Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Tribal UFOs


Reilly.

Recommended Posts

because its a discussion forum its good to hear from everyones view point because some of it is entertaining, logical and some of its dumb and less supported. the forum needs both skeptics and believers. Yes it can be heated but usually everyone here respects everyone whether they are wrong or right

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely understand what you are saying. I do love a healthy debate, but some times it goes beyond a debate and into a full on assault lol. I try not to let it bother me, I get it, some times when I feel very strongly about a subject, I can get pretty stuborn and unwilling to budge. If you take a subject too seriously, sometimes you takes things too personally.

I dont agree with any outright peronal attacks, it's the lowest form of debate and some will go to that level.

You and I have had a few debates lol, but we remain civil so it is possible!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just human nature to "divide into tribes" with people that have similar opinions as you do.

Edited by ZZ430
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you can find harshness in both sides; skeptics and believers as well. But there is a difference: skeptics use more reliable (and epistemological) arguments, rather than spending time making unsubstantiated claims.

To be a skeptic you should stop assuming things based on your faith, your belief or just product of your credulity. Science is not a belief, is a tool. Plus, the skepticism doesn't promise us anything (such as threats or punishments). While believers (especially the religious ones) promise havens, future and past lives and even planets to their loyal zealots (and horrible hells for those who deviate from their precepts), skepticism only offers a more rational vision of reality around us.

Edited by Anomalocaris
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm here for the debate as well. And to teach, to learn, and to socialize. Number one above all is to enjoy myself here. If this board ever gets to the point where it's no fun, then I'll leave. In the meantime, I'm not taking anything said here personally or seriously. If people get riled up over my posts, and decided to insult me, that's their problem.

My advice to you is the same as the advice given to me by my attorney, who happens to be my great-grandfather (Aloysius J. Krupe (1849-1927), perhaps you've heard of him--he fought in the Napoleanic Wars, as a gunslinger, according to old family history that I just made up.).

The point is, yes, people can be jerks, both in real life and on the net. I've left more boards and forums because they stopped being fun. I say, forget 'em. Have fun. It's not worth getting upset about, especially something like a forum. There's enough garbage in the world to get worked up about. This should be an escape.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It simply just doesn't matter.

Do you surf by any chance? My best friend used that same saying every time we hung out and went surfing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you surf by any chance? My best friend used that same saying every time we hung out and went surfing.

It's also a quote from Meatballs.

It just doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter! Ad infinitum, ad nauseum though it was a good movie.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are taking it too personally because people become passionate about the subject. I object to the information presented, some posters insist on going further, but the information is where I go for the throat, and for anything. You will see skeptics challenge each other, it is not reserved for believers, information should be stressed to breaking point each and every time to ensure it's integrity. I have debated you in another thread, but I hold no malice toward you, that would be downright stupid, I would not know you if I fell over you in the street.

Distance yourself from your information, it makes all the difference. It is about the evidence.

The poster has to start making personal announcements and proclamations to take it past that, as then, the poster becomes the source of the information. And then the gloves come off. But I have not seen yo do that.

I might give you a very hard time, but you can rebut sensibly. That incurs respect. I am in fact more than impressed with your long reply on the Michalak claim, even if you do not perceive my reply as such. You may well be receiving a false impression based upon a personal outlook.

I would say keep doing what you are doing, It is better than most can do, and I am more than pleased to find a poster with the gumption and persistence to stand up to my rebuttals. Far too many run and hide, or make inane retorts that are superfluous. I welcome a challenge. That you get so much of my attention is actually a form of compliment. And that you have the balls to stand behind your hypotheses makes your posting all the more worthwhile.

Do not underestimate your "peers" whether you see as as such or not. You may have more allies than you realise.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a break from the forum because it just wasn't fun for me. See, (and I know people mean well) but the term debate online makes me cringe. I'd just rather talk things through with people. I'd like to explain things if asked, but I don't like nor enjoy the confrontation. I've got enough of that in real life without needing it in my recreational time too. The real point of this thread though, was to just point out that "believers and skeptics" don't need to be sides and stances. Some above said science is a tool, and that is what I believe.

There are some things I believe in from personal experience (such as being a born again Christian after growing up a militant punkrock atheist) and I know that no matter what I say I can't share that experience with anyone else. I can't make someone see the same things I do, and not having a church and having to go it alone taught me really quickly that I had to keep my beliefs to myself, except when asked.

Now, that might automatically debunk me as a "man of science" but I bought it up because prior to my religious awakening I was (and am) very grounded in scientific study, and to this day I have a subscription to a number of scientific journals and magazines. I don't believe in everything, but I like to keep an open-mind where its reasonable. Which means, that 99% of the time online I am given **** about being a skeptic and trying to oppress other people, blah blah blah.

