Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Rintendo
A lot what we consider "fact" is still just a theory. Evolution, for example is considered "fact" by a vast majority of people claiming to be skeptics or debunkers and yet there are over 500 scientists from universities such as Harvard and JHU who have gone on record as "sketical" of Darwin's theory of random mutation. Does it make it wrong? No, but it proves that the jury is still out.

I know this is somewhat off topic but this is a gross misunderstanding of Evolution.

Evolution and Darwin's theory are not the same thing. Evolution is a fact, it has occurred, it has been observed. Theories on how exactly Evolution works and why are just that, theories, and one of them (the most notorious) happens to be Darwin's.

Find me a scientist at Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, or Stanford that will call evolution a "fact" instead of a theory. They will say that it is the only possible means and highly probable, however, they will not call it a fact because they cannot recreate it in a test environment and because it still requires an alteration of existing principles. Only laypeople will do that. Scientists, real ones, are far more careful than the average person.

Now, that is not to say that we did not evolve. What we are talking about here is not "evolution" but honest skepticism versus debunking.

You can debunk evolution, but honest skepticism will allow you to look at the theory and say "highly probable". You still have to make a few leaps here and there, and (snicker) go on faith, but it is still highly probable.

The same is true for UFO-logy. People are trying to debunk it, not be truly skeptical. Skepsis is questioning for the purpose of understanding a subject better. Debunking is an attempt to disprove.

No evolutionary scientist minds skepticism. Skepticism helps them get to the truth quicker. They do mind "debunkers".

Here is the difference.

Debunker: Scientists are not in consensus on evolution, therefore you cannot call it "fact" until you gain consensus. You do not have 100% certainty. You are talking about something that happened a few billion years ago. Recreate it in a laboratory and then I will believe you!

Note: a conclusion is made that it cannot be true without 100% consensus. It also requires the Randi mantra that "extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof".

Skeptic: You say that "chance" is only one of the two key players of evolution, that the other, "natural selection", is decidedly not random and easily proven. Please explain further how there is an evolutionary pathway composed of small iterative steps that can be accepted or rejected by natural selection. Isn't the problem parallel simultaneous change? That is, several changes must be made at the same time to make a new useful structure. How many genes have to change in coordination at the same time? The odds of simultaneous change is a conditional probability calculation where the probability goes as (1/P(i))**N where P(i) is the probability of event i happening and N is the number of genes.

Note: If I were the scientist hearing that, it would give me food for thought. They are not stating that you are wrong, they are asking you specific questions.

So...in my analogy here is how it happens in the UFO-logy world.

Debunker: (paraphrasing Bill Nye in response to a video from the 60's showing something using a beam of light to destroy a missile then darting off) Snark tone in effect Okay, well, that's something, but to call it a UFO is a huge leap.

Note: Doesn't UFO mean "unidentified"? Notice he doesn't ask questions he just declares and uses snark.

Skeptic: Were there any other military tests occurring on that same night? What was the speed of the film? Do we know from FOIA about technologies in test during that period of time?

Note: Questions are being asked, no conclusions are being made.

Debunker: (again, paraphrasing Bill Nye about the Phoenix lights) Well, but we know the military put up flares that night. That must be it.

Note: Conclusion being made. The military's version was taken at face value and hundreds of individual accounts of people who saw a "craft" were discounted.

Skeptic: Did people see a craft or just lights? Do we have any pictures that show an outline of a craft, or are the pictures all lights in the sky?

Note: Questions are being asked, no conclusions are being made.

My point, and I keep hammering this home...it hurts NOTHING to leave a subject open-ended, and everything to jump the gun on what is "fact". It hurts no one to keep researching evolution. It hurts no one to keep researching UFOs. It hurts everyone if scientific discovery is hampered to make people feel "safe".

I hope you see what I mean. I am not arguing for "Creationism". Personally, I am not invested in "how" we got here. I'm more concerned with what we're doing with our lives now. It's fascinating to watch on television and I loved my geology classes, but what interests me is that period of time between 4000 BCE and 100 CE. Evolutionists and Creationists can fight it out without me caring about their outcome either way.

However, I want research to continue in every single field of science. Discovery is fun and the process of discovery helps everyone in every field. As we refine our studies and experiments all of the research community benefits.

I can understand the thrust and parry of who's belief
is stronger here...
the Scientists, who can show through logic, that the
world ISN'T being flooded with flying saucers from another
planet...
and the guy who wants more in his/her life, wants to be
safe in their heads that the Grays are sneaking up the
unaware Earthlings and through the gossip of the internet,
dodgy pics and weird sites, their yearnings are reinforced.

It's a crock... and it's for the young.

Originally posted by converge
UFOs exist, people have seen them, have photographed them, they have been observed, they are a fact... we just don't know what they are.

Yes good point, 'some' UFOs still remain completely inexplicable to science,particularly those captured and plotted on radar travelling at unheard of speeds.
If you've not seen it before theres some very intruiging radar testimony from USAF,NORAD and NATO officials on these two videos-its also worth pointing out that people have been 'executed by government' for far less credible circumstantial evidence than this:

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by IronMan
I can understand the thrust and parry of who's belief
is stronger here...
the Scientists, who can show through logic, that the
world ISN'T being flooded with flying saucers from another
planet...

I'm sorry to have to break this to you but you CANNOT prove a negative. Please enlighten me how science can "show through logic" that aliens are not visiting us.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions.

