Most U.F.O. skeptics are not open to the evidence

reply to post by cripmeister


While pseudo-skeptic is a meaningful phrase in that it indicates someone who calls themselves a skeptic, yet doesn't abide by the principles of skepticism, 'pseudo-believers' doesn't actually make any sense (pseudo means 'not real') as that would would indicate someone who pretended to believe but actually didn't believe. Which is just nonsensical in the context of ATS. Are you aware of anyone here who pretend to believe but actually doesn't believe?

The believers here do believe (some a little too readily) LOL. There is nothing 'pseudo' about their belief. it's very real.

People tend to use the phrase 'true believer' to indicate an excessive, unreasonable readiness to believe almost anything.

I have no particular problem with that phrase as there certainly are such people. I'm not keen on seeing it used generally of individuals, just as I'm not keen on seeing any such label used of individuals (direct 'name-calling' or labeling). But I see no reason why these phrases - 'debunkers', 'believers', 'true believers', 'skeptics' and 'pseudo-skepticism' etc. - shouldn't be used to identify certain attitudes and approaches to the evidence, so that they can be discussed and understood.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]

Its an interesting statement, but I disagree with it. Its not that non believers are not open to evidence. It is that they interpret that evidence differently to the way a believer interprets it.
You see a triangular shape in the sky, and say "Holy crud its a UFO!" and a skeptic or debunker then tells you its swamp gas, then obviously thats a different story, but for the most part I think its just down to how different veiws lead to differing interpretations of evidence .
The large majority of people on either side of the debate are prepared for REALITY . I personaly believe that UFO are a real physical objects , and I would rather be put straight when I submit details that are in error on a particular sighting. I have met skeptics who would rather be informed than base a debunk on falsehoods. I think the stubborn and bloody minded people are neither. They are called argumentative cusses.

The same is true on the believer side. Believers aren't open to skeptisim and a rational explanation. Well some are, the same can be said of skeptics. Genarlizing the entire group makes the conversation sound idiotic. All skeptics... All believers... You simply can't generalize the entire group. Many of these skeptics have seen things and come to the conclusion that it's unexplainable by conventional wisdom. Very seldom do you hear a staunch ufo believer open a report to any skeptism.

Take Roswell. I was watching a special on the history channel last night and they did an explanation on the baloon spy program. One of the gentlemen working on the program said that they allowed these spyballons to remain as UFOs so hopefully that would still be the prevalant thinking when they made it to the SOviet Union. He also worked on the Roswell report. He said they also used the UFO reports as a backup tracking method. He stated without a doubt Roswell was a baloon. If you look at the actual apparatus they were using it could easily be mistaken for a flying saucer and with all of the electronics on it there would have been quite a bit of metal there.

Funny thing was, unless he was able to hide every single pantomime a human executes when they are lying, he was telling the truth. The ufologists explanation was " I think he's lying". Because the AF changed the report 3 times. Well it was a top secret program. Go figure. But this guy refused to accept any logic presented to him about Roswell.

The simple fact is if all of these UFO repors were actually aliens then our world would be saturated with them. To the extent of it being obvious. But it isn't. And I'm not a skeptic. Most of the UFO reports are easily explainable by Earthly phenomenon. I've seen a true UFO. Couldn't explain it. Most amazing thing I've ever seen. But the fact is if a life form advanced enough to travel to another star system is coming to our planet and not making public contact then they don't want the populace to be aware of their presence. And if they have the tech to exceed the speed of light then they have the technology to hide their presence barring a system malfunction. And logic says their tech wouldn't fail this much.

So what are most of these reports? Aircraft. Manmade. Perhaps some are backengineered from a alien crash. Perhaps not. But to think that aliens are simply running rampant and doing trailer park flybys every night is silly. Or maybe every single report is true. Maybe every supposed alien crash is real. Maybe all of these alien autopsies, cattle mutilations and crop circles are real. Or maybe people see things that support their belief system. And interperet facts to fit their thought process. That seems far more likely than any other explanation.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

How am I being "selective"? I listed two labels attached to believers and two to skeptics. It is not an exhaustive list but neither is it biased.

