| Subject: Re: A Definition of UFO Skeptic |
| From: Michael Davis |
| Date: 04/01/2005, 12:38 |
| Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors |
altheim wrote:
"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
altheim wrote:
"Widdershins" <sinistre@liripipe.com> wrote:
"altheim" altheim@freeuk.coml, and wrote:
"Widdershins" <sinistre@liripipe.com> wrote:
"altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote:
"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
researcher wrote:
A Definition of "UFO Skeptic"
Someone that is fundamentally in denial and has a mind closed like a
steel trap.
Alternate definition:
Someone that is being used by the Government or other special
interest group
to deliberately lie about UFOs or make up fake UFO stories to help
cover up truth.
Any Comments on this?
Yes, my comment is that you are delusional.
Whatever you may think of researcher on a personal level,
his definition of a Skeptic is sound.
No. It is the biased whine of a saucerhead whose favorite
theory du jour isn'r wildly aqpplauded by one and all.
The true definition of a UFO skeptic is merly someone who listens to
all
the baseless ravings flowing out of the UFO cult and then asks "what
evidence do you have to back up any of that?" Then when no real
evidence is presented, the skeptic quite correctly writes off the ravings
as
the utter BS they are. HTH.
No. That is the definition of a disbeliever.
Pull your head out of your ass! The skeptic asks for evidence,
evaluates it, and then makes up his mind. A disbeleiver looks
at whatever has been vetted, and flatly refuses to give it any
currency.
Look around you Widdershins. This is precisely what is
happening in these groups; that is what I've been trying to
tell you. No questions, no debate - just flat, often insulting,
denials.
Reading comprehension problems noted. Look 4 paragraphs
above. There is a working defintion of a skeptic. You
disagreed with it without offering any alternative. "No questions,
no debate-just flat...denials."
It's a bit off-topic but OK, let's discuss your (the above) definition:
it describes, up to a point, what a sceptic might say when presented
with (to him) dubious arguments and rightly asks for evidence.
However when evidence is not forthcoming, a true sceptic should
remain on the fence (as it were), *not* draw a conclusion.
Where is it written that a skeptic must "stay on the fence" regarding
every nutty, baseless, claim that comes his way? Suppose I were to tell
you that a bunch of one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters just
landed in my back yard and tried to abduct me but my dog scared them
off. Naturally I have no evidence to back up this claim. At best I might
have some blurry, out of focus photos or jittery, poorly framed video
that really doesn't really show anything that conclusively backs up my
claims. Naturally also, nobody else can seem to produce any hard
evidence of any ne-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters either,
though there are lots of *stories* about them, and a long and rich
history of hoaxing "sightings" of them. So, are you going to sit on the
fence until the crack of doom, giving me the benefit of the doubt in the
hope that someone, somewhere, sometime might somehow prove one-eyed
one-horned flying purple people eaters exist? Well of course *you*
would, but then you aren't a skeptic.
No, you are right; I haven't yet attained *that* level of objectivity.
Not yet, eh? Does that mean you are striving to attain it? Sheesh!
Like you, I probably would draw a conclusion from any new data
presented, but that is not to say my definition of 'scepticism' is wrong.
Of course it is wrong. You still don't understand. I don't know
how I can be more clear. Perhaps I need to draw you a picture or
something. Anyway, listen carefully. Your definition of skepticism
is wrong because it involves giving people the benefit of the
doubt. You say you would draw a conclusion from the data
presented, which is a step in the right direction. Problem is,
none of the people making the paranormal claims are presenting any
data. Skepticism is choosing
*not* to draw the conclusions people
are leading you towards in the absence of any supporting data. You
can't be a skeptic and still give the benefit of the doubt to
every confused ignoramus, paranoid conspiracy theorist, fraud, con
artist, self-deluded true believer or outright mental case who
tries to lead you by the nose to a particular conclusion. It just
doesn't work that way. And all you have to do is lurk around here
a while or go look up the history of the paranormal groups at
Google to see that in the end the VAST majority of people making
claims here easily fall squarely into one or more of the above
categories. With a little experience you'll be able to know which
category to file them under after reading only the first few lines
of a post. Of the few who aren't so easily categorized, well, if
they don't have any evidence to back up their claims then they
don't rate being believed either.
To a skeptic, if a claim can't be proven, then there is no rational
reason to believe it is even a little bit true. All claims are false
until proven true.
Especially not a disdainful one.
Well your problem is that we (TINW) are all debunkers here, as well as
being skeptics. You can think of a debunker as a skeptic with attitude
and no fear of calling a fraud a fraud or a nut a nut. We don't suffer
from the misguided sense of political correctness and outright credulity
that allows people like you to give the benefit of the doubt to every
babbling loony who wanders in here. You may not like our attitudes and
how we express them, but whining about how we say what we say doesn't
make what we are saying any less valid. HTH.
In a way, this is quite reassuring for now, by your admission, we know
you have no real interest in the subject matter and we can safely ignore
you.
Translation: You are in denial. You are just going to ignore and
deny reality because you don't like the tone in which it is
explained to you. Hey, isn't denial what you were just raging
against the skeptics about? Hypocrite much?