Yet, the one time I was asked "What are the best cases" and I point someone in the direction, I find I am forced into the camp of believer and forced to defend my stance on why I think its one of the most credible. And it was a big eye opening experience. It seemed like a little thing, and I am not a thin-skinned guy, but when that happened I kind of felt... I don't know... like it was counter productive. Like these camps, these tribal ideologies are restricting our thinking and are an oppressive force on us.

Rather than looking into why a topic might be compelling, for some it was more important to show it wasn't. Rather than thinking it was worth research or study or looking into, it was rolled over, crudely prodded with a stick, and then the issue became my credibility and my belief there was value in it rather than the fall out of case itself. A lot of what left me thinking it was credible, wasn't even listed there to be accessed because I didn't want to watch the documentaries and write them down verbatim with the photos of medical documentation. Its not they didn't exist, I just didn't want to spend time doing that. Nor (after it all) did I feel particularly motivated to do so.

Which is really at the crux of it.

Lets pretend for a minute (just PRETEND) that last night I was abducted by aliens and saw these beings and did a forum search for a community related to it. This site is the first one that came up. Now, lets pretend I'd stolen an alien pencil or some such off the alien craft. If I joined community and said that I'd be really repelled and reluctant to share the information. And in doing that, the "skeptical tribe" will have robbed themselves of an opportunity to learn more about this subject.

Alternatively (and far more common), if someone wanting to hoax did the exact same thing and there no skeptics than its a bunch of wasted time and innocent people are essentially being manipulated, which (knowing human nature) would eventually lead to exploitation of one form of another. So, skeptical thinking is important and has its place.

I'd just like to propose a balance of the two. That is what I myself have tried to do. To a reach a point where I can judge something on its merits and I don't automatically try to engage with people who are only looking for fair discussion. Its no secret that I am an opinionated mother ****er at times. But its only because the TRUTH and the pursuit of truth is honestly something very near-and-dear to my heart.

TL:DR version: Lets keep an open open and get rid of these tribes, lets make it clear if something is a conversation or a debate before we wade in. I can't be the only person that is sick of feeling like everything is a massive tug of war.

Edited by Reilly.
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea but there have always been "tribes" and they continue today. Various branches of Islam, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, American Indians, Pagans etc. etc. etc. and we've all spent a incredible amount of time, not only disagreeing but trying and succeeding in killing each other, including those we supposedly agree with . It's part of the human condition and that's maybe one of the greatest mysteries of all.

The best we can all do is keep trying to make it not so. I'd tell a joke about it but already gave away the punch line.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a break from the forum because it just wasn't fun for me. See, (and I know people mean well) but the term debate online makes me cringe. I'd just rather talk things through with people. I'd like to explain things if asked, but I don't like nor enjoy the confrontation. I've got enough of that in real life without needing it in my recreational time too. The real point of this thread though, was to just point out that "believers and skeptics" don't need to be sides and stances. Some above said science is a tool, and that is what I believe.

You know, I tried that one some time back. I applaud your thoughts and your effort, but to my experience, I find it is just not viable. I figured believers and skeptics want the same thing, but skeptics have much higher standards for evidence. Sadly, I have been proven wrong, and because we cannot rely on people being rational. Having people come in here and spout obvious BS makes it hard to do so, especially when these people say they are right, have spoken to aliens, all of science is wrong, and only the enlightened understand this esoteric language, which roughly translates to "I am making crap up and will cry if you point that out. Others take the information they present quite personally and consider deconstructing the evidnce as an insult. You can't win.

There are some things I believe in from personal experience (such as being a born again Christian after growing up a militant punkrock atheist) and I know that no matter what I say I can't share that experience with anyone else. I can't make someone see the same things I do, and not having a church and having to go it alone taught me really quickly that I had to keep my beliefs to myself, except when asked.

Well that is a good attitude too, personal epiphanies are well... personal! Even when transcribed others will see rational explanations that the experiencer does not want to hear, or belittles their experience. You have chosen wisely.

Now, that might automatically debunk me as a "man of science" but I bought it up because prior to my religious awakening I was (and am) very grounded in scientific study, and to this day I have a subscription to a number of scientific journals and magazines. I don't believe in everything, but I like to keep an open-mind where its reasonable. Which means, that 99% of the time online I am given **** about being a skeptic and trying to oppress other people, blah blah blah.

No it should not, as long as you can maintain a distance between science and religion. Simon Conway Morris is one professional I quote extensively here and he makes no secret of his religious orientation. At the same time, he is the leading expert on study of the fossils of the Burgess Shale, and of the scientific concept of Cambrian explosion.

Yet, the one time I was asked "What are the best cases" and I point someone in the direction, I find I am forced into the camp of believer and forced to defend my stance on why I think its one of the most credible. And it was a big eye opening experience. It seemed like a little thing, and I am not a thin-skinned guy, but when that happened I kind of felt... I don't know... like it was counter productive. Like these camps, these tribal ideologies are restricting our thinking and are an oppressive force on us.

