I just started listening, but I thought I would post Allan’s piece that was in the Skeptical Inquirer - Bible Stories, which is the subject briefly talked about at the beginning of the conversation about the inconsistent versions of creation in Genesis.

I l iked this interview alot - he sounds way different than he looks too lol - but he was pretty reasonable and I loved how “strident” he was-  I loved how he basically said that evolution and the bible are not compatible AT ALL - and if you think they are then you have to conclude the bible is just “not a science book” -

here is a great paper he wrote http://cepa.maxwell.syr.edu/papers/95.html a few yrs ago about avian flu and global warming

great podcast-

I thought this was one of the best podcasts I’ve heard in a while.  Mazur didn’t try to be Mr. Personality, but was calm, rational, and honest in his views.  He appeared to be quite careful in what he stated as fact and was equally careful about the conclusions he drew from those facts.  I’d rather have more of this type of person than the flashier sort.

I would just like to briefly point out a few inconsistencies in the logic and critical thinking of Allan Mazur. He speaks about the logical inconsistency in Genesis in the bible (technically internal inconsistency but we will not quibble on technicalities here) but then he goes on to state “The bible is probably a reasonable historical account of the kings of Israel” Not true – if the good professor knew anything about the history or archaeology of the area (and of the period in question) he would know this to be a false assertion The biblical “history” in no way matches human history at all. This points out the danger of allowing people with minimal expertise to pronounce on things they know nothing about and this does grave harm to the cause of rational and critical thinking and the advancement of science.

Further, when broaching the subject of UFOs, Mazur immediately states it is “comparable to a belief in perpetual motion” and goes on to cite the second law of thermodynamics. Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with UFOs. It is neither a logical or critically thought out argument against UFOs – it is a distraction only the gullible would fall for. However, Mazur does manage to bring himself back into focus. It seems the professor does not deny the possibility of alien (extraterrestrial) life (and in mentioning this he reveals his gullibility in buying into the “UFOs are aliens” paradigm) and his main objection then seems to be “the problem of getting from here to there”. In this he buys into the obvious fallacy that he knows everything there is to know about the way physics operates in the universe – he has in essence proclaimed himself the God of Physics and also proclaimed that physics is now a Dead Science with no advancements now possible. It is perhaps salutary to remember that before the Wright brothers it was impossible for man to fly. After, it was then impossible to fly faster than the speed of sound. Then it was that the speed of light is a constant. All these things have proved false in the fullness of time.

In today’s society we seem to have a growing problem – it is people who have qualifications or expertise in one area thinking that they are then automatically qualified to speak on other areas. Allan Mazur is purportedly a public relations expert, how then does he think he is then qualified to speak about science and logic – especially when it is patently obvious he is out of his depth? These are subjects that people spend years studying at the highest level and then spend a commensurate time in practical application before they can consider themselves to be experts. What then gives a public relations practitioner the arrogance to suppose he is qualified outside his own field of expertise? This is a huge problem for the sceptical movement and poses grave dangers for the promotion of critical thinking and the public advancement of logic and the scientific rationale.

It seems Point of Enquiry has become particularly dogmatic and close minded when it comes to so called paranormal or otherwise anomalous phenomena. To deny that there are unexplained or even inexplicable phenomena is to arrogantly assume the ultimate knowledge of a god. This is sheer bloody minded arrogance. Those who study paranormal phenomena wish that the actions of the “debunkers” would match their rhetoric. None of the “debunkers” (eg: Mazur and Nickell) ever actually examine the evidence in full at all. This bears repeating: They never examine the evidence! Rather, what they are interested in is selectively choosing only information that supports their own flawed misconceptions of reality – often buying into the fraudsters and the hoaxers own misconceptions in the process. This is not science. This is not the practice of open minded critical thinkers. This is merely the actions of fearfully closed minds.

It is imperative for Point of Enquiry to allow an open, critical and free examination of all the evidence. Interviewing speakers such as Mazar and Nickell, who are clearly not experts in the fields they speak about, and who clearly never examine the evidence in full at all, do more damage and turn people away from critical thinking and scientific thought than all the fraudsters and hoaxers combined.

Hi Rramjet,

I like this passage in Susan Blackmores article:

Another “psychic” turns up. I must devise more experiments, take these claims seriously. They fail - again. A man explains to me how alien abductors implanted something in his mouth. Tests show it’s just a filling, but it might have been…

How should one check the evidence in full, as you call it? It is time the other side comes with real evidence. Blackmore tried half a lifetime, she was a real ‘believer’. Why did not anybody earn Randi’s million?

