Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Stray Cat]

So, we ARE in agreement "U.F.O's" do exist,

Agreed

in the form of non-human somethings, that can perform stunts we can't?

'Performing stunts' is stretching it a bit.

"Sometimes some people see things that there is not evidence to show to other people to confirm the identity of" is as far as one can go.

But that doesn't put us any closer to identification...?

No - Otherwise there would be a category of Nearly Identified Flying Objects.

The fact of the matter is, I would have to guess that would be a vague certainty.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I KNOW that what I saw was beyond human capability

Yes and I fully understand your consequent distinction between “knowing” and “belief”.

This is what I read. Why, did you write something different? It appears that you have acknowledged that eyewitnesses can be mistaken while demanding that it is impossible for you or Rramjet to have been.

You 'know' that what you saw was beyond human capability (or at least sympathise with Rramjet about it).

 

[SnidelyW]

Prove me wrong. Go ahead.

Provide a mechanism which could account for a global flood.
Provide a mechanism which could account for the sinking of Atlantis (no, I am not speaking of Akrotiri or Helike- I'm talking about Atlantis, the island-continent).
Provide reliable evidence of ancient astronauts (sorry, myth-twisting will not be accepted).

Note that in the first two cases I already provided, more than once the reasons why I am comfortable enough to say "its impossible" even if someone more philosophically-inclined reminds me that the correct wording should be very unlikely.

Stop the old and tiresome whining about skeptics not willing to examine or accept the evidence. Let's se the cards in your hands. Let's see how good they are.

And by the way, prove that I am not finding anything because I am not looking for the evidence. Show me your evidences that I have never researched these subjects.

Lets see your cards.

So the skeptics ask to see the believers cards, and the believers counter with 'the cards are there, if you wish to see them'.

Is that a fair distillation?

 

[Nonpareil]

So the skeptics ask to see the believers cards, and the believers counter with 'the cards are there, if you wish to see them'.

Is that a fair distillation?

Pretty much, except that it finishes too early. The believer says "The cards are here," and the skeptic says "Those aren't cards. Those are pieces of paper that you've drawn little spades on."

 

[Tapio]

'snip' a truly fascinating and inspiring post, thank you Rramjet!

Alas, in the end...

because I KNOW this is NOT the explanation.

True for you, most certainly. True for me? It's not for you to decide. Not until you provide me with e v i d e n c e (other than your wonderful story).

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't be tempted to interpret a similar experience to yours in a similar way. Probably would. But I'm quite certain I wouldn't think my experience would in any way be related to 'objective' reality (as you seem to do. If you don't, I read you wrong, sorry).

Here is the difference. For you, human experience counts as evidence. For me (as well as a number of others here) not. At least not in this kind of case. Which, by the way, is not saying I believe we've unveiled all the secrets of the universe, far from it...

It is that simple.

Right on.

 

[Correa Neto]

So the skeptics ask to see the believers cards, and the believers counter with 'the cards are there, if you wish to see them'.

Is that a fair distillation?

Crap. Pure_Argent beated me. Damn slow typer I am. But here it goes aniway.

Nope.

Usually the beliver's hand is very, very weak - if it has any cards at all.

The believer, however, tries to convince skeptics its actually a royal straight flush - the skeptic, he/she continues, is actually refusing to accept it is a royal straight flush indeed.

There are variations- "I will not show you my cards because you will not believe in them".

By now, chances are you have already seen these tactics being used.

Truth is - despite claims from the believer's side, skeptics are always eager and willing to examine the evidence. And the evidence presented, to date, has been found substandart or inconclusive at best. And the believer will pass to the next stage- emotional appeals (suspend disbelief, have an open mind) or pledge a special treatment for his/hers pet belief (usualy involving decreasing the evidence quality standards).

 

[SnidelyW]

Crap. Pure_Argent beated me. Damn slow typer I am. But here it goes aniway.

Nope.

Usually the beliver's hand is very, very weak - if it has any cards at all.

The believer, however, tries to convince skeptics its actually a royal straight flush - the skeptic, he/she continues, is actually refusing to accept it is a royal straight flush indeed.

