The Skeptics Dilemma

Long time lurker of the site but this topic actually made me want to join and post and who knows maybe it will open me up to posting my thoughts on other topics. As it was stated before by someone else in order to come to any conclusion on any topic there has to be a certain level of skepticism. From reading the posts on the forums here I am inclined to believe that for the most part we are dealing with a very intelligent group of people here and not one person here believes everything they see and read. Obviously most of you do not buy into the MSM and the information they deliver to the masses so for the most part each and every one of us is a skeptic to a certain degree.

Now when it comes to topics of the supernatural, extra terrestrial and other controversial topics I too am what you would call a skeptic. I do not personally require cold hard proof but I do require mutliple sources for me to draw my own conclusions. Do I belive that there is other intelligent lifeforms in the galaxy? Yes. Do I believe they have visited earth? No. Do I believe our government is corrupt? Absolutely! Do I think there is a specific target group that controls the actions of the world leaders? Unlikely

Why do I base my opinions they way I do, because I want proof and it doesn't have to be 100% but basically enough for me to draw my own conclusions. I think there are a few people here that are very paranoid and that every move by the world governments are for some type of world domination plot. But these same people are skeptical of what the governments motives are. Folks lets face facts we are all skeptics in our own way whether it be about UFO's and ET's or our world governments.

Please stay on topic and not other members. Thanks for your support.

Peace

reply to post by Malcram


I didn't see any ad hom attacks. I went back and looked at what he wrote and I thought he was expressing his opinion on the situation.

What I see in this and other similar threads is just attempts to mass label with negative monikers.

pseudoskeptics? I think they exist. I think there are people engaging in that practice here at ATS, yes.

But, I also think there are tactical believers that do the same thing, only in the opposite direction.

I think this thread is being supported with tactical techniques by both sides and it's losing integrity.

But, I'm just watching and asking questions here and there.

Thanks for responding.

Cuhail

Originally posted by Dr Love
Please stay on topic and not other members. Thanks for your support.

Peace

No problem, you are right that I was letting SC distract me from the original topic.

I'm going to bow out of this thread and participate in more effective ways.


On Topic:
The skeptics dilemma is one we all face, and some of us are better at working through the evidence and drawing conclusions than others. The important thing is to stick to the Scientific Method, and to always scrutinize your own theories! No matter where you are in your journey of learning, that place is valid, and it's a stepping stone to further understanding.

-WFA

Originally posted by Noccy
... in order to come to any conclusion on any topic there has to be a certain level of skepticism. From reading the posts on the forums here I am inclined to believe that for the most part we are dealing with a very intelligent group of people here and not one person here believes everything they see and read. Obviously most of you do not buy into the MSM and the information they deliver to the masses so for the most part each and every one of us is a skeptic to a certain degree.

Now when it comes to topics of the supernatural, extra terrestrial and other controversial topics I too am what you would call a skeptic. I do not personally require cold hard proof but I do require mutliple sources for me to draw my own conclusions. Do I belive that there is other intelligent lifeforms in the galaxy? Yes. Do I believe they have visited earth? No. Do I believe our government is corrupt? Absolutely! Do I think there is a specific target group that controls the actions of the world leaders? Unlikely

Why do I base my opinions they way I do, because I want proof and it doesn't have to be 100% but basically enough for me to draw my own conclusions. I think there are a few people here that are very paranoid and that every move by the world governments are for some type of world domination plot. But these same people are skeptical of what the governments motives are. Folks lets face facts we are all skeptics in our own way whether it be about UFO's and ET's or our world governments.

Good message. I'll add this topic is getting immersed in ego battles rather than being a useful exchange of informed opinions.

If there are aliens among us why are the seekers so concerned about the skeptics? Is there some insecurity?

Lack of substantiation should be considered as some sort of evidence, the way I see things.

Where are the aliens? Why are they so hard to pin down for photo ops?

Is it possible that there are unexplained phenomena people in our technologically advanced era attribute to interplanetary visitors just as in the past things like ghosts and religious visitations were seen as the sources?

People are less able to separate what they imagine or mistakenly interpret than they realize. This is not a condemnation of those looking for an alien presence, just something to keep foremost in one's mind.


Mike F

reply to post by mmiichael


Your painting witha broad brush my friend,

don't assume 1 speaks for the many

Hi Cuhail (Slainte! )

reply to post by Cuhail


The ad hominem attacks were there in that SC attacked our motives and supposed intent for discussing the concept of bogus scepticism when he said:

It is an attempt to marginalize every skeptic by redefining who is a skeptic and what a skeptic is allowed to do. It seeks to rob all skeptics of the ability to have opinions or draw conclusions by declaring that only believers have that luxury or right. In fact, they redefine the believers as the "true" skeptics, allowing them to dismiss anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint as a "false" skeptic. Instead of focusing on the argument, they focus on the person making it.