GdB

It seems Point of Enquiry has become particularly dogmatic and close minded when it comes to so called paranormal or otherwise anomalous phenomena. To deny that there are unexplained or even inexplicable phenomena is to arrogantly assume the ultimate knowledge of a god. This is sheer bloody minded arrogance. Those who study paranormal phenomena wish that the actions of the “debunkers” would match their rhetoric. None of the “debunkers” (eg: Mazur and Nickell) ever actually examine the evidence in full at all. This bears repeating: They never examine the evidence! Rather, what they are interested in is selectively choosing only information that supports their own flawed misconceptions of reality – often buying into the fraudsters and the hoaxers own misconceptions in the process. This is not science. This is not the practice of open minded critical thinkers. This is merely the actions of fearfully closed minds.

It is imperative for Point of Enquiry to allow an open, critical and free examination of all the evidence. Interviewing speakers such as Mazar and Nickell, who are clearly not experts in the fields they speak about, and who clearly never examine the evidence in full at all, do more damage and turn people away from critical thinking and scientific thought than all the fraudsters and hoaxers combined.

(1) Which “evidence” are you talking about?

(2) Nobody denies that there are unexplained phenomena. Indeed, that is a completely banal and indeed necessarily true claim. The difference here is that many of the phenomena under question have been explained.

(3) To claim that a phenomenon is “inexplicable” would require the “ultimate knowledge of a god” that you yourself decry. It would be to claim that there is no possible explanation for that phenomenon. How could anyone ever know such a thing unless they were somehow party to every possible explanation?

So it seems to me what you have written here is very confused, Rramjet.

No-one earned Randi’s million because the terms of the “earning” were, as Randi knows full well, that nothing can ever be conclusively proved either true or false – there will always remain theoretical grounds on which to dispute any finding – unfortunately this applies to what we might also call scientific knowledge. Nothing can ever be conclusively proved true or false - thus no million.

The evidence I am talking about is the manifestation of paranormal phenomena itself – highly qualified observers observe phenomena that they cannot explain - I do understand that much can be explained in prosaic terms but we are also left with much that is not so easily explicable. It is these inexplicable cases that I am interested in. Unfortunately for rational enquiry it is the prosaic, explicable cases that Mazur et al. are interested in. They should attempt to describe some of the intriguing cases – as I have mentioned elsewhere – The UK. Rendlesham Forest Woodbridge/Bentwaters case would be a good beginning.

I claim “inexplicable” only in terms of our present knowledge. I do not claim there will never be a possible explanation. There is no mutual exclusivity in my statements – thus they are not confused. It is a relevant point that when someone claims that it is impossible to travel interstellar space they are indeed declaring physics dead and thereby pretending to godlike knowledge of possible futures.

No-one earned Randi’s million because the terms of the “earning” were, as Randi knows full well, that nothing can ever be conclusively proved either true or false – there will always remain theoretical grounds on which to dispute any finding – unfortunately this applies to what we might also call scientific knowledge. Nothing can ever be conclusively proved true or false - thus no million.

This is an inaccurate account of Randi’s methodology. When any test is begun, both Randi and the testee have to agree to a list of objectives which the testee is supposed to perform. E.g., to find which one of four pipes have water flowing through it by using a dowsing rod. As I understand it, they also typically agree to an impartial observer who will decide whether or not the objectives have been met.

There have been many tests done under these conditions, and none of them have ever been successful.

As for science and “scientific knowledge”, nobody has ever claimed that science provides logical or literally certain proof of its claims. That would be a straw man argument. Any knowledge derived from the scientific method is defeasible in the lights of further study. However this is not to say that therefore science doesn’t provide knowledge or evidence.

To take an everyday example: I claim to know where I am living right now, and who is President of the United States. When I claim this knowledge, I am clearly using the natural, everyday meaning of the word “to know”. I am not claiming that I am literally incapable of error on these things. Perhaps I am dreaming or under the influence of some drug. What science does is to provide good reason and evidence to accept its claims, and its claims are potentially as true and knowable as that I live in New York and that the current President of the United States is GW Bush.

I would just like to briefly point out a few inconsistencies in the logic and critical thinking of Allan Mazur.

I think you’re misreading the nature of his statements.  While he may have said that “bible is probably a reasonable historical account of the kings of Israel”, I don’t gather that he was expressing an opinion that this is so, but was allowing for the possibility, while denying the Bible as a source of knowledge outside what a writer of that time would know.

