6274Re: Textfiles: Hearsay and Hard to Read: Advice from an Ally
- Dec 24, 2005--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James N. Dawson"
>You know, much of this time I think arguing with jingoistic,
> I don't generally agree with John Beatty and Odd Empire
> on "skepticism" and what constitutes a reasonable theory of UFO's and
> other prima facie unexplained phenomena, but in this particular case,
> I would have to say, from what I was able to plow through of them,
> your "textfiles" looked pretty much like "hearsay".
> They may provide some worthwhile leads for the full-time
> investigator, but they're not going to impress even a moderate
> This is what you'd need rather than a mere transcript of a phone
> A recording of the conversation itself that could be subjected to
> some kind of computer or other analysis.
> Video of the actual person saying these things, would be good (though
> not necessarily conclusive) evidence for me.
> As far as documents, you need something on official government
> stationary which you could scan and put on the net. Admittedly this
> could be faked, but it would be better than just a transcription. (I
> saw the Joe Nickels critique of the MJ-12 documents, and found them,
> as usual, pretty snide and shoddy. Stanton Friedman answered them
> well and convincingly---though these are seperate questions whether
> these documents are ultimately genuine.)
> I don't think saying that people are too stupid and lazy to read
> these textfiles is very convincing. I printed mine out and hoped to
> go through them myself, but boy, they are dense and unreadable. If
> you want people to read the evidence, you've got to make it a little
> easier, and paragraph breaks and section titles certainly would help
> to do that. Also, I don't understand the necessity of highlighting
> whole text. It defeats the whole purpose of hightlighting.
> In the final analysis, I'm not sure if trying to engage with the
> conventionalists (those who call themselves "skeptics" but are only
> skeptical toward anything that to them, on an emotional level, is out
> of the ordinary or a minority view, that doesn't adhere to a rigid
> Cartesian model of 17th century science, etc.) Since they seem to be
> demanding "absolute proof" for everything, you can never, even
> theoretically, satisfy them, because in forensics and even the hard
> science, there's always an element of doubt or uncertainty.
insulting, over emoting irrationalists is a waste too. I do enjoy
debating points of view because frankly, I'm fascinated with people
who think differently than I do. Not afraid of them like some people
seem to be. Just fascinated.
Most people strictly applying 17th century models of science are
pretty crazy, you know. Witches, psychologists and other heretics
should be burned at the stake. That kind of thing.
Know anyone like that me-bucko? And I don't think anyone's demanding
absolute proof here. Just a little evidence would be nice. What Art
(and apparently you) think is evidence is not really, it's data and
not very good data at that.
> So, I've pretty much come to the conclusion, arguing with such peopleIt's also a lot easier to validate your own beliefs without us
> is largely an exercise in futility, and the exact psychological
> motivations for their militant disbelief is perhaps something of a
> mystery in itself!
unbelievers mucking up the process. OK, I hear you! Skeptics are all
stupid, skeptics are all evil. Skeptics should all be ignored.
If you truly believe that, you yourself are following good old
fashioned 17th century values. Check your history books on the
conditions of early Renaissance Europe and see for yourself. Also, try
arguing a point using non emotive language and see how skeptics react.
You have a great holiday my man!
- << Previous post in topic