Opinions regarding select UFO sightings

Skeptic Friends Network

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members

Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks

All Forums

Our Skeptic Forums

Astronomy

Opinions regarding select UFO sightings

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

BookMark Topic

Previous Page | Next Page

Author

Topic

Page: of 15

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 12:10:07 [Permalink]

Originally posted by filthy

Dang, I just won another bet with myself.

You are such a tease, filthy.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 13:06:53 [Permalink]

Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by filthy

Dang, I just won another bet with myself.

You are such a tease, filthy.

Oh pshaw!

Actually, I bet myself that bngbuck would begin to be regarded as a condesending twit before this thread hit 50 posts. I bet that marty would be accused of trolling before it came to 100. I have a third wager going for 150 -- we shall see how prescient I am.....

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres

"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 13:20:23 [Permalink]

Originally posted by filthy

Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by filthy

Dang, I just won another bet with myself.

You are such a tease, filthy.

I know, I know! By post #150, you expect to see a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, right? I'll work on that angle.

“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner

Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 14:06:11 [Permalink]

Originally posted by HalfMooner

Is it just me, or has marty only contributed sniping attacks to these fora? I cannot think of a single instance in which he has contributed an idea. If I'm wrong, can anyone correct this impression?

In no particular order, here are the non-snipes:

And the snipes:

So, perhaps an apology is in order.

And trolling? Please, guys, it's too much.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 14:23:56 [Permalink]

Thank you, Dave. And now to choke out those Three Little Words: I stand corrected.

Indeed, sniping isn't all that marty has done here.

“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner

Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 15:12:59 [Permalink]

Cuneiformist.....and all the gladiators!

Your partial translation of this discourse into symbolic logic notation does help in your welcome request for at least some semblance of communication.

However,...."I asked if he could provide some examples. He refused.."

STOP! I did not refuse anything. I suggested where to find examples. And I told you where to find them, rather than "to go find them yourself".

This may seem to be semantic quibbling, but it is not if you consider this:

I am writing a book. My current attention is on the Skeptics subdivision of the Percepton of UFO Phenomena chapter.

I want raw input from professional skeptics so I phrased the question "What is your opinion of the UFO phenomenon?

I left the alternative word "view" in the question because some see a subtle shading of difference between the two words. I wanted to cast as wide a net as possible. I went to this skeptics forum (I am in the process of soliciting response from several others) as one representative of the source for current, state of the art professional skepticism.

I am very pleased with the representative response that I received.

It says something important about the current "group think" (hate that phrase) of the skeptic's community today as compared to say fifty or sixty years ago (I am 79). I started this quest, (not the book,) when I was still in college and I have been studying the subject matter - Mass Perception of Anomalous Phenomena - all my life. (I have studied a few other things too)

Fifty-odd years ago, it would have been impossible to find a skeptic that didn't know EVERYTHING (in her view) about UFOs. You didn't need to give them examples, they gave you examples. But things have changed, and there is a great deal more today to be skeptical about than there was sixty years ago. (No political implication intended).

I have read extensively of James Randi, Robert Todd Carrol, Phillip Klass, and many other high-profile skeptic's views of UFO sightings. That reading has been very helpful in understanding a certain mind set. Much of the published commentary does not quantify or qualify the various examples quoted into singular, group, or mass sightings. The mass sightings interest me the most because of what I call the Zagat Effect - with reference to the popular restaurant review publication that uses large numbers of reviewers to rate restaurants on food, service, etc. In my considerable experience with restaurant food, it works pretty well.

Be that as it may,I asked a broad question and received a variety of broad replies. Good grist for my mill. Then, to me, the unexpected happened. Suddenly everyone wanted specific examples of the kinds of percieved incidents I had referred to. I was surprised that, being professional skeptics, they were not extremely familiar with an area of enquiry that has attracted an enormous amount of skeptical attention over a span of sixty years - granted it pops up and down in public popularity from time to time - and seems to be in a medium high fad profile currently.

So, having no interest in receiving more opinion on specific UFO cases,and having already received much of what I originally asked for - responses to the general question of "what is your opinion of the UFO phenomenon" - I felt that those who had not been exposed to the tons of narrative on UFOs since the 50's might be intrigued and want to research it. Hence, the Google reference.