There are variations- "I will not show you my cards because you will not believe in them".

By now, chances are you have already seen these tactics being used.

Truth is - despite claims from the believer's side, skeptics are always eager and willing to examine the evidence. And the evidence presented, to date, has been found substandart or inconclusive at best. And the believer will pass to the next stage- emotional appeals (suspend disbelief, have an open mind) or pledge a special treatment for his/hers pet belief (usualy involving decreasing the evidence quality standards).

I would counter with believers are willing to examine evidence as well. What if the standards of evidence are disparate?

Establishing standards of evidence to prove or disprove a theory or event should be priority number 1. After that is completed, evidence pro or con can then be brought forward, and evaluation of such evidence then made.

I understand that begs the deeper question of knowlege and evaluation of what is known.

We can debate whether a priori justification can be defeated by empirical evidence until the sun burns out, but that would still end up by leaving us in the dark.

 

[Nonpareil]

I would counter with believers are willing to examine evidence as well. What if the standards of evidence are disparate?

Establishing standards of evidence to prove or disprove a theory or event should be priority number 1. After that is completed, evidence pro or con can then be brought forward, and evaluation of such evidence then made.

I understand that begs the deeper question of knowlege and evaluation of what is known.

We can debate whether a priori justification can be defeated by empirical evidence until the sun burns out, but that would still end up by leaving us in the dark.

You've hit the nail on the head here, Snidely. The standards of evidence between "knowers" and "skeptics" are extremely different. Where a believer is willing to accept eyewitness testimony, photographs and the like as evidence with very little justification, the skeptic's position is that the photos must be proven to be absolutely unfalsifiable, the eyewitness testimony proven to be 100% accurate, the metal fragments proven to be manufactured in a plant not of this Earth. Skeptics don't accept anything as evidence unless it can be proven 100% authentic. "Knowers" want there to be proof, and so they're willing to accept anything as evidence. This is what leads to people thinking that "skeptics" are close-minded. We're not. We just have higher standards as to what constitutes "proof" and what is "reliable" evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

'snip' a truly fascinating and inspiring post, thank you Rramjet!

Yeah, My great grandfather was a “pioneer” and “created” a farm from the forest in the mountains in the 1870s - and our family has been there ever since… boy I lament the lost experience of those guys! AND often wonder at my own experiences. I just wish you could “teach” experience, because it is certain that my family(s) experience and mine, growing up and living so isolated, will possibly be one of the very last of its kind in the world…

(…)

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't be tempted to interpret a similar experience to yours in a similar way. Probably would. But I'm quite certain I wouldn't think my experience would in any way be related to 'objective' reality (as you seem to do. If you don't, I read you wrong, sorry).

Ahhh… now THERE’S the rub! Objective reality! Who has a monopoly on “objective reality”? I don’t believe you can claim to know objective reality to any greater or lesser extent than I (or anyone else).

Why is it that debunkers (and I am NOT saying that you are one Tapio – just a general observation) seem to want to say MY reality is objective, YOUR reality is NOT. What is WITH that? It is as if they missed out completely on the millennia old philosophical discussion concerning the nature of reality (and recent advances in quantum physics). Have they ever heard of Bishop Berkeley? Do they not realise the utter hypocrisy when they propose that human perception is fallable and prone to delusion - and yet proclaim … “Well. Except MY assessment of reality of course… THAT is objective”. Ha! It’s antirational. It takes us back to a time before the “enlightenment”.

Here is the difference. For you, human experience counts as evidence. For me (as well as a number of others here) not. At least not in this kind of case. Which, by the way, is not saying I believe we've unveiled all the secrets of the universe, far from it...

Human experience is not evidence? What are you talking about? Human experience is the beginning and the end of evidence. It is the ONLY evidence we have. There is NOTHING BUT the evidence of human experience.

Descarte didn’t say “I think… but because my perception is fallible we can draw no conclusions from that!

 

[Stray Cat]

I would counter with believers are willing to examine evidence as well. What if the standards of evidence are disparate?

