Originally posted by zorgon
Just was looking over some interviews at the International UFO Congress and a thought crossed my mind. We see the Likes of Jamie Maussan tell us
about UFO's and we label him a fraud or charlatan.. but when Stanton says the same thing, because he is a man of science, he is a respectable
In the end they all tell the same story, so why should be trust Stanton any more than Jamie?
The difference between Friedman and Maussan is that the former is a scientist and the latter a journalist.
Friedman reasons as a scientist, he doesn't venture into far-fetched hypothetical thinking, he bases his reasoning on probability (and the probability
of extraterrestial visits is high, as Enrico Fermi has already established), so skeptics sometimes find comfort in his discourse.
Maussan reasons as a journalist. He takes whatever UFO incident he can get that seems reliable to him, and the more spectacular the more it is of
interest, then throws it at his audience to see how they react.
In a sense, a journalist isn't responsible for the veracity of what he reports. He's supposed to check his sources and eliminate information that does
not seem reliable, but then again, when it comes to the UFO phenomenon everything changes.
A skeptic will see no UFO incident source as reliable, since they already know beforehand that UFOs are just bunk and therefore it can't
true... whereas people who have actually studied the phenomenon and come to accept it for what it is will have a much higher tolerance rate for what
is possible or not.
Or, as Friedman often repeats; as a skeptic, all you need to do is to accept ONE UFO incident as 'real', then your whole reasoning falls apart as a
house of cards.
Here on ATS, a bunch of amateur debunkers have decided that Maussan is a professional hoaxer, therefore everything he reports on is automatically a
hoax. It's the easy way out, you can steamroll over any UFO incident. As long as Maussan is involved somehow, forcibly something's fishy about it, and
abracadabra you've discredited a possibly authentic case.
They somehow don't realize that they have left the scientific, empiric paradigm behind them by doing so, since this reasoning demands that every case
be studied and evaluated apart, without preconceived opinions of what the results should indicate.
edit on 31-10-2010 by Heliocentric because:
I am one Who eats his breakfast Gazing at the morning-glories.