Because you came in rather authoritative and it is impossible to tell you from the woo crowd at that point. That particular case had already been ruined for you by a previous poster who made a big deal of the case and claimed it was alien invasion proof. I have to admit I was mildly surprised when you considered a medical condition as a possible answer, that was the first indication I had that you were above the average poster who makes claims about cases. I think we al have a case that we find compelling. For me, it is Portage County, I cannot even comment on that anymore because I just cannot find a viable answer. Ones I had considered in the past just do not satiasy. I think most of us have a Special case, but being individuals, what I see as compelling may be mundane to you.

Rather than looking into why a topic might be compelling, for some it was more important to show it wasn't. Rather than thinking it was worth research or study or looking into, it was rolled over, crudely prodded with a stick, and then the issue became my credibility and my belief there was value in it rather than the fall out of case itself. A lot of what left me thinking it was credible, wasn't even listed there to be accessed because I didn't want to watch the documentaries and write them down verbatim with the photos of medical documentation. Its not they didn't exist, I just didn't want to spend time doing that. Nor (after it all) did I feel particularly motivated to do so.

Which is really at the crux of it.

It will pay to understand that those who have gone before you have destroyed that path you seek to tread. Might I suggest, as opposed to saying "This IS a compelling case, look at it" perhaps you might try a softer approach with "I feel this aspect of this case has merit, what do you think?"

Just a suggestion based on personal experience to help push those preconceptions out of the way, I know we should not have preconceptions, but it happens in here so often that it is almost an expectation most days.

Lets pretend for a minute (just PRETEND) that last night I was abducted by aliens and saw these beings and did a forum search for a community related to it. This site is the first one that came up. Now, lets pretend I'd stolen an alien pencil or some such off the alien craft. If I joined community and said that I'd be really repelled and reluctant to share the information. And in doing that, the "skeptical tribe" will have robbed themselves of an opportunity to learn more about this subject.

You know I would not want my information to arrive like that. I would probably not believe it as you say. I would more likely get excited if someone was to take this pencil straight to a lab and get proper proof immediately, it is obtainable. Isotopic ratio tells us is an item is off this earth or not. You will notice a lot of people contact UFOlogists, I see that as a red flag immediately, despite the fact some find that a natural order to follow.

Alternatively (and far more common), if someone wanting to hoax did the exact same thing and there no skeptics than its a bunch of wasted time and innocent people are essentially being manipulated, which (knowing human nature) would eventually lead to exploitation of one form of another. So, skeptical thinking is important and has its place.

Agreed, but you are right in viewing a skeptic through a squinted eye, debunkers exist as well and give critical thinking a bad name.

We do not always admit it is a two way street as one lane is always in a jam, but it is there.

I'd just like to propose a balance of the two. That is what I myself have tried to do. To a reach a point where I can judge something on its merits and I don't automatically try to engage with people who are only looking for fair discussion. Its no secret that I am an opinionated mother ****er at times. But its only because the TRUTH and the pursuit of truth is honestly something very near-and-dear to my heart.

Just do not get upset with other opinionated mother ****er's!

Call out the information! You WILL be supported when the evidence is true and honest, regardless of what it depicts.

Whilst I sincerely wish you all the very best with your noble endeavour, I hope you will not mind if I do not hold my breath.

TL:DR version: Lets keep an open open and get rid of these tribes, lets make it clear if something is a conversation or a debate before we wade in. I can't be the only person that is sick of feeling like everything is a massive tug of war.

Maybe a select few can accomplish this? I do not like your chances for all considering your view as valid, but if you can get a small working example up and running, just maybe you can showcase those merits?

Best of luck anyway. Ands keep me on my toes too! Do not let up on me because I scrutinise your posting. Like I said, you might be rather surprised to see where your allies actually are, and who is likeminded.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it there must be sides?

Because some people think that other people are wrong.

Why should we feel obligated to prove anything at all?

If you're making an assertion, you should be able to prove it, otherwise its just hot air.

We're not scientists or professionals in our field and any allusion to such cannot be respected because it cannot be validated. I know that certain people enjoy argument on the internet, but I cannot be the only one that finds the confrontation unpleasant and ultimately futile?

Being a skeptic is never futile. If you can help convince someone who is sitting on the fence to develop and use critical thinking skills rather than just accept any fluffy idea that comes along, then it's worth the time.

Why is it that I cannot be intrigued by some cases and skeptical of others.

No idea.

Why must we pick a side and wage a pointless war of words rather than coming together and sharing our information?

You're making the fatal error here of assuming all opinions are equally informed and therefore equally valid. They are not.

This tribal mentality seems to exist everywhere, form politics to sport, but why do we need it?