I never thought of it as insulting, but at that point I was not aware of the existence of magisterial skeptics that enforced a Skeptics Code requiring a supplicant to Provide What Is Asked For.
I am now. Nor, did I stop and think "some of these people are in their twenties, thirties, and forties and have had little exposure to The Amazing Topic That Won't Go Away." I should have.

But, I feel that if I had not asked the question as I originally worded it, and had emphasized strongly my focus on perception of phenomena rather than the credibility of a certain subset of that phenomena, I would not have received anywhere near the information that I now have. So I am not sorry, nor do I apologize

The Furor in the Forum that has ensued and continues as we speak is remarkable to me. Perhaps I will encounter it again elsewhere. I tried an identical approach in Marilyn Vos Savant's discussion forum (much smaller) and got a markedly different reaction.

It is interesting that I now have perhaps more information on the Skeptics view than I wanted. I am currently unsure as to what belongs in the book as relevant to my primary topic, and what is merely ancillary. I'm sure that immersion in several more of the madly boiling pots of current skepticism will help resolve that question.

I suppose the above qualifies me for further castigation as a "mole" or perhaps some other metaphoric creature of the Internet blogosphere. If so, I gladly confess in the hope that it helps certain members of your fraternity's (sorority too....? DK) blood pressure to remain within acceptable levels.

I would like to thank all the participants for their contributions, whether to content or contention, for, as I have said, I feel my experience was very useful and also very entertaining.

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 16:03:23 [Permalink]

bngbuck, how about this for your book's summary of the skeptic attitude toward UFO claims?:

People making claims need to first define their terms, then provide evidence to substantiate their claims.

(So far, you've done neither.)

“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner

Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/08/2007 16:05:42

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 16:50:05 [Permalink]

HalfMooner......

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think I'll use it.

I'm not in the business of making claims, anyone can verify that many filtered UFO reports exist, and verify it with a very small investment of time and energy, in a very short time (unless they are lazy, as I have been accused of being) So, the fact that I stated such claims exist is a fact, not a claim, and if you don't believe it, I have told you how to verify it.

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 16:52:31 [Permalink]

Strangerer and strangerer. Now bngbuck is re-writing history also, and his rewrite is different from marty's.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 17:00:19 [Permalink]

Originally posted by bngbuck

So, the fact that I stated such claims exist is a fact, not a claim...

An assertion of fact is a claim.

...and if you don't believe it, I have told you how to verify it.

Yes, you're shifting the burden of proof by refusing to support your alleged facts and requiring anyone who questions your veracity to do the same work you've already done. This is classic stuff, straight out of the "how to be rude" handbook. The members here have seen this a zillion times, from believers in ghosts to believers in Bigfoot to believers in the inerrancy of the Bible.

For what purpose did you even make the claim? If it were of no importance to you for the purposes of this discussion, why bother defending it?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 17:22:19 [Permalink]

bngbuck wrote:

HalfMooner......

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think I'll use it.

At this point, I hadn't expected you would, more's the pity.

“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner

Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 17:32:47 [Permalink]

Originally posted by bngbuck
I am writing a book. My current attention is on the Skeptics subdivision of the Percepton of UFO Phenomena chapter.

And also...

I want raw input from professional skeptics so I phrased the question "What is your opinion of the UFO phenomenon?

So I'm still unclear. Is your chapter about visual perception as it relates to the UFO phenomenon? Or are you just trying to get a sense of skeptics' views on the topic of UFOs in general?

Marty just about had me convinced you were talking about the former, but now I think you mean the later. The word perception is really confusing things for me.

So, bngbuck, with less asides and attempts at quasi-humorous observations, what exactly is your question in the plainest language you can muster?

"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie

Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/08/2007 17:34:53

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 17:35:33 [Permalink]

Originally posted by bngbuck

Cuneiformist.....and all the gladiators!

Your partial translation of this discourse into symbolic logic notation does help in your welcome request for at least some semblance of communication.

However,...."I asked if he could provide some examples. He refused.."

STOP! I did not refuse anything. I suggested where to find examples. And I told you where to find them, rather than "to go find them yourself".

I haven't read the rest of this post, but I wanted to pause here and say that you are correct; you did not refuse. Your summary is correct and I apologize for incorrectly characterizing the situation in that regard!

