Comments on: A Scientist Examines UFOs http://www.ufomystic.com/2007/01/04/scientist-examines-ufos/ UFO News, Views, and More Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:59:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Roger Knights http://www.ufomystic.com/2007/01/04/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4439 Roger Knights Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:02:59 +0000 http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4439 Another point: "fundamentalist" is a shortened version of Wilson's "fundamentalist materialist": but scofticism goes beyond a defense of materialism. It's a defense of the mundane in general (eg, opposition to cryptozoology), and a championing of a rule-driven approach to things. (See the book, "The Essential Difference" for more on rule-driven mentalities.) This comes out in their emphasis on formal processes like peer review, and their utter denigration of anything that has not received such a "nihil obstat." Another point: “fundamentalist” is a shortened version of Wilson’s “fundamentalist materialist”: but scofticism goes beyond a defense of materialism. It’s a defense of the mundane in general (eg, opposition to cryptozoology), and a championing of a rule-driven approach to things. (See the book, “The Essential Difference” for more on rule-driven mentalities.) This comes out in their emphasis on formal processes like peer review, and their utter denigration of anything that has not received such a “nihil obstat.”

]]> By: Roger Knights http://www.ufomystic.com/2007/01/04/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4438 Roger Knights Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:21:38 +0000 http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4438 Thanks. Another point in favor of "scoftic" (which is my coinage, BTW) is that it was inspired by Marcello Truzzi's complaint, when he resigned from CSICOP, that most people who call themselves skeptics are really scoffers. Thanks. Another point in favor of “scoftic” (which is my coinage, BTW) is that it was inspired by Marcello Truzzi’s complaint, when he resigned from CSICOP, that most people who call themselves skeptics are really scoffers.

]]> By: Greg Bishop http://www.ufomystic.com/2007/01/04/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4436 Greg Bishop Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:19:44 +0000 http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4436 Roger, I'm still trying to get "Fundamentalist Skeptic" in common usage, but yours is much more streamlined. Roger,

I’m still trying to get “Fundamentalist Skeptic” in common usage, but yours is much more streamlined.

]]> By: Roger Knights http://www.ufomystic.com/2007/01/04/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4435 Roger Knights Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:49:47 +0000 http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-4435 I suggest "scoftic." It floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. And it's only two syllables. Anything longer is too earnest--and thus self-defeating. A short, snappy nickname is the most dismissive. I suggest “scoftic.” It floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. And it’s only two syllables. Anything longer is too earnest–and thus self-defeating. A short, snappy nickname is the most dismissive.

]]> By: Bill Hancock http://www.ufomystic.com/2007/01/04/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-453 Bill Hancock Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:37:01 +0000 http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/scientist-examines-ufos/#comment-453 "Reflexive-Compulsive Deniers" also hits in the area. They like to call themselves debunkers, but that title is only valid if that which they de-"bunk" truly IS bunk. “Reflexive-Compulsive Deniers” also hits in the area.

They like to call themselves debunkers, but that title is only valid if that which they de-”bunk” truly IS bunk.

]]>