Originally posted by karl 12
Yes,I agree-thats why I included this part...which you failed to mention

I did not ignore it, I did not feel the need to excessively quote when the first part was enough. It makes my point; it is an excuse to dismiss skeptics as having some "psychological need". The truth is no one skeptic will be able to examine every single case and a believer will always be able to find a case they haven't examined and ambush them with it. Nor will any one skeptic be able to explain every single case. This is far from ignoring the evidence because of some psychological need.

Originally posted by karl 12
Sincerely attempting to address such cases should be what its all about ...instead of which we're just usualy left with wilfully ignorant cynics making vague generalizations.

Accusing people of having a "psychological need", focusing on motivations instead of facts, and using ambush tactics are hardly the hallmark of a sincere attempt.

And you do realize you just made a vague generalization there, right?

Originally posted by karl 12
There are quite a few UFO incidents which are extremely puzzling due to the facts involved.

I would agree with that. No argument there.

Originally posted by karl 12
Found this statement to be quite appropriate:

The quote falls into the exact same trap the anti-skeptics accuse skeptics of, that of the strawman argument. Instead of meeting the criticisms point-by-point, weak generalizations of the skeptical position are made in order to dismiss them.

I think the SCECOP website proves just how powerful the skeptic position is and how powerful the name alone is. They are trying to dismiss skeptics as being something other and appropriate the term for themselves as "true skeptics."

[edit on 16-10-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by karl 12
I think this is more aimed at cynical armchair debunkers rather than true opened minded sceptics but some of the website makes for interesting reading -particularly the 'Common fallacies' section found below.

Skeptical Ed: [This is a silly thread disguised as logical. For your information, we are all born skeptics. Skepticism only means that hearsay is not accepted. That when evidence is presented the skepticism is replaced by knowledge. Calling skeptics/sceptics cynical is an insult. If you make a claim and you don't provide evidence to back it up and I don't accept your claim and that pisses you off, why aren't you mature-thinking enough to realize that if you want to be taken seriously you have to be logical, use common sense and reason. And only having the required evidence frees you from thinking a doubter cynical.]

There are organized group of scoffers masquerading under the term "skeptics" who deny, ridicule and suppress anything progressive that challenges the static views of the establishment.

Skeptical Ed: [Organized? Name such an organization. Define "static views of the establishment".]

They are debunkers who tend to distort, dismiss and obfuscate any phenomenon that challenges a conventional materialistic view of reality.

Skeptical Ed: [Debunkers usually challenge something which in their opinion requires debunking. If they're successful and the debunking is of something that affects us, we are better off for the debunking. If the debunking fails because it wasn't bunking after all, then the debunker suffers. Randi debunked Uri Geller with Johnny Carson's assistance. We were all better off thanks to Randi.]

In truth, they are not true skeptics engaging in open inquiry, but selective debunkers with an agenda to defend the establishment.

Skeptical Ed: [WTF?]

That's why we call them "pseudo-skeptics".

Skeptical Ed: ["We"? Who is "We"? Self-appointed guardians?]

A "true skeptic" engages in open inquiry and doubt toward toward all views and belief systems, including their own and those of the establishment. But these "pseudo-skeptics" never question the views of the establishment, materialistic science or anything presented as "official".

Skeptical Ed: [Who decides who is a "true skeptic"? What are the qualifications? Where do they teach "true skepticism"? Isn't a skeptic just someone who doubts claims when such claims are not supported by irrefutable evidence? Shouldn't everyone strive to be a skeptic? If such were the case, the public at large wouldn't be taken in by all of the scumbags who abuse of the gullible. Methinks you complain too much.]

Common Fallacies of Pseudo-Skeptics:

Double Standards, Contradictions and Lies
Denial of Evidence

Skeptical Ed: [Robert Sheaffer comes to mind.]

Dismissing testimonies and experiences as invalid

Skeptical Ed: [Testimony, whether given under oath or not carries no weight as this goes on every single day in courts where lies are sworn to under the umbrealla of the bible. Experiences are, by their nature, hearsay. I have gone through certain life experiences which I relate to others. They either believe me, because they are believers and do not require evidence, or they don't believe me because they know I'm engaging in hearsay. Doesn't bother me if what I say is not accepted as really happening because I understand the belief system.]