Jesus, the world would be a boring place if we all agreed.

I don't feel like I should have to adhere to one side or the other, I'd rather base my opinions on a case-by-case standard.

Then do so.

I don't want to offend, anger, or upset anyone... and I don't want to feel like I am being spoken to like I am a piece of **** either or having the validity of my insight challenged after than fairly considered.

Then don't offend anyone. And if you're having your "insight challenged", that's what a discussion forum is for.

I am at a point in my life where I'd sooner just walk away than argue, and I'd like to think that each of us are intelligent and mature enough individuals to recognize this trait and consider all perspectives and all sides of the matter.

But - all sides of the matter are not equal. Evidence and proof is key. A debate where everyone wins is not a debate. And if you don't like that, no offence - walk away.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A debate where everyone wins is not a debate. And if you don't like that, no offence - walk away.

I feel like I am speaking and you're not hearing me Emma. I don't want to debate. I want to talk to other people who share my interest and may know things about the subject I do not. I don't want to argue IS or IS NOT unless there is very clear evidence of IS or IS NOT. I'd much rather just be able to casually chat with people about it, because in all honesty... no one here is going to change anyone. We're all just casual "fans" of the subject here and I feel it would be more productive for EVERYONE if we talked about this subject and kept an open-mind rather than approaching each and every instance with the certainty that it is false or a hoax.

Don't get me wrong, I know a lot are. But the skeptical community on this board far outweighs the "believers" and quite often I'll scroll through a thread and it will be a race to see who can debunk something the fastest or find the most holes in a story, rather than to fairly access something objectively. In a couple of instances, so much so that it is to the point where the case is not considered beyond a preliminary glance. And I feel like that is a service to the person sharing their experience, us as a community who might want to talk about it, and the skeptic themselves who are coming into the topic with tunnel vision.

Believers have their problems too, but they are held in check by reason.

In a climate of negative rationality it is much harder explore all possibilities with a clear and objective focus. Which is why in debate there is typically a a window for discussion and point-keeper (called a moderator) whose job it is to keep the discussion civil and tally points so that when the debate is over there can be a clear side declared the winner. This is because its VERY easy to debunk things and argue endlessly (which is what happens on the internet) and its VERY easy for those involved in the debate to become fact-blind, willfully ignorant, or have their perceptions slanted by confirmation bias.

Without these checks in place (because a Forum Moderator does not moderate debate, they merely moderate conduct) it tends brings out the worst in people. To this end, I merely want to discuss things. I don't want to be forced away, not feel like I have to fight to discuss this topic. Especially since it is something most people do not know about and do not WANT to know about. I have been a member of this site on-and-off for YEARS and its the only community that is really active and up-to-date that I know. I want to be a part of it, and I want to stick around. However, I'd like to talk to people like we were all civil human beings sitting in a room and not feel like I am walking in, sitting down to talk and explore ideas, and then be forced to watch as a bunch of people with red flags rush in waving them around and drawing lines in the sand (be they believers or skeptics).

The internet was created so we would be bought closer together and I don't think its impossible to have civil discourse. It just requires a willingness to police one's self and be involved in that. It doesn't mean you need to agree and hold hands. It just means you need to recognize the difference between someone wanting to debate an issue and someone wanting to discuss one. There is a BIG difference after all.

To address the totalitarian view that all sides of the matter are not equal is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it is also a logical facility because it forces the individual to fall into a trap of religious absolutism. I posit, that indeed, all sides of the matter ARE equal, and worthy of consideration, and that only in accessing them objectively can we hope to garner a measure of truth or understanding from our environment. The discernment of truth and pursuit of reason, cannot be achieved if we only validate one school of thought and expression. Likewise, we must often consider truths we are uncomfortable with if we ever hope to gain a full understanding of... well... anything.

For instance, in the Crypto-Forum a woman posted a topic about a creature she claimed to see with some of her friends. This creature apparently had the ability to use pheromones to override her will and erase memory of its presence from those who observed it. When I read this, I felt it sounded like something out of science fiction, but I had to consider pheromones in nature (study their effects and influences on the mind and behavior) and then look at the effects of shock and uncanny valley-based psychological trauma before I dismissed this out of hand. As it MAY be possible. In the end I determined it was unlikely to be true given the fact that the creature was described as having "Black Teeth" which appear nowhere in nature. However, that does not invalidate the woman's experience. It is VERY possible she saw SOMETHING and in her fear her mind exaggerated it and distorted her perception of reality.

HOWEVER, that in and of itself offers us great insight into the human mind -- be it due to the need to impress others with fictitious stories to gain validation of the self or the way the mind reacts to extreme fear. And in that there is value and the side is equal and does have value. I am not saying all sides are TRUE but staunch uncompromising SKEPTICISM or the imposition of skepticism without due process as a means of gaining social status or reinforcing one's own reality is contrary to what is best for the skeptic.