The last sentence being quite ironic. Of course, he has no evidence our motive in discussing Bogus Skepticism was "an attempt to marginalize" or the we were "seeking to rob all skeptics" etc. It's simply an ad hominem rant which impugns our motives.

What I see in this and other similar threads is just attempts to mass label with negative monikers.

It's not an attempt to mass label because nobody HAS been labeled. That's an assumption. We are simply trying to discuss what constitutes bogus skepticism, it's hallmarks and tactics, and in even trying to do so, several members have thrown massive hissy fits. LOL. Nobody has been labeled and there has certainly been no 'mass labeling'. Look, it's an accepted term in the scientific community and people need to stop getting their panties in a bunch just because it is also legitimately used in ATS. It's here to stay.

pseudoskeptics? I think they exist. I think there are people engaging in that practice here at ATS, yes.

But, I also think there are tactical believers that do the same thing, only in the opposite direction.

Absolutely, I agree. I have volunteered that myself already. But this thread is about skeptics which is why the focus here is on the appearance of pseudoskepticism or bogus skepticism.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Please, just click the link. It's not that hard. You make yourself look extremely foolish by asking if I've studied the case.

It's the link in my signature. Do yourself a favor and give it a read.

-WFA

I asked because I was surprised at your comments.

I have read and studied MANY articles, some on ATS but most of them from other sources. I've done my own photo analysis too and had many discussions, often with experts and those who write about these things for a living. I was first introduced to this case many years ago.

I'm glad you find the story as interesting as I do, it's definately one of the important ones. I am still studying it and will continue to do so as it is non-conclusive. I'm currently exploring a new avenue, maybe you'll read about it soon.

btw...I don't care if I look foolish to you, you are entitled to an opinion. Maybe in future we'll be posting in the same forum concerning this LA case and you will feel different

cheers.

Originally posted by mmiichaelIf there are aliens among us why are the seekers so concerned about the skeptics? Is there some insecurity?

Hi Mike. I think why some are concerned about bogus skepticism is that it really hinders the UFO debate, and yet the debate helps form public opinion. In turn, public opinion influences - to some degree at least - Government. Therefore some feel that the influence of bogus skepticism delays disclosure. They also feel that bogus skepticism is inherently illogical, springs from bias and is scientifically unsound. So, they oppose it on that basis. And there are other reasons why it is an issue for some, myself included

reply to post by Malcram


Therefore some feel that the influence of bogus skepticism delays disclosure. They also feel that bogus skepticism is inherently illogical, springs from bias and is scientifically unsound.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What on earth are you talking about? If we all carried your ideas we would still be living in caves and believing the earth is flat! The only way to get to the truth is by debate, both sides producing evidence and eventually one or the other side of the argument winning out. It seems to me what you want to do is ignore the opposing views and force everyone to simply believe without giving them anything tangible to hang there beliefs on. Aliens may be coming here in flying saucers but there is little, if any, evidence to suggest this. However there is more than enough evidence to suggest that there are craft of unknown origin flying about in our skies. I want to know who is flying them as much as you. Unfortunately I don't think it's an alien intelligence more likely an intelligence agency. . !

It's funny how some skeptics are complaining because their illogical opinion is being "debunked."

I guess some think they can say anything about every video, picture or eyewitness account in a vacuum. A debate doesn't work that way.

There's plenty of threads evaluating the evidence within ufology. The skeptic only complains about this thread and others because it exposes pseudo and bogus skeptics who are just closed minded debunkers who try to mask themselves in real skepticism.

Why is it okay for skeptics to question every thread in this folder but it's not okay to question their opinions especially when pseudo and bogus skepticism is illogical?

[edit on 17-3-2009 by platosallegory]

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by Malcram

 

Therefore some feel that the influence of bogus skepticism delays disclosure. They also feel that bogus skepticism is inherently illogical, springs from bias and is scientifically unsound.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What on earth are you talking about? If we all carried your ideas we would still be living in caves and believing the earth is flat! The only way to get to the truth is by debate, both sides producing evidence and eventually one or the other side of the argument winning out. It seems to me what you want to do is ignore the opposing views and force everyone to simply believe without giving them anything tangible to hang there beliefs on.

If you read what I said above more carefully you'll see I was referring to "bogus skepticism" not legitimate skepticism. If you research the phrase BOGUS SKEPTICISM a bit you will see how it is not in any way a benefit to legitimate debate.