Cherry picking of evidence
Selective Skepticism
Straw man arguments
Santa Claus gambit
Occam's Razor

Skeptical Ed: [Cherry picking of evidence makes no sense because irrefutable evidence speaks volumes. Selective Skepticism makes no sense either. Straw man arguments? If you misrepresent an opponent's position the opponent will set you straight quickly. If you persist, the opponent should be smart enough to end the conversation unless the opponent loves to argue back and forth. Santa Claus gambit? Ho, ho, ho! Occam's Razor? Some people are not satisfied with a simple explanation and they are the problem.]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Skeptical Ed: [Even though Carl Sagan popularize this phrase, he misspoke. A claim doesn't have to be extraordinary. ALL claims require evidence.]

snip

Cheers.

Skeptical Ed: [Cheers? My wife loved that sitcom!]
[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

But, cheers to you also, it's been fun.

BTW, while I am a skeptic, an open-minded one if you don't mind, I have done at least one act of debunking which I am sure anyone would have engaged in given the facts. My results blew a couple of minds, including Bill Jenkins, radio host (pre-Coast-to-Coast in the 1980s). A believer finding out what I found would have gone on the "defensive" and would have been labeled a debunker, despite the fact that he/she is a believer. It's the situation that tempers a person.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Originally posted by Malcram

Hmm. I don't know who he is but, TBH I find your response here "a bit slimy", in that it's basically a personal attack which really has nothing to do with whether or not the quote he refers to is pertinent. It seems like a distraction on your part.

Even if it is Winston Wu, what really is the problem with him pointing us to a quote he thinks is pertinent and valuable? The issue is the quote. Why not discuss that rather than target the poster, if not as a distraction from a discussion of pseudo-skepticism?

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Malcram]

My point is that all his replies here are blatant self-promotion. He just presents it like the latest hot find on the internet. I would think it better if he said "Hey everyone here is the newest quote or video on MY site".

Another example "They also got an interesting new logo that looks like the one that CSICOP used to have."

[edit on 17-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]

BTW, while I am a skeptic, an open-minded one if you don't mind, I have done at least one act of debunking which I am sure anyone would have engaged in given the facts. My results blew a couple of minds, including Bill Jenkins, radio host (pre-Coast-to-Coast in the 1980s). A believer finding out what I found would have gone on the "defensive" and would have been labeled a debunker, despite the fact that he/she is a believer. It's the situation that tempers a person.

You have brought this up a couple times, yet never say what it is you "debunked". Quoted because IMO it's BS since you never explain what it is you debunked or offer any proof it ever happened to begin with.

You also constantly contradict yourself. Above you said that you have done at least one act of debunking. Yet, you like mentioning that you have debunked Hoaglands stuff as if nobody else ever has before and you also tried to take debunking credit in the "DaVinci Crop Circle" thread even though it was debunked long before you came into it. I can bring up a lot of other examples, but it's not worth it.

Originally posted by Skeptical EdAs an open-minded skeptic

Open-minded only to stuff you have apparently seen/found

I don't scoff at the reality of UFOs

When it's UFO's you've apparently seen you don't. When it's anyone else you do and go on to demand evidence. The type which you say you have of your "six solid sightings" that you won't post because you "don't know how to upload images".

since there is sufficient evidence to prove their reality, especially mine.

Again, you keep talking about it as if it's the best evidence in the world. Where is it? Also, this comment proves how you see yourself as superior to others.

However, I do scoff at reports of humans interacting with alleged aliens as there is not one scintilla of irrefutable evidence to support the claims.

The same way there's no evidence of your claims, yet since it's you, that doesn't matter.

Hearsay is not evidence and that is all that exists for anything connected with aliens. Hearsay is not accepted in courts. Evidence is.

Everything you've ever presented as evidence here on ATS, has been nothing but hearsay. All one has to do for proof of that is to look at your post history to see that what I say is the truth.

You've used what people have told you and what you've read in books as evidence. Then you have turned around and attacked anyone else who uses a book they've read or what they heard from someone else as hearsay.

This is getting old Eddie.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by nightmare_david]

The "pseudo-skeptics" who you speak of on this board who time and time again regurgitate the same drivel in every thread they post in when trying to debunk a topic, simply get added to my ignore list. Out of sight, out of mind; it allows me to focus on the posts of the true "skeptics" in this community who's opinions and debate I value.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I understand very clearly that it is normal to be a skeptic. But when there's enough circumstancial evidence that can be considered irrefutable, such as the millions of photos/films/videos of UFOs, then a skeptic should keep an open mind 'cause there's something going on even if the skeptic has not had a personal experience to convince him/her.

