Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by platosallegory
So we can examine the evidence while also pointing out how pseudo or bogus skepticism stands in the way of good evidence.

Discussions of "pseudo skepticism" and "bogus skepticism" are quite insidious. 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.

Holy cow! LOL. That was quite a sermon. But it's deeply hypocritical. In fact, by saying this you are attacking our supposed motives for discussing 'Bogus Skepticism' and claiming to know what our 'true motive' is, rather than dealing with the subject itself. As you said: "Instead of focusing on the argument, they focus on the person making it", or indeed, their supposedly hidden negative motives and intent in doing so.

"Physician, heal thyself'

For someone so concerned that this discussion was inappropriate, you have certainly brought it down in tone rather rapidly.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

It's not the skeptic's role to prove your illogical assumptions wrong but rather your role to convince him thru a mountain of irrefutable proof that you are right. You speak of "inter-dimensional" beings. I don't even know what that is or could be. Alternative dimensions are the stuff of bad science fiction. I don't even know how you would prove it's even possible for said beings to exist. Unfortunately science has more pressing and promising things to explain than that bump you heard last night or the very sad stories of traumatized people who believe they are the victim in some very bizarre rape fantasies and are subsequently exploited by certain media types to sell books and videos. I find the people that traffic in this stuff worse than vile. They are lower than televagelists.

Do I think extraterrestrial life exists? I'd say it's a definite possibilty, given all that we know about the universe to date. But until somebody can produce the proof of a living organism that originated on another planetary body then, as a skeptic and a person of a scientific bent, I would have to say that making the assumption a foregone conclusion is at best wishful thinking and at worst, delusional. The universe is a weird and wild place. It's just possible that we are truly all alone! I know those words are heresy to many of you but they are, I'm sorry to say, the truth.

Again, right on. There is no Grand Unified Theory of Skepticism in regards to the UFO phenomenon. Each case must be examined on a case-by-case basis, because we could one day find the one case that shows extraterrestrials are indeed visiting the planet.

Complex,

You are proving my point with each post.

Each case must be weighed within reason and that's my point.

The skeptic does not weigh the evidence when it comes to ufology because they want all possibilities to be equal.

Your post shows this is not logical because you have to weigh these things case by case.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by platosallegory]

Hey guysngals!

I think that some of us here have cynicism conflated with skepticism.
To me an easy way to explain it is that cynics do the hand waving stuff. Plato's Academy slumped into cynicism after his death and after Aristotole left it behind and didn't revive skepticism until the neo platonist period.

I try to use a skeptical platform to try to examine things that I don't know much about. A genuine skeptic is not closed minded and will try to look at all aspects of a "puzzle".

It doesn't seem right that a skeptic would say that: you can't do "x".
In the case of extraterrestrial phenonema, the most he should say is that Yes, we can assume that aliens come from ... (wherever), but we cannot KNOW that with certainty without more evidence beyond the reports of experiencers. So we cannot say that we "know".

We can have some very strong suspicions and beliefs indeed. Until we have more fim evidence, however, we are stuck with assumptions.

A skeptic ought to go further:

He/she ought to look at all evidence, pro and con, and if it seems that the darn arguments have a tendency to balance out and only obtain "indeterminate", then one ought to suspend judgement completely until such time as better evidence is produced.

It is not necessary, according to classic skepticism, to take a firm stance on either side in the face of specious or weak evidence either for or against some idea.

But an issue remains when we rely purely on reports of witnesses and experiencers. YES, we should believe at a minimum that they believe that what they saw was exactly what they saw.

But I think it is a well known fact that witnesses are frequently wrong, as in mistaken, and sre not the most reliable sources of data.

Notice I didn't say that we ought not believe them, because we should. We just have to remember that it is problematic.

So yes we CAN say that greys come from Zeta Reticuli, but we can't say that we are right about that. We can more accuartely say that "it seems" that they come from there.

As a skeptic, the answer to me is quite simple.....

How many hoaxes have there been?
How many "sightings" have been unverified?
How many UFOs have I seen? (1, and I don't believe it was "extra-terrestrial").

Until something changes my current reality and perception of what was unknown to me DIRECTLY, I'll stick to the reality that is here, now and "it".

It's too easy for some people to get swept away with fiction, 2nd and 3rd hand reports and a wish to believe that can only create more fantasy and delusion and ignorance.

Not what you want to hear I'm sure but a solid and self assuring root for a reality that has kept my feet on the ground for decades.

I will always view as many perspectives on a subject as possible but I do not need to seek any kind of proof or evidence to bolster my reality....if "et" or such does exist, they must find me, but an alien stepping from their ship on my lawn is what it would take to convince me, not a report of a sighting, a secret document or another youtube clip.

Originally posted by platosallegory
Each case must be weighed within reason and that's my point.

And there has never been a single case that has caused me to consider the probability that extra-terrestrials are real.

UFOs ARE real.....but there's LOTS of stuff flying around WE put up there that can't get identified right?

[edit on 16/3/2009 by nerbot]

Originally posted by platosallegory
The skeptic does not weigh the evidence when it comes to ufology because they want all possibilities to be equal.

And you have proved my point. Are you really suggesting a skeptic is not allowed to look at the evidence and come to an opinion?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

That is a fallacious argument. To those who are hunting the "bogus" or "pseudo" skeptic, it is a rare skeptic who escapes such labels

No, THAT is a fallacious argument. So, you are saying my point - that this thread is useful because it might highlight the hallmarks of 'Bogus Skepticism" - is wrong because some people might go on to wrongly apply the criteria and misidentify real skeptics as bogus skeptics? The thread is useful. Whether or not some people might later misapply certain labels is irrelevant. They won't do so based directly on anything I have said.

Please, give us one example among those who are unconvinced of extraterrestrial visitation that you consider to be a "real skeptic."

Personally? Nohup. I'm sure there are others but I haven't been taking names.

Point them out. Point to the thread(s) where skeptics gather en mass to ridicule and mock believers; this particular activity is endemic only to the believers.

Search for 'Steven Greer" and 'CSETI' threads, for a start (I have no opinion of Greer either way, I just cite that as a person, among many, who seems to attract particular bile and spite). And I find your second comment quite revealing. The more I talk with you, the more I feel that your are operating within an almost religious dynamic.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

It is not the job of any skeptic to ridicule anyone.

it is also not its job to force wanted outcomes.

they do in fact look at all sides, if they are true skeptics.

The main reason for the suspension of judgement when it seems that we cannot know, is to escape all this aporia, or if you will, conniption and ill feeling.

if you don't know, then you just don't know. There is nothing to be ashamed at in that.

There are way too many things in this world that we claim to know, yet do not really. One must learn to become comfortable with the uncomfortable.

sometimes...

c'mon ... don't bicker that much about it.

Originally posted by nerbot
Skeptics eh, aren't we just a pain!

Well, Nerbot, I found that the pain was ameliorated somewhat by what you had written as you current "Mood" LOL

Originally posted by spiritualevolution
very sooon we will have all the proof we need

Let me guess... 2012?

Originally posted by spiritualevolution

very sooon we will have all the proof we need

Keep that rubber stamp....you'll be using it for ages.

Originally posted by Seany
Skeptics, DEBUNK THIS

Too easy. NASA showing UFOs on a giant screen. Silly.