Fair Skeptics?

Ive noticed a new forum at the bottom of the index. What is "Fair Skeptics"? and is there anything I can do to help?

TD

Sharp eye.

If anyone is curious, here is what the OP is speaking of.

I'm Skeptical

Sorry, just had to say that.

I can smell the, "It's on a need to know basis".

Check this thread for more info:

The Fair Skeptic Registry

There's another thread out there, but I can't find it right now *edited to add - That's because it got moved to their forum.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by Duzey]

Right on Duze. Had never come across the thread, just browsing it now. Seems libra had a good idea on his hands here. I think it is a good addition and can add some credibility to those attempting to get their story heard.

It does sound like a good idea, doesn't it?

I believe registration is closed, but I suppose one could always u2u thelibra and indicate an interest, for when and if a space opens.

Will be peer reviewed and chosen by a consensus of the "Plank Holders" (Original, Founding Members) based on a combination of merits we have yet to define.

We believe this can go far and if done right may be sought out by those who have experienced, seen or received something (document, photograph, etc...) they can not explain and want an independent, unbiased (as much as Humans are capable of), review to see if it is an obvious hoax, a good hoax or something truly beyond definition.

The ultimate goal is to rid the term "skeptic" of any negative connotation, and bring the two factions of topics we cover here, "True Believers" and "Instant De bunkers" closer together.

The truth will continue to elude everyone, IMHO, if this rift is continuously exploited by the hoaxers and or dissemblers. Remove the rift, or at least greatly diminish its width and there is much less to exploit.

BOTH GROUPS have strengths to bring to the table and the hope is this forum will be where that table is found.

Springer...

This is a good idea. I was about to go off on a rant on one thread for people responding to topics with things like "Do you know how insane that is? Do you know how insane you are? Go out and get a life!" in such a manner that you could've dropped the post on any thread and no one would've been able to tell the difference. Not that I agreed with the original post, it's just that ridiculous responses like that bug me. And ultimately I didn't post anything because I figured it would just be contributing to being off-topic. So there's my replacement rant.

Anyway, good idea.

And if you guys want a creed for not leaning either way without good reason: kill your egos as best you can and realize that science and logic are tools because we tend inherently not to use them when it goes against the grain. At no point should you be arguing about something as if it has something to do with you personally.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Springer

The ultimate goal is to rid the term "skeptic" of any negative connotation,

I really do not agree with that goal.

True - Scepticism is essential to any scientific, intellectual and academic discourse.

BUT - pseudoscepticism also is a standard tool in the propagandists' arsenal, used for distraction, deflection and etc.

Point being - legitimate scepticism and pseudoscepticism are hard to distinguish - and often look like the same thing.

Which is one of the reasons mass manipulation works.

Originally posted by soficrow

I really do not agree with that goal.

True - Scepticism is essential to any scientific, intellectual and academic discourse.

BUT - pseudoscepticism also is a standard tool in the propagandists' arsenal, used for distraction, deflection and etc.

Point being - legitimate scepticism and pseudoscepticism are hard to distinguish - and often look like the same thing.

Which is one of the reasons mass manipulation works.

However, someone has to start somewhere, other than sitting and philosophizing about it. That's all this is ... A first step in trying to get things together so that we aren't just screaming at each other about how insane each other may be ... After all, All the world is strange, save for me and thee, and even thee is a little silly!

Originally posted by soficrow
Point being - legitimate scepticism and pseudoscepticism are hard to distinguish - and often look like the same thing.

I think I understand your concern.

From what I remember from the other thread before it got moved, the members of The Fair Skeptics will toss out any member who demonstrates that they are incapable of being fair about these things. They even have a whole list of criteria for looking at claims and if they follow what was posted, I think it would be fairly easy for them to weed out the pseudoskeptics.

I'll be interested in seeing the results of the first investigation (they will be published in the public forums, correct? Springer? sigung86? Any other Fair Skeptic member who is reading this?). Until the results come in, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on their ability to be fair. When the results come in, I can re-evaluate.


[edit on 6-1-2007 by Duzey]

Thanks Duzey, bsbray.

I was thinking of what would happen if the 'goal' were applied to everything, not just UFOlogy:

"The ultimate goal is to rid the term "skeptic" of any negative connotation, "

But given your explanation of info in the earlier thread, Duzey - I too will withhold judgment.

'Course now it's sounding like an ATSupreme Court.