So according to you scientists have experimented under controlled conditions and have shown through this testing that the alien hypotheses is false. These things make me chuckle.

and the guy who wants more in his/her life, wants to be
safe in their heads that the Grays are sneaking up the
unaware Earthlings and through the gossip of the internet,
dodgy pics and weird sites, their yearnings are reinforced.

So after explaining science to us mere mortals you also seem to have the ability to look into believer's heads and have discovered their motives. I applaud you.

It's a crock... and it's for the young.

Thanks for letting us know your opinion, I respect that. But before you pass your above comment off as fact, can you please provide us with proof that this is a crock and more specificly why it is for the young?

Someone with your knowledge of science should have little problem with this.

Thanks I will be waiting.

Now I'm waiting!

Without going into 'he said/she said' what I'll ask
is have you read some of the threads here?
Some people belong to the Glalactic Fed! some channel
their thoughts to spiritual beings that pass back information
that turns out to be not-so-factual.

The whole idea of aliens and flying saucers are mainly
a joke in the main-stream media... is it because 'they're
all in on it?'
So we rely on blurred images, eyewitness accounts and
the supposed whistle-blower from the Government, and what
do we have?
A vague idea that either there's lots of visitors that keep
secrets from the majority of earth's inhabitants, or a species
that has us tagged, watched and probed.
I may be cynical, but my time is running out and it's still the
same as it was back in the 60's.

Originally posted by Rintendo
No, I did mean "debunk".

I do believe that debunkers are out to "disprove"/take the bunk out. That means that they already have the "answer" in their head. That is the opposite of real scientific research.

I think we'll just have to agree on disagreeing, because I continue to disagree with your definition of debunking

In my understanding the only way you can disprove something is through some scientific method, or through deductive logic but which in this case I think we can agree it doesn't help us to prove UFOs have an alien (or some other) explanation.

disprove
–verb (used with object), -proved, -prov⋅ing.
to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate

Also I think people should recognize, particularly people that consider themselves 'believers', that there is in fact a lot of bunk in the UFO field. There are things that truly deserved to be debunked, to be proven as false, hoaxes, lies etc.

From that perspective I don't see debunking as something damaging to the field, on the contrary! I see it has something imperative if we're ever gonna get figure out what is fake and what isn't, what is true and what's false.

So I guess I agree with your characterization of the position, actions and attitudes of some people but I disagree with the terminology.

To me those people you talk about are pseudoskeptics not debunkers, because they don't really prove (or disprove) anything, they just make claims and those are as unsubstantiated as the ones "UFO charlatans" make.

I think this quotes worth stating again as many 'cynical scoffers' who just pour derision and scorn onto the subject and profess to have an opinion (albeit a cynical,dismissive one) have never even lifted a finger to objectively educate themselves about it.

"Any scientist who did not read some serious books and articles presenting the real indications of the phenomenon should have intellectual honesty to abstain from making declarations presented as scientists"
Dr. Bernard HAISCH-Astronomer

Relying on news media to reinforce their preconceived,stereotypical notions/conditioned responses (UFO = NUT) instead of actualy looking into the subject via comprehensive literature;authenticated government documents;military case history reports;quotes from high ranking,prominent people;objective,informed presentations or even just being aware of the many credible cases is telling and predictable.
Whilst objective research does not prove anything,it does go a long way to show the UFO subject is not 'just a lot of silly nonsense' as some individuals would have us beleive.

This is an interesting presentation showing how UFO incidents and the UFO subject in general is misrepresented,misconstrued,manipulated and suppressed by the corporate news media:

Google Video Link

"A mesmerizing account of his investigation into whether some of America's most influential news organizations, many having maintained close ties to the U.S. intelligence community, have willingly suppressed full and accurate news coverage of extraterrestrial related phenomena for a variety of "national-security" reasons.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by Rintendo
True, there are charlatans, but Bill Nye and others like Randi treat people like Stanton Friedman, who has spent the better part of his life researching this topic, as though they have no understanding of scientific method, as if they are making extreme suppositions, and that the mere suggestion of it being a craft from another world is too bizarre and too big a leap to possibly be true!

I have great deal of respect for Stanton Friedman and his work. I think sometimes he makes claims or shares his personal beliefs on the matter that he can't really prove, but he's entirely in his right to speak his mind.

Friedman is a scientist and that usually isn't something you just can turn off. Sometimes I suspect that for him to believe so strongly in some of the things he does without having any proof someone must have told or shown him something.

Speaking of Bill Nye, it brings me up to one other point I have frequently seen happen. People who in other areas seem to be serious researchers and scientists, when it comes to discussing the UFO matter seem to forget all their (scientific) integrity and act like religious extremists who are told there is no god.

I think many of these people don't want to give the appearance of believing the UFO phenomena is real and worthy of investigation. Perhaps some are afraid of public ridicule, loss of credibility from their peers, or even loss of funds and grants for investigation. There's also cases of people who publicly were staunch critics of the UFO phenomena, and then turned out to, privately, be very intrigued by it. In any case, it's sad and unfortunate that this still happens.

A good example of this double standard is, as you point out and karl 12 points out Friendman's position on it, the SETI program.

What difference is there from people believing we can hear or communicate with aliens using radio signals, than people believing aliens can travel to Earth?

Yet, SETI seems to be widely accepted as a legitimate scientific program, and UFO investigation gets laughed at and stereotyped as nothing more than crazy people claiming they were abducted by little green men.