Is the bar for skeptics a bit too low?

I myself am a skeptic as well as a believer in this intriguing world of UFOlogy we find ourselves in. I feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I also feel that debunking a claim requires just as much evidence and personal knowledge.

Time and time again, be it on Larry King, Internet Forums, and many other forms of media we pair up Skeptics and Believers/Experiencers, which is great because we need balance, but often times I find that most skeptics fail to provide thorough data, inks, and referances on their claims, just as the believers often do. Is it just me? Sometimes we fail to consider that the info. on BOTH sides could be incorrect.

Given that there is no publicly verified reference book/resource guide for what an authentic et/ufo is composed of and looks like, we usually take the skeptics side without much thought to where they get their viewpoints and data from. Is this the right viewpoint? I say no. There is so much more we don't know than do know. Rational scientific methods are in a continual state of change. What say you?


[edit on 21-2-2008 by AGENT51]

Originally posted by AGENT51
Time and time again, be it on Larry King, Internet Forums, and many other forms of media we pair up Skeptics and Believers/Experiencers, which is great because we need balance, but often times I find that most skeptics fail to provide thorough data, inks, and referances on their claims, just as the believers often do. Is it just me? Sometimes we fail to consider that the info. on BOTH sides could be incorrect.

In skeptic land, where I live, my trump card is always, "I don't know." I don't think I can go wrong with that. If I don't have enough information about a particular case, then it could be Monkey Men from the Moon, or it could be an Air Force black project. I don't know.

At the point of "I don't know," it's generally up to the person making the positive claim to provide the evidence, not me. Show me the beef.

If I make a positive claim, I should provide references, etc., to show that my interpretation of the data is most likely correct. However, the ultimate skeptic's position should always be "I don't know." Then I'm not put into the position of trying to prove a negative, "Prove it wasn't Moon Monkeys," which is impossible.

reply to post by Nohup


Hey, I can respect "I don't know", or "the evidence is inconclusive either way", a lot better than "that's just balloons, flares, swamp gas, 'dust', raindrops, and Venus"

Well said Nohup

I feel the same. A lot of times peole will dismiss something as being stupid or weird but don't back it up with evidence. On the other hand there's people who believe anything without any evidence. Also I've seen a lot of semi-proffesionals that say "oh that must be a lenseflare" without even knowing what it means and what it looks like. (so they are really not even semi-proffesional). Or there's people who are almost killing eachother over weather or not aliens excist.

To me science is a great thing. Although a lot of things are not explained by science yet it can be a great tool to explain or explore things.

reply to post by AGENT51


Great thread...... I am a skeptic also, and as a skeptic I think every angle should be looked at before we debunk the case..

I also believe that we should work with believers to find out the truth, what ever that maybe..

This thread is much needed.....good work..

Regards,

JQ.

It's a good point...

For example, often, the skeptics of Roswell talk about the "flowery tape" used in Mogul, as stated by Charles Moore. Yet, to date, the skeptics have never provided any source whatsover of this tape, when surely supplies purchased with a military budget would be itemized, and records of this would have been kept.

Therefore, if the tape claim was valid, it should be easy to verify and track down to the company, etc., yet it hasn't been, but this does not stop skeptics treating it as a valid fact, when in fact it has even LESS evidence supporting it than most of the witness statements!!!

The "skeptics" aren't considered "wackos" by the mainstream, so their words are automatically assigned more weight by the public...even when they are beat over the head with facts. I consider myself an open-minded, but skeptical believer... I try to go into a case with the idea that the majority of cases are really misidentified terrestrial issues...but the equal idea that it only takes one to prove the phenomenon... Sometimes, the evidence leads me to a different conclusion (i.e. I went into the Mantell case thinking shot down by ETs, but the evidence supported a Skyhook balloon tragedy)...but sometimes, there are cases that simply fail even skeptical analysis...(Roswell/Rendlesham/The Hill Case/Raid of LA, etc.)

When it comes to aliens (or whatever the ultimate "answer" to the UFO question might be), I am begging people to provide me with enough good evidence to prove it. Give me those pieces of information that bridge the gap between the sighting and the solution. I would love it.