We'll just have to wait and see where it goes.

sofi

Originally posted by Springer
The truth will continue to elude everyone, IMHO, if this rift is continuously exploited by the hoaxers and or dissemblers. Remove the rift, or at least greatly diminish its width and there is much less to exploit.

I agree with that sentiment strongly. I was disappointed to see the Fair Skeptics forum go private, but I realize that the group needs to get things in order before moving forward. I'm looking forward to it - there are a lot of issues, documents, and stories that need research...and the more level-headed, analytical, scientific (yet open-minded) individuals working on these issues, the better!

-Ry

Originally posted by soficrow
'Course now it's sounding like an ATSupreme Court.

We'll just have to wait and see where it goes.

sofi

It can only be a "court" in the mind of the reader. The goal is a fair and scientifically based (to the best of our abilities) evaluation of things. Due dilligence and verification, the results will be nothing more than a consensus of the group with the relative data to support the consensus.

If someone takes that to heart as a "judgement" they do so at their own peril.

The group will responsible for the retention and or ejection of the membership. There is a "creed" being worked up that will be abided like the TAC and will be a guideline for all activities.

Springer...

Howdy all,

What is TFS?

Well, Springer pretty much summed it up well. The Fair Skeptics (TFS) is a currently incubating organization that aims to provide user-presented cases with a fair and unbiased review of case evidence for various categories as yet to be fully determined.

Example 1: Timmy snaps a photo of what appears to be a UFO, and has a corresponding narrative to go with it (timeframe, location, etc.) He'd like some people to take a look at the photo to confirm or deny it's UFOiness (I just made that word up), but is worried that half the members on ATS will just immediately cry "photochop!!!" without even so much as glancing at the picture, and he's worried the other half will lavish unwarranted accolades and experiences about being in personal contact with his UFO that very minute.

What's a Timmy to do?

...dun dun duuuuuuuuuuuuun! (dramatic music entirely neccessary)

The Fair Skeptics is group of a little less than 30 people whom have agreed to try and suspend bias as much as possible and use the scientific method as it applies to the evidence to either confirm or deny the veracity of the evidence, and presenting those conclusions in a replicable and understandable and above-all, fair format.

Example 2: TFS ends up having 10 or so members volunteer to review Timmy's case. The reviewer qualifications range the gamut from Forensics Investigators to Test Pilots to Aerospace Engineers to Digital Imaging Professionals. They take the available data, the available evidence, and then apply their own investigative talents and skills and resources. Someone might even literally drive out on site to investigate the area, take samples, interview the witness, etc... we haven't decided the depths to which the investigation will go quite yet, but those have been some suggestions.

The end result is a detailed analysis of all the factors involved in the case, and then a conclusion by each individual. It is not a foolproof system, and being as we're all human beings, it probably never will be. However, we're going to try really hard to as close as possible.

Members with pre-existing biases to a specific subject will be encouraged to not participate unless they are actively attempting to overcome their own biases via science. For TFS is not just a service to case presenters, it's a service to each other to try and teach and encourage each other how to further remove bias from serious investgation into any subject. We also largely police our own, and should a member get particularly out of line, they'll be whacked...er...dealt with.

Why all the privacy right now?

It started off as an open registry, but then we suddenly realized three things:

TFS has amazing potential as a worldwide investigative peer group.

Non-Members very much wanted to tell us how to run TFS.

Many people are quite fond of drama and perpetuating it in-thread.

As a whole, we pretty much figured that we liked potential, but weren't fond of drama or unaffiliated overseers. So we closed the registry, moved it to a different thread, and the drama continued. So founding membership was reduced a bit, and the organization made into a private forum to prevent further drama while we got our ducks in a row.

Once we've gotten all our ducks facing the same direction and organized, we will open for business and begin reviewing cases upon request on a first-come, first-served basis.

What kind of cases will TFS review?

We started off with just UFO cases, but it looks like we might be expanding into a variety of subjects including cryptozoology, paranormal, conspiracies, etc. However, as I previously mentioned, we're still incubating and deciding a lot of this stuff, so this is all subject to change. However, it looks like we'll be covering multiple categories of case.

I can say with pretty good certainty, however, that in order to be reviewed, each case will need to have a factual data narrative (Who, What, When, Where, etc...), and some sort of "evidence" to verify. We would love to be able to review every single case, but unsubstantiated claims are far too numerous, and there is nothing to apply the scientific method to, because we need data to test yes/no questions on.

So, how are conclusions going to be presented?

