Mar 02 2009
|
|
Micah, UFOs & Skeptics
Micah Hanks on skeptics…
“Many people I discuss UFOs with cringe when I mention the word skeptic (let alone when I verbally equate myself with being one in their presence). Sadly, skepticism is looked upon as a bad thing by many who study phenomenology, mostly due to the attitudes exhibited by those who openly label themselves ’skeptics’.
“Conversely, it is just as unfortunate how the self-proclaimed ’skeptics’ unfairly label and judge those who, according to their ideology, exhibit belief… or anything similar to it. Strangely, I remember it being John Keel, author of The Mothman Prophecies, who famously (and perhaps best) stated the undying words of caution meant to fall on the ears of every blooming researcher of the unexplained: ‘belief is the enemy.’
“I try to see it from both sides, and learn a little something from each. After all, I can’t go through my life existing without belief in something from time to time (I believe in that burrito I ate hours ago, for instance). Nor can I very easily convince myself that every light I see in the sky, however anomalous they may seem at times, are actually UFO craft from another realm. Fair, healthy, and even discriminating skepticism is an absolute must for anyone who hopes to look at claims of the paranormal seriously.
“However, what must be completely eliminated, in my opinion, is having a derogatory or otherwise negative attitude toward people from the opposite end of your ideology, regardless of where you may stand.”
And for the rest of Micah’s article, click here….
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 am and is filed under Alien Encounters, Close Encounters, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- UFOs & Ghosts »
- Interview Tonight »
- UFOs & the Media »
- Turbine UFO II »
- Micah Hanks on Radio Misterioso Tonight »
- Triangular UFOs »
- UFOs, Alchemy & More »
- A “Chupa” Anniversary… »
- Science Fiction Secrets Reviewed… »
- Binnall of America Latest »
|
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:17 am
There is a large number of people today who, simply by labeling themselves as skeptics, have placed themselves in the unfortunate position of being between a rock and a hard place because just the act of calling oneself a skeptic is an admission that you believe in something that doesn’t exist. So on one hand skeptics want to believe that they are the only ones doing the right thing by doubting all that is related to belief in UFOs, yet on the other hand the only way to maintain this stance is to rely on another belief. Can one unsubstantiated belief be used to discredit or prove yet another unsubstantiated belief? Of course not.
What is a skeptic? According to Answers.com, a skeptic is “one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions”. It also says a skeptic is “one inclined to skepticism in religious matters”, which by logical extension in the case of UFOs, could be re-interpreted to mean “one inclined to skepticism in UFO matters”. So where’s the problem?
In order to convince you that you are a sinner, Street Evangelists will often ask you if you have ever told a lie because lying is a sin. Of course the answer will be in the affirmative because we have all told a lie at one time or another. Then the next question will be, what does that make you? Everyone responds that it would make them a liar, but this is wrong. A liar is “one that tells lies” but the opposite of a liar is an honest person, or “one that tells the truth”. So have you ever told the truth? Of course the answer will be in the affirmative because we have all told the truth at one time or another, so the next question will be, well then, what does that make you? An honest person. Can one be honest and a liar at the same time? No, because they are mutually exclusive terms. A person can tell the truth but that won’t make them anymore honest then if a person who tells a lie makes them a liar, unless they tell lies ALL THE TIME or they tell the truth ALL THE TIME. Likewise, the only way a skeptic can exist is if a person doubts everything all the time. Being skeptical and being a skeptic are not the same thing — one exists and the other does not, hence the basis for my claim made in the opening paragraph of this post.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the opposite of being a skeptic is being gullible, but neither extreme is scientifically or logically tenable. Science is the pursuit of truth and always believing what is claimed or always disbelieving what is claimed is the opposite of seeking the truth because not everything is believable and not everything is unbelievable. It is polarizing the issue so you can take an extremist stance. The skeptic and the blind faith believer are twin brothers that have no place in science. Clearly then, those who label themselves as skeptics are become hostile towards UFO proponents because they don’t like competition. It is a case of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 am
I also have an issue with the article that Micah linked to from her post to the Skeptical Inquirer. She uses it as an good example of what a skeptic and a believer should engage in. The problem is, the article she refers to is flawed.
The title of the linked article is THE TRAINED OBSERVER OF UNUSUAL THINGS IN THE SKY (UFOs?), which then proceeds to list only all the various *usual* things that one should be educated in order to be able to recognize the unusual. That is seriously flawed logic. What is usual to one person can be unusual to another. Usual and unusual are not scientifically accurate terms. And in order to recognize a flying saucer, I do not need to know how to recognize an airplane or a star or an illusion or a delusion, all I need to do is recognize a flying saucer. James’ logic is the opposite here: he says that the only way to recognize a flying saucer is to first recognize it as a not-airplane or a not-star or a not-illusion or a not-delusion. What in the world is a “not-” anything? An ice cream cone is a not-airplane, a not-star, a not-illusion, and not-delusion, so what does that kind of reasoning tell us? That James is trying to use a negative to prove a positive, which leads to a never ending disproof because it is impossible to know everything in the universe that is “usual”.
What so-called skeptics and so-called believers should engage instead is *objective observation*. Being a trained observer and being an objective observer are not necessarily the same thing. People often make that mistake when it comes to the testimony of pilots or astronauts. Pilots and astronauts are just as susceptible to optical illusions, hallucinations, delusions, and lying as the next person. Their testimony means absolutely nothing unless it can be backed up with evidence.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
2 very good comments there, Sage.