Dumb Debunkers, Dumb UFO Believers
Belief –noun
1: Something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2: Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3: Confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
It’s always funny to see a know-it-all in action, whether in conversation, in the media, or on a comment thread. Here is a good example I ran across today at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer site in response to a post on stealth aircraft and UFOs (verbatim):
Will you ufo nuts get it through your head,physics says aliens from another planet are impossible.It’s basic science that can’t be overcome.There are no little green men from Alpha Centauri,Betazoid or wherever flying through space to visit Earth!
This godlike certainty is found to varying degrees wherever belief systems clash. The person often has a good argument to back up their beliefs but they don’t seem to realize that at a very basic level, everything is a belief. Even a statement like “If I put my hand in a fire long enough, it will get burned” expresses a belief, albeit one that is as close to certainty as we can get. I thought that I would have to search the web for an example of the opposite tack, namely the belief that aliens from other planets are here and toying with our DNA, etc, but here’s one from the same thread:
This 5 minute youtube video of an extraterrestrial implant removal is PROOF that we are being visited. How long is the U.S. government going to keep denying the truth? Time for FULL DISCLOSURE!
The late Robert Anton Wilson wrote an entire book about this sort of thing (The New Inquisition) and distilled this phenomenon down to one statement: “What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.” Most people make up their minds about issues based on what they were taught, what their friends think, how well they were potty trained and other factors that psychologists are more equipped to deal with than I. At a certain point in their lives, these factors contributed to a worldview that often never changes. When applied to the space outside our heads, belief systems tend to block progress towards understanding. Futher noise is introduced when emotions are tied to beliefs, which puts up a mental filter on information, some of which may threaten the belief system. Primate territorialism rears its de-evolutionary head. Suspension of belief and disbelief, at least in areas that have not been proven (like UFOs) seems like a more fruitful and enjoyable course.
The commenters from the SPI thread can’t seem to live with the idea that they might be at least partially wrong. I don’t know if they are or not, but I’m reasonably certain that neither of them have a monopoly on reality. We could amend these statements to the more democratic, thoughtful and non-dogmatic:
Skeptic: Will you ufo nuts get it through your heads? Classical physics says aliens traveling here from another planets are unlikely. It’s the current belief of most scientists in a model of the universe that may not be overcome. There are most likely no little green men from Alpha Centauri, Betazoid or wherever flying through space to visit Earth!
UFO enthusiast: This 5 minute youtube video of an anomalous object removed from a patient RAISES QUESTIONS about its origin. Perhaps the U.S. government knows more than they are letting on. If so, they should BE MORE OPEN ABOUT IT!
Now it sounds more like they bought each other a couple of beers while having a civilized and helpful conversation, leaving options open for new discoveries and gaps in their knowledge, as well as possibly learning from each other. Of course, it’s less exciting than the verbal equivalent of a monkey fight, but less stressful.
I know I’ve gone on about this before, but a lot of people haven’t changed yet.
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 10:21 pm and is filed under Beliefs, UFOlogy, UFOmystic Exclusive, 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:
- Love/ Hate UFOs »
- A Scientist Examines UFOs »
- Dan Aykroyd on UFOs… »
- Look Out! »
- Fundamentalist Skeptics Apparently Dumber »
|
Mar 17 2008 
March 18th, 2008 at 6:08 am
All the more reason I seek out sites like this. Most message boards seem to be full of the two extremes
March 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Blind belief causes problems–if you believe blindly in a certain viewpoint, then you cannot allow anyone to disagree with you. But we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, as it were.
Belief in God can bolster our spirits and help us cope with tough times. Belief in a certain theory or idea gives us something to talk about. Every time you express an opinion, you express a belief.
Belief is not bad. Arrogance is.
Lisa Shiel
Backyard Phenomena blog
http://backyardphenomena.blogspot.com/
March 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am
H. Sapiens is merely 100,000 years old, my dear Greg. Be a bit patient, I’m sure than in a couple of eons we’ll be abe to have meaningful discussions without pesky emotions clouding our judgement
March 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
The problem is you are giving too much emphasis to the non-scientific community. Naturally the non-scientific community is plagued with extremes in behaviors and beliefs. The non-scientific community is like a zoo but who cares, since it isn’t scientific?
March 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Lisa,
I was not trying to denigrate all beliefs, just those that get in the way of civilized debate.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
RPJ,
I know it’s hopeless, but there may actually be a utopia some millions of years from now. We’re just trying to plant seeds! : )
March 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Sage,
I don’t know. I’ve seen scientists go at it with the same fervor. Did you see the South Park episode where a future society based on science is fighting about who has the right answer to the burning question of what they should call themselves?
Scientists are people, and people have opinions and emotions. Sometimes the these get in the way of meaningful research. Perfect science should be run on reproducible facts, and perfect debate should rely on demonstrable facts, with parties realizing that their emotions and opinions are always open to question.
Some of my best discussions are with friends who I disagree with, since we don’t descend into personal attacks, which always break down communication.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Scientists are not science. Science is never about the people, but about the methodology. For example, using South Park to prove a point is not very scientific or factual. Furthermore, “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion” (Carl Sagan). I would add “UFOlogy” to Carl’s list.
Why is it that if a perfect stranger disagrees with us, it usually is interpreted as a personal attack, but if our friends disagree with us, it is usually interpreted as one of our better discussions?
March 18th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Sage,
You basically repeated what I was saying about scientists.
The example of a TV show was used a humorous aside to make an oblique point.
I agree with you about ufology.
I use the word “some” for a reason.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Just to clarify my original point then, the scientific community concentrates on science and facts, while the non-scientific community concentrates on sensationalism. Shifting your focus from the non-scientific community where (as a rule) you get extremes in behavior and opinions, to the scientific community where (as a rule) you do not, would help greatly eliminate the type of madness you described in your post.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Sage,
I know that. At least, that’s what the situation should be in a perfect world of science.
Shifting my focus to somewhere where there isn’t as much of a problem would not make for a very interesting post.