I would suggest that by the time most 'believers' get to see any UFO report, all the evidence suggesting a mundane outcome has been thoroughly dismissed, buried or ignored. Which is why people arrive at places like this, claiming truths in stuff we've all looked at fully and found information that's not available on Earthfiles, UFO Evidence and such sites.

I'm sure that the majority of casual UFO followers would look at all evidence, but many don't really look any further than the sensationalist 'hard core' believer sites and therefore they dont come into contact with a lot of it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Don’t get me wrong arthwollipot but the two examples I cited were nothing like your cited “experience(s)”.

I would put it to you that our two experiences were actually exactly the same. Here's my thinking:

You saw something you couldn't identify.
I saw something I couldn't identify.

Sounds like the same thing happened in each case. The devil is in the details, however.

You saw something do something that was apparently impossible (merge into a single entity and split again)
I saw something do something that was apparently impossible (vanish without a trace)

Hmm. Same again. Let's try this one:

You saw something that you identified as a deliberately designed mechanism of non-human origin.
I saw something that I couldn't identify.

Is that the difference you see between our two stories?

 

[Rramjet]

I would put it to you that our two experiences were actually exactly the same. Here's my thinking:

You saw something you couldn't identify.
I saw something I couldn't identify.

You saw something (…)
I saw something do something that was apparently impossible (vanish without a trace)

(…)
Is that the difference you see between our two stories?

Ummm… I think perhaps you are confounding the “experiences” I posted with those of someone else…nevertheless your point is taken.

…and that is why it is SO difficult to explain to a person who has never experienced something TRULY strange just what that does to your perspective on things.

And no, I don’t rate mere “disappearance” as strange, and I don’t rate “something I couldn’t identify” as strange either. That’s an entirely normal human experience. Everyday and mundane. It happens all the time.

No, I am talking about things that are truly “impossible” according to reality as we know it. If, for example (I had a friend…), you have ever seen an object (a classic UFO let’s say…) in broad daylight, “hovering” above the nearby treetops, with absolutely no sound, and this object is perceptually solid (based on sunlight, shadows, reflections, glints, highlights, blocking of branches from view… it is just a solid object) and then it moves off into the stratosphere without even bothering (seemingly) to accelerate – one blink of an eye it is THERE and the next it is MOVING at impossible speeds up and away (still silently). You just KNOW that we are missing something fundamental about reality as we know it.

THAT’S what I call, “strange” and THAT “is the difference between our two stories”.

But I am extremely loathe to talk about such things I (might or might not) have experienced because frankly, I don’t want to expose myself to the ridicule and disbelief that comes with it. I don’t need the hassle. It merely places me in a position of realising that all the talk of misidentification, delusion, hoax, etc is just that, talk (shrugs resignedly).

 

[arthwollipot]

It looked very strange to me. The object appeared to be below the clouds, and in the open sky - not where there were any clouds, it faded away without a trace. If it were a physical object below the clouds, I would have expected to see it when the light went out. But there was nothing there.

Anyway. I can agree with your final sentiment. I will never convince you that whatever it was you saw had a mundane explanation. And like I've said many times, there's no way I can ever say that I know what it was you really did see. All I can do is suggest ways in which your eyes and brain can fool you into thinking that you saw one thing, when what was actually happening was something else.

 

[Correa Neto]

I would counter with believers are willing to examine evidence as well. What if the standards of evidence are disparate?

The answer lies in one word -methodology.

Skeptics want reliable evidence, evidence able to withstand critical evaluation. Skeptics want conclusions created after sound reasonings based on the type of data mentioned above. Skeptics want science. Skeptics have no problems dumping data points, hypothesis and theories in the garbage bin as soon as they are found flawed, despite on how compelling or attractive they might find them. Trust me- it may hurt.

