The trap of dogmatic skepticism

[Pinball1970]

Quite. MR has shown on other recent threads he understands the philosophy of science fairly well. What he is selectively overlooking in this context is the requirement for evidence to be reproducible and the correct application of Ockham's Razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate, or words to that effect - Ockham does not seem to have actually used that precise phrase, but many equivalent ones pop up in both his writings and those of scholars of the time: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham)

I am reminded of the creationist "tornado-in-a-junkyard" argument, which seizes on the random mutation part of the theory of evolution while perversely choosing to ignore the role of natural selection. It seems to be much the same wilful application of only part of the process, in order to support a belief.

Though I am still unsure to what extent this poster relally believes any of his UFO ideas. It may just be he finds that with UFOs he can tap a rich vein of trollery.

MR has posted some interesting and entertaining questions recently and I have replied on nearly all of them.
Hopefully MR will the comments on board from this one and move on.

 

[Magical Realist]

James R says: What a troll you are

IOW you have no response other than your predictable and repeated accusations of me being a troll and again of me posting dishonestly to somehow provoke and incite emotions. That's all you have to say James? I'm posting with confidence and sarcasm and flair and you're not used to that with me are you? You expect me to timidly bow to your flamings of me and politely submit to your usual abuse. Well no more. What I have posted is genuine and clear and what I really think. I'm pouring my soul into what I'm saying here. If you have no relevant and cogent counterarguments to make I take that as proof I've succeeded in communicating my points. Do better James.

 

[Yazata]

I take a stronger position on fortean/preternatural phenomena. There are many videos and eyewitness accounts and TV documentaries that I have come across over the past 24 years that convince me that there is something real but undefined here.

My opinion on most of that is - 'maybe'. I most emphatically accept the possibility that anomalies might occur, but I'm more reluctant to say that they definitively did in particular cases. Of course the reverse is true as well, and I'm also reluctant to say that the anomalies definitively didn't happen in particular cases.

Both the "true believer" and the "dogmatic skeptic" cases typically require more evidence than is available.

Typically this prior belief is enough for skeptics to automatically dismiss what I am saying on the grounds that I just want it so bad to be true. But actually it is a quite logical corollary to accepting the existence of such things.

I'm quite happy in saying that if the events really happened as described, then a subset of these cases really do seem to present challenges for our militant deniers. Of course the reports might indeed be misdescribed, be perceptual errors or even be outright fabrications.

But the accounts as described probably shouldn't be dismissed without convincing evidence that justifies the dismissal either, based solely on the denier's preexisting belief that whatever was reported doesn't exist. And the dismissals should never be as rude, insulting and abusive as they typically are both here on Sciforums and sometimes in the "skeptical" literature.

Because if you accept that it has been shown to exist before many times, then for you the chances of it being real this time as well are greatly increased.

Again, maybe. The same can be said about religious miracles. What the huge body of reports does seem to tell us is that the often-heard assertion that there is "no evidence" is clearly false. There's a huge body of evidence. But it's evidence that many are unwilling to grant any credence to. Why? Because the evidence is of things that those people are unwilling to accept.

Not to mention that once one opens the ontic gates of "what can exist" many other things sneak in and become credible that weren't so credible before. IOW, if you believe there's such a thing as ghosts, then why not interdimensional travelers, or sentient plasmoids, or psychic abilities? The worldview that one is left with after acknowledging the existence of these anomalous phenomena becomes more nebulous and unbounded by rationalist assumptions. A reality based on the vast messy Jamesian realm of human experience rather than on some unquestioned physicalist scheme we picked up from grade school science class and text books.

That's why I distinguish between things that I actively believe in and things that I acknowledge as possible. The things I actively believe in is a subset of the realm of possibility, defined in large part by conformity with my own experience, what I take to be my own knowledge and ultimately, with my beliefs about how the universe works. And the realm of possibility corresponds to your "more nebulous" and basically unbounded set. It has to be nebulous and unbounded since it includes the unknown, whatever it is that might in fact be real that human beings don't know about yet. How does one place limits on that??