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 17:55:22 [Permalink]

Originally posted by bngbuck
So, having no interest in receiving more opinion on specific UFO cases,and having already received much of what I originally asked for - responses to the general question of "what is your opinion of the UFO phenomenon" - I felt that those who had not been exposed to the tons of narrative on UFOs since the 50's might be intrigued and want to research it. Hence, the Google reference.

I never thought of it as insulting, but at that point I was not aware of the existence of magisterial skeptics that enforced a Skeptics Code requiring a supplicant to Provide What Is Asked For.
I am now. Nor, did I stop and think "some of these people are in their twenties, thirties, and forties and have had little exposure to The Amazing Topic That Won't Go Away." I should have.

This is where I get confused, bngbuck. You say that you wanted our "responses to the general question of 'what is your opinion of the UFO phenomenon,'" but that wasn't quite how I was reading it. I can give you my opinion of the UFO phenomenon. But you weren't asking that. You wanted a specific type of UFO phenomenon, one which were "reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts; and those cases thoroughly examined by Condon et al, Project Blue Book, and other serious investigations, and NOT rejected as hoax or hallucinatory."

That's a pretty specific sub-set of "the UFO phenomenon"! So specific, in fact, that I wasn't sure if any of the anecdotes, etc., I had read about in the past had qualified. Hence, my request.

I actually just now tried to Google this. Granted, I didn't spend two hours on it, but I ultimately had no idea if what I was looking at met your criteria or not. (And this "Project Blue Book" seems to consist of nothing but poor microfische copies of 50-year-old type-written notes so faded that they're impossible to read...)

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1266 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 : 17:58:52 [Permalink]

Once again, I will attempt to point out why your actions seemed rude:

Allow me to provide an analogy.

Let's say I ask for your opinion of pianos. You (for some reason) don't know what it is about pianos that is interesting to me, so you ask for some examples. My response is, "there are pianos everywhere, feel free to spend a few hours looking for them."

Do you see how this might be considered rude?

.
.
.
I never thought of it as insulting, but at that point I was not aware of the existence of magisterial skeptics that enforced a Skeptics Code requiring a supplicant to Provide What Is Asked For.
I am now. Nor, did I stop and think "some of these people are in their twenties, thirties, and forties and have had little exposure to The Amazing Topic That Won't Go Away." I should have.

It was at this point of your post where I started to believe you might have understood, but then you follow it up with:

But, I feel that if I had not asked the question as I originally worded it, and had emphasized strongly my focus on perception of phenomena rather than the credibility of a certain subset of that phenomena, I would not have received anywhere near the information that I now have. So I am not sorry, nor do I apologize

emphasis mine -- B10

It bothers me a little that you don't understand this concept. I notice some people show up here (a skeptic site!) and get offended when we ask for references, examples, or evidence. My best conclusion is that people have no idea that they're being rude, and they think science is offensive.

The Furor in the Forum that has ensued and continues as we speak is remarkable to me. Perhaps I will encounter it again elsewhere. I tried an identical approach in Marilyn Vos Savant's discussion forum (much smaller) and got a markedly different reaction.

Perhaps her board doesn't get as many people providing unevidenced claims, and then ordering her forum regulars to look up the information themselves?

It is interesting that I now have perhaps more information on the Skeptics view than I wanted. I am currently unsure as to what belongs in the book as relevant to my primary topic, and what is merely ancillary. I'm sure that immersion in several more of the madly boiling pots of current skepticism will help resolve that question.

I like that metaphor, "madly boiling pots of current skepticism," but I'm unsure of its intended application. To what (or whom) was that intended?

I suppose the above qualifies me for further castigation as a "mole" or perhaps some other metaphoric creature of the Internet blogosphere. If so, I gladly confess in the hope that it helps certain members of your fraternity's (sorority too....? DK) blood pressure to remain within acceptable levels.

I would like to thank all the participants for their contributions, whether to content or contention, for, as I have said, I feel my experience was very useful and also very entertaining.

You're quite welcome. I sincerely hope you come out of this with a clearer understanding.

Page: of 15

Topic

Previous Page | Next Page

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

BookMark Topic

Jump To:

Skeptic Friends Network

This page was generated in 0.34 seconds.

Snitz Forums 2000