Believers, on the other hand, are willing to accept all data points which they think can somehow be used to reinforce and/or back their beliefs. They see no problems building wild speculations over this shaky foundation and presenting them as theories. Quite often they are not really willing to examine evidence contrary to their beliefs. The believers' emotional attachment to questionable evidence and speculations is obvious; they will not dump them, regardless of their flaws being exposed over and over again. They will ask for special pledges such as keeping an open mind, suspending disbelief and set yourself free from the chains imposed by mainstream science. Its not uncommon for them to present or consider themselves as the bold pioneers of a new knowledge, fighting the old status quo. Convolute conspiracy theories quite often are raised at this point. And when it fails, there are two course of actions -one is to blame skeptics for their pet beliefs being considered as a fringe subject, the other is to consider him/herself as a "knower" instead of a proponent. He/she knows fringe subject X is real. This is the very last ditch- the ultimate special pledge. I know X is true because I experienced it and I can't possibly be wrong.

You are probably noticing this happening at this and other threads.

Establishing standards of evidence to prove or disprove a theory or event should be priority number 1. After that is completed, evidence pro or con can then be brought forward, and evaluation of such evidence then made.

Tell that to UFOlogists and UFO buffs. The evidence quality standards are already available. The problem is- once you apply the standards, few if any data points survive. Again, you probably are noticing this at this very thread.

The emotional attachment to certain data points (a given sighting, a given picture) or speculations (aliens, hidden civilization, etc.) is just too big for some people. They just can't let it go. The easy escape route? Blame it on skeptics. Complain about how close-minded they are, how their belief system avoids them from accepting the reality. Its easier than presenting reliable evidence, its easier to blame someone else.

Note that this is valid for all woo.

I understand that begs the deeper question of knowlege and evaluation of what is known.

We can debate whether a priori justification can be defeated by empirical evidence until the sun burns out, but that would still end up by leaving us in the dark.

It all boils down to - bring me reliable evidence and I will gladly dump my position regarding a certain subject (say, UFOs as product of some advanced civilization, terrestrial or not) in the garbage bin. Recycling the old, inconclusive at best, stuff or adding some more material of the same quality will not work.

 

[imjohn]

It looked very strange to me. The object appeared to be below the clouds, and in the open sky - not where there were any clouds, it faded away without a trace. If it were a physical object below the clouds, I would have expected to see it when the light went out. But there was nothing there.

Anyway. I can agree with your final sentiment. I will never convince you that whatever it was you saw had a mundane explanation. And like I've said many times, there's no way I can ever say that I know what it was you really did see. All I can do is suggest ways in which your eyes and brain can fool you into thinking that you saw one thing, when what was actually happening was something else.

It's almost like a disconnect in the way people think. Some people see something and think, "Wow, what was that?" and others say, "Wow, a space alien!"

And let's not even talk about the abductees.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I generally have trouble with the assertion that a UFO 'behaved in a manner that no natural or human object could', which I've often seen claimed. It means the observer is implying that they have perfect and complete knowledge of all astronomical, meteorological, and optical phenomena, and simultaneously know and can identify on sight, in any viewing condition, every human creation, even the ones that exist but haven't been publicized, whether they be military from any of hundreds of nations, or just the latest and greatest from Rutan and co. This is too much to expect from anyone, even the best and most completely trained military pilots. There is a reason for the plane identification flash cards pilots use: they need to get certain things right, most of the time, basically the 'friend or foe' question. Even flashcard sets aren't all inclusive though, and even the most experienced observer makes mistakes.

Common observing errors:

Incorrect estimation of range. This is a biggie. Once something is more than a few hundred yards away, we can't rely on parallex, so we rely on how it compares to what we expect. Since we base size on distance estimation, we can be very very wrong on what size things actually are. Seems to me that I remember a recent news story about the crash of a toy plane causing a panic. Observers thought it was full size and miles away, when it was really really close.

Attribution of motion to motionless objects, when they're presented against a featureless background. This is just a side effect of the way our eyes work. When there's nothing to judge movement by, we'll assume that the object is moving, where it's really our eyes scanning back and forth. This leads to a lot of 'I know it couldn't be venus, it was moving back and forth faster than any plane' statements.

Seeing patterns where there are none. The pheonix lights are an example of this. The flares were assumed by some observers to be lights on the surface of a large dark object, and mental tricks filled in the outline.

No one is a perfect observer with perfect knowledge, so sometimes the only rational conclusion is 'Wow, that was weird. I wonder what it was'. If you can't identify it, there are plenty of reasons why that might be, even if it IS a human construct or natural phenomenon. There's no reason to make the big cognitive jump to 'I don't have an explanation, so it must not have an explanation' or 'I don't have an explanation so it must be space aliens'

A.