Perhaps the bottom line is that there's a big difference between saying "I'm not convinced" or even "I don't believe it" (both completely unobjectionable), and saying that "it's stupid for you to even suggest that as a hypothesis", absent some convincing argument for the latter highly dismissive proposition.

Insult and invective are never acceptable in intelligent conversation.

 

[Magical Realist]

And the realm of possibility corresponds to your "more nebulous" and basically unbounded set. It has to be nebulous and unbounded since it includes the unknown, whatever it is that might in fact be real that human beings don't know about yet. How does one place limits on that??

I have to remind myself often that even though I believe in the unknown and anomalous more than ever these days, the universe is still overwhelmingly orderly and rational and predictable. IOW I can drive down the highway with strong confidence that I'm NOT going to run into something totally irrational and otherworldly. So while in practice I am still firmly lodged inside a scientific and law-abiding world, in principle I am skeptical of this worldview due to the intrinsically uncertain nature of all experience. I suppose I have a stubborn streak of epistemic skepticism. That it is only a consoling and life-enabling illusion that we really KNOW all the things we think we know. Hume shows us that our complacency with the usual and habitual, that it is all somehow logically necessary, is ultimately unfounded. So I try to remain as open as I can without going mad. To embrace the strange and unfamiliar as the true nature of what's really real while still feeling totally safe and at home in this world.

Insult and invective are never acceptable in intelligent conversation.

Totally agree! Unfortunately it has become SOP when it comes to skeptics responding to my posts.

 

[Pinball1970]

e I am skeptical of this worldview due to the intrinsically uncertain nature of all experience

Me too, personal experience is very unreliable.

We can be happy about the nature of nature though, it is predictable enough to do science with.

That it is only a consoling and life-enabling illusion that we really KNOW all the things we think we know. Hume shows us that our complacency with the usual and

We can claim to know how the universe works based the various scientific theories we have.

To a point.

The parts that are not known are active areas of research. That is a large area of course but just think about how science and technology has advanced our species so far?

 

[James R]

IOW you have no response other than your predictable and repeated accusations of me being a troll and again of me posting dishonestly to somehow provoke and incite emotions.

What a troll you are.

I posted detailed responses in posts #7, #8, #16, #17, #18, and #19 of this thread.

Yes, I accused you of trolling, which very clearly you are. But, as you're fully aware, I also made a number of substantive and specific criticisms of a number of specific claims you made in your posts and in your replies to my posts. Of course, you haven't responded to any of those specific, on-topic criticisms, because that is not how a troll operates.

Instead, you have falsely tried to portray my posts as unjustified ad hominem attacks on you, while ignoring the entire content.

You manage to distract a lot of people here with your trolling nonsense, but I'm onto your antics. There's a pattern, and I've been onto it for a while now.

That's all you have to say James? I'm posting with confidence and sarcasm and flair and you're not used to that with me are you?

Correct. I'm not used to that, from you.

Have you started sharing your user account with somebody else who is smarter than you? Some of your recent posts are so out of character and articulate that I find it difficult to believe they were written by the same person.

Did you feel like you needed to enlist somebody else to help you with your trolling? Is that person afraid to post here under a separate user name?

You're ordinarily dull and give the impression of being as thick as a brick. I know that some of that is just your schtick. You enjoy playing the village idiot. But the other guy who's started sharing your account in the past week or so sounds almost sensible. Maybe you should just hand over your account to him permanently.

You expect me to timidly bow to your flamings of me and politely submit to your usual abuse.

Not at all. I expect you to continue to put on the same act that you have for years now. The only question is how much longer I'll let you do that. Right now, you think you have me worked out, don't you? You think you know how far you can push and get away with the trolling. When the end comes, as it inevitably will unless you change your ways - which, I hasten to add, I don't for one moment expect that you will - you will be taken by surprise, I promise. Enjoy it while it lasts, MR.

Well no more. What I have posted is genuine and clear and what I really think. I'm pouring my soul into what I'm saying here.

Yeah, nah.

