49 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 01 February 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

much, much, much better than your previous post.


I think believers are from Mars, Skeptics are from Venus. You want proof? Just look at how often Venus are brought up by skeptics of UFO/ET.

Crieky Moses, now you have skeptics and debunkers mixed up!

Edited by psyche101, 01 February 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[topsecretresearch]

A lot of people on forums such as these claiming to be debunkers or skeptics are just doing anti-alien PR. The gist of their post is they have a problem with aliens. If there was nothing alien to UFOs then a person would waste their time on it. A lot these people seems clueless about close encounter cases, alien abduction cases, and UFOs in general.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

The "proper" definition of the Skeptic, I think, should be that one does not necessarily take anything at anyone's word, but considers it for themselves and comes to a completely objective conclusion. That's entirely admirable, and is of course a principle that should be applied when watching or reading the News and the pronouncements of Politicians, every bit as much as to claims of the Paranormal. However, so often (particularly regarding the Paranormal) people can so easily adopt an attitude of automatic, kneejerk cynicism which makes them instantly deny anything at all that anyone claims to have witnessed, and reach for one of the all-purpose off-the-shelf Rational explanations; we all know the kinds: (for UFOs) Secret Military Aircraft; Ballons; Flares; or, they'll simply tell people that they're lying (not even that it may have been a misperception of something, they'll deny flatly that the person ever actually experienced anything at all. I'm afraid that's not sckepticism, and it demeans proper skepticism by calling it so. I very much think that skepticism should be applied just as much to "rational" explanations, and their probability should be weighed just as much as claims of the Extraordinary, and not just say "well, we know that [for example] Secret Aircrafte xist, so that's more probable, and I'm going to completely ignore any objections there may be to that as an explanation".

[DingoLingo]

topsecretresearch, on 01 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

A lot of people on forums such as these claiming to be debunkers or skeptics are just doing anti-alien PR. The gist of their post is they have a problem with aliens. If there was nothing alien to UFOs then a person would waste their time on it. A lot these people seems clueless about close encounter cases, alien abduction cases, and UFOs in general.

No a lot of people on forums such as us are not anti alien PR.. you would find the majority of us would love if aliens actually visited us.. we just live in reality not fantasy..

[CakeOrDeath]

Ya I'm pretty only Hazzard would be bummed if they showed up. (Just teasing) I actually think anyone spending anytime reading sites like this, certainly wants there to be some sort of discovery, regardless of the likelyhood.

I wish I would wake up click on CNN and see some breaking news about some Virgina woodsmen capturing a bigfoot hehe and opening a petting zoo.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Crieky Moses, now you have skeptics and debunkers mixed up!

Skeptic, Debunker or BS Pusher. I don't care what anyone calling themselves. Anyone that bring up Venus as some sort of explanation for UFO deserves to be slap silly.

[ufoscan]

Differences between Skeptic and Believer?


Skeptics ask questions.  Believers don't !

[Detective Mystery 2013]

Skepticism is good, but it can rise to the level of cynicism. That's why I use the words, "believer" and "debunker", to characterize extremists at opposite ends of the pole. Believers require no proof. Debunkers require no proof. Their opinions already are formed, and no evidence will change them. Skeptics, on the other hand, will accept a given claim if it's bolstered by reliable facts and/or reliable testimony. The extremists, at both ends of the pole, probably share the same psychological traits that manifest in different ways. It's fruitless to debate them.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

ufoscan, on 02 February 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

Differences between Skeptic and Believer?


Skeptics ask questions. Believers don't !

Asking questions is good. Kneejerk denying everything, and openly calling people who claim to have experienced something liars, is, however, not so.

[DONTEATUS]

Keep looking is even better ! A Skeptic will at least Keep Looking ! ANd some day we just may find one !THats a Believer !

[laver]

An aspect of this which does not seem to have been mentioned may be covered in a book called Willful Blindness by Margaret Heffernan.
It would seem that she proposes that humans in many walks of life have or develope the ability to ignore things that they do not wish to see or consider even when a simple objective assessment  would suggest that these should be taken into account. This might be, or become, a subconscious reaction of which we may or may not be aware in our conscious minds but could lead to some very poor decision making ? ( Have not read the book yet)

If there is any truth in this a firm believer or skeptic might be unaware of the thought processes that may be leading to their taking a particular stance because some of the information is simply not getting through?

[Frank Merton]

As a general rule, someone telling me something outre happened to them, especially on an anonymous board, is underwhelming.  Courtesy prevents me from implying they are lying or imagined it or whatever, so I tend to not pay them any attention and go on to other things.  Maybe it really happened, but the chances are overwhelmingly otherwise.

Much the same applies to organizations organized around these things; the profits to be made are considerable, and the con artists are always going to have a better show and story than whatever may be real.

So skepticism is the natural and really only possible honest response.  Its really too bad things are like this: I wonder what we miss because of all the frauds and kooks and airheads that are out there that give these phenomena a bad name.

[itsnotoutthere]

Fundamentally there's probably very little difference between believers & skeptics, other than skeptics need real irrefutable evidence & believers will make do with 'word of mouth' evidence.

[DONTEATUS]

Believers have fun,Septics smell !

[Sakari]

This all reminds me of this.......

Edited by Sakari, 03 February 2013 - 08:32 PM.