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.

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.