Skeptics... [sigh]

Originally posted by zorgon
Sigh..... not ANOTHER Skeptic thread...... groan.....

When there is nothing new to add and the memes get stale.....a new "twist" to the subject is introduced so the fan base doesn't get distracted.

I have been running an experiment with one of my threads by inviting every skeptic/sceptic I can think of to contrubute/debunk/whatever. The result is nada, zip, and zilch, and will in all probability remain so.

I think it is because when confronted with peer reviewed work and challenges to preconceived notions requiring real mental exercise they chicken out.

I believe I can sefely conclude the one "denying ignorance" behind the curtain is really an ignoramus! Rather than admit not knowing, they grasp straws instead.

What do you think? C'mon. I sent out flyers to meet me at the OK Corral, and no one showed up. Its pretty obvious.

Exposed and case closed.

Oh yes, those silly skeptics. Look what they have done to this sibject, they have made it the laughing stock that it is causing the average Joe and the main stream media to laugh out loud every time it comes up.

Darn those skeptics.

And again, why keep crying over skeptics? They are the SEVERE minority and by far their voices are drowned out by the very voices that ensure this subject remains laughable. It is not the skeptics you should be concerned about.

Originally posted by Matyas
I have been running an experiment with one of my threads by inviting every skeptic/sceptic I can think of to contrubute/debunk/whatever. The result is nada, zip, and zilch, and will in all probability remain so.

I think it is because when confronted with peer reviewed work and challenges to preconceived notions requiring real mental exercise they chicken out
.

Nope, you seem to be talking through your buttocks. They don't chicken out, the problem is I think sceptics are getting seriously bored of ''sceptic....but why?'' type threads as there is a new one every..........single....... week. Why the obsession with sceptics? Very occasionally you will get a thread by a sceptic asking why people believe so easily, but only occasionally, not like the sceptic threads. Does that make sceptics more tolerant I wonder? Ironic if so.

There should be a sticky regarding scepticism so that these tedious threads that accomplish NOTHING every week are ended.

Originally posted by tmayhew01
Why is it that some skeptics will ignore simple logic and reasoning in attempt to maintain their own biased opinion on something they cannot explain. Just thought this was interesting

www.para-tube.com...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by tmayhew01]

Because that's the way some people are... I can say the same for some believers who have biased opinions.

Of course, there will always be some skeptics AND some believers who are so entrenched in their personal beliefs that they cannot be swayed to believe anything besides what they already think is true. HOWEVER, The vast majority of skeptics on ATS are very thoughtful and engage in critical thinking.


[edit on 7/29/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by tmayhew01


These threads made by various members over the last few months may help you out:

Five Things You Should Keep In Mind Before Posting In The UFO Forum

A Brief Perspective On The UFO Phenomena

Skeptics and Believers don’t exist

UFOs: Lets cut the crap already



[edit on 7/29/2009 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by zysin5
Ignorethefacts

Not true.... he might not say so openly, but trust me on this one

Hey Zorgon! Long time no chat my friend!!

Well since its you.. I will take your word for it.. But I remember back in the Lear days, of going back and forth with Mr. Ignorethefacts on many threads and posts..

I myself tend to be a skeptic, but I think its healthy to remain skeptical of many issues here on ATS and abroad.. To many suckers, and to many hoaxes for me to take everything said to heart..

Zorgon, I highly respect your thoughts on here.. So I will trust you on this one. You have done your homework, and you out of the 1000's of members on here, you know your stuff!!

So thanks for the reply.. I didn't want to pick on ignorethefacts... Or single him out to much.. I'm just going off my personal past Exp. with the guy..

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

Hey IgnoreTheFacts! Its been some time since we have gone back and forth! So to let you know.. I wasn't trying to put you down..
I think being skeptical is very healthy and keeps a great balance..

If it wasn't for skeptical minds.. Things would get out of hand quickly!!
You know what I mean..

But you have to admit.. You have said poppycock to many things that IMO are worthy of further research..
I won't bring up the posts or threads in here.. But you know what I'm talking about..

Anyway.. Good day sir.. See you around the boards..

[edit on 29-7-2009 by zysin5]

reply to post by Hawkwind.


No, you are listening to me through yours. I don't start "sceptic.....but why?" threads, I offer peer reviewed work and notions that challenge preconceived thinking patterns.

I had a thread bumped down to the skunkworks because it did just that. Specifically giving nuclear "waste" a second life by using a particle beam. Guess what? They call them fast breeders. But not one single sceptic ever voiced any dissapproval over the blatently ignorant actions of the staff. Why? Because, my good friend, they had no clue what I was talking about.

