It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. (source)
Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. (...)
Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity. (...)
By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise. (source)
1895–1900, Americanism; short for bunkum
baloney, rot, hogwash, applesauce, bull, hooey. (source)
The term debunk originated in a 1923 novel Bunk, by American novelist William Woodward (1874–1950), who used it to mean to "take the bunk out of things." (source)
Originally posted by converge
...On the other side of the spectrum we have the doe-eyed believers. Much like the pseudoskeptics, the doe-eyed believers have their minds made up from the beginning, no matter what contradictory evidence there is to present or show them, they will ignore it. And, when faced with anecdotal stories that support their beliefs they will accept it without much or any consideration, never mind reasoning.
...A popular misconception is that just because someone is a proclaimed skeptic, as I am, it automatically means one doesn't believe in UFOs, extra-terrestrial visitation and other alternative topics...
Originally posted by Violet Sky
I respect your need for more scientific/physcial proof before you believe.
I've been studying the phenomena for over 20 years and I sought and found my own proof. Seek and you shall find. Would my experiences prove anything to anyone else? If you need physical proof, probably not.
Even physical proof is not enough for people these days as their first reactions are to say it is a hoax when to believe otherwise would jar their realities too much.
Originally posted by mmiichael
The intelligent and critical act as if they're a persecuted minority in this environment.
When people like Greer, Burisch, Deacon, et al start pontificating on what the Greys ant from the Reptilians or whatever - one should not be apologetic in attacking this. They're circus con-men selling snake oil to an audience of idiots.
What people do in their private Bingo Parlours is of no concern to be, except this stuff overlaps with the scientific investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects. And these guys shouldn't be let in the door, let alone be hawking their alleged knowledge and expertise.
In my opinion it's imperative to return the focus on the most tangible aspect of UFO research - the trace cases, the radar and visual confirmations by military and civilian personnel and so on; and using that as the flagship of the UFO field instead of the outlandish and new agey material that people currently seem to automatically associate when they think of UFOs.
How about we first show the public at large, argumentatively and factually, that there really is something to the UFO phenomena that warrants serious scientific and possibly Congressional inquiry?