Hi guys,

I've got a blog in which I often critique the "Skeptic" subculture, as represented by CSICOP and _Skeptic_ magazine. I sum up a lot of what I have to say in the latest entry:

http://archie-archie.blogspot.com/2006/06/...difference.html

If you look through the archives, you'll find a multi-part series on the "Two-headed cerberus," comparing organized religion to organized skepticism.

Enjoy, and I'd be happy to have your comments.

(FWIW, I've suffered a fair amount of abuse from online "Skeptics" over these issues. Back when I locked horns with creationists, they thought I was the best thing since sliced bread, told me I was clearly a brilliant scientist, that my explanations of evolution were so clear that I should be a teacher, etc. Once I started questioning the skeptics about their beliefs, they started openly mocking me, telling me things like, "LOL! If you're a scientist, I'm the head of the NY Philharmonic," or "If you're a scientist, with your abominable communication and reasoning skills, God help us all.")

If I might explain a little more about my experiences with "Skeptics":

I don't believe in Bigfoot.

But if someone believes that there's an undiscovered species of ape living in the Pacific Northwest, I don't think that makes them crazy. Why should it? What's so crazy about believing in an undiscovered species?

But Skeptics pathologize belief in Bigfoot and are always pontificating on "why people believe weird things" and dividing the world into "Skeptics" (who are, by definition, always open-minded critical thinkers) and "true believers" (who are, by definition, gullible and easily fooled.)

And when I argue that it's not appropriate to pathologize people who disagree with you, the Skeptics attack me, misrepresent my arguments, and laugh in my face.

There are some interesting ideas there. Although I don't agree with a lot of it.

A skeptic, or a believer who is deliberatly nasty to someone with opposite beliefs just shows ignorance and a closed mind. I will say though, that some of the things you hear, you just cant help but take the p*** a bit. I mean Lizards running London? Come on...

^ exactly i think the worst thing anyone has ever mentioned on this forum ids reptoloids. i believe in ghosts, however i do beleive that most ghost pictures are fake and that alot of incidents can be explained scientifically. however it angers me that these people make up these photos just to prove they exist, by doing so they make themselves seem less credible.

I think it's terrible to split people up into believers and skeptics and declare war so to speak. I try to be open minded but some things I just find ridiculous. On the other hand I fully believe in the power of the human mind and I believe a lot is possible. I try not to be rude to people but more often than not they are rude to me first.

In 1900 the *skeptics* all laughed at the idea of the Giant Gorilla... Powered manned flight...

^ what?!

Scientists adamantly refused to believe that eh *Giant Gorilla* existed until something like 1920. Nothing more than folk tales etc etc...

In 1900 many many scientists refused to believe it was possible to develop enough engine power to fly a person in a heavier than air machine...

Roxie, what did you disagree with?

As for the reptiles, sure, there are people out there who believe weird stuff.

But if christian scientists went around pointing to quack remedies and declaring, "Gee, how can anyone believe in any of this medicine crap?", who would give them the time of day? And yet, that's precisely what "skeptics" do. They'll go on and on about anything they think they can debunk easily, and hide from anything that requires genuine critical thought.

The fact is that the "skeptics" are hypocrites. They'll go on and on about how the Institute for Creation Research is publishing pseudoscience because they don't publish peer-reviewed papers, but no "skeptic" has ever been able to give me a cite for a single peer-reviewed paper produced by CSICOP. CSICOP is a joke- it's a mouthpiece for Paul Kurtz to grind his personal axes, from astrology to libertarianism, all backed by "research fellows" like Ray Hyman who have never in their lives published a peer-reviewed study of the paranormal.

Sorry . Skeptics use there branis not there hearts. So many believers have a desperate need to believe in something and it clousds there judgement.

^ i couldnt agree more. i can tell you though skepticism can become an all encompassing thought pattern just as the ' I will believe anything' thought pattern.

I totally agree!! (Oh and thanks for signing my guestbook! Hooray for you!)



I also totally agree! I have been on both sides of the coin and I try to stay in the middle but I guess more often than not, I get branded a skeptic...

thats called being realistic...

What's being realistic?

that

Ericraven2003, your .sig contains an interesting claim- that mermaids have never existed except in the minds of the weak and silly.

Would you care to prove that?

quite simply... ever seen the corpse of a mermaid wash up on the shore?

plus lets face it their bottom half is fish.. how the hell do they reproduce?

So you're branding me a skeptic? Is that what you're saying?

I like this alot, although no doubt it probably contains a few logic fallacies in the (strictest definition) lol which yourself have pointed out, so I can't see the problem.
This should be standard reading before anyone makes a post in UM forum.
I mean, this is the Unexplained Mysteries forum after all.
I have often made this very point before; sometimes it definitely feels like many skeptics are here just to feel smarter, superior and laugh at people.

Although, it would be hypocritical of me to expect people just to believe without supplying evidence yet sometimes the evidence is hard to produce for extremely logical reasons.
You have to listen to those reasons and not just assume people are lying or delusional.

In other respects some Skeptics ask of evidence knowing full well it would be impossible to produce on an internet forum, all pics video evidence etc is always considered inconclusive. Could have been faked etc..

Anyway, I’ve been wrong in my assumptions in the past and there are quite a few decent true skeptics here who are prepared to listen, so it’s not all bad news.

Speaking for myself...I'm an Empiricist.