And that is one incident. There are more if I go looking. You should double check the credibility of your compatriots, for where I am sitting they look for all the world like hollow men.

Originally posted by Matyas
[I offer peer reviewed work and notions that challenge preconceived thinking patterns.

That's the same thing as a ''sceptics...but why?'' type thread except it has a fancier description. Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's the same thing.


edit-just need to ask, is a sceptic just a name for anyone who disagrees with you?

(I also agree that that thread you mentioned should not have been moved to Skunkworks, the theory sounds a good idea)





[edit on 29-7-2009 by Hawkwind.]

Originally posted by Total Package

No the difference is what I consider evidence and what you consider evidence. To some people nothing short of an Alien coming into their house... sitting down to have a cup of tea and talking about whether they are from another planet or us from the future... is going to be considered enough evidence.

And some people see nothing but a light in the sky or read a report that a person suggests that a alien probed them and they are convienced 1000s are all over the place.

For these people it makes me wonder why they come to this forum where they know that is never going to happen.... apart from wanting to argue with people and debunk every bit of evidence that comes in regardless how weak or strong it is.

I remember a post that went what 3000 plus all about whether Criss Angle's stunts were real or not. In that case, for many, all they needed was an A&E TV show to be enough proof.

I also see that there is 100s of conspiracies about 911 with each one able to show endless pages of proof that their conspiracy is 100% proof positive, but we all know only one is actually the correct one.

The problem with all this is every one of us has a different understanding of what is weak or strong evidence, or even evidence at all.

Now you ask whether aliens from another planet or us from the future has as much proof as eachother...... yup there is not much proof of either theory being correct.... altho most of the anecdotal evidence (abductions) would 99.99% point to the fact they are Aliens from other planets..... so I then use commonsense and say it's most likely they are from other planets rather than the future..... otherwise they would show their abductees the future they've come from not star systems.

But you suggest these people are actually abducted, and then jump to the conclusion it is aliens and so aliens exists. Based on what?

An advance race(s) that can be undetectable constantly screw up and allow their abductees see them, but no other time we can see them? Is there actually one implant that has been analyzed and determined it is 1000s, millions? Of year advanced than out technology today? To me it is always a X files scenario where just when poof is at hand it disappears.

What if all these people are abducted but it is our government testing population control.... you see this is just as valid as aliens, and so we need further proof. So you are 99.9% assured that they are aliens, but then it could be a front for hide a government project.

It could also be the human mind too… I could post pages of physiological situations that can create very vivid , scary and real like scenarios based on aliens or any number of other factors, but all are a state of mind.

So the bottom line is it is all a curious situation, but nothing more at this time.

Originally posted by Total Package

No the difference is what I consider evidence and what you consider evidence. To some people nothing short of an Alien coming into their house... sitting down to have a cup of tea and talking about whether they are from another planet or us from the future... is going to be considered enough evidence.

And some people see nothing but a light in the sky or read a report that a person suggests that a alien probed them and they are convienced 1000s are all over the place.

For these people it makes me wonder why they come to this forum where they know that is never going to happen.... apart from wanting to argue with people and debunk every bit of evidence that comes in regardless how weak or strong it is.

I remember a post that went what 3000 plus all about whether Criss Angle's stunts were real or not. In that case, for many, all they needed was an A&E TV show to be enough proof.

I also see that there is 100s of conspiracies about 911 with each one able to show endless pages of proof that their conspiracy is 100% proof positive, but we all know only one is actually the correct one.

The problem with all this is every one of us has a different understanding of what is weak or strong evidence, or even evidence at all.

Now you ask whether aliens from another planet or us from the future has as much proof as eachother...... yup there is not much proof of either theory being correct.... altho most of the anecdotal evidence (abductions) would 99.99% point to the fact they are Aliens from other planets..... so I then use commonsense and say it's most likely they are from other planets rather than the future..... otherwise they would show their abductees the future they've come from not star systems.

But you suggest these people are actually abducted, and then jump to the conclusion it is aliens and so aliens exists. Based on what?

An advance race(s) that can be undetectable constantly screws up and allows their abductees see them, but at no other time can we see them is not something I put much merit on. Is there actually one implant that has been analyzed and determined if it is 1000s, (millions?) of year advanced than out technology today? To me it is always a X files scenario where just when poof is at hand it disappears.

What if all these people are abducted but it is our government testing population control.... you see this is just as valid as aliens, and so we need further proof. So you are 99.9% assured that they are aliens, but then it could be just a front to hide a government project.