Please keep in mind (and this is a cliche) but it was skeptics (albeit religious skeptics) that enforced the ideology that the world was flat and attempted to stifle conversation or exploration. Our current understanding is not absolute. Every generation we think we are the pinnacle and be-all-end-all of the human race... and it has been that way since ancient times. We don't know all there is to know, and there is absolutely no shame in admitting that or in saying we have insufficient data.

Bringing it back to my example from the previous post, this site serves as a hub. For instance, I am relatively informed on the local scientific community, but if my best friend was to have an experience the only way he would know WHERE to go would be through me. And the fact is, I am a bit of an oddity in that I keep track of that. Most people (at least here in Australia) aren't going to take their 'evidence' to a lab. They don't know HOW. The first thing they're going to do is take it online, then possibly to the media, and through them to a lab. So if we are chasing away people who are POTENTIALLY telling the truth we are limiting our potential information base. If the culture of shaming and hoaxing continues to thrive, we rob ourselves of the opportunity for better understanding IF something does happen.

Anyways, that is me having rambled on long enough I guess. I just happen to disagree that certain information is automatically invalid because it does not fall within our current perimeters of reality, and in breeding a secular ideology around skepticism and science as it is currently understood we are limiting our thinking. Skeptism (and science) are tools, not philosophies. Conversation is not debate. And until a source is exposed or confesses, we should at least do the courtesy of looking at their story with full and consideration and objectivity.

All of this might sound a bit cracked, and in life I am a traditional cynic. Diogenes of Sinope is my spirit animal, so I understand the desire to be overly critical, but to do this with any measure of productivity we need to be aware of it, police ourselves, and know when to keep ourselves in check.

Edited by Reilly.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I am speaking and you're not hearing me Emma. I don't want to debate. I want to talk to other people who share my interest and may know things about the subject I do not. I don't want to argue IS or IS NOT unless there is very clear evidence of IS or IS NOT. I'd much rather just be able to casually chat with people about it, because in all honesty... no one here is going to change anyone. We're all just casual "fans" of the subject here and I feel it would be more productive for EVERYONE if we talked about this subject and kept an open-mind rather than approaching each and every instance with the certainty that it is false or a hoax.

Don't get me wrong, I know a lot are. But the skeptical community on this board far outweighs the "believers" and quite often I'll scroll through a thread and it will be a race to see who can debunk something the fastest or find the most holes in a story, rather than to fairly access something objectively. In a couple of instances, so much so that it is to the point where the case is not considered beyond a preliminary glance. And I feel like that is a service to the person sharing their experience, us as a community who might want to talk about it, and the skeptic themselves who are coming into the topic with tunnel vision.

Believers have their problems too, but they are held in check by reason.

In a climate of negative rationality it is much harder explore all possibilities with a clear and objective focus. Which is why in debate there is typically a a window for discussion and point-keeper (called a moderator) whose job it is to keep the discussion civil and tally points so that when the debate is over there can be a clear side declared the winner. This is because its VERY easy to debunk things and argue endlessly (which is what happens on the internet) and its VERY easy for those involved in the debate to become fact-blind, willfully ignorant, or have their perceptions slanted by confirmation bias.

Without these checks in place (because a Forum Moderator does not moderate debate, they merely moderate conduct) it tends brings out the worst in people. To this end, I merely want to discuss things. I don't want to be forced away, not feel like I have to fight to discuss this topic. Especially since it is something most people do not know about and do not WANT to know about. I have been a member of this site on-and-off for YEARS and its the only community that is really active and up-to-date that I know. I want to be a part of it, and I want to stick around. However, I'd like to talk to people like we were all civil human beings sitting in a room and not feel like I am walking in, sitting down to talk and explore ideas, and then be forced to watch as a bunch of people with red flags rush in waving them around and drawing lines in the sand (be they believers or skeptics).

The internet was created so we would be bought closer together and I don't think its impossible to have civil discourse. It just requires a willingness to police one's self and be involved in that. It doesn't mean you need to agree and hold hands. It just means you need to recognize the difference between someone wanting to debate an issue and someone wanting to discuss one. There is a BIG difference after all.

To address the totalitarian view that all sides of the matter are not equal is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it is also a logical facility because it forces the individual to fall into a trap of religious absolutism. I posit, that indeed, all sides of the matter ARE equal, and worthy of consideration, and that only in accessing them objectively can we hope to garner a measure of truth or understanding from our environment. The discernment of truth and pursuit of reason, cannot be achieved if we only validate one school of thought and expression. Likewise, we must often consider truths we are uncomfortable with if we ever hope to gain a full understanding of... well... anything.

