Rramjet - 23 September 2008 04:38 PM

Oh, don’t be so sensitive Doug… you should be happy, “wanton obtuseness”, “ill-educated” and “you are living in fear” are professional diagnoses (now further supported by the evidence of your most recent post) that I have provided you without a fee Besides it is clear from your statements you take me for a fool, so if that is the worst I call you, count yourself lucky :|

Not for those in the psychology field, esp not to their face, because it is a form of name calling.

Okay, okay, We need to call a halt to this.
I admit it is getting a bit close to the edge ...but I intensely dislike being taken for a fool.

So I will now formally offer my apologies to Doug as I know I must because my comments will have caused him offense…. I do not wish to start a flame war - but I do want to argue against dogmatism and uncritical acceptance of “folklaw” concerning the paranormal, but I want to do it logically and critically and that can only happen if both sides agree that is how it should be.

I just wish Doug would reply to my posts by addressing the points I raise and not by completely ignoring the questions and points of argument I put to him. However, I’ll simply have to keep reminding myself that once a belief is strongly enough held, no amount of evidence is likely to change that (for psychologists refer to Festinger). Others have quite successfully replied to my posts in this way (asanta, TALOR…) and have garnered my respect for doing so.

I think that skeptics like Randi et al and now Doug are deliberately obtuse when it comes to this sort of stuff because they are fearful that if they really did critically examine the evidence, or try to defend their own positions against logical argument, then they just might have to admit that something is going on that we have no explanation for.

No rational conclusion can stand or fall on one case alone - but for critical thinkers, Lonnie Zamora might be a good place to begin, perhaps then the Battle of LA and maybe the UK Rendlesham Forrest incident (read the transcripts and the witness interviews)... I have not much interest in ghosts so I don’t have any decent references for evidence either way in such cases… BUT for the true rational critical thinker I think one would find The Paracast (with Gene Steinberg and David Biedne) as good a critical thinker’s paranormal focused show as you could get.

Personally, IF I were to listen to a paranormal show, I prefer Audio Martini podcast and I also think Randi is good too, but that isn’t the point of the thread.

However, when Doug was referring to “faries” as you called it, I think he meant that UFOs or even aliens have actually visited us.  Not like those cut little eggheads you see on Stargate (one is called Thor, I think) at least or strong boistrous Klingons.  The thing is, I seriously doubt, if they can get this far, the would want to visit us humans.  Too violent.

I also don’t think Doug fears meeting anyone from another planet, if it were possible.  It’s just that more than likely they won’t look a thing like those in Science Fiction or on those stories where people were supposedly kidnapped by aliens and brought back.  It would even be nice if there were people who looked like the humanoid cats of Andre Norton’s Star Ka’at World, but as much as I’d like it to be true, as a cat lover, I seriously doubt that is a possibility.  Those cows supposedly attacked by aliens are probably one of two things- photo shop or bats.  UFOs are generally some photo shop program or other manipulation program.

You don’t see any of the skeptics having PhDs in mythology or theology do you?

Um… yes I do- one is Robert Price.  He has a PhD in theology and he’s a skeptic.  There are others too, but I need to look up their actual degrees.

Be that as it may, what I wish and what is reality, more than likely is not Star Trek nor are there cute little eggheads like Thor on Stargate, no matter how much I wish it to be true and I think that is the point Doug was trying to make.  Science Fiction and reality are two different things.  Many of us wish it to be so and that is why there are so many SciFi programs.

Thank you TAYLOR, you have done as I suggested and come to your own conclusions….

RRamjet, do you mean to be addressing me? I authored the post about Prescott’s essay. I’m glad you’re pleased, I think everyone should get a fair hearing. That said I will not always be able to indulge as time may not allow.

Would you deny for example that the alien abduction phenomenon does not exist? ... with UFOs and ghosts. The very fact that they are PERSISTENT in MAINSTREAM society gives us a clue as to the lack of rational explicability ...The reason werewolves, witches, vampires, fairies, goblins & c. are lumped into the “paranormal” by the dogmatist skeptics IS exactly an attempt to discredit by association ...

To answer, yes. I would say it does not exist. You say reports of werewolves etc were rare, historically speaking but this is not true once you consider social and technological changes over time. Three and four hundred years ago there was not a news media nor preponderance of documenting media such as we have today. Also, you did not have so many people living in urban/suburban areas nor so many people, period. All of these factors would have limited the number of “reportings” that made it into the record for us to study later.
I see no reason to ascribe unsavory motives to the skeptical investigators. The question is, are eye witnesses dependable/accurate? Clearly not. Have eye witnesses reported all manner of fantasy creatures/apparitions of the centuries? Clearly yes. Hell, how many freakin’ Elvis sightings do we still get a year?

In other words, “hallucination” is simply NOT a tenable hypothesis to explain the majority of UFO sightings. Mistaken identity of natural phenomena do occur, but the sheer volume and the independent observations of the same things at different times and places (ie: repeatability of observation IS observed) mitigates against many of the skeptics “mistaken identity” claims also.