For instance, that the UFO shows no support structures such as string or glass, using filters A, B, C, and D, that it appears to be size X, at height Y, shows atmospheric haze, local police blotter records indicate other call-ins regarding the phenomena, local weather reports showed no lenticular cloud formations, air-traffic overhead was non-existant, and so forth. Each fact and method will have a list of references (for info) or steps to duplicate (for analysis). These are all binary facts that can be given a solid yes/no answer that are divorced from bias as much as possible. The end result may end up offering a conclusion, based off of the findings of info and analysis of the data, as to whether or not it is a hoax, but from what I've seen so far, most members will simply present their findings and allow others to make up their own minds.

When will we know?

As soon as we're open for business, it'll be announced where and how cases may be submitted. If you want further details you can ask in-thread, I'd be happy to answer whatever I can. However, if you're wanting to invoke drama, tell us how to run TFS, or complain about some unrelated incident from the past before TFS was even an idea, you can feel free to click the "back" button and choose a different thread.

This may sound a bit obvious and/or nasty, but considering two threads in a row got jacked before we went private, I'm operating on minimal tolerance of drama.

Originally posted by thelibra
....tell us how to run TFS, or complain about some unrelated incident from the past before TFS was even an idea, you can feel free to click the "back" button and choose a different thread.

This may sound a bit obvious and/or nasty....

Cripe...do ya think? LOL

At least I know now to keep my "unaffiliated" opinions and input to myself moving forward. It's good to see that the potential with such a diverse research group is realized though. Another element of success in this kind of research is collaboration with other unaffiliated researchers...oops, sorry there I go again. lol

Given the names that were on the founding members list, I'm sure it'll be successful. Good luck guys.

-Ry

[edit on 8-1-2007 by rdube02]

One of the best ideas on ATS yet, in my opinion of course..

Here is a WATS for you thelibra!!!

This should go far in reducing the sometimes outlandish assumptions that are regularly observed here as well as assisting some honest posters in confirming their experiences...

This should also have a positive effect on new posters that may be somewhat hesitant in posting for fear of ridicule. (Already stated I believe)

Although true confirmation may at times be impossible, the accumulation of at least circumstantial evidence will go far in reducing the auto-skeptics. That combined with statements, comments and observations from members working in related fields, makes this a wonderful tool. (Again my opinion)

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
This should also have a positive effect on new posters that may be somewhat hesitant in posting for fear of ridicule. (Already stated I believe)

Only time will tell.

Would be interesting to see how things pan out.

Originally posted by rdube02

Originally posted by thelibra
....tell us how to run TFS, or complain about some unrelated incident from the past before TFS was even an idea, you can feel free to click the "back" button and choose a different thread.

This may sound a bit obvious and/or nasty....

Cripe...do ya think? LOL

At least I know now to keep my "unaffiliated" opinions and input to myself moving forward.

Heh... Sorry man, the comments weren't directed at you. I'd rather not say who the sources of drama were, but I don't recall you trying to start a fight with Springer or tell us that it was a worthless idea or any of that, so I hope I didn't cause any offense. And of course, like any group, we're open to suggestions.

What my "unaffiliated" comment was in reference to was that there were some people who expressly said they had no desire to become a member, and yet were still telling us how the group had to be run, or that it could never be run successfully.

Originally posted by rdube02
Another element of success in this kind of research is collaboration with other unaffiliated researchers...oops, sorry there I go again. lol

Collaborating with unaffiliated researchers is absolutely essential to what we're doing. Additionally, we're never going to "snub" other people not in TFS. Hell, if anything if an unaffiliated researcher shows good methods and presentation in their findings, we'll probably send an invite, and if they don't accept, we'll probably nudge them every now and then to get some more ideas.

So, sorry if I was a tad too blunt. I really could have worded that sentence better in retrospect.

Originally posted by semperfortis
One of the best ideas on ATS yet, in my opinion of course..

Here is a WATS for you thelibra!!!

Cheers, mate! Thanks!

Originally posted by semperfortis
This should go far in reducing the sometimes outlandish assumptions that are regularly observed here as well as assisting some honest posters in confirming their experiences...

Something else that may be an unforseen side effect of this is that people might be willing to go a bit further out on a limb.

If someone knows that their hard work, research, data, timelines, etc, will actually be peer reviewed by fair-minded skeptics with minds open to the nearly infinite possibilities out there, they might actually go to the effort of posting it because, at the very least, the information will have propagated and populated the minds of others who would give it serious thought. Without a group like TFS, there's a good possibility one might see their data as not only a glowing target against them, but one that might be ignored completely in addition.