Pseudoscience Section Rules New Moderation

I'm in agreement, actually. I was attempting subtle sarcasm by noting Zonobi's perspective of "misinformation" and "disinformation" seems to be that with which he typically disagrees with. Those that have taken the time to debunk or question the wild speculations within this forum have frequently been accused of being "disinformation agents."

I think true disinformation and misinformation needs to be combatted by smart questions and debunking. Instead of simply calling someone a "pseudo-skeptic" as Norval and crazymikey have in the past and leaving it at that, they should be expected to support that statement with a qualitative debunking of their own. A counter-debunking if you will.

Instead we are left with threads that follow this pattern:
1) Wild claim postulated.
2) Skeptics question claim.
3) Pseudoscience proponent restates or supports the wild claim with additional wild speculation.
4) Skeptics begin task of debunking by noting holes in the hypotheses; pointing out disregarded alternatives; and general problems with the speculation(s).
5) Pseudoscience proponent replies with ad hominem remarks; whines about character assassinations; notes that only those with "closed" minds can't see the light; makes comments about "thinking out of the box" is preferable to orderly/logical thinking; and finishes with simply stating that those who disagree are "pseudoskeptics."

That, of course, is omitting the back-and-forth argument about Occam's razor between the skeptics and pseudo's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

here is where you err.

i would think that until step 4 is completed, one should refrain from negative characterizations as evinced in step 1 and 3 (probably an accidental omit in step 2

if you insist on going into a discussion with a prejudiced and emotional attitude. you probably will catch a lot of flak.

as for step 5... step above the fray. i know you can

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SkinWalker,

I don't know who to thank that you didn't become moderator of this section. I found your scenario so amusing, I figured I'd present my own.

1) Valid claim postulated.
2) Debunker debunks claim as not possible.
3) Pseudoscience proponent restates or supports the valid claim with additional proven evidence without any wild speculation.
4) Debunkers begin task of debunking by noting we can't do it today, so it must be impossible. Or any number of absolute impossiblities we've seen spewn on this site.
5) Pseudoscience proponent again replies with the evidence available, and openly discusses any and all possible terrestial explanations. The Debunker then uses their ad hominem attacks such as kook, loon, ect...; ignores the data that can be substantiated and falls back on the fact that the incident can't be duplicated in a lab as proof that the incident never occured, or is a complete hoax, or the report comes from a person in need of attention. The very real and valid report then gets trashed from all the personal attacks spewn back and forth, and we're worse off then we were when we began.

LOL, Oh, I almost forgot about Occam's razor. You guys kill me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've yet to see that step in this forum. Perhaps you could provide a link?

 

How about the Belgian incident?

Or, the current Mexican DOD Rept.

Or, the sighting, photo's, video(thousands), over Mexico City in the early 90's during a solar eclipse.

Or, the objects above Washington DC in 1952.

Or, the Rendelsham forest incident.

I don't like it when wild speculation is proposed by some people, but I also become iritated when people propose Hot air balloons are outrunning aircraft. Or, our military officers are mistaking a lighted object 100 yards away for a lighthouse 6 miles in the distance, or military fighters being sent out after a temperature inversion. I think you get my drift. I'm not opposed to any incident being explained by terrestial means, but I will not accept explanations as foolish as some of the opposite outlandish claims that unfortunately are being made.

 

VRob,
OOT [Off of Topic]
A balloon could of been in a jetstream, that was the suggestion and it wasn't too wild a speculation, since afterall it was pointed out it was a propellor biplane, that would of been flying with the wind from it's rear if it was attempting to catch up. (roughly causing relative Flightspeed to be about 140 knots in relation to the windspeed.)
[back to top]

 

Stryder,

With all due respect, the collaborating evidence from the Mexico DOD rept. rules out any possibility of the objects being balloons. IMO, the balloon theory is simply wild speculation. Just on the other end.

 

Quite frankly it's all done and dusted now VRob. The event came, it saw, it set sail.
Nothing we speculate about is going to change the event or even bring anyone closer to the truth since no one knows the truth (which is why they released it being a UFO in the first place).

In fact it's dropped so far out of the UFO circles as being an event I haven't seen it mentioned in the newsgroups over the past couple of weeks.

 

1) get head out of ass
2) open eyes
3) close mouth
4) listen

thats what everyone should do

 

thats a refreshing confession. yet it appears that you walk tightrope in this forum with your mod status and i am not convinced of the wisdom of committing to either side. remain above the fray, stryder. while it may seem an unecessary sacrifice of your liberties, it might be required. then again, i might be mistaken in assessment

notions of impartiality i think are best served with a slight tilt towards skepticism. you maintain the status quo until faced with evidence that require a reeval.

besides, its nice to see the kooks sweat

as always
much respect

 

You haven't been following the right circles.

You couldn't be more wrong.

This incident is still very much alive within the professional UFO research community.

There is still much to be investigated here. Careful analyses of the videos and reexamination of testimonies the crew. If you knew how valid investigation works, you would know it takes time. It has only been a few weeks since the incident became public. There is a lot more to do.