If you have no relevant and cogent counterarguments to make I take that as proof I've succeeded in communicating my points.

No cogent counterarguments. Sure. After years of your bullshit.

Your lies aren't working, MR.

What a troll you are.

 

[James R]

Yazata,

I am aware you replied to Magical Realist, but I will reply to your post.

Both the "true believer" and the "dogmatic skeptic" cases typically require more evidence than is available.

Don't get sucked in by the troll. "Dogmatic skeptics" are very few and far between, if there are any. Like I said, if, as a skeptic, you are dogmatic, you're doing it wrong.

I'm quite happy in saying that if the events really happened as described, then a subset of these cases really do seem to present challenges for our militant deniers. Of course the reports might indeed be misdescribed, be perceptual errors or even be outright fabrications.

The entire analytic problem usually lies in determining whether the "events really happened as described", at least where the description is of alien spaceships or ghosts or monsters. These things are usually not presented neutrally, and the "eyewitnesses" are rarely neutral about the conclusions that want to jump to. (That, by the way, is often a red flag, right there.)

But the accounts as described probably shouldn't be dismissed without convincing evidence that justifies the dismissal either, based solely on the denier's preexisting belief that whatever was reported doesn't exist.

That rarely happens, if ever. Skeptics are not "deniers" either. You ought not to use loaded language like that, which presupposes a conclusion that has not been established, while simultaneously ad homineming lots of people.

And the dismissals should never be as rude, insulting and abusive as they typically are both here on Sciforums and sometimes in the "skeptical" literature.

To what extent should obvious trolls be humoured, in your opinion?

Again, maybe. The same can be said about religious miracles. What the huge body of reports does seem to tell us is that the often-heard assertion that there is "no evidence" is clearly false. There's a huge body of evidence. But it's evidence that many are unwilling to grant any credence to. Why? Because the evidence is of things that those people are unwilling to accept.

It's much more usually because of the very poor quality of the evidence itself.

Perhaps the bottom line is that there's a big difference between saying "I'm not convinced" or even "I don't believe it" (both completely unobjectionable), and saying that "it's stupid for you to even suggest that as a hypothesis", absent some convincing argument for the latter highly dismissive proposition.

The skeptics usually make convincing arguments when they say it's stupid to believe some hypothesis or other. The skeptics give reasons, you see, which aren't just unjustified statements about beliefs.

Insult and invective are never acceptable in intelligent conversation.

Unfortunately, most discussions of UFOs with True Believers don't rise to the level of intelligent conversation. Look at Magical Realist's village idiot act, for example.

 

[DaveC426913]

The skeptics usually make convincing arguments when they say it's stupid to believe some hypothesis or other. The skeptics give reasons, you see, which aren't just unjustified statements about beliefs.

And, to elaborate on this point, it's never the hypothesis that's denigrated, it's the doubling and tripling down on counter-factual logic that follows, such as:

• "things always look like what they are" and
• "human perception and memory are perfectly reliable" and
• "the cognitive and perceptual sciences are bunk" and
• "critical analysis is a made up thing" and
• "photographs don't lie" and
• "I don't see wings in that blurry photo therefore it can't be a plane".
• etc.

Those are stupid things to say. (What's stupid about them is the sayer's belief that anyone will actually take them seriously. The fact he knows we know he's arguing in bad faith is what makes it trolling).

I very much doubt anyone here has called anything you've said "stupid", because you are not a troll.


So, as James R says:

To what extent should obvious trolls be humoured, in your opinion?

 

[Magical Realist]

Like I said, if, as a skeptic, you are dogmatic, you're doing it wrong.

Yep.. that's what the term "dogmatic skeptic" means. It's pretending you are a skeptic objectively analyzing the evidence for a phenomenon when in fact you are only trying to bolster your own beliefs about that phenomenon. That's why dogmatic skeptics will rarely be caught dead admitting that they just don't know what something is. Because ofcourse they know, almost a priori it seems, that all evidence is either hoaxed or a misperceived mundane cause, and never supports the existence of a real unidentified phenomenon. IOW, they've made up their minds before even looking at the evidence.

