Skeptics... [sigh]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
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!

Thanks, it is late and auto speller is evil...hehe

reply to post by Matyas


I am a skeptic and I don't believe there's anything wrong with that - think of skeptics being the yin to the yang of the converts which brings balance and integrity to the topic as it ups the ante in terms of the quality of evidence required to sway some skeptics. Poor & fabricated evidence has the reverse effect.

My skepticism re UFOs vanished in 1986 when I actually saw something for myself that defied explanation in conventional terms. Aliens will still require some considerable proving to shake my natural skeptic's feeling about them.

reply to post by Pilgrum


My point exactly, thank you Pilgrum.

the quality of the evidence

Is what determines if someone is home or if just the lights are on.

In my book that automatically makes you a sceptic. You see, I am a critic. Artists are critics of themselves or their own work more than any one else's. When I strive to bring quality to this board, I see it as a work of art, so I will take pains to criticize my own work in order to ensure I have a quality peice to contribute.

When the sceptics don't show up, my reasoning takes to criticizing the skeptics.

I see threads with titles like “New UFO footage, undeniable evidence of visitation.” I used to go into these threads thinking, “Could this be the one?” Unfortunately these cases usually turn out to be the usually dots or blurry images that will remain UFO’s and nothing more. Now when I see these titles, I go in thinking, “Let me guess just another dot or blurry picture?”

I consider myself now a skeptic, but not on the subject on aliens and alien visitation in general, I am more of a skeptic towards evidence that is provided.

I have been to other threads with less sensationalist topic headlines that are well put together, and very much worth the time to read, unfortunately they are so well put together that there are not many replies because no one disputes their hard work, they might get 6 to 7 pages deep at best with praises and the one or 2 negative comments, and the hard work of these people get buried under the bogus posts with 20 + pages with stars and flags all over the place.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
I consider myself now a skeptic, but not on the subject on aliens and alien visitation in general, I am more of a skeptic towards evidence that is provided.

This is a very good point.

I'm open-minded about the possibility of Alien visitation, but I'm skeptical about the evidence I see presented to me here on ATS.

I think quite a few people would agree with this sentiment.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

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....

Hi! How are you?

Originally posted by Pathos

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....

Hi! How are you?

So you do not believe that there are undentified flying objects?

Originally posted by AlienCarnageI am more of a skeptic towards evidence that is provided.

I too am in agreement.

I have been to other threads with less sensationalist topic headlines that are well put together, and very much worth the time to read, unfortunately they are so well put together that there are not many replies because no one disputes their hard work, they might get 6 to 7 pages deep at best with praises and the one or 2 negative comments, and the hard work of these people get buried under the bogus posts with 20 + pages with stars and flags all over the place.

This is my beef too. AC put it together in an easier format to understand than I used. Different words but the same gist.

Could I be wrong assuming others share the same passion I have for science? I think any kind of breakthrough that takers us closer to the stars and cleans up our planet is exciting news. To me, it carries hope for the future. I expect the world to beat a path to see the new mousetrap. Where is the celebration of pride over man's creativity and insight? Do we have such a low opinion of ourselves? Has sensationalism permanently replaced the feeling of good hard science in the hands of creative energy?

Solidarity. We must stand together to reverse the silent treatment. Then the attention whores will return from whence they came.

Originally posted by Matyas
Could I be wrong assuming others share the same passion I have for science? I think any kind of breakthrough that takers us closer to the stars and cleans up our planet is exciting news.

Not in the least. I do believe there is a strong and deceptive anti-science and anti-progress current in the UFO field and on this board. However, there are many members here, skeptic and believer, who share your passion for science. They are easy to recognize in the fact these members tend to be the more level-headed and rational people populating this board.

I must vehemently disagree with the poster who criticized taking a science-based approach to the phenomenon. We must always have a firm grounding in science when approaching this subject. The attitude that science rejects what it cannot explain demonstrates this poster had a fundamental misunderstanding of science and is in fact doing the exact thing he accuses scientists of. At its very essence, science is the exploration of unexplained phenomenon.

I do not think it is wrong to approach every case with a critical eye, attempting to debunk it. We should always seek the prosaic before we assume the extreme. And when the prosaic fails, when the evidence is extraordinary, we must be willing to accept the extreme.

