wegs,
I apologise in advance if anything I say here sounds overly critical of things you wrote. I always find your posts and your perspective on this topic interesting, because your position is currently a half-way house between Magical Realist's unquestioning belief and my own skeptical position. I am, of course, hoping you will eventually be convinced to join with those of us on the Light Side of the Force (that's my side, in case you're wondering
)
I'm catching up with your comments on Mick West. I'm starting to sound like an apologist for West, I realise, but this is not really about any one person's views or methods. West just provides a useful example for discussion.
I imagine that some people (probably Yazata would be a good example, for one) get annoyed because skeptics like West (and myself, no doubt) seem to be so unwilling to compromise. People love mysteries, and some more than others are attracted to the idea that a mystery might have an extraordinary resolution. So when it comes to UFOs, some people will say "The skeptics have already made up their minds that UFOs can't be aliens [for example]. They are too closed-minded to admit that aliens are a possibility. If we can't solve a UFO case, it's very possible that aliens were involved, but the skeptics will never admit that!"
Here's the thing: skeptics just want to see some evidence.
That's all there is to it. It's a straw man to assert that skeptics will never believe in aliens, no matter what, and such. I'll be more than happy to believe in aliens - just as soon as there's sufficient evidence to show that any exist. Am I willing to bend enough to say "We don't have an explanation for this video, and it looks like a ghost, so it's fine to conclude that it might be a ghost"? On one level, yes I am. I've
already conceded that the existence of ghosts is
possible. The problem is that no video has yet provided convincing evidence for ghosts. I might also venture that it seems unlikely to me that any video will
ever provide convincing evidence for ghosts, but that's just a bias on my part, based on how many videos so far have failed to live up to the hype. So, on another level, I'm
not willing to say "This seems likely to be a video of an actual ghost", even though I would never eliminate that as a logical possibility.
The standard of proof is relevant here. Show me a video of your sister jumping into a swimming pool and I'll probably happily accept it as a true record of your sister jumping into a pool, at least until some new evidence comes to light to cause me to question that conclusion. I require less proof of the pool than of the ghost because I already know from experience that things like pools and sisters exist and are commonly observed in the world, whereas for ghosts, not so much. People can produce sisters and pools on demand for examination; ghosts, not so much. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
I think Mick West's approach is thorough, but he's a debunker. He's known for debunking.
And Magical Realist is known for being a gullible believer in the paranormal.
These things are only a problem if they introduce biases that prevent the objective evaluation of evidence.
The difference between West and MR is that West lays out his reasoning and his methodology so we can see every step in the chain and check for any errors. MR won't tell us how he reached the conclusion that an aquatic civilisation lives under the ocean; he just asks us to take his word for it. There's no obvious route from the data "somebody reported seeing a tic tac" to "aliens are living under the sea", so there's no good reason we should accept that aliens are living under the sea. Compare the example with West's analysis of the filmed lights in the sky, from my post above. If we doubt West's conclusions there, we can duplicate his analysis ourselves. We can see whether West is telling the truth or lying about the tracks of Starlink satellites. We can check whether the video actually matches the documented tracks of the satellites.
See the difference? We are asked to take MR's conclusions on faith - to just trust him that he has got things right. But West doesn't ask us to just trust him.
We all should be skeptical when we deal with UAP claims, but not so much that we're merely ''examining'' limited data to support our skepticism. He gives off that vibe, James.
Sometimes, limited data nevertheless points unambiguously to a most-likely conclusion. The
quantity of data doesn't matter. What matters is the
quality of the data. Is it sufficient to positively identify the UFO, or isn't it?
It is possible, of course, that some of the available data might contradict some other data. For instances, independent eyewitnesses often disagree about aspects of a UFO sighting. But that just introduces the complication of having to determine which - if any - of the accounts is the correct record of what happened.
Of course, data should never be thrown out just to "support our skepticism". If data is to be discarded, there must be justification for discarding it. When it comes to eyewitness data, it is very well known that such data is often unreliable, for many reasons, so at the very least we should be wary of hanging too much on eyewitness accounts. That is not to say that such accounts are worthless, of course.
I think that if you want to accuse West of ignoring certain important evidence, then you need to do so on a case-by-case basic, pointing to the specifics. Also, in cases where some data is shown to strongly point to a certain conclusion, you would need to explain why the "neglected" data is especially pertinent and how it radically changes the conclusion.
I think that the eyewitness accounts for the tic tac video for example, seemed highly credible.
Highly credible as evidence of
what, though? That's the question. Do you think pilots' claims of "craft" are highly credible? Or just their claims that they saw something white that looked like a tic tac? Those two claims are quite different. You need to consider not just the generalities, but the specifics of what is being claimed.
Mick West can't really answer for that, so we are still left with ''we don't know.'' (Although, West will say that we do know.)
What do you think West says that we do know, and which of his conclusions is demonstrably false? Be specific.
He often doesn't look at the full picture with all of the facts associated with it, instead he draws conclusions on the cherry picked ''evidence'' he wants to substantiate his skepticism.
Okay. Choose a case that West has investigated and you and I can take a look at West's analysis. Please choose one where you can point to some important facts that West has ignored. Show where he has cherry picked the evidence. Show where his bias has affected his conclusions.
To make this easy, just choose one case as an example. There's no need to look at all of West's work; that would be impractical anyway. You must already have something in mind, or you wouldn't accuse West of cherry picking etc.
To the average skeptic, he looks like an authentic, open-minded guy who's just doing his due diligence, but he's making a name for himself by debunking.
There's nothing wrong with that. Is there? Is West doing something dishonest, in your opinion?
Plenty of UFO believers made names for themselves or get famous, too. Why aren't you criticising them?
@ James - It's fine if you like his ''work,'' but the reason that some of us don't, isn't because he doesn't agree with the UAP enthusiasts, but rather that he seems bent on debunking.
You have a problem with "debunking", then?
What's the problem? If something is bunk, isn't debunking it okay?
Of course, but he feels the need to pin a mundane (''familiar,'' in this case) explanation on even the tic tac flying object, despite the Pentagon coming away with ''not knowing'' as its explanation (for now).
Does it matter what West feels the need to do?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and West desperately wishes that aliens don't exist and is determined to debunk every UFO case he can to show that aliens don't exist. Does it matter?
Either West's debunkings are valid or they aren't. If they aren't, then you (or somebody else) ought to be able to expose the flaws in his analysis. That would be a good way to show his bias, especially if all of his investigations show similar flaws.
So, can you show that just
one of West's "debunkings" is flawed? Can anyone? I remind you: he has laid out his arguments for all to examine. They are not hidden or private.
Going through the motions of debunking, isn't the same as authentic, open-minded investigation.
Going through the motions would presumably mean telling lies about the data, or cherry picking (as you have claimed) and drawing invalid conclusions, possibly using faulty reasoning.
Can you demonstrate
any of this, in West's case? If not, why are you accusing him?
I'm a skeptic, but I think West is a debunker. Yazata makes an excellent point above; there's a difference between someone who genuinely looks for answers when mysteries present themselves, with healthy skepticism, and someone like West, who is convinced before he even begins, that he'll find the answer.
How do you know he is convinced he will find the answer before he begins? It sounds almost like mind reading to me. Also, even if we were to assume you're right and he
is so convinced, does it matter? Does it affect the robustness of his published analysis?