 

[gmilam]

That's why dogmatic skeptics will rarely be caught dead admitting that they just don't know what something is.

On the contrary, skeptics generally point out that that's exactly what the term "unidentified" means.

 

[Yazata]

Both the "true believer" and the "dogmatic skeptic" cases typically require more evidence than is available.

Don't get sucked in by the troll. "Dogmatic skeptics" are very few and far between, if there are any. Like I said, if, as a skeptic, you are dogmatic, you're doing it wrong.

The majority of the current participants on this board seem to me to qualify as "dogmatic skeptics".

Historically, "skepticism" referred to the philosophical view that knowledge is impossible. In contemporary usage "skeptical" is synonymous with "doubtful", such that "I'm skeptical about that..." means the same thing as "I'm doubtful about that...".

"Dogmatic" makes its appearance in the contemporary "skeptical" movement which not only expresses personal ("I'm still not convinced" - agree-to-disagree) doubts about particular things, but moves far beyond that towards insisting that nobody else accept whatever it is that's being denied as well. Anyone that damnably continues to believe in, argue for, or even finds anything extraordinary about whatever this more militant kind of "skeptic" doubts, becomes the target of non-stop insult and abuse.

Examples of that abound right here in this thread, which makes me think that the "dogmatic skeptic" phrase is very apt.

I'm quite happy in saying that if the events really happened as described, then a subset of these cases really do seem to present challenges for our militant deniers. Of course the reports might indeed be misdescribed, be perceptual errors or even be outright fabrications.

The entire analytic problem usually lies in determining whether the "events really happened as described", at least where the description is of alien spaceships or ghosts or monsters. These things are usually not presented neutrally, and the "eyewitnesses" are rarely neutral about the conclusions that want to jump to. (That, by the way, is often a red flag, right there.)

My point is that we mustn't simply assume that unwelcome reports are the result of misdescription, perceptual error or outright fabrication, unless we have some credible evidence that they in fact were. Simply concocting hypothetical scenarios where they might have been isn't sufficient, absent some persuasive evidence that those scenarios actually pertained. Our "skeptics" have a burden of proof too.

In the cases that involve multiple trained eye-witnesses, along with radar and video confirmation, I'm inclined to think that it will be very difficult to concoct an error or fabrication scenario that accounts for all aspects of a complex and mutually confirming case. (My consilience point.)

Not impossible, and as human beings the possibility of error will always be with us (my fallibilism point). Demanding that evidence be strong enough to eliminate all possible sources of error (both known and unknown) is never realistic.

The possibility that something extraordinary happened remains as well, and can't just be eliminated based on little more than preexisting dogmatic denial and prejudice. That said, while the possibility can never be totally eliminated, it might conceivably be reduced to the point where it might arguably be dismissed. But that will require convincing evidence. And all of this weighting evidence stuff is kind of informal and intuitive. It will always be a judgment call for each individual.

It's not really a crime against reason to take the reports as given as the datum that is to be explained, and to discuss the reports with an open mind even if they might seem to have implications that we would rather not consider. We just need to remain cognizant that we might be mistaken.

That's why I distinguish between things that I actively believe in and things that I acknowledge as possible. The things I actively believe in is a subset of the realm of possibility, defined in large part by conformity with my own experience, what I take to be my own knowledge and ultimately, with my beliefs about how the universe works.

Which is basically what the "skeptics" are doing, except that I'm honest and freely admit it. Everyone does it. We all have things whose existence we believe in and things whose existence we don't. As for me, I don't believe in the existence of ghosts or disembodied spirits. I don't believe in them because they aren't consistent with my personal experience, with what I take to be my knowledge, and ultimately with how I believe the universe works.

But that doesn't license me to shout down anybody who tries to present evidence for such things. It just explains my saying "I'm not convinced" and even "I don't believe it".

Perhaps the bottom line is that there's a big difference between saying "I'm not convinced" or even "I don't believe it" (both completely unobjectionable), and saying that "it's stupid for you to even suggest that as a hypothesis", absent some convincing argument for the latter highly dismissive proposition.