 

Who are they? Exactly?

 

I've got to hand it to you here Skin.

If you have to ask that question, I doubt I'll be able to help you. But I'll give it a shot.

How about the dozens of people who actually undertake investigations and do real research?

How about the few professional scientists who actually take this issue seriously and participate in objective research and analyses of anomalous cases?

If you need names, go here.

 

Heh... I actually thought you were on to something until I saw Hoagland on that site.... And Jimmy Carter.

Why not make it easy on us and provide some citations to their "research?" Obviously some, if not many, of the people on that site are not researchers but rather just faces connected to UFO lore.

You said "professional UFO research community." That's who I was asking about... not a "who's who" of UFO mythology.

 

No because that's the problem with debunkers. You expect everyone to give everything to you for examination so you can debunk it. You all refuse to look at the evidence and research yourselves.

There are a few loonies on that list.

The majority are professional researchers who are well respected.

 

You seem to be confused, so let us help you. This is SCI-forums. The SCI stands for scientific. In the scientific world a person's claims are supported by that person... or they aren't taken seriously. You said "this incident is still very much alive within the professional UFO research community." Perhaps you'd like to get around to answering the question.

 

That is not my "claim."

That is a fact.

What I mean is that many professional researchers are performing independent investigations of this incident are still discussing it at length.

If people on this forum feel it is already time for the incident to be dismissed, then that just shows how little they care about serious investigation, which takes time.

 

Hey boys and girls, whats all the fuss in here?.....as usual.
Are some of you guys walking around in lab coats?
If some of you consider yourselves to be serious scientists, what the hell are you doing visiting the psuedoscience section?
Are any of you so called scientists making any new discoveries?
Or are you just regurgitating somebody elses work through memory recall and textbooks.
I mean seriously.
This may be a science based forum, but it is far from being strictly set upon the laws of nature.
Take a look around.
This is also a forum where people who have something in common, even if it seems like its just arguing, come here for like minded communication.
If you dont like it, maybe you should start your own forum.

Now obviously the PS forum is the hot topic of debate in this thread.
Quit your crying and do something about it, besides more crying that every one does not see things your way.
Go frigging find a cure for cancer, or make a new or better battery.
What the hell does a scientist do if he is not one for creating new ideas and testing them?
I can tell you this.
Anyone who does not consider the likely hood of possible alien visitation, not that it is for sure, but that it may very well be possible, is not a scientist of ingenuity.
I would like to know what anyone on here who considers themselves to be a so called "scientist" is currently working on?
And how did you come up with this idea, and how do you propose to test it.
In laymans terms of course.

Also, sorry there all you scientists, not all of us own million dollar telescopes, or have all day to sit around with a camera, or travel the world talking to eye witnesses and such.

This is what we have.
Those of us that are interested in this topic.
If you are coming to the PS section to become a beleiver, or find some smoking gun proof, well that is just not going to happen with any sane person over the internet.
One has already made up ones mind to the possibilty of ET, or closed it.
What we share on PS is just that, sharing.
Not shoving it down anyones throat.
I see no one promising candy or money or what ever to get you to come in and look around.
If you come in on your own free will, remember that.
Coming in, armed with your independant logic, to battle a foe you do not beleive to even exist in the first place is ludicris.

The premise and basic question for PS should be....Do you beleive in the possibilty of other intelligent life existing in the cosmos?
If yes, then we have something in common, and that premise should always be the back drop of our conversations.
That inteligent life IS possible elswhere.
Everything else will be purely individual experience and speculation to some degree.
That includes, what they may want, how did they get here, where are they from, and so on.
If you do not beleive in the possibilty of other life.......go find something beter to do with your time.
If you beleive that there might be something to this UFO phenomenon, please join in.

Another dividing line.
There could be 100 cases of a UFO sighting.
99 of those could be absolutely proven to be hoaxes.
But it only takes one,...to make it real.
And I know that some of you will continually focus on the 99.
If your motive was to truly get to the bottom of this phenomenon, you would not be looking in the PS section here.
Your motives lie elsewhere.
But that is not my problem.
Directly anyway.
Just have to use my scroll button a little more.
Everybody quit their bitchin.

 

Coolmacguy,
In the real world Time is Money, thats why most of the UFO investigators are Part-timers, they have other jobs to go to where they get paid. (I know so because of a few people I know in those circles that are "professional" when it comes to investigation.)

Since in the real world if you haven't the answer in time, it means a loss in money, it's why I have done my analyse and I'm leaving it to others to debate at future reference points not because I class it as trivial or declare it to be the way I say it, but do to the fact that I have not the time to continue an "arguement" on the subject.

[Perhaps I'm just use to working a little quicker than yourself for ergonomics sake.]

 

Stryder,

I was not referring to your discussions about it. I could care less how long you talk about it. You just seemed to be saying that everyone was moving on. I was merely stating that that is not the case and there are people still doing investigations.