I think hallucination is relatively rare but then when you have 300 million+ people in our nation alone rare turns into required. I was referring more to natural phenomena which can present strange experiences as well as conventional technology that people are not all that familiar with- such as the military flares used in AZ that got so many people all UFO-crazy. You say this does not account for everything and I agree- but it does prove one important fact. People are incredibly easy to totally convince with the simplest of illusions (a floating burning stick, for example). Those witnesses did not merely report, by the way.. they immediately started producing reasons the lights could not be natural. Fooled, and biased.. instantly. This is good reason to a priory doubt other accounts (but not proof of their inauthenticity).

...many, many instances of established scientists discovered making bogus claims in peer reviewed journals – it happens all the time – we do not throw out physics or chemistry because there are nutters involved in the field.

Frankly I’m not sure how frequent this is. Certainly many research projects are insufficiently rigorous or poorly designed but this is not the same as making “bogus claims”.  We do throw out the research and if an entire topic is covered by bogus research we throw out the topic too, such as cold fusion. Similarly we dismiss UFOlogy and the like.

Oh but there is physical evidence – look up Lonnie Zamora for example. There are also many, many other cases where such physical trace evidence is left behind and officially documented. The skeptics just don’t tell you (or don’t know) about it. But if you are asking for a crashed alien craft…well, are you really asking for a crashed alien craft…?

What I meant was definitive evidence. A wide range of people could produce burned bushes and sand. What do you mean the “skeptics don’t tell me”? You think I ask them? If the suggestion is that there are alien craft, then convincing physical evidence would be any sort of specimen definitively unearthly or say, a craft landing in Times Square. Zamora’s case is interesting but CSICOP’s Gary Posner suggests it may be a hoax (read here- http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/posner_klass.html )
I’m not just a skeptic though. I know that some witnesses are honest and sober. I know because I am one of them.

Oh, sorry sate, I am juggling two or three threads at this point….

The alien abduction phenomenon does not exist? I think you are confusing the phenomenon with the dogmatic debunkers “aliens”. It is one thing to hypothesise that aliens do not exist. It is another to deny that millions of people all over the world are reporting ostensibly similar experiences of “aliens” – clearly they do – thus it is a phenomenon that needs explanation. If you hypothesise the explanation to be hallucination, then you must develop clear evidence to support that hypothesis – if you can show me this clear evidence, then I will be more likely to agree with the hypothesis. If you cannot show me the clear evidence, then the hypothesis remains just that – speculation without foundation. This is what Randi, Nickell, Mazur et al. (and of course Doug) excel at – providing speculation without foundation.

I think if you studied the evidence (please) we actually do NOT get reliable sightings of Elvis reported (or fairies, etc) – yet we DO get reliable UFO and ghost reports occurring daily (what I mean by “reliable” is observations (often by multiple witness) made by qualified observers – pilots, policemen, astronomers, astronauts, etc). Historically, this has always been the case.

The motives of skeptics – I have a little saying that I usually place at the bottom of my email correspondence – “Please investigate the vested interests behind any information you receive – if you are not sure, bet on self interest”.

My vested interest? Critical thinking. All I am calling for is a critical examination of the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

You stated “military flares used in AZ that got so many people all UFO-crazy”

I presume you are talking about the Phoenix Lights? I think you would do well to study the evidence in this case also and to really think about the physics and chemistry of the “military flare” explanation. Have you ever seen the documentary “Out of the Blue”? I recommend you watch it and see if your “military flare” hypothesis is supported by the evidence.

You stated “People are incredibly easy to totally convince with the simplest of illusions…This is good reason to a priory doubt other accounts (but not proof of their inauthenticity).

I think “a priori” is the term you are looking for. Ughhh,. Illusions, hallucinations… this perennial favourite of the dogmatic debunkers is just not supported by the evidence. The twisted logic behind it seems to be “I do not understand what you saw, therefore because it is possible for you to be mistaken, what you saw does not exist.” It simply does not make sense. It is akin to saying “I am a God and I know everything, so if you tell me about something I do not know about – you must be mistaken because you are human”. Yes, and the earth was flat. The universe revolved around the earth. Newton was the last word in physics. Maxwell was a crank peddling supernatural action at a distance. Einstein thought quantum physics ridiculous – history is replete with examples of those who would not accept the evidence and vainly tried to call into question the sanity of the proponents of that evidence. Thus it ever was and thus, unfortunately for rationalism, it will ever be.

Believe me, I am a published scientist and I have peer reviewed countless proposed and accepted research papers. I KNOW how much “fudging” of the data and how many outright fraudulent and bogus claims are made by ostensibly qualified and supposedly reputable scientists. You, the public, just do not get to hear about it. Unfortunately the claims promulgated by Randi et al are not subject to such rigorous peer review before they are foisted on an unsuspecting public. All I am doing here is calling for some critical analysis of the claims of these people and also a rational assessment of the evidence surrounding so called paranormal activity.