Insult and invective are never acceptable in intelligent conversation.

To what extent should obvious trolls be humoured, in your opinion?

I'm responding seriously to you, am I not?

Unfortunately, most discussions of UFOs with True Believers don't rise to the level of intelligent conversation. Look at Magical Realist's village idiot act, for example.

If you feel so free to condemn those you disagree with, this would seem to have gone far beyond expression of your own personal doubt ("I'm still not convinced") and the charge of 'dogmatism' starts to appear justified and apt.

 

[Magical Realist]

On the contrary, skeptics generally point out that that's exactly what the term "unidentified" means.

I don't think skeptics believe in uaps anymore, certainly not in the new sense it has come to mean:

"NASA is broadening the scope of its definition of “UAP” to account for more than just unexplainable objects zooming in the skies — but also those that appear to be in bodies of water or transitioning between different mediums, FedScoop has learned.

This expansion in terminology matches a move first made by the Pentagon recently to explicitly acknowledge its leaders’ intent to openly investigate and record a wider range of perplexing objects observed (or caught on sensors) near its personnel and assets, doing things that are seemingly impossible to do with contemporary technologies.

“To be consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), NASA will be calling UAP ‘Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena’ instead of ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,’” Katherine Rohloff, press secretary for the space agency’s Science Mission Directorate, said Thursday.

Still, she noted, “NASA’s UAP independent study will be largely focused on aerial phenomena.”----- https://fedscoop.com/following-the-pentagons-lead-nasa-expands-its-official-definition-of-uap/

Dogmatic skeptics generally deny uaps are any kind of unidentified anomalous phenomena. But now it is part of the acronym, so they will have to reject their very existence it seems. Dogmatic skeptics think all uaps are really just imps-- identified mundane phenomena. IOW balloons or birds or conventional aircraft or drones or camera flare or meteorites or yes....even the planet Venus! But never an unidentified and anomalous phenomenon.

 

[James R]

To what extent should obvious trolls be humoured, in your opinion?

I'm responding seriously to you, am I not?

Ah. That's how it is going to be, with you, is it? That's the kind of attitude you want to go with?

So, here are two possible explanations for that response of yours:

1. You're clueless about what an internet troll is or how internet trolls typically behave. Therefore, you're completely unable to distinguish internet trolls from helpful, informative posters such as myself. Alternatively:
2. You're fully aware of how internet trolls operate, but since in this case you want to take the side of an internet troll against me, you're willing to lie and pretend you can't tell the difference between the troll and me. In fact, it goes beyond that: you want to pretend that, somehow, I'm the internet troll, while your mate Magical Realist is an innocent lamb who merely wants to find the Truth. And, in the process of pretending, you want to try to hurt and insult. Or, to put it more succinctly, you want to join in the trolling by trying to provoke an angry response.

Either way, it's very disappointing to see this from you, Yazata. You used to be better than this. Then came your Big Lie (which you're still peddling, it seems), and now this.

How low are you willing to go?

Ordinarily, I would have responded to your other content, but given this little gem from you, I'm not in the mood for it now. Perhaps later, although I think you're still making basically the same set of errors I tried to help you to fix earlier. Maybe you should take some time to sort out who is and isn't a troll, then read through some of my past responses to you, including some of the many that you almost entirely ignored, to your obvious detriment.

 

[James R]

Yep.. that's what the term "dogmatic skeptic" means. It's pretending you are a skeptic objectively analyzing the evidence for a phenomenon when in fact you are only trying to bolster your own beliefs about that phenomenon.

A few years ago - I'm sure you remember - you would have used the term "pseudo-skeptic" to mean the same thing. The thesis is that there are a bunch of sort-of "pretend skeptics", all of whom have actually made their minds up about what does and doesn't exist everywhere in the universe, and who are out to suppress every idea that goes against their own set-in-stone beliefs.

Those kinds of skeptics don't actually exist.