Actually, it is bogus skepticism which has ALWAYS slowed progress and hindered the general acceptance of facts like the earth being s sphere or the earth traveling around the sun. When people do not debate honestly and employ bogus skepticism, advancement is derailed and delayed.

Aliens may be coming here in flying saucers but there is little, if any, evidence to suggest this. However there is more than enough evidence to suggest that there are craft of unknown origin flying about in our skies. I want to know who is flying them as much as you. Unfortunately I don't think it's an alien intelligence more likely an intelligence agency. . !

For the most part I agree. However, there is a core of high quality evidence - of a quality and quantity that in any other field of research would ALREADY have been recognized as constituting legitimate proof - that SOME UFO's - not all by any means, but SOME - are ET piloted craft. The only reason this has not yet been accepted as 'fact' is because of the work of bogus skeptics and debunkers who muddy the waters of debate and encourage the application of disabling double standards, Government secrecy, and the fact that acknowledging the reality of ET/UFO's in our skies required a paradigm shift so massive that few people are ready to accept it.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]

There's all kinds of skeptics and some of them are just as bad as some believers they point their finger at, you could call it bogus or pseudo-skepticism, whatever you want actually, I do not really care.

However, one thing we cannot do is generalizing over skeptics. I am a member in BAUT forum and Ufo-logic which are two big skepticism oriented forums. As a skeptic myself I sometimes got into some big arguments with some other skeptics who probably think that I am a pseudo-skeptic.

Wooohooohooo, who cares, just leave your ego at the door before you enter. You catch my point you guys ? (it is true for some skeptics and some believers) Because, we all are self-proclaimed skeptics, didn"t study skepticism in College to get a Phd or a Master degree.


Let me point out some of the subjects we fought over :

-If they were here, we should "see" & detect them, therefore they are not here (bull...if you ask me)

-Amateur astronomers never report Ufos (nonsense and bull... if you ask me, oh, someone famous said it, guess who )

-Since SETI did not find anything yet then we must be alone in the Universe (bull...if you ask me, do they really know & understand what they are talking about anyway, even just a little bit ???)

-presenting prosaic explanations (hypothesis) that are almost as extraordinary as the most exotic ones without any "data" to back them up & support them. (sometimes, it's better to say "I don't know" )

Now, one thing for sure, all skeptics have one thing in common, we don't think the ETH is a strong hypothesis but a weak one if a receivable hypothesis at all.

Personnally, I did explain why it is not receivable from a "ufologic" perspective.

Now, does it mean that we should not look for them ? Nope because chances they are visiting us are >0, so off course SETV, SETA, S3ETI initiatives are necessary. I would go even further, these initiatives would be necessary even if humans never reported any sightings at all. It's all about what we already know about the Universe in this case, UFO sightings are not necessary to validate & legitimate such a type of research.

EDIT : One more thing, my little experience in this forum tells me that most people do not really care about UFOs & UAP actually but what could be behind (ET), want a "proof" of that, just read one of my old thread and my last message, you will understand : www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cheers,
Europa


[edit on 17-3-2009 by Europa733]

reply to post by Malcram


for the most part I agree. However, there is a core of high quality evidence - of a quality and quantity that in any other field of research would ALREADY have been recognized as constituting legitimate proof - that SOME UFO's - not all by any means, but SOME - are ET piloted craft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Isn't that also down to personal bias? What constitutes good evidence to you may be utter rubbish to me. As far as I'm concerned I've seen nothing that would convince me that aliens are visiting the planet. I'm not satisfied with the Roswell incident, the Rendlesham Forest incident leaves me cold and the rest of the evidence is easily dismissed. Honestly, I'm not saying this to wind you up as I quite admire your passion, but as far as I'm concerned there is no evidence at all for ET visiting earth. Even you believers in this can't agree on most of the cases. There's not one solitary case which all believers accept as real. Surely that must tell you something about the evidence available.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

But Isn't that also down to personal bias? What constitutes good evidence to you may be utter rubbish to me.

Which is why members like WFA keep promoting the scientific method. The scientific community, despite their disagreements, has a set procedure of rules to follow which leads to conclusions, based on evidence. If this were done with regard to the ET/UFO evidence then, similarly, a conclusion could be reached which all could accept because they all accepted the procedure by which the conclusion was to be reached and they can monitor it to make sure it was followed. Similarly, a Court has rules which have to be followed and so conclusions can be reached, based on the evidence, according to a set procedure. What some of us find inconsistent and irrational is when those same types of criteria are not applied when it comes to the UFO debate. There is a clear double standard.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

But Isn't that also down to personal bias? What constitutes good evidence to you may be utter rubbish to me.