Likewise, he didn’t make any claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was related to UFO’s, but only that the believers in each share some characteristics.  As for UFOs being alien, I bet most believers in UFOs expect them to be of alien origin.

BTW, I am unfamiliar with any evidence that the speed of light is not constant.  Could you enlighten me?

Overall, I gather you’re peeved with Mazur for expressing disdain for views that you hold, perhaps in parapsychology.  If so, his disdain is shared by the bulk of the scientific community.  According to his bio, he has a BS in Physics, a MS in Engineering, and a PhD in Sociology.  That’s a reasonable background to comment on the things he commented on.

Doug - Actually Randi is withdrawing his million dollar offer – so the argument will soon be moot. As to why no-one claimed it I point you to an interesting article:
http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge That being said, I am not going to die in the ditch about Randi’s “reward”. I f no-one has claimed it, I am willing to concede that no-one has demonstrated to Randi sufficient Psi power. I will say that this of course proves nothing.

But Doug, if you use your “natural” understanding of what it is “to know” then you immediately let into legitimacy all those people who claim to have seen ghosts and UFOs and bigfoot and “Nessie” because they “know” that these things exist in exactly the same manner as you “know” you live in New York – simply because you “experience” living in New York – all you normal (day-to-day) senses tell you that you live in New York – yet if you questioned a UFO or ghost spotter I guarantee that he/she will inform you that all their natural senses lead them to believe they saw an alien or a ghost – simply they experienced the phenomena in exactly the same way you experience (and thus know) New York. I am sure this is an outcome that you would not want to countenance. As a skeptic you would want to apply stricter criterion to what we might count as knowledge. Certainly science can provide us with this, but you must understand how it does this before you (meaning the more general “anyone”) are qualified to speak on the topic (again my point about then propensity of so called skeptics such as Randi, Nickell, Mazur, Radford, et al. to pronounce on topics they have neither investigated nor fully understood).

I am not your enemy here Doug. I am trying my damnest to make you much more rigorous in your thought processes and approach to the topic of belief systems - and what it takes for us to claim knowledge. I may not be the world’s best communicator – in fact some find my style much too belligerent – but I beg you to see past this and to get my message. So where does that leave us. It leaves us with you needing to understand the history, philosophy and methodology of science a little more precisely – as I have previously suggested, A F Chalmers excellent book on this topic (What Is This Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and Its Methods) is as good an entry level text on this subject as you are likely to find.
Please, I am trying to MAKE you a better skeptic. Read the book. You will understand why I seem to have the galling arrogance to state these things to you. But when you have read the book, perhaps you will understand.

Taylor – it IS precisely that Mazur stated that the bible is probably accurate in historical terms that I have a problem. This displays a clear lack of rigour in his critical thinking. It is like conceding that goblins exist in an effort to get people to believe that fairies at the bottom of the garden do not exist. It is precisely this type of loose thinking that is the cause of so much trouble the public seems to have in sorting fact from fiction. When alleged “experts” pronounce one truthfull thing and then immediately allow a falsehood on exactly the same subject confusion always remains and no-one except the anti-rationalists win. This is a HUGE problem with Randi, Nickell, Mazur Radford et al. They ALL fall prey to such loose thinking.

You “bet” most “believers” think UFOs are alien? You don’t know? How then can you pronounce at all on the topic if you have not gathered the evidence. Again, LOOSE THINKING is the BANE of our existence and push for a rationally understood world.

I will indeed get you the reference to the inconstancy of the speed of light. If my memory serves me - a group from the University of Queensland have found they can trap light in a crystal…that is, virtually slowing its “speed” to zero. Another group in the US have recently replicated it. Please don’t quote me on the details until I provide the reference which I will get you ASAP (I am on a laptop at a mates place right now and the reference is on my PC at home – within 24 hours I will have it for you).

I am NOT peeved at Mazur for expressing “disdain” as you call it for all things paranormal (or parapsychological). I have no vested interest in the paranormal at all. The only interest I have is in critical thinking. Clear, rational, scientifically based thought processes that can lead us to investigate and discover knowledge of the nature universe we live in. I abhor closed minded people, dogmatists who abandon the rules of science in order to score points against a perceived opposition – and I see this in spades in Randi et al.