The irony, of course, is that the True Believers who throw around these labels - like "dogmatic skeptic" or the older "pseudo-skeptic" - are actually the ones with their heads firmly embedded in the sand. Want to find somebody who is set in his ways and unwilling to think outside his box? Talk to any UFO nut. Or find somebody who has made a personal religion out of the suggestion that microtubules might be responsible for consciousness. You won't have to look far.

There's no content to these accusations of "dogmatic skepticism". No evidence of dogmas religiously followed. Just insinuations and assumptions about hidden opinions. (You might recall the Big Lie, repeated here often by a man who, it seems, has now chosen to join the troll brigade.) But, then again, the True Believers who make these kinds of accusations are seldom concerned with evidence, for anything. They just make up their minds and then slap on a label, based on what they've decided to believe.

It's laughable to observe the hypocrisy involved, when a man who professes to believe in about 20 different, unrelated, kinds of woo, for no rationally defensible reason, starts accusing other people of holding dogmatic beliefs. Of course, when the man in question is also an incorrigible troll, it starts to make some kind of twisted sense. What might otherwise be put down to bloody-minded ignorance is more readily explained by malicious intent.

 

[James R]

Dogmatic skeptics generally deny uaps are any kind of unidentified anomalous phenomena.

Since no skeptic does that, we can once again conclude that "dogmatic skeptics" don't exist in the real world. Like I said.

Meanwhile, people who actually self-identify as skeptics often point out, as gmilam did just a few posts above this one, that the abbreviation UAP stands for "unidentified aerial phenomenon". Sadly, they also seemingly have to point out to True Believers that "unidentified" means that nobody has yet identified the thing.

It follows (because dictionary, because words mean things) that an alien spaceship is not a UAP. Nor is a weather balloon. Nor is the planet Venus. Because the moment we identify something as an alien spaceship, it's not a UAP any more; it's an IAP - an identified aerial phenomenon.

No skeptic is actually stupid enough to "deny" that UAPs are unidentified. The only people who are that stupid are the True Believers, who claim they have somehow identified all those unidentified aerial phenomena. The True Believers are constantly denying that UAPs are unidentified phenomena. Instead, the True Believers claim to have identified lots of UAPs, finding them to be alien spaceships, interdimensional time travellers, aquatic visitors from alien sub-sea bases in the Atlantic Ocean, or intelligent plasmoid entities. Of course, all of these are empty claims. The True Believers never offer convincing evidence in support of their claim that a particular UAP is, in fact, an intelligent plasmoid entity, because typically the True Believer is not interested in evidence. Only in confirmation bias, though most of them don't know what that is and don't want to learn what it is.

But watch the troll at work, as he tries to pretend that skeptics are bad because they allegedly behave just like True Believers actually behave, whereas True Believers are good because ... er ... something. But he isn't talking about them.

 

[DaveC426913]

It doesn't really matter what MR says about skeptics or any other imagined issue.
Once you go troll you can't come back.

If he were actually arguing in good faith when he complained about his opponents, it might be worth engaging.
But this is just another trolling technique.

There is no obligaton to engage except for the sake of other readers. But after that's done once, any further engagement is just feeding the troll.

 

[Magical Realist]

James said: Meanwhile, people who actually self-identify as skeptics often point out, as gmilam did just a few posts above this one, that the abbreviation UAP stands for "unidentified aerial phenomenon". Sadly, they also seemingly have to point out to True Believers that "unidentified" means that nobody has yet identified the thing.

Not anymore. The acronym now stands for "unidentified anomalous phenomenon". I just posted why that was changed and by whom in post #32. You should actually read posts entirely before contradicting them.

 

[Yazata]

To what extent should obvious trolls be humoured, in your opinion?

I'm responding seriously to you, am I not?

Ah. That's how it is going to be, with you, is it? That's the kind of attitude you want to go with?

If you are going to dish it out, you probably need to be able to take it.

So, here are two possible explanations for that response of yours:

1. You're clueless about what an internet troll is or how internet trolls typically behave. Therefore, you're completely unable to distinguish internet trolls from helpful, informative posters such as myself.