It could also be the human mind too… I could post pages of physiological situations that can create very vivid , scary and real like scenarios based on aliens or any number of other factors, but all are a state of mind.

So the bottom line is it is all a curious situation, but nothing more at this time.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Matyas
I think it is because when confronted with peer reviewed work and challenges to preconceived notions requiring real mental exercise they chicken out.

You are committing an argument-from-silence fallacy. Simply because no one responded does not mean you are right; it simply means no one responded.

And for good reason. Such challenges are often pointless exercises.

redacted


[edit on 29-7-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by nightmare_david


HAHAHA Michael Shermer or Sherman I think his name is. I can't stand that guy either. It's not so much what he says that bothers me as much as the fact that he wears a smurk that screams (Please knock my teeth out) that does.
Come to think of it, that guy could be consciously alien raped for 6 straight hours and find a way to make that face and explain it away as a lighthouse followed by "eyewitnesses see what they want to see. They're simply horrible at judging what things are".

[edit on 29-7-2009 by spinalremain]

reply to post by Hawkwind.


No, you still don't get my intent. I want collaboration. I want to see how strong the theory is. I want migration of expertiese from the old institutional ideas. That is an entirely different animal.

And no, not everyone who disagrees with me is a sceptic. There are critics, there are the skeptics who debunk for its own sake and/or their beliefs, and there are the sceptics who offer a rational foundation which prevent the oldest of mistakes, to err.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I bet you cannot find a single person on ATS that does not believe there are UFOs. I dare ya to find one person (skeptic or non-skeptic) I don't care, but find me one....

this.

i dont see how anyone can claim there arent UFOs.

saying they arent alien ships is something different

What is it? Willful ignorance?

Hundred and thousands of years worth of evidence suggests alien visitors.

I am quite skeptical - more than most around here.

Many ATS skeptics are actually just debunkertrolls that play the role of 'skeptic' to get away with trolling the boards.
(They are also quite rarely skeptical of Official sources.... )

In fact, when a true skeptic shows up on ATS and questions the info and data released by officialdom, it is most often the 'ATS skeptics' who will be the first to attack this true skeptic. They do not collaborate or cooperate with this person, but rather they attack...

...That is because they aren't skeptics at all - they are for the most part just a band of trolls defending their territory.





*and they know who they are....

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRexSuch challenges are often pointless exercises.

There it is right there, a preconceived notion based upon generalization.

My conclusion under normal circumstances can indeed be considered a fallacy, however, factoring in the accuracy or rather quality of the information within the body of the argument indicates whether or not the response contains useful information.

Does it not?

Else you are separating action from reaction and creating two separate entities.

In the environment, or rather the audience, an action tailored to elicit a reaction, eg. "THE ALIENS HAVE LANDED! THE END IS HERE!", and 485 flags and 90 pages later it peters out, or, "Top 50 Reasons the Big Bang is Bunk" gets 10 flags and 5 pages before petering out, is allegedly based upon the ability of the sceptic's expertise to debunk. Therefore it follows skepticism is based upon sensationalism whereas scepticism is either in short supply or the ones who claim to be sceptics are de facto skeptics with no expertise.

The only other conclusion is interest in science has gone so far downhill in the west, that it has become no longer important enough to give attention to, which is a truly frightening scenario. In this case, the orphan becomes the property of the state/corporation.

So, the frying pan or the fire, you tell me?

Edit to addendum it is the last scenario whereby the attrition of expertise due in most part to the ossification of knowledge in the old institutions can be counteracted by the introduction of new knowledge, in new groups, with new structures, aquiring the skills, or expertise which is rendered ineffective in the old institutions.

That is why the challenge is important. And it is how I draw my conclusion from the reaction, or the lack thereof.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by Matyas]

Originally posted by BaronVonGodzilla

What is it? Willful ignorance?

Hundred and thousands of years worth of evidence suggests alien visitors.

The problem is it is all like a broken record that skips playing nothing new.

Let’s see... ancient drawings that we interpret as aliens. Ancient vague writings we interpret as aliens….forward 1000s of years to the 1900s… vague pictures we interpret as alien ships, people interpret distant lights/objects as aliens, people iinterpret dream like states at alien abductions and other alien encounters…

Did I miss any evidence over the last few 1000s years?


[edit on 30-7-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


The word you are looking for is 'interpret' - not intrepid.

You probably knew that, but it seems you may have mistyped a few words.

*Coffee time!