I think the separation of skeptic and believer is a false divide. Few are so entrenched in their thinking that they do not shift from camp to camp, on a case-by-case bases, day-to-day. Where as someone may be skeptical on one topic they may be a believer in another. There is a divide but it has little to do with whether someone believes or not. The divide is between Critical Thinkers and Cynics. The cynics are those aforementioned few, so entrenched in their thinking they are tilting at windmills, unable to accept either the prosaic or the extreme (depending on who they are). The Critical Thinkers on the other hand are willing to look at the evidence, they are open to the extreme and the prosaic, they are willing to admit when the evidence doesn't hold or when they are stumped, never taking anything at face value.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

I do not think it is wrong to approach every case with a critical eye, attempting to debunk it. We should always seek the prosaic before we assume the extreme. And when the prosaic fails, when the evidence is extraordinary, we must be willing to accept the extreme.

I think the separation of skeptic and believer is a false divide. Few are so entrenched in their thinking that they do not shift from camp to camp, on a case-by-case bases, day-to-day. Where as someone may be skeptical on one topic they may be a believer in another. There is a divide but it has little to do with whether someone believes or not. The divide is between Critical Thinkers and Cynics. The cynics are those aforementioned few, so entrenched in their thinking they are tilting at windmills, unable to accept either the prosaic or the extreme (depending on who they are). The Critical Thinkers on the other hand are willing to look at the evidence, they are open to the extreme and the prosaic, they are willing to admit when the evidence doesn't hold or when they are stumped, never taking anything at face value.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

I must agree with you on this point. I consider myself a skeptic. Most sudjects that I encounter I enter with the skeptical mindset. However, I am not above the sway of evidence. A skeptic and a believer should not hate eachother, but embrace their differences, for with the believer pleading his point and the skeptic attempting to find a rational explanation of an event, we come ever closer to what both of these individuals crave the most. Truth.

A skeptic or believer who refuses to take in evidence, being undenyable evidence, and not fuzzy pictures or flawed science, never comes any closer to the truth then they currently are, and society will never learn anything like that.

Im probably classified as a skeptic.Undoubtedly UFO's exist,lots of good cases with solid evidence to back them up.Where i draw the line though is calling them alien as nobody has solid evidence to show aliens exist..nevermind that they are intelligent or that they are visiting our planet.So right now im on the terrestrial fence as we know humans exist and we know black projects exist.That seems like a more logical conclusion to me personally until evidence proves otherwise.Zorgons plasma critters are interesting but i haven't read much at all about plasma lifeforms..

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Solomons]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRexI do believe there is a strong and deceptive anti-science and anti-progress current in the UFO field and on this board.

Understatement!

However, there are many members here, skeptic and believer, who share your passion for science.

For those from Missoura, show me.

I must vehemently disagree with the poster who criticized taking a science-based approach to the phenomenon.

I second that. I have found the behavorial sciences applied to the UFO phenomena for instance yeilds better results. The multidisciplinary approach can be applied to many phenomena. Social and behaviorial sciences for politics, economic and behaviorial sciences for market phenomena, a mix of social, literary, and historic disciplines for anthropology and archaeology, the list is endless. I know the hard disciplines are narrow in scope, relating only to physical processes. However when a breakthrough is made, I marvel at the lack of attention it receives.

We should always seek the prosaic before we assume the extreme.

Occam's Razor has become my standard more of late. I believe breakthroughs are automatically chalked up to the extreme without examining the evidence. If occam's razor had been the standard of science from the beginning, what would be considered extreme today would be commonplace.

For example, water can flow uphill. Automatically a statment like this will be assumed to have something to do with antigravity, when in reality it is physics the average homemaker knows already.

Here & here.

So it is propulsion, of the rocket variety.

The divide is between Critical Thinkers and Cynics.

Indeed, this could be the problem. In fact, I see a whole family tree emerging of believers and debunkers branching out into various types. How about, "if you're a cynic vote here", and "if you're a critical thinker vote here" would be nice from time to time reviewing breakthroughs.

edit for [/

[edit on 8/2/2009 by Matyas]

The only thing I would say I definately believe is that there is life out there. As for everything else, Im on the fence.

Thing that seems a little off to me is what the actual stance on UFO's seems to be. Assuming we are being visited and the Government are in touch with them, then they dont want the world to know yet. But when the UFO's are coming in, why the hell dont they turn their lights off? Why fly so low that people can see them? That doesnt seem to fit in with the Government not wanting to disclose info on them. Would be like some guy cheating on his wife and having to sneak out after, but then deciding to shout through a megaphone as he's leaving.
I think the most logical explanation if aliens are coming here is that the Government probably know that they arent from here, but havent established contact with them. And the aliens just arent bothered whether we see them or not... which would make sense if you were to think that we were basically just ants to them.

I dont see how anyone can say 100% either way though, there's just too many problems either side of it.