Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[Debunking Debunkers] Re: "knowledgeable" ufo skeptic

Expand Messages
  • raptor_omicron
    I don t think the problem with the idea of a knowledgeable UFO skeptic lies in the definition of UFO . I think it lies in the definition of skeptic . The
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 3 1:24 PM
      I don't think the problem with the idea of a "knowledgeable UFO
      skeptic" lies in the definition of "UFO".

      I think it lies in the definition of "skeptic".

      The word "skeptic" has been hopelessly twisted by the blind
      disbleever crowd in order to try to add some credibility to their
      claims that paranormal phenomena don't exist. Really, most people
      who call themselves skeptics are actually pseudoskeptics. And many
      true skeptics are branded as "believers".

      Skeptic = Anyone who doesn't believe a claim simply by faith.
      Skeptics require evidence for paranormal phenomena before they can
      accept them as true. The personality in the "skeptical" community
      who is closest to being a true skeptic is probably Michael Shermer;
      he's the least biased one, anyway. Dr. Edward Krupp (astronomer) is
      basically a true skeptic as well; he's a member of CSICOP, but really
      isn't involved in their questionable activities. A true skeptic from
      the UFO community was Dr. J. Allen Hynek, but the disbleever bunch
      considers him to be a believer.

      Pseudoskeptic = Blind disbleever. Destructive debunker. Anyone who
      believes that paranormal phenomena don't exist, regardless of
      supporting evidence and lack of contradictory evidence. Anyone who
      comes up with ad hoc and obviously nonsense explanations for
      paranormal reports. Pseudoskeptics are the James Randis and Phil
      Klasses and Paul Kurtzes of paranormalia. All of these people claim
      to be real skeptics and real scientists, but aren't.

      So skeptic has a favorable denotated meaning, but its connotated
      meaning suggests blind disbelief.

      If we use the denotated meaning of skeptic, then there is nothing to
      prevent a person from being a knowledgeable UFO skeptic. They're
      knowledgeable, they want evidence, but they won't dismiss anything
      out of hand.

      If we take the connotated meaning of skeptic (blind disbleever), then
      a knowledgeable UFO skeptic is contradiction. A person with
      scientific knowledge should know that extraterrestrial visitation is
      a definite possibility. Therefore they couldn't believe it is
      impossible.
    • thevirtualgreek
      ... As opposed to being twisted by the believer crowd, with their silly distinction between skeptic and sceptic? ... to ... Give me an example of someone
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 3 3:59 PM
        --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "raptor_omicron"
        <raptor_omicron@y...> wrote:
        > The word "skeptic" has been hopelessly twisted by the blind
        > disbleever crowd in order to try to add some credibility to their
        > claims that paranormal phenomena don't exist. Really, most people
        > who call themselves skeptics are actually pseudoskeptics. And many
        > true skeptics are branded as "believers".

        As opposed to being twisted by the believer crowd, with their silly
        distinction between skeptic and sceptic?

        > If we use the denotated meaning of skeptic, then there is nothing
        to
        > prevent a person from being a knowledgeable UFO skeptic. They're
        > knowledgeable, they want evidence, but they won't dismiss anything
        > out of hand.

        Give me an example of someone dismissing the idea of alien visitation
        out of hand.

        > If we take the connotated meaning of skeptic (blind disbleever),
        then
        > a knowledgeable UFO skeptic is contradiction. A person with
        > scientific knowledge should know that extraterrestrial visitation
        is
        > a definite possibility. Therefore they couldn't believe it is
        > impossible.

        No one says it's impossible! We just say it ain't happening now.
        There's quite a difference, don't you know.

        ~~ Paul
      • raptor_omicron
        thevirtualgreek: As opposed to being twisted by the believer crowd, with their silly distinction between skeptic and sceptic? The purpose of that distinction
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 5 10:11 AM
          thevirtualgreek:
          "As opposed to being twisted by the believer crowd, with their silly
          distinction between skeptic and sceptic?"

          The purpose of that distinction was to distinguish the people who
          call themselves skeptics, who are for the most part actually
          pseudoskeptics, from the true skeptics who don't want to call
          themselves skeptics because of the connotation of the word.

          A sceptic is a true skeptic. A skeptic is a pseudoskeptic.

          Personally, I don't like either word, because "skeptic" has a
          connotated meaning something like "disbleever jackass", and "sceptic"
          looks too similar to "septic". There's also the word "zetetic" as
          in "Zetetic Scholar" (Truzzi's journal), but it reminds me too much
          of "zeta" which is associated with the Nancy Leider cult.

          thevirtualgreek:
          "Give me an example of someone dismissing the idea of alien
          visitation out of hand.

          Plenty of it at:
          http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/Home.html

          thevirtualgreek:
          "No one says it's impossible!"

          Not out loud anyway...
        • thevirtualgreek
          ... The distinction between skeptic and sceptic depends on whether you re spelling it in American or English! ... Sorry, you ll have to point me at one. I m
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 5 1:15 PM
            --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "raptor_omicron"
            <raptor_omicron@y...> wrote:
            > The purpose of that distinction was to distinguish the people who
            > call themselves skeptics, who are for the most part actually
            > pseudoskeptics, from the true skeptics who don't want to call
            > themselves skeptics because of the connotation of the word.

            The distinction between skeptic and sceptic depends on whether you're
            spelling it in American or English!

            > "Give me an example of someone dismissing the idea of alien
            > visitation out of hand.
            >
            > Plenty of it at:
            > http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/Home.html

            Sorry, you'll have to point me at one. I'm not going to read pages of
            text trying to find a place where Klass says "Well, that's just
            stupid on the face of it," or something like that. Rejecting a claim
            based on lack of evidence is not dismissing it out of hand.

            ~~ Paul
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.