Critics And Debunkers Are Still At It

God Day Forumerions,

The latest from Dennis Balthaser:

Over the years the 1947 Roswell Incident has had it’s share of critics, skeptics and debunkers, and I’ve welcomed them in most cases, hopeful that they could offer information that might be beneficial to finally understanding what actually happened near Roswell in 1947. Too many times however the information they present is not factual, and for several years I tried to discuss their points of view with them privately, hoping we could come to an agreement on the information being discussed. I have since then changed my approach and now expose them publicly . . .

The rest of the story . . .

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Frank Warren


Interesting article. It's obvious that many debunker's show such disinterest and disdain for the phenomena that they must only take a cursory glance at the information surrounding the Roswell events. This makes their case weak.

I have deep reservations we will ever know the 'truth' about Roswell and we can blame both the debunker's and the plethora of attention seeking limelight stealer's that have added to the story with their own fabrications over the years.

The story has grown over the years like a good yarn. I wouldn't put much stock in any new information/evidence unless it comes in the form of official leaked documents that can be verified back to the source. I will be honest and say I'm not completely sold on Roswell, but at the same time, I do not dismiss it. The evidence for a cover-up is strong. However, I don't believe the Mogul story.

Until we get something solid and indisputable (beyond 2nd and 3rd hand accounts), the same old tired arguments will continue and neither side will yield. It's a shame because the eternal bickering over the Roswell story has become synonymous with bad television drama and this invariably amounts to the loss of important people from the field.

IRM

As a skeptic and debunker myself you simply cannot IMHO have one without the other. Now Im not refering to blatant hostile skeptics with closed off minds, but rather the fact that you need to bring your A Game if your going to make claims etc.

It all boils down to how much empirical evidence is needed for a person to believe. I have always joked that you can write 100 books on aliens and it doesn’t make them any more real, but throw a dead alien up on my kitchen table and I’ll believe rather quickly.

In many of these cases (no matter what you are talking about) there is always that one piece that is missing and is the true link from a hypnosis to a fact, but many people need a lot less to convince them that something is actually factual.

This is the only thing that separates a “believer” from a “skeptic”.

reply to post by Frank Warren


He writes a good article, but he does nitpick at some of the errors. I know the debunkers would use the exact type of errors to make the other case.

I think the biggest problem with the UFO researchers is the need to be taken seriously. The claims warrant a full scientific investigation to find out what is happening. It won't happen until the UFO community starts to police itself and ask tougher questions themselves.

Too many personalities make big claims with no proof and are taken as the Gospel Truth. That attitude needs to change, and more questions and evidence gathered on the good cases that are out there.

Mornin' Xtrozero,

Originally posted by Xtrozero
It all boils down to how much empirical evidence is needed for a person to believe. I have always joked that you can write 100 books on aliens and it doesn’t make them any more real, but throw a dead alien up on my kitchen table and I’ll believe rather quickly.

In many of these cases (no matter what you are talking about) there is always that one piece that is missing and is the true link from a hypnosis to a fact, but many people need a lot less to convince them that something is actually factual.

This is the only thing that separates a “believer” from a “skeptic”.

You make a good point here; for example, currently the claim of exoplanet planets is over 200; however, the very methodology used i.e., "Doppler shift" has been contested by peers within the field of astrobiology & astronomy itself (something rarely heard).

Moreover, only recently has a blurry photograph of a pinpoint of light been added as "evidence" of an exoplanet; that said, most scientists and or people don't give it a second thought. We're "conditioned" to accept this notion even though the evidence is weak. (See my article [written in a satirical sarcastic flavor] Do Extra-Solar Planets Really Exist?)

Quite as evident, as you note, is that "the threshold of acceptability" for various theorems, regarding certain phenomena varies from person to person. In my view that threshold directly correlates with the respective persons' background (specifically their upbringing) and societal programming.

Cheers,
Frank

Mornin' KF,

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

He writes a good article, but he does nitpick at some of the errors. I know the debunkers would use the exact type of errors to make the other case.

I think the biggest problem with the UFO researchers is the need to be taken seriously. The claims warrant a full scientific investigation to find out what is happening. It won't happen until the UFO community starts to police itself and ask tougher questions themselves.

Too many personalities make big claims with no proof and are taken as the Gospel Truth. That attitude needs to change, and more questions and evidence gathered on the good cases that are out there.

What you're labeling as "nitpicking" is Dennis' point--don't make the argument if you haven't done the research! Or, don't criticize the book, if you haven't read it.