 

[Nonpareil]

I generally have trouble with the assertion that a UFO 'behaved in a manner that no natural or human object could', which I've often seen claimed. It means the observer is implying that they have perfect and complete knowledge of all astronomical, meteorological, and optical phenomena, and simultaneously know and can identify on sight, in any viewing condition, every human creation, even the ones that exist but haven't been publicized, whether they be military from any of hundreds of nations, or just the latest and greatest from Rutan and co. This is too much to expect from anyone, even the best and most completely trained military pilots. There is a reason for the plane identification flash cards pilots use: they need to get certain things right, most of the time, basically the 'friend or foe' question. Even flashcard sets aren't all inclusive though, and even the most experienced observer makes mistakes.

Common observing errors:

Incorrect estimation of range. This is a biggie. Once something is more than a few hundred yards away, we can't rely on parallex, so we rely on how it compares to what we expect. Since we base size on distance estimation, we can be very very wrong on what size things actually are. Seems to me that I remember a recent news story about the crash of a toy plane causing a panic. Observers thought it was full size and miles away, when it was really really close.

Attribution of motion to motionless objects, when they're presented against a featureless background. This is just a side effect of the way our eyes work. When there's nothing to judge movement by, we'll assume that the object is moving, where it's really our eyes scanning back and forth. This leads to a lot of 'I know it couldn't be venus, it was moving back and forth faster than any plane' statements.

Seeing patterns where there are none. The pheonix lights are an example of this. The flares were assumed by some observers to be lights on the surface of a large dark object, and mental tricks filled in the outline.

No one is a perfect observer with perfect knowledge, so sometimes the only rational conclusion is 'Wow, that was weird. I wonder what it was'. If you can't identify it, there are plenty of reasons why that might be, even if it IS a human construct or natural phenomenon. There's no reason to make the big cognitive jump to 'I don't have an explanation, so it must not have an explanation' or 'I don't have an explanation so it must be space aliens'

A.

I am now an official member of the Andrew Wiggin fan club.

 

[King of the Americas]

You've hit the nail on the head here, Snidely. The standards of evidence between "knowers" and "skeptics" are extremely different. Where a believer is willing to accept eyewitness testimony, photographs and the like as evidence with very little justification, the skeptic's position is that the photos must be proven to be absolutely unfalsifiable, the eyewitness testimony proven to be 100% accurate, the metal fragments proven to be manufactured in a plant not of this Earth. Skeptics don't accept anything as evidence unless it can be proven 100% authentic. "Knowers" want there to be proof, and so they're willing to accept anything as evidence. This is what leads to people thinking that "skeptics" are close-minded. We're not. We just have higher standards as to what constitutes "proof" and what is "reliable" evidence.

100% accurate, absolutely unfalsifiable,...?

Would this be or equal to the standard of proof to condemn a man to death, or is it even higher?

Who set the burden of proof that must be met before we can agree that there IS 'something' up there?

I hold that the burden is too high, nigh even unreasonably high, given the nature of the things 'up there', the burden of proof may indeed be unreachably high.

I find that the skeptical standards ARE what make them close-minded.

A "Don't bother me with anecdotes, photographs, videos, or other historical accounts unless you can scientifically verify them." , IS a 'closed door policy'.

What if we accept a 'slightly' lower burden of proof? What if we threw out EVERY report from normal civilians, with no training in arial object I.D.'s. And we ONLY addressed reports from pilots, astronauts, or other ground crew. Would we find similar tales?

What if we tossed out any video that wasn't an original, that wasn't taken with a witness, or that contain questionably elements. Would we be left with nothing, or would there still be mountains of video that remained unexplainable?

I have in my pocket a metal that is not 'of Earth', but that's not proof of any visitation. I have photographs and video of objects flittering and zooming about unhindered by human limitations, but that isn't proof of any craft. I have literally hundreds of reports from eye witnesses, that correspond to photos, videos, and mass sightings, but that isn't 'evidence' of anything...