For instance, in the Crypto-Forum a woman posted a topic about a creature she claimed to see with some of her friends. This creature apparently had the ability to use pheromones to override her will and erase memory of its presence from those who observed it. When I read this, I felt it sounded like something out of science fiction, but I had to consider pheromones in nature (study their effects and influences on the mind and behavior) and then look at the effects of shock and uncanny valley-based psychological trauma before I dismissed this out of hand. As it MAY be possible. In the end I determined it was unlikely to be true given the fact that the creature was described as having "Black Teeth" which appear nowhere in nature. However, that does not invalidate the woman's experience. It is VERY possible she saw SOMETHING and in her fear her mind exaggerated it and distorted her perception of reality.

HOWEVER, that in and of itself offers us great insight into the human mind -- be it due to the need to impress others with fictitious stories to gain validation of the self or the way the mind reacts to extreme fear. And in that there is value and the side is equal and does have value. I am not saying all sides are TRUE but staunch uncompromising SKEPTICISM or the imposition of skepticism without due process as a means of gaining social status or reinforcing one's own reality is contrary to what is best for the skeptic.

Please keep in mind (and this is a cliche) but it was skeptics (albeit religious skeptics) that enforced the ideology that the world was flat and attempted to stifle conversation or exploration. Our current understanding is not absolute. Every generation we think we are the pinnacle and be-all-end-all of the human race... and it has been that way since ancient times. We don't know all there is to know, and there is absolutely no shame in admitting that or in saying we have insufficient data.

Bringing it back to my example from the previous post, this site serves as a hub. For instance, I am relatively informed on the local scientific community, but if my best friend was to have an experience the only way he would know WHERE to go would be through me. And the fact is, I am a bit of an oddity in that I keep track of that. Most people (at least here in Australia) aren't going to take their 'evidence' to a lab. They don't know HOW. The first thing they're going to do is take it online, then possibly to the media, and through them to a lab. So if we are chasing away people who are POTENTIALLY telling the truth we are limiting our potential information base. If the culture of shaming and hoaxing continues to thrive, we rob ourselves of the opportunity for better understanding IF something does happen.

Anyways, that is me having rambled on long enough I guess. I just happen to disagree that certain information is automatically invalid because it does not fall within our current perimeters of reality, and in breeding a secular ideology around skepticism and science as it is currently understood we are limiting our thinking. Skeptism (and science) are tools, not philosophies. Conversation is not debate. And until a source is exposed or confesses, we should at least do the courtesy of looking at their story with full and consideration and objectivity.

All of this might sound a bit cracked, and in life I am a traditional cynic. Diogenes of Sinope is my spirit animal, so I understand the desire to be overly critical, but to do this with any measure of productivity we need to be aware of it, police ourselves, and know when to keep ourselves in check.

Listen to the first hour of this. I feel and have felt the same as you for years now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I am speaking and you're not hearing me Emma. I don't want to debate.

A forum is where you debate. That's what we do here. You can't control the flow of public discourse, and I can't see why you'd want to.

I want to talk to other people who share my interest and may know things about the subject I do not.

The evidence for UFOs doesn't stack up. Yet it is something the majority of people believe in. Some even think they have had experiences. Given this, how can you not 'debate' this subject?

We're all just casual "fans" of the subject here and I feel it would be more productive for EVERYONE if we talked about this subject and kept an open-mind rather than approaching each and every instance with the certainty that it is false or a hoax.

You don't really get what skepticism is do you?

But the skeptical community on this board far outweighs the "believers" and quite often I'll scroll through a thread and it will be a race to see who can debunk something the fastest or find the most holes in a story, rather than to fairly access something objectively

Firstly, "debunking" should be an objective endeavor. And if something is debunked, so what? What would you rather - that no one suggested that a video on youtube was cobbled together by someone on their home computer, and instead all gazed in wonder, pretending that it was real?

Believers have their problems too, but they are held in check by reason.

How's that cognitive dissonance holding up for you?

To this end, I merely want to discuss things. I don't want to be forced away, not feel like I have to fight to discuss this topic.

You can't be that interested in it then. For a skeptic like me, and most others here, critical thinking is a vital tool for life. You need to be able to argue and debate, and know how to work out when you're being fed BS.

The internet was created so we would be bought closer together and I don't think its impossible to have civil discourse.

Sounds like a discourse you want to have on your terms only.

To address the totalitarian view that all sides of the matter are not equal is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it is also a logical facility because it forces the individual to fall into a trap of religious absolutism.

I have no idea where this is coming from. "Totalitarianism"? "Religious absolutism"???

When a video of a UFO is posted on to youtube, the two main sides - one being "it was cobbled together on a 3D programme in someone's bedroom" and the other being "it's aliens!!!" - are not equal.