On Zamora – actually in that interview you point to Klass tries to make out it was just a publicity stunt. But this was NOT his first attempt at an explanation… He also suggested Hynek’s investigation was brief…It lasted well over a year! Further, Klass has never been able to produce either the physicist or “the man in his garden” he claims both to have interviewed. Simply I contend either Klass is a liar or he has not investigated that which he claims…

On Hynek… “My original investigations, directed toward breaking apart Zamora’s account by seeking mutual contradictions in it and also to establish Zamora as an unreliable witness, were fruitless … I was impressed by the high regard in which Zamora was held by his colleagues, and I am personally willing today to accept his testimony as genuine…”

I suggest that people look at the Blue Book investigation. Go to the source… not to the hearsay of many that followed.

RRamjet-

Before I get into the details a few points.
1. Don’t lump me in with the “dogmatic debunkers”. I am not a part of this or any such group or following. Refuting them is not refuting me, ok? Like you yourself claim, I have absolutely no “vested interest” beyond the truth.
2. I am not as stupid as you suppose that I automatically take the word of any so-called expect of any variety. I’ve disagreed strongly with plenty from doctors, skeptics, laywers, biologists, researchers, philosophers, etc.., each “expert” in their opinion.
3. Because I disagree with you does not mean I do not have the same level of informity on a topic.

Moving on,

RRamjet:The alien abduction phenomenon does not exist? I think you are confusing the phenomenon with the dogmatic debunkers “aliens”. It is one thing to hypothesise that aliens do not exist. It is another to deny that millions of people all over the world are reporting ostensibly similar experiences of “aliens” – clearly they do – thus it is a phenomenon that needs explanation.

Didn’t you tell me I needed to be clear in my thinking here? You call something the alien abduction phenomena which has nothing to do with aliens? Not very clear. Clear would be something like Abduction Experience phenomena or alleged abduction victim phenomena. There is a phenomena, but I do not classify it as “paranormal” nor do I find it unexplained. Show me video of it transpiring.. that would be a mystery worth attention.

I think if you studied the evidence (please) we actually do NOT get reliable sightings of Elvis reported (or fairies, etc) – yet we DO get reliable UFO and ghost reports occurring daily (what I mean by “reliable” is observations (often by multiple witness) made by qualified observers – pilots, policemen, astronomers, astronauts, etc). Historically, this has always been the case.

I did not claim we get reliable sightings of Elvis or fairies today. It is amazing there are any sightings of those things.. but there are. I take exception with your basis of “reliable” witnesses. You have said: I KNOW how much “fudging” of the data and how many outright fraudulent and bogus claims are made by ostensibly qualified and supposedly reputable scientists. Uh okay.. but then you say I’m supposed to listen to some sort of professional because they are a professional (astronomer, etc) ? So you take into account a person’s credentials when you need to shore up your case but not when you don’t? This is critical thinking? There is no reason any of these people are better witnesses than a farmer or store clerk. Recently, a Policeman was accomplice to a Bigfoot hoax. Excuse.. I meant to say ex-cop now that he’s been fired. Also I remind you I am a witness myself. When I speak of “UFO” witnesses I am in that group. But hey I’m not an astronomer or liar cop so I’m not reliable. Right?

Illusions, hallucinations… this perennial favourite of the dogmatic debunkers is just not supported by the evidence. The twisted logic behind it seems to be “I do not understand what you saw, therefore because it is possible for you to be mistaken, what you saw does not exist.”

Perhaps it is the perennial favourite because it is the most reasonable conclusion. Regardless your strawman is simply not true. Again I remind you I am not part of this “dogmatic debunkers” group. I have looked at the evidence and sought the most likely answer. No amount of investigation may tell you exactly where I had lunch 6 years ago today. You may not find evidence even to place me in a particular city. Being unable to resolve this “mystery” does not make all hypotheses equal. There is no reason to believe me or anyone else if I said the answer was ‘orbiting jupiter’. I believe most of the witnesses- because I am a witness. I believe they saw something or at least are convinced of it. I believe they are sometimes terrified because I was. None of this makes the most outlandish guesses more sane.

Newton was the last word in physics. Maxwell was a crank peddling supernatural action at a distance. Einstein thought quantum physics ridiculous

Except that they all had data on their side. For every Maxwell or Darwin shaking things up, there were 10,000 raving idiots who were dead wrong or dead crazy. Being popularly rejected is not proof you are correct. Statistically, quite the opposite (strictly speaking it is irrelevant of course). Pulling the ‘oh yeah well people said we’d never walk on the moon and we did!’ card seems like a desperate tactic. How about sticking to evidence of the issues at hand?

On Zamora – actually in that interview you point to Klass tries to make out it was just a publicity stunt. But this was NOT his first attempt at an explanation… ...Further, Klass has never been able to produce either the physicist

Presumably the point of investigation is to piece together an event which no doubt often requires entertaining different guesses in the process. I don’t see sufficient reason to call Klass a liar, as for the witnesses that is for Klass to address not myself. Still the remaining details, uncontested, do create a suspicious picture.

The Blue Book investigations are hardly in your favor. The vast majority of its what, 12000+ cases turn out to be pedestrian. BB was shut down and forgotten.. an utter failure to demonstrate any real “phenomena” is out there. The Zamora case definitely sticks out as it does not appear to be fraudulent. The reason it sticks out is such a case is so rare, because the whole “field” is so totally full of bullshit. Shouldn’t there be “millions” of cases like this one instead of uh.. one?