Again “shared by the bulk of the scientific community”? Do you KNOW this to be true? Wild and possibly inaccurate generalisations such as these do not help at all. THIS is what Randi et al. excel in. Such pronouncements without evidence are extremely damaging to the rationalist (and by corollary, sceptical) cause.

I agree. Mazur has some educational qualifications, but if so why then does he not apply critical thinking and evidentiary procedure to his work on the paranormal – instead resorting to sweeping, unsubstantiated generalisations?

I challenge anyone to critically examine the direct evidence in the Rendlesham Forest Woodbridge?Bentwater case. Will you do it? I would bet money that Randi et al most certainly will not. I could list many other cases of “so-called” paranormal manifestations, but unless we can get past at least ONE intriguing case, what hope of ever examining others?

Rramjet, just so we are clear, I do have a Ph.D. in philosophy and have taken many courses in contemporary philosophy of science, including at the graduate level. If you think that Chalmers’s approach helps you to make your arguments, you will have to explain precisely how and why.

The point at issue here is not so much philosophy of science as epistemology. I have no doubt that some of the people who claim experience of UFOs or supernatural phenomena believe that they saw an alien, ghost, or what-not. However, personal belief is not the end of epistemology. Far from it.

When I see a straw standing in a glass of water, it looks bent to me, due to the refraction of light through the liquid. But I do not believe it is bent, because I have seen this before, and when I draw the straw out of the water it remains straight. Now, I could make up some theory that straws bend when put in water and then straighten when removed, but that sort of claim beggars belief, particularly given that the particular bend I see in the straw changes as I move around the water.

Similarly, some people claim to see odd things. But we also know well that the brain is very susceptible to visual and auditory trickery; we know that hallucinations can occur; we know that some people are prone to active fantasy lives; we know that some people look for fame and fortune by spinning off extraordinary stories to the media. So when someone makes an odd claim to us (like being abducted by aliens) we want more proof than someone’s say-so. Perhaps they believe their own say-so, perhaps not. But the epistemological question is whether we should. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And first-person stories do not provide extraordinary evidence unless they are also corroborated by something more objective.

(NB: I do not need extraordinary evidence to believe that when someone says they are in Chicago, they are in Chicago, assuming I have no evidence that would defeat that claim).

This is the point of science; its controls, statistical analyses, and the whole rigmarole of a good experimental setup. It is designed to remove the opinion of the person making the test. This is why drug experiments are run double-blind; so that nobody knows which is the purported drug, and which is the placebo. Had they known, doctors involved in the test could (even subconsciously) skew the results by deciding that certain patients looked healthier than they really were, etc.

The point of any competent epistemology is not to come up with absolute proof of anything. (As you have suggested more than once). It is to come up with sufficient reasons to believe. We want to know where the preponderance of the evidence lies, not where individual opinions lie. Randi’s tests over several decades give very good evidence that no such things as psi-powers exist. After all, the tests were open to all, many who claimed these powers went and did the tests, and they all failed. This shows how easy it is to deceive oneself. Does this absolutely prove that psi-powers don’t exist? No, of course not. But as I’ve just said, any competent epistemology isn’t after absolute proof. It is after good reasons to believe. That is all that science ever can give us, and that is enough for “knowledge” in the everyday sense of the word.

it IS precisely that Mazur stated that the bible is probably accurate in historical terms that I have a problem. This displays a clear lack of rigour in his critical thinking.

I think you’re hearing what you want to hear.  This is what Mazur said:

I am not an expert on the Bible…You might find many things in the Bible that are reasonable to believe, for example,
when we get to the historical treatment of ancient Israel from the kings onward, it probably is a reasonably good account of what really happened.

He is clearly not making a claim here.

You “bet” most “believers” think UFOs are alien? You don’t know? How then can you pronounce at all on the topic if you have not gathered the evidence. Again, LOOSE THINKING

This isn’t loose thinking, it probabilistic thinking based on random sampling.  You seem to be a epistomological nihilist.  Regardless, it’s not important to the argument.

I will indeed get you the reference to the inconstancy of the speed of light.

Unnecessary. It is well known that the speed of light isn’t constant in various substances. The speed of light is a constant in a vacuum.  I just wanted to ensure you weren’t claiming that the speed of light changed to the degree that the stars were within 6,000 light years, know what I mean?

I abhor closed minded people, dogmatists who abandon the rules of science in order to score points against a perceived opposition – and I see this in spades in Randi et al.