I have explained in two rather lengthy posts already.

There is a difference in labels to show demarcations in belief, attitude and so forth. There is nothing wrong with that. The danger comes in using such labels to dismiss people. It should be evident I am talking about the latter. And I will admit when I have used labels to dismiss people, I was wrong.

No, you have no problem using labels both to dismiss people and demarcate belief, you do it regularly. I just quoted you doing it repeatedly. You only have a problem with it when the context is defining pseudo-skepticism as you are keen to prevent this attitude from being clearly defined and understood.

The topic of pseudoskeptics has been argued to death in other threads; no need to rehash them at length.

We never really get a chance to discuss it rationally before you and a few others derail the debate and sound the false alarm that "Skeptics are being attacked!". You won't allow a reasonable debate on this issue to stand. Even now you are keen not to "rehash" it.

But in short, whatever high-minded intentions you may claim, that is not how the label is employed. The label is used to dismiss people; it shifts the debate from evidence and points to make it about the person himself. It is the exact danger I am talking about.

No more so than any other label - all of which you habitually use. Your problem is uniquely with this label. And you always attempt this subtle bait and switch. Myself and others create threads discussing 'pseudo-skepticism' which is a label for an attitude and an approach to the evidence. These threads are not aimed at individuals or in labeling individuals and don't name individuals. But you pretend that it's about labeling individuals so that you can shut down the debate. You make a convenient false accusation. And I don't buy your supposed concern of this for a second because you are such a prolific user of labels such as 'true believer' yourself.

Question is, why are you so desperate to label people as pseudo-skeptics instead of listening to their points and arguing those?

Bingo! There's the switch. Did you spot it? It's a lie to say that I'm interested in "labeling people as pseudo-skeptics". I'm not and I've consistently shown that. I'm interested in defining an attitude: "labels to show demarcations in belief, attitude and so forth", your words, of which you yourself said "There is nothing wrong with that". Yet, in practice you hypocritically and selectively deny the need to define the attitude of 'pseudo-skepticism' by falsely claiming that all who attempt to do so are really secretly trying to "label people", and you warn of the grave dangers of defining pseudo-skepticism, just in case some people may end up being referred to as "pseudo-skeptics" - and all the while you hypocritically dole out dismissive labels like 'true believer'.

Why are you trying to protect pseudo-skepticism - a label which "shows demarcation in belief and attitude" - from all open rational discussion?


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
Rex, I'm not sure how you summon up the gall to hypocritically pontificate like this, when, out of the 'other side of your mouth' you make comments such as...

However, as explained in my earlier post, there is nothing wrong with labels employed to show demarcations or as descriptors. It is however wrong when you use those labels to dismiss people. When I have done so, I was wrong. It is not hypocrisy to admit mistakes and then caution others against making those same mistakes or point out how even with the best intentions labels can be abused.

Originally posted by Malcram
Your aversion to 'labels' is inconsistent and convenient and only ever arises in defense of pseudo-skepticism by shutting down any identification and discussion of it, as here. You have no credibility to preach on this matter, as you have no problem with labels, when it suits your agenda.

Malcram, your desperation to label me as a hypocrite and pseudo-skeptic has blinded you. Not only have you taken several of my posts out of context, both in-and-of-themselves and in the context of this discussion, but you failed to notice who I was addressing. You claim I only criticize the use of "pseudo-skeptic"; however, the responses that provoked your ire were addressing skeptic using negative labels about believers.

Originally posted by Malcram
Your problem is uniquely with this label.

Malcram, you are an outright liar. In both posts you are attacking me as a hypocrite and saying my problem is "uniquely" with pseudo-skepticism, I am chiding skeptics for employing negative labels against believers.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Malcram
Your problem is uniquely with this label.

Malcram, you are an outright liar. In both posts you are attacking me as a hypocrite and saying my problem is "uniquely" with pseudo-skepticism, I am chiding skeptics for employing negative labels against believers.

Did you really think I'd fall for that? You are trying to prevent discussion of the topic of pseudo-skepticism.

