A Scientist Examines UFOs
Dr. Bernard Haisch, co-author of the paper I referenced in yesterday’s post, has an excellent site with statements and essays that resonate well with some of the things that we’re trying to say here. Haisch eloquently makes the case for changing how science looks at UFOs–or perhaps using it as it was intended, not as a way to bash others over the head with personal beliefs. I do not worship the scientific method as an answer to everything, but it is a very good tool to have in the box. As the western standard for intellectual currency, it is important to have science take on the UFO subject as something deserving of study in order to have it taken seriously by academia, the media and the public.
Take a look at this definition of skepticism from the site (ufoskeptic.org):
One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.
How many people who call themselves “skeptics” actually follow those guidelines? Hence my efforts to get the term “fundamentalist skeptic” into the lexicon.
You may not agree with everything Haisch presents, but that’s one of the things that makes his site so valuable.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 4th, 2007 at 12:49 am and is filed under Breaking News, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Oh, Man »
- UFO News »
- Vallee & UFOs: Great News! »
- See? There Isn’t Any Evidence! »
- More Evidence of UFO Interest In High Places »
|
Jan 04 2007 
January 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am
“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.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
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.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Roger,
I’m still trying to get “Fundamentalist Skeptic” in common usage, but yours is much more streamlined.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:21 am
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.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
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.”