O.J. Simpson was found "Not Guilty" in a Criminal Court. The Prosecution 'failed' to meet the burden of proof in that Court. He WAS however brought up on Civil Charges, where he WAS found 'responsible' for the death of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman.

The 'truth' is that someone murdered those two people. On MY mind, and I'd argue in REALITY, it was "O.J. Simpson".

Are you 'skeptics' okay with that? OR am I wrong, that there is/was NOT "proof beyond any reasonable doubt" that he DID do it, so it is wrong of me to make that claim?

We knowers/believers may not have met you burden of proof, but that doesn't mean anything. There's a truth that your burden of proof is literally blind to...

 

[King of the Americas]

I described my ant as an IFO.

But does that put us any closer to reading comprehension?

I thought you said you HAD seen 'things you couldn't identify'...? But that you left it at that, "Hey look, I don't know what those are. Oh well."

Then I asked you if one did a fly-by and almost crashed into you...?

And you retorted that you'd believe you imagined it.

To 'me' that sounds like you are allowing your preconceived notion to dictate what you saw, rather than accepting your own empirical data...

Tell me do you start from "They don't exist." OR "They can't exist."...?

 

[Nonpareil]

100% accurate, absolutely unfalsifiable,...?

Would this be or equal to the standard of proof to condemn a man to death, or is it even higher?

Irrelevant to the discussion, as the majority of people are not skeptics, so it's unlikely that a jury would require 100% accuracy to judge a man guilty of something that would require that.
But, in any case, I don't support capital punishment.

Who set the burden of proof that must be met before we can agree that there IS 'something' up there?

I hold that the burden is too high, nigh even unreasonably high, given the nature of the things 'up there', the burden of proof may indeed be unreachably high.

Nah. See, there's definitely something up there - planes, weather balloons, strange clouds, birds. That requires no proof. It's claiming that the "something" is aliens that needs proof.

I find that the skeptical standards ARE what make them close-minded.

A "Don't bother me with anecdotes, photographs, videos, or other historical accounts unless you can scientifically verify them." , IS a 'closed door policy'.

No, it isn't. It's a policy that only accepts scientifically-verified evidence. There is a huge difference between rejecting ALL evidence and rejecting evidence that is unverified.

What if we accept a 'slightly' lower burden of proof? What if we threw out EVERY report from normal civilians, with no training in arial object I.D.'s. And we ONLY addressed reports from pilots, astronauts, or other ground crew. Would we find similar tales?

What if we tossed out any video that wasn't an original, that wasn't taken with a witness, or that contain questionably elements. Would we be left with nothing, or would there still be mountains of video that remained unexplainable?

Probably, as there are still too many options available just from having the video. It could be technical error, a weird shadow, ball lightning, whatever. It is much more likely that it is one of these things than aliens.

I have in my pocket a metal that is not 'of Earth', but that's not proof of any visitation. I have photographs and video of objects flittering and zooming about unhindered by human limitations, but that isn't proof of any craft. I have literally hundreds of reports from eye witnesses, that correspond to photos, videos, and mass sightings, but that isn't 'evidence' of anything...

If they haven't been verified, no, it isn't.

O.J. Simpson was found "Not Guilty" in a Criminal Court. The Prosecution 'failed' to meet the burden of proof in that Court. He WAS however brought up on Civil Charges, where he WAS found 'responsible' for the death of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman.

The 'truth' is that someone murdered those two people. On MY mind, and I'd argue in REALITY, it was "O.J. Simpson".

Are you 'skeptics' okay with that? OR am I wrong, that there is/was NOT "proof beyond any reasonable doubt" that he DID do it, so it is wrong of me to make that claim?

No, it isn't wrong of you to make that claim. It was proven that O.J. did it after the case was dismissed, but the Constitution protects the citizens of the United States from double jeopardy - even with the new, 100% conclusive evidence, they couldn't sentence him, as he had been found not guilty in the first trial.

We knowers/believers may not have met you burden of proof, but that doesn't mean anything. There's a truth that your burden of proof is literally blind to...

You have to prove this truth. That's the whole point of the burden of proof.