Sometime back I was tasked to locate a respectable "skeptic" who could make a plausible argument against ETH for a UFO symposium; what I learned is that there are few sober, qualitative individuals that employ that moniker--most are in fact "debunkers."

(Ironically, in my view, the most cogitative skeptics are in fact Ufologists.)

This is not to say that they don't exist; however, the one's that are most vocal e.g., Shostak, Shirmer etc., have publicly admitted that they don't do the research; in fact the former stated (on Larry King) that he doesn't need to, to make an informed opinion . . . this out of a mouth of a scientist. If Shostak utilized that ideology at SETI, it's a given he wouldn't be there long!

The biggest problem with UFO researchers isn't any "need" on our part, it's the necessity "for mainstream scientists" to "follow scientific methodology." The very first step in scientific procedure (in these instances) is the "observation of a phenomena." That, by itself is enough to precipitate an investigation. The hypocrisy that exists within mainstream science pertaining to Ufology is a phenomenon unto itself.

Sadly, the ignorance that is held by the layperson re Ufology transmutes itself to "cognitive bias" within the scientific community.

"The UFO community" if there such a thing, cannot police itself . . . there is no structure, and there are no prerequisites.

In my view the biggest problem with Ufology is the lack of funding . . .

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Frank Warren


Excellent point on your exoplanet point, Mr Warren. When people read those articles, they believe them without any skepticism. However, they do have other ways to detect those planets. I also think those finds help the ET hypothesis in the long run as they are proving planets are very common indeed.

You are correct that the UFO community or UFO research community needs some type of organization. They need to set up guidelines as to how to research a sighting and what should be gone after. This can be difficult to achieve, but I think they should at least get some type of vetting process for some of the claims that are out there.

Before we start asking the scientific community to take us seriously, we need to start taking ourselves seriously. That means going through all the information and throwing out the garbage. Some may get upset, but something needs to be done. Right now, the field is not respectable, and with good reason.

Like Bart Allen said, Bathleser's argument seems to be built nitpicking, in this case semantics, wording, and his own (purposeful) confusion of facts.

Sometime back I was tasked to locate a respectable "skeptic" who could make a plausible argument against ETH for a UFO symposium; what I learned is that there are few sober, qualitative individuals that employ that moniker--most are in fact "debunkers."

I'm curious. What criteria did you use to select a speaker?

Afternoon SaviorComplex,

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Like Bart Allen said, Bathleser's argument seems to be built nitpicking, in this case semantics, wording, and his own (purposeful) confusion of facts.

Sometime back I was tasked to locate a respectable "skeptic" who could make a plausible argument against ETH for a UFO symposium; what I learned is that there are few sober, qualitative individuals that employ that moniker--most are in fact "debunkers."

I'm curious. What criteria did you use to select a speaker?

The initial and primary criteria (for me) was that the potential speaker be well versed in his or her subject matter, i.e., that he or she had done thorough research.

After doing some research on potential speakers, I had a list of questions for them, in essence inciting them to make make their argument(s) in abstract. To sum it up . . it was slim pickin's. The board members (who have to approve "every" speaker) had a certain criteria for "all speakers," which I don't recall the exact details to.

One fellow that I favored off the cuff was "Nigel Watson."

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren

You make a good point here; for example, currently the claim of exoplanet planets is over 200; however, the very methodology used i.e., "Doppler shift" has been contested by peers within the field of astrobiology & astronomy itself (something rarely heard).

Moreover, only recently has a blurry photograph of a pinpoint of light been added as "evidence" of an exoplanet; that said, most scientists and or people don't give it a second thought. We're "conditioned" to accept this notion even though the evidence is weak. (See my article [written in a satirical sarcastic flavor] Do Extra-Solar Planets Really Exist?)

What further pushes this out of the Skeptics view is when someone puts forth the question whether there is life in the universe then the answer is yes, 100%, but when you start adding modifiers to the term “life” that answer may not be 100% anymore and many do not see this.

So yes there is life in the universe, but is there space faring, intelligent, capable to travel extreme distances life? Now that 100% starts to drop off. When you look at the earth as a very rare event and humans as another rare even, and we have not survived long enough to prove the point of whether extreme travel is possible, the chances for contact becomes very remote to say the least.

So where people lose it is when they go from other life forms in the universe to aliens flying around as the very next step and give it the same chances and belief.

Quite as evident, as you note, is that "the threshold of acceptability" for various theorems, regarding certain phenomena varies from person to person. In my view that threshold directly correlates with the respective persons' background (specifically their upbringing) and societal programming.

Didn't P. T. Barnum say this same thing, but in fewer words?



[edit on 5-3-2009 by Xtrozero]