like CSICOP and Kal Korff, etc. however, immediately dismiss any evidence not supporting their hypothesis (while the skeptic will address it, and then explain why the evidence isn't valid), and by exclusion, attempt to build a slightly reasonable mundane explanation without giving you all the facts....manipulating you into a conclusion. Debunkers. An example is the Hill case. Their site claims that Betty Hill "likely" saw an episode of the Outer Limits, and drew her alien impressions from this show. They further insinuate that Betty somehow saw some schlocky imported Japanese sci-fi film that also showed such aliens. All of this of course is despite Betty's (and any friends') claims that she never watched such shows. It also discounts the starmap that uncannily matches known stars that (a. fit the constellation, b. were from a constellation not visible in her hemisphere, c. depicted even the COLOR of the stars correctly, and d. included stars only later discovered).

The one problem that you face when dealing with reporting possible alien (etc) incursions into our atmosphere, is humans!
Some people are just spoiling for a virtual verbal fight, and come armed to the battlefield with their biggest weapons; pig ignorance and a lovely pair of blinkers.

It makes me wonder why these 'haters' actualy trawl UFO boards. Does the concept of other, intelligent civilisations existing out there actualy offend them? Or maybe that our little home could be host to space born organisms that are capable of existing in a vacuum? How about interdimensional robots from the planet Kongaaaar? (Sorry, just had to use my big wooden spoon...)

But really, just how narrow minded (or is that logical and practical) do you have to be to be a card carrying debunker these days?

Why is it so hard to 'think outside of the box' when it comes to us sharing the universe? And why is it so odd that they might be travelling here? There are, after all, UFOs on and around other planets in our solar system. (This is an example I used when confronted by a particularly obnoxious person who categorically stated that they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT EXIST! and asked me for some, or any, proof.)
The answers were simple. Apollo, Spirit, Opportunity...alien technology on other worlds. It wasn't quite what he was looking for, but it shut him up for a few, jaw clenching seconds. But the point had been made. We've sent out UFOs, so why can't there be others from elsewhere?

Needless to say, the arguement rolled on, and neither of us won.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by Beamish]

There is a difference between a skeptic and a debunker.

* Debunkers are generally those who do not believe that there are UFOs or think that the possibility of alien contact is so remote that it is rendered negligible.

* Skeptics are just that....skeptical. They're not sure that a certain incident can't be explained as a fraud or something non-alien.

In general, I personally fall into the second category, even though I have seen several of what I believe to be a non-terrestrial craft. You may be asking yourself, why is he a skeptic? And the answer is simple- These days it is all too easy for the average person to alter pictures and video. I saw something that I think is a pretty rare occurrence. Now anyone with a pc and some creativity can claim that they had the same experience. There are a lot of lonely people out there who are on the internet day and night. They are looking for validation, recognition, and to feel a part of something and belong. To do that, they have no problem with creating fraudulent material to make themselves feel better.

I don't like all of these frauds. I think it scatters and hides the real evidence and dilutes the genuine cases that can be be investigated.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Just to clarify...what you're really arguing with is "debunkers", not "skeptics". Debunkers go into any case with a preconceived notion that the explanation is something mundane. Skeptics wait to see what the evidence suggests, but need to see a lot to conclude unexplained or possible alien spacecraft.

Excellent observation. There is a clear difference.

Originally posted by merka
Well yeah, its common tactics. They don't have any better response. It is clear that the people dismissing everything haven't read a single report or dismissed them before even starting. It is quite interesting to simply read UFO reports with an open mind and there are many that cannot be discounted easily (or with great effort for that matter).

The only issue I have is that today, its so difficult to confirm whether something *actually* happened, unidentified or no. I mean I could write the most interesting UFO report ever here on the internet on a sighting, it would be very difficult for you to know if it happened or if its pure fiction.

________________

Ditto the above. I mean there is so much out there and brought here by sincere members in mega-loads..it's getting difficult to wade-through it all in the effort to understand the true from the false.

So much can be made up stories of fiction or read as such but maybe true. Pics & Vid posted links the same and its getting hard identifying the real from the suspectful.

Though I read it all (most all), I still find myself going back to older cases such as Betty & Barney Hill. Simply because it's simpler to find a reason for no reason for people to hoax something that would only cause them to be ridiculed and chastised for telling their story at that time.

The only answer could be something really happened to the Hill's and others. They risked so much to eventually tell their experience to doctors then the public to the Hills.

Now there's so much to sift through, and the good members of ATS are fantastic in bringing in such important reports, pics and vids. Yet for me atleast, knowing what to believe and what to question is getting hugely-huge

Dallas

Originally posted by Schaden
Take a look at this. Why can't a discussion go 3 pages without the name calling and insinuations of UFO belief = ignorance ?

It's obvious to me these people haven't thought for 5 minutes about UFOs but are oh so anxious to prove me the idiot. It's funny to watch them lose their temper and name call, meanwhile dismissing every single witness in UFO history as a nutcase.

Feeling a little picked on are we? Look, the only reasonable way to approach any subject where the evidence comes up a bit short of solid proof is with a good, healthy dose of skepticism.

If you don't you're a sucker.

One very quick way to silence all those noisy skeptics is to present information in a reasonable, logical and rational way, and offer what proof you have. Simple as a pimple.

And make no mistake. If you are strongly purporting something to be true, and you would like to have those skeptics agree with you, you better be able to supply the level of proof necessary for your truth to be obvious and unassailable. And no fair getting all huffy puffy if somebody points out a few holes in your argument.

After all, we're not trying to make anybody look like an idiot here. We just want to see if we can put enough pieces of the puzzle together to start to see the real picture. Unfortunately, idiots keep getting in the way.