Which is why members like WFA keep promoting the scientific method. The scientific community, despite their disagreements, has a set procedure of rules to follow which leads to conclusions, based on evidence. If this were done with regard to the ET/UFO evidence then, similarly, a conclusion could be reached which all would accept because they all accepted the procedure by which the conclusion was to be reached and they can monitor it to make sure it was followed. Similarly, a Court has rules which have to be followed and so conclusions can be reached, based on the evidence, according to a set procedure.

Okay, fair enough but then I imagine the subject of UFOs and the reality of ETs would drift apart, ater all showing that an unknown unidentified aircraft is real is one thing but trying to prove that there's an alien at the steering wheel is something else. To prove the existence of aliens I would imagine that you would have to study the abduction phenomena to see if any evidence exists there and since most now accept that 99.9% of that is self induced nonsense you would end up back at square one.
Believing in aliens is like believing in religion! You either believe or you don't! If you believe that's fine but I think you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up having your beliefs questioned. I would love to hear what you believe is the difinitive proof that aliens are here or visiting here?

PS

In example of such rank double standards: in Court as well as in Scientific research evidence is gathered and at some stage is considered to be "proof", a "fact". Cumulative evidence = proof. This is the case for every field of research and investigation....except when it comes to the UFO issue, apparently. Here, the 'rules' suddenly switch. One ATS member repeatedly insisted recently, with regard to the ET/UFO debate, that UNIQUELY in this case, "no amount of evidence will ever constitute proof", and several other members jumped on this bandwagon. This is Bogus Skepticism. This kind of double standard hampers the UFO debate. But that is only one example.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

But Isn't that also down to personal bias? What constitutes good evidence to you may be utter rubbish to me.

Which is why members like WFA keep promoting the scientific method. The scientific community, despite their disagreements, has a set procedure of rules to follow which leads to conclusions, based on evidence. If this were done with regard to the ET/UFO evidence then, similarly, a conclusion could be reached which all could accept because they all accepted the procedure by which the conclusion was to be reached and they can monitor it to make sure it was followed. Similarly, a Court has rules which have to be followed and so conclusions can be reached, based on the evidence, according to a set procedure. What some of us find inconsistent and irrational is when those same types of criteria are not applied when it comes to the UFO debate. There is a clear double standard.



[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]

Good posts.

The skeptics are not using logic and reason when it comes to things like ufology and the paranomal.

When it comes to scientific research we can weigh the evidence within reason and come to a conclusion even if you can't prove something exists.

This also is how are court systems work, investigative reporting and police investigations.

You gather evidence and then you can weigh the evidence within reason and come to a conclusion. The skeptics have an illogical standard when it comes to extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings and some even know this so they use the excuse that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In other words an extra-terrestrial will have to land on their front yard and invite them on the ship for a picnic because they want "proof" that it exists before they will weigh the evidence within reason.

This is truly illogical and nothing in life works this way. We never ask for proof that something exists before we gather and weigh the evidene within reason.

The whole field of theoretical physics would have to be scrapped if we followed this backwards logic. Court rooms would have to be closed.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

Okay, fair enough but then I imagine the subject of UFOs and the reality of ETs would drift apart, ater all showing that an unknown unidentified aircraft is real is one thing but trying to prove that there's an alien at the steering wheel is something else. To prove the existence of aliens I would imagine that you would have to study the abduction phenomena to see if any evidence exists there and since most now accept that 99.9% of that is self induced nonsense you would end up back at square one.
Believing in aliens is like believing in religion! You either believe or you don't! If you believe that's fine but I think you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up having your beliefs questioned. I would love to hear what you believe is the difinitive proof that aliens are here or visiting here?

I agree, but then we have to look at how things are done in Court. For instance, you might have a case where someone doesn't actually witness the accused commit a murder. However, you may have someone who heard the man say he wanted to kill the victim. Another who saw him in the location of the murder at the time it was committed. Another who saw him with a gun in his hand. And there may also be forensic evidence which showed that he had recently fired a gun. The evidence is cumulative and convictions are regularly handed out based on such evidence.

Likewise you might not always be able to prove that a specific UFO had aliens piloting it. But you might have many credible government officials or workers who give testimony to having seen alien bodies, and/or to have personally seen live aliens and/or to have read government documents clearly discussing ET's etc. Further, you might have radar and other evidence which proves that the UFO observed did things which no man made craft could, or was of a size which no man made craft is etc. I could go on but you see my point. Evidence is cumulative, and interconnects, and this type of evidence is accepted as 'proof' of 'fact' in every field of investigation in society including science - but not when it comes to ET/UFOS. All we are advocating is a consistent application of the same rules and standards - the scientific method. Bogus Skepticism opposes this.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]