A skeptic, a real skeptic, has an open mind - always. Having an open mind simply means being able to unbiasedly evaluate the evidence, regardless of the claim. And evidence can only be considered irrefutable after it's analyzed.

Hearsay is not accepted in courts. Evidence is.

Testimony is accepted in courts. Your argument doesn't make sense since there's thousands of testimony talking about interactions with non-human entities.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by converge]

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

As an open-minded skeptic....

Cynical Ed - are you having a laugh?


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
"UFO Disclosure is wishful thinking by believers. We non-believers know that there is nothing to disclose


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
If it wasn't for the gullibles ATS wouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Skeptical EdI don't scoff at the reality of UFOs since there is sufficient evidence to prove their reality, especially mine.

Your comments above, quoted by Karl, belie this claim.

However, I do scoff at reports of humans interacting with alleged aliens as there is not one scintilla of irrefutable evidence to support the claims

You don't get the point, do you?

Legitimate skeptics never "scoff".

'Scoffing" has nothing to do with legitimate skepticism, or rational thought or a scientific approach. You might as well talk about "legitimate sneering" or "valid taunting". These things are indicative of Pseudo-skepticism and bias. I'm afraid you never get to legitimately "scoff" LOL.

A true skeptic would NEVER "scoff" at claims of interaction with ETs. They would not even 'disbelieve'. They hold an agnostic position and would simply say that the claim, while possible, remains unproven, and that they do not know what actually happened. And they would remain completely open-minded and willing to examine the possibility further.

True skeptics are a rare breed at ATS.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

As an open-minded skeptic....

Cynical Ed - are you having a laugh?


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
"UFO Disclosure is wishful thinking by believers. We non-believers know that there is nothing to disclose


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
If it wasn't for the gullibles ATS wouldn't exist.

Like I've said before. One minute he believes and the next he doesn't.

He has no clue what he's talking about and just likes to rile everyone up.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
The "pseudo-skeptics" who you speak of on this board who time and time again regurgitate the same drivel in every thread they post in when trying to debunk a topic, simply get added to my ignore list. Out of sight, out of mind; it allows me to focus on the posts of the true "skeptics" in this community who's opinions and debate I value.

I have not seen any examples of debunking on this forum. I have read many critical posts and replies, including mine. But debunking is another activity that results from skepticism. Debunking starts out by a skeptic smelling something wrong and and finding out why it smells.

I was skeptical of certain claims being made by a UFO "personality" and my debunking him was successful. But not all skeptics are debunkers, they may just remain critical of unsubstantiated claims.

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

As an open-minded skeptic....

Cynical Ed - are you having a laugh?


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
"UFO Disclosure is wishful thinking by believers. We non-believers know that there is nothing to disclose


Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
If it wasn't for the gullibles ATS wouldn't exist.

Yes, Karl 12, I'm having a blast! Thanks, in part, to posts such as yours. The Aliens and UFOs forum needs more levity and I as well as others, I'm assuming, appreciate your providing it.

BOTOH, I also appreciate some of your views. If only you could be consistent.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I understand very clearly that it is normal to be a skeptic. But when there's enough circumstancial evidence that can be considered irrefutable, such as the millions of photos/films/videos of UFOs, then a skeptic should keep an open mind 'cause there's something going on even if the skeptic has not had a personal experience to convince him/her.

A skeptic, a real skeptic, has an open mind - always. Having an open mind simply means being able to unbiasedly evaluate the evidence, regardless of the claim. And evidence can only be considered irrefutable after it's analyzed.

Hearsay is not accepted in courts. Evidence is.

Testimony is accepted in courts. Your argument doesn't make sense since there's thousands of testimony talking about interactions with non-human entities.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by converge]

Testimony has been offered in court under oath, that is a fact. However, it is also a fact that a lot of testimony has been proven false. Swearing on the bible does not guarantee truth. Irrefutable testimony is what it is otherwise it would not be called irrefutable, only evidence.

There is no sign of any irrefutable evidence connected with claims connected with aliens. Testimony is hearsay. As follows:

Murder suspect in jail because of circumstancial evidence linking him/her to the crime. He/she swears on a "stack of bibles" "I'm innocent." That's testimony. Forensic lab work links the person to the crime with fingerprints or other irrefutable evidence. Guilty!



[edit on 23-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]