To do this you claim that this discussion would only lead to individuals being labeled, and then you claim you are actually against all such labels, which is directly contradicted by the fact that you habitually use them.

You have to claim you are against all such labels when actually trying to prevent discussion specifically of pseudo-skepticism, because you don't want your hypocrisy to be too obvious, so, best to hide it behind a general call to avoid the evils of labels.

However, to anyone paying attention, it is glaringly obvious.

Strange how you only make this proclamation to stop using labels when the topic comes around to labels you don't want discussed.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Wow, Malcram. So, let's get this straight for everyone: because I am chiding skeptics not to use labels to dismiss people, it proves I am trying to shut down discussion of pseudo-skepticism. What astounding twists you had to make to come to that conclusion. I think the only thing we are proving here is that you have an obsession to the point of delusion.

reply to post by Malcram


Let's move beyond this unnecessary personal animosity for a moment. In the two posts that provoked your outrage, do you think I made any valid points, whatsoever?

reply to post by Malcram


reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Respectfully, I could bang both of your heads together. There's a time and a place for 'logical fallacy' dissections and deconstructions of some arguments. A casual discussion or disagreement can be enjoyed without depending on the clinical style.

The 'logical fallacy' approach is ultimately stifling on a discussion board and you've both met your equal matches to prove it. Perhaps a 'Member Debate' challenge?

No offence meant, Doomsday. I added you as a friend almost as soon as you started posting

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Malcram

 

Wow, Malcram. So, let's get this straight for everyone: because I am chiding skeptics not to use labels to dismiss people, it proves I am trying to shut down discussion of pseudo-skepticism. What astounding twists you had to make to come to that conclusion. I think the only thing we are proving here is that you have an obsession to the point of delusion.

Yes lets get this straight. The 'chiding' of the skeptic for using labels - something YOU YOURSELF DO - is the brief cover for shutting down the discussion of 'pseudo-skepticism'. Let me demonstrate by quoting you:

What in the world is a pseudo-believer?

Brief 'chiding' of Cripmeister, which moves straight into your real agenda:

Many of the labels we are using, pseudo-believer, debunker, pseudo-skeptic, true believer (which I will readily admit to using myself) make no sense. But that is the purpose of labels, short-hands to dismiss others without thought.

Yes, you use them yourself! But you want all labels to stop now. Why now? Because the topic of Pseudo-skepticism had just been introduced, by me, and was picked up on by Cripmeister, and you wanted that debate shut down immediately and the quickest, easiest way is to start hypocritically preaching about the supposed evils of labels and all those who use them. You're transparent, Rex.

You're next 'chiding' followed exactly the same formula, which your posting history shows is a complete front. I just quoted you repeatedly doing everything you claim below to stand against. But now you speak out against it suddenly. Why now? Because pseudo-skepticism had just come into the spotlight and the best way to prevent discussion of that label is to claim all usage of labels is wrong:

We should not be so quick to speak in absolutes..... The same is true when we attach labels on people such as "pseudo-skeptic", "pseudo-believer", "true believer" or "debunker." We cease to see the merits of their argument and reduce that person to our own prejudices, embodying the closed-mindedness we accuse the others of.

This is akin to a child who regularly hits others but when bigger boys appear the kid gets nervous and starts to say in a loud voice, to his friends, but so that all can hear:

"Yes, it's wrong to hit people, isn't it? We should never do that because it's very, very wrong and we'll get in trouble. Let's all agree never to do that."

Why so anxious about open discussion of pseudo-skepticism Rex?


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Kandinsky


No offense taken, Kadinsky.

However, I'm going to have respectfully decline your suggestion. I believe I made my point or rather, to give credit where it is due, Malcram made my point for me. And to be frank, I do not think he an honest debator or honest in general. He'll say I'm a coward or that I'm proving this or that. But so what? It won't hurt me any.

psudo skepticisim ?!?!?

man thats a doosy, thats like being a skeptic but not being a skeptic..thats a contradiction in itself and impossible, your either a skeptic or not, a psudo skeptic would be a skeptic who really isnt skeptical at all!

that doesnt follow any logic at all!

really, a psuco skeptic is just a lier or a troll imo!


the closes logical link i can make to a psudo skeptic is really just someone who is being skeptical when not knowing any facts, and thats not psuco, thats just misguided...or big mouthed!