But I'm not going to jump that last gap on my own. I'm perfectly content to just file away a sighting into the "inconclusive" file (it's pretty full). I'm not in any hurry to take a lot of circumstantial evidence and reach a conclusion just because it's something that I want. In the UFO game, it's way too easy to just jump to the idea that it's all about aliens from other planets, then try to shoehorn the data into that theory. Even when the accounts include supposed aliens telling the contactee they're from other planets, I still have to allow that they could be lying -- not just the contactees, but the "aliens" themselves.

I've said it before. In this game, if you're not a skeptic, you're a sucker. Because of the unusual nature of the thing itself, it's going to take some extra good evidence to prove anything about it to me. We're not talking about ordinary stuff here. We're talking about stuff that could be any number of seriously weird things. So show me! Prove it beyond doubt. That's all I ask.

Originally posted by AGENT51

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

I find that this statement, along with others such as "the burden of proof lies on those making the claim" or "the simplest explanation is true"

...

have become automated mantras of a new "religion of skeptics".

In reality though, nobody is always a skeptic or always a believer...we are all both. You obviously are.

Those who always act as skeptics and those who think in terms of "there are believers and there are skeptics" and nothing in-between (black-white thinking) are deluded.

Gazrock shall we discuss roswell here or wait for another time?

i would say its possibly the worst "flying saucer" incident on the ufoers books

[edit on 21-2-2008 by yeti101]

Originally posted by Gazrok
For example, often, the skeptics of Roswell talk about the "flowery tape" used in Mogul, as stated by Charles Moore. Yet, to date, the skeptics have never provided any source whatsover of this tape, when surely supplies purchased with a military budget would be itemized, and records of this would have been kept.

Therefore, if the tape claim was valid, it should be easy to verify and track down to the company, etc., yet it hasn't been, but this does not stop skeptics treating it as a valid fact, when in fact it has even LESS evidence supporting it than most of the witness statements!!!

Another common logical skeptic misstep is the "duplication proves the original false" claim. Drives me nuts when skeptics do this. James Randi is the worst at it, although I've seen it around here, too. Just because a magician can "reproduce" the effect of a bent spoon, that does not in any way prove how a particular spoon was bent. It just doesn't. Same thing with imitating UFO photos. Yeah, people can create photos that look pretty similar to Billy Meier's UFO photos, but that doesn't logically mean that's how Meier did it, or that he did it. It suggests how things might have happened, but that's a whole lot different than proving precisely how something happened.

I'm not defending Meier, just pointing out that creating a similar photo doesn't logically disprove his photos. For me, unless the positive proof is provided, it gets tossed in the trash. I can't spend all my time disproving every dopey hoax that comes down the pike, and it's realistically impossible for me to prove a negative anyway. So it's up to the claimant to fork over the evidence that leads to proof. If they can't, well... hasta la vista.

Originally posted by Nohup

Another common logical skeptic misstep is the "duplication proves the original false" claim. Drives me nuts when skeptics do this. James Randi is the worst at it, although I've seen it around here, too. Just because a magician can "reproduce" the effect of a bent spoon, that does not in any way prove how a particular spoon was bent. It just doesn't.

Good point. Very good point.

I do not think that the bar is too low,it is in fact seemingly just right to me. The fact is more people are becoming aware of the UFo phenomena, more people are reporting their sightings with far less fear of ridicule, so the numbers are for the first time since the 1940's more accurate.
I have the deepest respect for the open minded skeptic.
To not question that which is not easily explainable is nonsense to me.
Without the healthy skeptics on board and the technology to separate fact from fiction, we would still be fully accepting the facts from the dis-informants, the official story.
The balance is what will eventually crack this Science wide open.

Gazrock

im interested to know what part of the roswell story do you find most compelling? your convinced an alien spaceship crash landed, what makes you so sure?

reply to post by Nohup


Nohup the only problem I see with your views are that even if I show you my conclusive evidence, if it is not your experience, you as a skeptic will undoubtedly again remain skeptical.
A picture can be faked, people can have self induced fantasy based on their desires.
What I do respect is that you remain open to all possibilities and are willing to continue for the millionth time to at least look.