Alternatively:

2. You're fully aware of how internet trolls operate, but since in this case you want to take the side of an internet troll against me, you're willing to lie and pretend you can't tell the difference between the troll and me. In fact, it goes beyond that: you want to pretend that, somehow, I'm the internet troll, while your mate Magical Realist is an innocent lamb who merely wants to find the Truth. And, in the process of pretending, you want to try to hurt and insult. Or, to put it more succinctly, you want to join in the trolling by trying to provoke an angry response.

Yes, I do perceive you to be the troll in this instance. Pretty much all of your posts in this thread have been little more than strings of insults directed at one of the board's participants. Undeserved insults, since all he did was post an (in my opinion very justifiable) opinion that you disagree with.

Your response should have been "I disagree, because A, B and C" and lay out your reasons. And be prepared to accept a little legitimate criticism of the militant skeptic movement, instead of always being so hyper-defensive. And if, after an intelligent back-and-forth where both of you lay out your arguments, your opponent fails to surrender and accede to everything you say (which rarely happens in real life), just agree to disagree.

Either way, it's very disappointing to see this from you, Yazata. You used to be better than this. Then came your Big Lie (which you're still peddling, it seems), and now this.

And there you go, trolling again. Trying to anger me so that I lose my composure.

I have never lied on this board. What I did do was truthfully express my opinion about the militant ('dogmatic') skeptics. An opinion that you vehemently (and very defensively) disagreed with. It seems to have never entered your mind that how you imagine the organized skeptical movement (knights in shining intellectual armor) might not be how others perceive them. And those others might not necessarily be wrong.

How low are you willing to go?

You can think whatever you want about me or MR or anyone. We can take it.

But it probably would do you good to be more tolerant of disagreement and less quick to resort to insults and provocations.
You don't have to agree with those you argue with. Just agree to disagree without all the emotional stuff.

That's the high road.

 

[gmilam]

I don't think skeptics believe in uaps anymore, certainly not in the new sense it has come to mean:

"NASA is broadening the scope of its definition of “UAP” to account for more than just unexplainable objects zooming in the skies — but also those that appear to be in bodies of water or transitioning between different mediums, FedScoop has learned.

This expansion in terminology matches a move first made by the Pentagon recently to explicitly acknowledge its leaders’ intent to openly investigate and record a wider range of perplexing objects observed (or caught on sensors) near its personnel and assets, doing things that are seemingly impossible to do with contemporary technologies.

“To be consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), NASA will be calling UAP ‘Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena’ instead of ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,’” Katherine Rohloff, press secretary for the space agency’s Science Mission Directorate, said Thursday.

Still, she noted, “NASA’s UAP independent study will be largely focused on aerial phenomena.”----- https://fedscoop.com/following-the-pentagons-lead-nasa-expands-its-official-definition-of-uap/

So, you agree that the U still stands for unidentified.

Dogmatic skeptics generally deny uaps are any kind of unidentified anomalous phenomena. But now it is part of the acronym, so they will have to reject their very existence it seems. Dogmatic skeptics think all uaps are really just imps-- identified mundane phenomena. IOW balloons or birds or conventional aircraft or drones or camera flare or meteorites or yes....even the planet Venus! But never an unidentified and anomalous phenomenon.

Bullshit, you seem to be the one insisting you know what they are.

 

[Magical Realist]

Bullshit, you seem to be the one insisting you know what they are.

Really? James claims that I know they are alien spaceships and little green men. So what do you think I know they are? Do you know what an unidentified anomalous phenomenon is?

Here's how the acronym dictionary defines UAP in the old sense of unidentified AERIAL phenomenon. I like this definition because it eliminates from the outset the possibility of it being any known phenomenon. Hence an unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon.

"WHAT DOES UAP MEAN?​

UAP is an abbreviation of unidentified aerial phenomenon (or phenomena), a term that refers to things observed in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or other known phenomena."--- https://www.dictionary.com/e/acronyms/uap/