[edit on 2-2-2010 by boaby_phet]

reply to post by Kandinsky


LOL. Yes, it must be tiresome for many other members. But I feel strongly on this issue and feel that Rex consistently and purposefully stands as an obstacle to it's resolution. I've tried every tactic - both direct and indirect - to work around that obstacle and have free and reasonable discussion of the topic and all have been underhandedly sabotaged, which is frustrating. So, this is where it leaves us.

But, yes, there's probably no point in continuing this. Your measured comments have been duly noted



[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by boaby_phet
psudo skepticisim ?!?!?

man thats a doosy, thats like being a skeptic but not being a skeptic..thats a contradiction in itself and impossible, your either a skeptic or not, a psudo skeptic would be a skeptic who really isnt skeptical at all!

that doesnt follow any logic at all!

really, a psuco skeptic is just a lier or a troll imo!

There are some excellent accepted definitions of the phrase. A couple are in the links in my signature. It's not something ATS members have made up and I assure that it makes perfect sense. It essentially means someone who calls themselves a skeptic but does not abide by the principles of legitimate skepticism.

A brief, partial definition:

"Pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda." -

www.wikisynergy.com...


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]

I guess i fall under the skeptic banner. I do believe in ufo's, and when i say that i mean seemingly intelligently controlled objects that defy any known technology ..acceleration,speeds, maneuvers etc What im skeptical about is the origin. I have never seen any evidence to show precisely what they are, whether it be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial in nature. My guess is terrestrial since i know humans exist but don't know if aliens do, but it's only a guess as i have no solid evidence.

Originally posted by Malcram
Yes, you use them yourself! But you want all labels to stop now. Why now? Because the topic of Pseudo-skepticism had just been introduced, by me, and was picked up on by Cripmeister, and you wanted that debate shut down immediately and the quickest, easiest way is to start hypocritically preaching about the supposed evils of labels and all those who use them. You're transparent, Rex

Hilarious. Enough said. You need help.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by Malcram


But again, the pseudo-skeptics aren't the ones clogging up the boards with total bullsh*t. I just don't get your crusade against pseudo-scepticism, not here anyway. They aren't the real problem here on ATS it's their counterparts whatever you want to call them. Pseudo-believer was obviously the wrong term for them Let's call them naive believers instead. They're spreading total BS and making a lot of people (me included) frustrated because they can't be reasoned with. BS can make a skeptic turn to pseudo-skeptic tactics (try saying that 3 times in a row) out of frustration. A lot of times the naive believers are more or less asking for a rude reply so they can go on a rant about disinfo agents and denying ignorance. Do you agree?

[edit on 2-2-2010 by cripmeister]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Malcram

 

Let's move beyond this unnecessary personal animosity for a moment. In the two posts that provoked your outrage, do you think I made any valid points, whatsoever?

You're such a pro, Rex.

It's not personal. It's just ideological. At least as far as I'm concerned.

I think you made some valid points, you just invoked them at a point strategically convenient for yourself and you don't live by them.

If you abide by your own advice regarding avoiding labels from now on then I'll be pleasantly surprised. And you just know I'll be watching.

But don't take it personally. I certainly don't. it's just impassioned debate.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]

I think that the "real problem" is subjective.

I happen to think the pseudo-skepticism problem is considerably worse, but that's my perspective. I think I see it was more of a problem and worth defining partially because it's more of an insidious issue, causes huge conflict, yet is very poorly understood. It's subtle but very influential because it poses as something it is not.

Whereas 'true believer' - 'naive believer' - types tend to be, well, naive. They're not very subtle or sophisticated and everyone can identify them from a mile away LOL. But I can see how you and others might find them intensely irritating.

Thankfully, Bernarian visitors recently opened all my chakras and installed a ray from the 5th dimension in my third eye while I was on board their saucer, so I am immune from all such irritation.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]