The skeptical view that there are far far too many new assumptions you have to make for the UFO to be an alien ship that traveled lightyears just to hover outside someones bedroom, coupled with the fact that special effects software is so good these days that you can literally make this crap on a home PC, outweighs the believers' desires that this was all true by an order of magnitude - on a purely objective basis.

All opinions, all arguments and all sides are not, definitely not, equal. And you can stop bandying about terms like totalitarianism and religious absolutism right now. They are utterly irrelevant, and a complete straw man.

The discernment of truth and pursuit of reason, cannot be achieved if we only validate one school of thought and expression.

The skeptical view is only validated because that is where the evidence falls. If a huge alien spaceship ground to a halt over London today, then the evidence that we are being visited would fall in the other direction. A shaky video on youtube? Nah.

For instance, in the Crypto-Forum a woman posted a topic about a creature she claimed to see with some of her friends. This creature apparently had the ability to use pheromones to override her will and erase memory of its presence from those who observed it. When I read this, I felt it sounded like something out of science fiction, but I had to consider pheromones in nature (study their effects and influences on the mind and behavior) and then look at the effects of shock and uncanny valley-based psychological trauma before I dismissed this out of hand. As it MAY be possible. In the end I determined it was unlikely to be true given the fact that the creature was described as having "Black Teeth" which appear nowhere in nature. However, that does not invalidate the woman's experience. It is VERY possible she saw SOMETHING and in her fear her mind exaggerated it and distorted her perception of reality.

The fact that you dismissed this because the creature had "black teeth", and not because 1) no one else remembered seeing it and 2) memory is well known for being an extraordinarily unreliable function of the human brain says a lot about your approach to critical thinking.

What you don't seem to understand is that skeptics are not saying "this is impossible". They are saying "this evidence doesn't stack up" - and there are things, like the ability of the human brain to deceive itself, which most believers simply don't want to take into account.

HOWEVER, that in and of itself offers us great insight into the human mind -- be it due to the need to impress others with fictitious stories to gain validation of the self or the way the mind reacts to extreme fear. And in that there is value and the side is equal and does have value. I am not saying all sides are TRUE but staunch uncompromising SKEPTICISM or the imposition of skepticism without due process as a means of gaining social status or reinforcing one's own reality is contrary to what is best for the skeptic.

But questioning why someone may come up with these stories is skepticism.

Please keep in mind (and this is a cliche) but it was skeptics (albeit religious skeptics) that enforced the ideology that the world was flat and attempted to stifle conversation or exploration. .

That isn't skepticism. That is religious absolutism. I have no idea why you're getting these two things mixed up.

I just happen to disagree that certain information is automatically invalid because it does not fall within our current perimeters of reality

I never said that it was "automatically invalid".

For us to be able to build a functioning model of reality, both as individuals and as a civilization, we need to have certain touchpoints rooted in evidence, that can be measured and repeated. We may find out in the future that this "reality" is not what we thought (see the discovery of quantum physics), but until then we need these objective "perimeters" (as you call them).

There are few more states of thought more faulty than the one that says "anything can happen".

(This is nothing to do with being open minded. This is to do with having useful objective perimeters).

In breeding a secular ideology around skepticism and science as it is currently understood we are limiting our thinking.

Not limiting, structuring. Science measures what is real. If something doesn't exist, we can't measure it. If it does, we can. The argument that there are things "outside" of science is a logical fallacy, a kind of special pleading.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Reilly - have you ever come across this -

http://guerrillaskep...blogspot.co.uk/

What's the betting there is something similar for forums -

Guerrilla Skepticism on Forums....???????

Not saying that every skeptic/debunker here (and elsewhere) is part of an ORGANIZED group -

But I wouldn't be surprised if some are and this is why those of us on the '''sceptical believer''' side of the fence -

who want to explore possibilities from a less aggressive and....yes... less totalitarian standpoint instinctively feel something isn't

right - that the balance IS off -

If there is a similar Guerrilla Skepticism group working the internet forums as an organised group they would have to keep it

quiet because I think that would be against the forum rules - being in a gang or group - (and it could also get tied up in or even be

infiltrated by those with a more political agenda...just to confuse matters :) )

My interest in this UFO/ET forum rises and falls depending what threads are going on and what new info comes out -

I was pretty disgusted that Boyd Bushman was deleted from Wikipedia after he made his near death Disclosure Documentary -

now I know why - don't I

He fell victim to the Guerrilla Skeptics who work there as an organised group ....and are so sure they are right about

everything they interfere with and do - that they are a bit like a religion - :hmm:

Quote from the link I put at top of post -

See below for all the various goodness and awesomeness we have been involved in.

