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.
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.
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.
Since you raise the issue Correa Neto (and borrowing from jakesteele’s earlier post and extending on the ideas), let's see if any of the following rings true…
Debunker tactics at work
Rat Packing or Piling On:
This is where a UFO proponent makes a post and suddenly finds multiple debunker posters burying that post under a stream of derision and mostly off-topic generalisations. It becomes practically impossible for the original poster to answer such an ill-focussed and massed debunking of the original idea.
Anecdotal Rejection Syndrome:
This is where the debunker’s anecdotes count but yours don’t. On your side of the anecdotal fence you have many highly qualified military/commercial pilots, radar people, engineers, etc. But none of those count, because they are all wrong. They are either innocently mistaken, lying or deluded.
For example on the debunkers side of the fence you have things like the two amateur astronomers in the Phoenix Lights who ‘allege’ that they saw planes. Debunkers consider that golden and beyond reproach. Another example is Jimmy Carter, who ‘alleged’ he saw a UFO. Debunkers labeled him woo until he recanted and said he saw Venus. Then he became golden.
It CAN be: therefore it IS:
If you take 100 people who witness a UFO sighting and 99 say it was a for real UFO and 1 person says it was a weather balloon, then in the debunker’s mind the 1 is right, proof positive, and the 99 are either woos, innocently mistaken or deluded, etc.
Here is link that is a list of “possible” UFO explanations compiled by Donald Menzel, a noted debunker of the 50s and 60s. They fall under the below listed main headings. Each heading has a number of variations on the same theme, but they’re too numerous to list here. For the complete list go to:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm
A. MATERIAL OBJECTS
B. IMMATERIAL OBJECTS
C. ASTRONOMICAL
D. PHYSIOLOGICAL
E PSYCHOLOGICAL
F COMBINATIONS AND SPECIAL EFFECTS
G PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS
H RADAR
I HOAXES
My personal favorites that are embedded in the list include the following. I’m having them bronzed so I can prominently display them on my mantle.
*paper and other debris
*leaves
*insect swarms
*moths
*seeds (milkweed, etc.)
*feathers
*tumbleweeds
*spider webs
*matches
*smoker lighting pipe
*cigarettes tossed away
*ghost of the Brocken (I don’t know what that is, but it sounds pretty cool. Kind of like one of those low budget movies you see on The SyFy channel)
This tactic also has many variants, such as:
1. Since a thing can be faked, it must be a fake.
2. It cannot be, therefore, it is not.
...and this in turn is a variant on the…
All Crows are Black fallacy:
I have seen only black crows, therefore all crows are black.
Translated into debunker speak:
Most UFO reports I have seen have mundane explanations, therefore all UFO reports will have mundane explanations.
It is also related to:
The Law of Forced Plausibles:
Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit, it fits.
For a classical example of this and for a good belly laugh, go to this site. It is a History Channel special on Human Levitation. Go to: (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU). Go to the 1:15 mark and hear shamless Joe Nickell give the most ridiculous, ludicrous, pathetic attempt of a Forced Plausible I’ve ever seen. Any debunker worth his salt would denounce him and tell him to get out of town.
The Law of Immaculate Perception:
Debunkers are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is, unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.
Related to:
Objective Reality Rejection Syndrome:
The debunkers reality counts but yours doesn’t. In other words. Debunker reality is objective: everyone else’s reality is not objective. This has a parallel in: Physics is a dead science. All that can be discovered has been discovered. No new discoveries are possible. We know everything there is to know about reality.
The Law of the “Official Story”:
The Official Story is always right. If the “Official Story” says it was a weather balloon, then by God, it WAS; proof positive, case closed.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence:
Because there is no evidence that “proves” ET, then ET does not exist.
Cherry Picking the Evidence:
This is a “selection bias” toward “favourable” evidence. There exist many reports and scientific studies, both for and against various UFO activities. The debunker will choose only those reports that agree with their own conclusions and totally ignore the reports which disconfirm their beliefs (or otherwise misrepresent, ridicule, or belittle the findings of contrary reports along the lines of the Objective reality rejection Syndrome).
The Law of Endless Repetition:
This is a simple matter of the debunker ignoring whatever their opponent has to say and then to repeat your fallacious contention over and over, no matter what, until your opponent becomes frustrated and hopefully makes an unwise or otherwise ill-considered move, or simply becomes sick of your implacable obtuseness and goes away.
The Law of the Sweeping Generalisation:
A Debunker should use sweeping generalisations wherever possible. For your opponent to point out the fallacy of such statements will force them to consume many precious resources, in hours of research and many pages of text to explore and dispel the many unfounded assumptions and misconceptions contained in a single throwaway line. You on the other hand have wasted no resources, merely a single line of text and no research necessary.
The Law of the Rational Opponent:
As a debunker, you realise that your opponent is committed to logic and rationality and thus cannot use any of your own spurious tactics against you. This confers an enormous advantage to you. You can use charlatanism and legerdemain with impunity, knowing your opponent cannot.
The Law of the Avoided Question:
If a UFO proponent asks a question the debunker should answer a question they would have liked to have been asked - rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then). This has a twofold effect. First it distracts and frustrates the questioner from their original line of attack, hopefully permanently, and second, it forces them to open another front to deal with the new fallacy you have just thrown into the battle – thus putting them on the defensive and dispersing their resources, hopefully into ineffectualness.
The Law of Transposed Sin:
The debunker should accuse an opponent of committing your own sins, then let them try to justify themselves. This immediately turns their attack into defence. It deflects attention away from you and works particularly well if you get the accusation in before your opponent realises you are not here to engage in a logical debate. For your opponent to then turn around and legitimately accuse you of those very same sins they will make them seem at the very least churlish and they will also be deemed not to have denied the accusation.
Then of course there are the tactics of misrepresentation, misdirection, etc. but they are obvious and need no explanation here.
ing.