Originally posted by yeti101
Gazrock

im interested to know what part of the roswell story do you find most compelling? your convinced an alien spaceship crash landed, what makes you so sure?

Yeti; are you in the undecided,skeptic, or believer category on Roswell? Whats your take on the Walter Haut affidavit?

Originally posted by yeti101
i would say its possibly the worst "flying saucer" incident on the ufoers books

Agreed. After the "hundreds" of interviews and all the books, what exactly has been determined? Something might have happened. Or not. None of the trails lead anywhere. Zero artifacts. Very few, if any, legitimate documents. Reports with glaringly divergent details are edited to highlight apparent consistencies (exactly how many "aliens" were recovered?). I have always felt that the Roswell case is a perfect example of what happens when numerous investigators with their own agendas massage the evidence to fit the ET Hypothesis.

From a skeptical point of view, nothing testable or verifiable was ever produced. That's all that needs to be said. Making up nonsense about Japanese tape on Fugo bombs, or Mogul crash test dummies, to "disprove" the case is not only unnecessary, but arguably worse than the junk the proponents come up with. It's all just stories on both sides. Roswell alien supporters have never produced any "I-beams with purple hieroglyphics" in the first place, so there's no real need for a skeptic to try to disprove it with some equally dubious explanation.

The Roswell case stinks from both ends, and has eaten up a lot of time and effort that might have been better used to investigate other potentially good cases.

agent51 i firmly belive it was balloon debris + radar target that was recovered.

The haut affidavit looks to be a money making excercise. It was made in 2003 but not released until 2007 the 50th anniversary of roswell purely for commercial reasons.

nice to see the timetable of releasing "new" info is dictated by such things. Which imo undermines it alot.

As for Haut himself he told ufologists anything frank kauffman said was "golden". Well turns out frank kauufman was a total fraud who made fake documents about roswell and his time in the army. Doesnt reflect well on haut at all.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by yeti101]

Originally posted by antar
Nohup the only problem I see with your views are that even if I show you my conclusive evidence, if it is not your experience, you as a skeptic will undoubtedly again remain skeptical.

That's an interesting hypothesis, and I guess the only way to test it is to actually show me the conclusive evidence. The real stuff. No other possible explanation. No wiggle room, or room for an "I don't know."

I haven't experienced that yet, after literally decades of interest in this stuff. I completely agree that using Occam's Razor in reverse, it would be highly improbable that every single UFO sighting out of the tens of thousands that have happened over the years could be hoaxes, misidentifications, or mental illness. I think people really see UFOs, and report them relatively accurately. That's why I still have an interest. Something must be going on.

As to exactly what is going on, though, that is anybody's guess at the moment. Aliens from different planets? Sure, why not? Time travelers? Equally possible. Thought manifestations? Could be. But what is the real answer? I don't know.

I think we are all skeptical to some degree. Not so much if aliens or ufos exist but rather to the details that get reported and to the various theories that exist.

Off course we also have pseudo-skeptics that never get convinced about anything ET and perpetually argue for the sake of arguing. Unfortunately, everyone is entitled to an "opinion" however wrong it may be!

[edit on 21-2-2008 by EarthCitizen07]

I am a skeptic. However, I am quite open....if someone can either produce some evidence/facts....or presents their story in logical, well thought out way....instead of some crazy rambling that makes no sense.

I think "skeptic" goes both ways though.

Just like some skeptics seem like they will never believe that xx could be a UFO/alien or whatever....

There are those who just wont believe that xx could be or is actually a bird/plane, dirt on a window, imagination, dream, sleep paralysis, psychosis, etc. Those too are skeptics. They are skeptical that something could actually be very normal and identifiable. They want to believe soooo bad that what they saw/experienced was a (insert anything here) that they completely ignore all logic and refuse to to consider something else.

Great thread Agent51....I completely agree with you and NOHUP


[edit on 21-2-2008 by greeneyedleo]