Alright, it’s possible that the person that wrote this article didn’t actually work for Sci-Fi channel, but this article was on their website in their “Sci-Fi Pedia.” It was extremely biased against skepticism, and since it was like Wikipedia in that anyone can edit it, I did so. This is what it originally said:
Skepticism is a social movement which seeks to counter the uncritical acceptance of claims of the paranormal.
Proponents believe this serves the public good in several ways.
It protects people from deliberate frauds
It is an opportunity to teach the scientific method
It helps people select between options, which means they may choose a more efficacious therapy
The size and organization of the movement might surprise casual observers. There are Skeptics’ societies in many cities and many countries. A typical large bookstore is likely to carry one or more magazines on the subject. Skeptical books have been successful, and there is more than one publishing house dedicated to the viewpoint.[edit]Opposition
Some Skeptics have been accused of being “true unbelievers”, who will as uncritically accept a mundane explanation as the true believers will accept a paranormal one. Just as some UFO authors or psychics have probably fabricated evidence to support their position and get publicity, some Skeptics have probably done the same.A truly neutral position would challenge the claims of a hoax with the same concern as claims of a paranormal event.
Marcello Truzzi’s aphorism (often credited to Carl Sagan) that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is a good example. Scientifically, every claim should require the same evidence.
However, that doesn’t mean that the claim that someone has seen a UFO in the sky is as likely to be true as the claim that someone has seen an airplane in the sky. Each claim is actually a combination of claims: the witness saw something; that something was in the sky; and the third significant piece here, that it was either an airplane or a UFO. Since it is well established that airplanes exist and can be seen in the sky, that claim doesn’t need to be proven again. The UFO piece would need to be proven, since it is at least unresolved.
Others find some Skeptics’ rejection of miracle-based religion to be troubling.
Source: http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Skepticism
Now, to only be fair, it says:
Some Skeptics have been accused of being “true unbelievers”, who will as uncritically accept a mundane explanation as the true believers will accept a paranormal one. Just as some UFO authors or psychics have probably fabricated evidence to support their position and get publicity, some Skeptics have probably done the same even though I have no evidence for it but I’m sure that the government just covered it up.
A truly neutral position would challenge the claims of a hoax with the same concern as claims of a paranormal event. However, it is also true that that many paranormal investigators are more likely to assume that it is a paranormal event and spend less time trying to find alternative explainations.
Marcello Truzzi’s aphorism (often credited to Carl Sagan) that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is a good example of why skeptics tend not to believe in the paranormal. Even though one could find mountains of blury photos and eyewitness accounts, cameras and the eye can be easily fooled.
Even though I may be a little biased in my belief in UFOs, that doesn’t mean that the claim that someone has seen a UFO in the sky is as likely to be true as the claim that someone has seen an airplane in the sky. Each claim is actually a combination of claims: the witness saw something; that something was in the sky; and the third significant piece here, that it was either an airplane or a UFO. Since it is well established that airplanes exist and can be seen in the sky, that claim doesn’t need to be proven again. The UFO piece would need to be proven, since it is at least unresolved.
Others find some Skeptics’ rejection of miracle-based religion to be troubling (even though it is their right to do so, as stated in the Constitution. Afterall, one of the reasons for coming to America was so that people could have their own beliefs.) One must understand, though, that they are equally as troubled (if not more) with the knowledge that Christian Fundamentalists wish to eliminate religious freedom and force their particular notion of God upon the world.
If anyone thinks I left anything out, feel free to change it on your own.
Now, just because I feel a little bad about changing that person’s words, is what I did ethical?