I like that you have brought up the distinction between a skeptic and a debunker.

I think to really know how to best ‘argue’ with either, take a page from the expert’s books. For example, think of how many debunkers Stanton Friedman must have had to talk to in his lifetime. He’s got his answers ready to go. He needs to be an expert in both UFO history and debate tactics.

He points out that debunkers use four main tactics:

“1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
2. What the public doesn't know, I will not tell them (mentioned before in this thread as being ‘dismissed’ evidence)
3. If I can't attack the data, I will attack the people; it is easier. And
4. I will do my research by proclamation, since investigation is too difficult.”
Link: www.v-j-enterprises.com...

Originally posted by edwardthe8th
He points out that debunkers use four main tactics:

“1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
2. What the public doesn't know, I will not tell them (mentioned before in this thread as being ‘dismissed’ evidence)
3. If I can't attack the data, I will attack the people; it is easier. And
4. I will do my research by proclamation, since investigation is too difficult.”

To be fair, rabid, uncritical believers often suffer from similar argumentation faults:

1) It resonates with what I believe, so it must be true.
2) Problems with the evidence and/or logic? I don't see any problems.
3) Because you don't agree with me, that makes you a debunker, and I don't have to listen to you anymore.
4) You are obviously not as informed as me, otherwise you'd agree with me.
5) This unverifiable story is internally consistent with the other unverifiable stories, which increases its likelihood of being true.
6) My psychic channel from Mars won't allow me to provide you with better evidence because you won't develop spiritually if you don't believe.
7) Don't confuse me with the facts.

Originally posted by Schaden
Take a look at this. Why can't a discussion go 3 pages without the name calling and insinuations of UFO belief = ignorance ?

Two things. First, you could replace the word "skeptic" in your post with the word "believer" and switch a few words around and you'd have as substantial a case. Why will believers believe anything without any critical thinking at all? Some people are quite sure Elvis just came out of that seven/eleven, and they will follow. But that's not my major point.

The thing is, Schaden, we keep getting intentionally duped. The fraud, as a percentage of the stories, is way too high. We had a guy last week come on here and start telling us how he was on a prison work gang and came across this hollow tube while digging. He was put in solitary and weird things started happening to him, etc.

And you know what people like me, a so-called skeptic, did? We encouraged him to continue with his story. There were all sorts of positive comments as we continued to ask questions. A couple of people expressed skepticism (not me this time), and then you know what happened?

The guy came out and said, "Yup. It's fake." He just enjoyed stringing us along. And when you look back at the history of the UFO thing, back 60 years, you are faced with one fake after another, one person after another trying to put one over on people trying to understand the problem. Go here, for example, read it and weep. I know. I know. Some of those people are hotly supported by people here. Just go past those people you believe in and look at Sean David Morgan. You believe him? "Dr." Reed, who kept an alien in his freezer. Do you believe him? How about the planet Clarion? It's in the same orbit as earth, but opposite the sun. It's inhabitants are all Christians and speak perfect English, in rhyme. Do you believe that? How about Adamski's trip to Venus, where he met his reincarnated wife. There are humans living in vast cities on the surface of Venus, Mars, Jupiter, our moon, and Saturn. Do you believe that? You know the moon has a breathable atmosphere and half the gravity of earth, don't you? How about "Dr." Richard Boylan? Serpo? Billy Meier? Yet we have people who are staunch believers and will defend people like Billy to the death, throwing scorn and derision on skeptics as bad as any skeptic has done on a believer. Look, I'm sorry the wedding cake is made from a garbage can lid, but we found-the-lid. "Oh, no, you didn't really. The lid maker got his idea of the design from seeing a picture of the craft!" Huh?!? You're not serious, right? You are kidding, right? (No, they're not.)

And as a result, the better cases, ones that have NEVER been debunked or explained, get buried: Cash Landrum, for example, Roswell, any number of Black Triangle reports. Good stuff, but we wind up spending our time on the bogus stuff. It's almost as if someone keeps planting....well, we won't go there.

Now, name calling is for kids, and there is a fair amount of that, and I share your pain on those sorts of people, including the case you cited. But don't think of skeptics as your enemy. They are trying to keep you from making a fool of yourself. A skeptic's job is to poke holes in a story and see if it stands up. If it's so weak that it can't, it deserves to be derided. Most of them don't hold up frankly, but there are a fair number that do, and that's what is exciting about the field and where we ought to find common ground.

[edit on 6/6/2007 by schuyler]

I've been called a Debunker, more than once.

Am I ? Not that I see.

I ask questions, I call BS, when I see it.

I truly want there to be UFO's. Well, there ARE UFO's !

But, aliens ?
The videos and pictures leave me scratching my head.
I want to believe, I really do. But.....

When we have people hosting sites proposing that they are in contact
with aliens, have been for years; then give us crayon drawings as proof...
well....

I ask for proof. I do. What proof ? Something that at this point, I'm not sure of. More than crayon drawings, though.

Regards,
Lex

Originally posted by schuyler
Now, name calling is for kids, and there is a fair amount of that, and I share your pain on those sorts of people, including the case you cited. But don't think of skeptics as your enemy. They are trying to keep you from making a fool of yourself. A skeptic's job is to poke holes in a story and see if it stands up. If it's so weak that it can't, it deserves to be derided. Most of them don't hold up frankly, but there are a fair number that do, and that's what is exciting about the field and where we ought to find common ground.

Schuyler, your whole post is just plain awesome. I would vote you for Way Above but that system requires that you started the thread, so I can't. Still, bravo!!