:rolleyes:

And that's how pleased with themselves that they are .... one step away from marching round the playground chanting

'join our gang or we'll get you'..... :D

.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that every skeptic/debunker here (and elsewhere) is part of an ORGANIZED group -

But I wouldn't be surprised if some are and this is why those of us on the '''sceptical believer''' side of the fence -

who want to explore possibilities from a less aggressive and....yes... less totalitarian standpoint instinctively feel something isn't

right - that the balance IS off -

Paranoid mudslinging. Perhaps just accept that there are people who don't agree with your views (who also happen to have the weight of evidence behind them).

Again, simply saying that we demand a higher standard of evidence than the wobbly youtube videos provided is not "totalitarianism". People can believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm other people.

Problem is, some woo does harm other people.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paranoid mudslinging. Perhaps just accept that there are people who don't agree with your views (who also happen to have the weight of evidence behind them).

Again, simply saying that we demand a higher standard of evidence than the wobbly youtube videos provided is not "totalitarianism". People can believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm other people.

Problem is, some woo does harm other people.

There's nothing paranoid about the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wiki so why not forums ..?

There is the tendency for heavy duty skeptics to throw the baby out with the bath water and become a bit blinkered - IMO

And a bit evangelical about it all - you know - saviours - (see underlined above)

although you are quite welcome to help prevent thick people from getting too excited about wobbly youtube videos and

running riot in the street or going AWOL from normal life .... :D

:P

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone believes in UFOs or extraterrestrial life, because it's "difficult" to prove their existence and origins from an unknown source. Mainstream science doesn't examine the UFO phenomena as much, leave it up to ufology known to study UFOs and aliens. For people who have seen UFOs (and some cases, alien beings) in their lives like myself, I'm a believer convinced the presence of aliens visited our earth and there's likely a government coverup in order to prevent panic in world societies. More and more people believe in UFOs than in the 1940s when the modern UFO sighting phenomena began. When some remain skeptical or non-believers in UFOs, then we need scientific explanation on what millions of people saw in the skies.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paranoid mudslinging.

That's a bit strong....I certainly did not see any mudslinging going on.

What I have seen here though - is that if anyone on the 'skeptic - believer' side mentions anything concerning UFO's/ET -

and expresses an interest in the subject - or a case - they are soon jumped on by a horde of neysayer/skeptics -

who seem hell bent on stomping them into the ground - and running them out of town.

Perhaps just accept that there are people who don't agree with your views (who also happen to have the weight of evidence behind them).

Of course people have differing views - and always will.

But in many UFO cases that have been reported - they DON'T always have the weight of evidence beind them.

They speculate - and their minds are already made up.....in other words - "I'm right - your wrong - it's ALL woo"

That is simply negative skepticism - a true skeptic is objective - they discuss all options of the case - not attack.

Again, simply saying that we demand a higher standard of evidence than the wobbly youtube videos provided is not "totalitarianism". People can believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm other people.

I don't believe in most garbage that is posted on youtube - especially anything to do with UFO's.

And yes! - just like yourself - people will always believe what they want to believe.

Just because I believe there is certainly something to it (at least the few percent of UFO cases that have not been

explained) does not mean I swallow all the BS that is out there.

Problem is, some woo does harm other people.

So do you think that your going to save them Emma ?

Sometimes I wonder if negative skepticism is turning into some kind of new dogmatic religion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to UFOs there are many believers that appear religious in nature demanding that cases are mysterious and have no earthly explanation. Believers are quick to go on the attack. One of my favorite attacks is when they throw out the "swamp gas" argument. That was used in one situation by a believer. Yet, the believers often use the term "swamp gas" in a derogatory manner not realizing they are effectively attacking another believer.

The division between believers and skeptics often hinges on the extremists in either group. There are the head in the sand believers that want to believer anything without looking at the evidence being presented. They point to hoax sites and claim it is true. There are those claiming to be skeptics that are in fact scoffers, not skeptics. They simple dismiss anything in a similar head in the sand manner.

The real skeptics point out that evidence is needed or needs to be examined. Many believers do not want to see their cherished evidence examined closely. It may be fair to apply high standards to real science, but not the sort of non-science that UFO studies have become. Believers are also more defensive than skeptics. I especially get a kick out of other posters that swoop in to "defend" a believer. The first post of the defender is always a scathing off topic personal attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to the first hour of this. I feel and have felt the same as you for years now.

Interesting radio listening mesuma - I like Micah Hanks - he is on the money with what he had to say about a few things.

He is a skeptic - but a fair and objective one. He opens his mind - but not enough for his brains to fall out.

He keeps a balanced view - instead of a rigid and closed one.

I appreciated his views also on the Frederick Valentich case.

It is still a fascinating mystery IMHO....

Of course the debunkers have called it a closed case - but Freds body - or the plane wreckage was never found.

It might be a cold case - but certainly not a closed one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Yes balance is the key to it all -

I like Hawkin's signature quote - as follows -

'It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible and naive -

But too much skepticism can make you narrow minded to extraordinary possibilities.'

.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.