Show me the sound, scientific evidence for something and I'll jump on the band wagon pretty fast. Until that happens a great many things are simply speculation.

Well what kind of forum would it be if everyone was just agreeing with each other? That'd be boring. I never try to make anyone feel stupid as a lot of people do that for themselves (I'm sure you've seen it too, it's not just believers either ).

I hope I am included in the 'prepared to listen' category:tu:

Wow, thanks!



This is an extremely important point. If you read William Corliss's books on anomalous phenomena, it's clear that the reason a lot of them are unexplained is pretty simple: they are rare, short-lived, and happen unpredictably, so it's hard for anyone to be on hand with scientific equipment to study them. Ball lightning is the classic example, and meteorites fit the mold, too. Scientists finally accepted meteorites when a meteorite shower fell on a large city, because the eyewitness accounts were so numerous that they were impossible to deny. If you compare that to reports of "sky axes" (stone wedges that reportedly fall from the sky, which are denied by 'skeptics',) you wonder what it takes to study things that fall from the sky less frequently than meteorites, and don't fall in swarms.

Yeah true. Actually you're one of the ones I would class as open-minded skeptic, believe it or not but it’s precisely because you are an empiricist.
You're balanced in the sense of pointing out logic fallacies in both sides; from the science based skeptics to the true believers.
I really wish you had experienced what I had. (well some parts) I doubt either of us would be posting here unless we had had an experience for ourselves.

In a sense my ufo landed, I met the occupants and got out fast.

At the moment, I'm trying to persuade two scientists I know to post here.. but alas, you know the score, Imagine being an empiricist, making extraordinary claims, and yet are unable to successfully back them up without invoking the conspiracy fallacy. It’s particularly painful to endure; it’s like developing a new psychic ability; you know exactly how some people will read and interpret your posts lol He’s a grade A certifiable nutter.
Yet, sometimes this is the only way to get the information out, so at least other ‘knowers’ will be able to communicate. It's a good system (although not infallible) but the human race is industrious, especially when the odds are stacked against them.

A very astute observation.



Actually, I don't doubt your sincerity. I simply have no way to know if your experience was internal (taking place within your own psyche), or external (taking place in objective reality). Also, I would never classify you as a "nutter", but I have no way to know the circumstances surrounding you as a person, the way you reason, the way you see reality, what your motivations are etc. Unless you know someone really, really well (and even then one can be wrong) this is very difficult to do.

May I ask you, did you run into these aliens only the one time, or have you had this sort of experience multiple times? Do you think you've been abducted, or targeted by them in some way? I'm just trying to understand your experience a bit better.



I can't help you with this, wish I could. Are you saying that these two scientists have had encounters with aliens as well?

I would never base my conclusions on one event.
I've never jumped to a conclusion until I gained more information; either presented by humans or other.
Verification to actually events.
I've also seen them in conjunction with a UFO which can now be identified as an alien craft.
All electronic recording equipment is rendered useless, unless the aliens want to present themselves, so I guess on the surface, we do have an invisible pink unicorn situation but this unicorn can communicate and pass on detailed information which can be verified from outside sources.



Yes, I have met two civilian scientists who have also encountered these aliens (abduction type scenarios). Of course I respect their right to remain anonymous but I'm trying to persuade them to post here. I doubt they will but that kinda the main point I wanted to make in this thread; people who know better than to make unsubstantiated claims still know the aliens are here. All eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable and is disregarded... that is until it happens to you personally of course.

What these aliens are exactly is another question but they certainly have mass in objective reality.
These aliens present themselves as ‘extraterrestrials’ but refuse to answer specific questions about themselves such as ‘where are you from’ and ‘why are you here’.

All contact between humans and aliens is always on the alien's terms.

If this sort of thing happened to me I'd want to make very sure (dead certain) that it hadn't happened within my own mind. If I was able to conclusively verify that the events took place in objective reality then I would seek out others who had the same type of experiences. Just like the scientists you mention, I would not expect to really influence anyone based upon my personal experience alone. I'm quite aware that without evidence my claim alone would not be enough.



Well, if the aliens have highly advanced technology that allows them to remain hidden and this type of attitude, I can't see where any verification of their existence will be forthcoming until they desire it. If the aliens have shown themselves to scientists, I would hope that these scientists would come together, share information, and attempt to analyze the situation as much as possible.

but you mentioned that these scientists where civilian, what is their main occupation then? it makes it sound like theyre 'hobby' sky searchers or something.

This is a generalization on both ends of the spectrum. I have met many skeptics who seemingly follow their gut that something can be physically explained even when the odds are moreso, or completely againts them. As a believer in the ideas of other dimensions - thus, due to what I consider to be definitive proof, of spirit dimensions, I follow both my heart and my head, if that is what you want to call "it". With those being two examples, I have seen many criss-crossing of patterns, beliefs and mentalities (Among many traits or signatures) in between two sides.

I'd also like to point out the hypocricy all too obvious in this post... Pseudo Skepticism (Ericraven-esque) tries to avoid finding the truth and instead debunks what is already stated.

Believers rely upon an idea. Skeptics attempt to debunk idea. Smart people provide proof. Pseudo Skeptics attempt to debunk proof. If they can't, then we must all be faking it.

This is seemingly the case with Pseudo Skeptics (You!) most of the time - and you have the gut to call us dillusional.

Insert Analogy of Skepticism to the McCarthy era here.

-MDH