No, you really don’t.  All they ask is “where is the evidence.”  It’s never supplied.  Yes, I’m sure they expect it to never materialize, but they would find it tough to argue against non-random results of carefully controlled experiments.  Rather, it’s the proponents of these psuedo sciences who maintain the phenomona exist in spite of their inability to achieve non-random results.  That’s irrational.

Again “shared by the bulk of the scientific community”? Do you KNOW this to be true?

Yes, I do.

I challenge anyone to critically examine the direct evidence in the Rendlesham Forest Woodbridge?Bentwater case. Will you do it?

On the face of it, I find it unreasonable that aliens trying to be secretive will fly around in glowing spaceships.  Although I would *love* to believe that aliens are visiting earth, the more plausible explanation is that human beings are susceptible to a great number of observational and cognitive errors that make their reports unreliable.  These characteristics are well-demonstrated, while the existence of aliens is not.  Occam’s razor.

I also find it ironic that you criticize the rigor and objectivity of real scientists, yet place great credibility in these amateur witnesses under unfavorable conditions.  Your passion for the subject is greater than that of those who disbelieve it, which is something that lends itself to greater bias.  LOOSE thinking.  :-)

Doug – you make some very clear and legitimate points. This is gratifying to note. And yes you are correct, it is epistemology that we are now arguing about.

I would like to take you up on two points. The first concerning “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and the second concerns Randi’s “tests”.

In fact the two are linked. A thought experiment. What would happen if someone actually claimed Randi’s million. Would that constitute proof that psi existed? No – it would of course be claimed that Randi was somehow duped, or that his methodology was flawed, or that a sample size of one does not constitute proof, replication would be required, and so on… in fact it would prove nothing at all if the million was claimed. In that sense Randi’s million is not such a big deal at all and neither is the fact that no-one has claimed it. For example, does any science investigation set out a priori to demand significance at the p>0.000001 level. No, but Randi does (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm).

Let us now turn to pure science. What store do we place in the psi-ganzfeld studies? Here was a “straight” science study into psi effects that returned positive results. Still, it is argued about and not accepted. Why? This is where the Chalmers approach can provide us with the answer. (trivially) It has not proved to be a fruitful line of investigation – no great insights into nature have sprung from it. The rub is, that although according to the research psi effects may very well exist in nature, they are ignored by the mainstream “as if they did not exist” at all.  In other words, mainstream science gets on very well thank you without having to account for psi effects. Unfortunately, to a great many skeptics, this “ignorance” by the mainstream is taken to indicate that psi effects DO NOT exist – a very different concept indeed. This is why (merely one of many reasons) I recommend Chalmers and why I despair of the critical thinking capacity of many skeptics.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? Ok. Another thought experiment. I see a UFO. Not enough you say. What if a friend saw it with me? Not enough. What if a thousand people saw it and what if it was tracked simultaneously on both civilian and military radar and what if the military became so worried that they scrambled fighter jets to investigate and all the pilots of those jets made visual and radar contact with the UFO before it simply outran them and disappeared into space? Enough evidence yet?  What if the French government then gathered a team of it’s best civilian and military scientific minds to investigate and write a report on the subject and then they released the report publicly and concluded that something very real was happening but that no current explanation was possible? What if the US government had already conducted its own investigations (coincidentally called them names like Project Blue Book, and Sign and Grudge and the Condon Report) and all of these studies came to similar conclusions that there was a very real phenomenon occurring. Similar investigations occur in the UK (although their report states that whatever is occurring is no security threat so can be safely ignored). Similarly the government of Brazil releases its military UFO data indicating very real phenomena. How extraordinary does evidence have to be? Again we must return to Chalmers. (again trivially) – reality does not confer fruitfulness – nothing fruitful has come from the reality of the phenomenon we call UFOs – so it is merely ignored by mainstream science because mainstream science does not need UFOs to explain anything (unless of course you want to explain UFOs – and then you are in extreme circular trouble). Again, some skeptics take this to mean that UFOs do not exist.  I contend the evidence is extraordinary – but it still gets us nowhere.

TAYLOR – “when we get to the historical treatment of ancient Israel from the kings onward, it probably is a reasonably good account of what really happened” is NOT a claim? Clearly I do not understand what a claim is then.

“This isn’t loose thinking, it probabilistic thinking based on random sampling.”

Oh really? What are the probabilistic criteria you applied and what was the size and nature of your random sample? 

“You seem to be a epistomological nihilist.”

No, I agree with Doug, we merely need sufficient reasons for belief.

“All they ask is “where is the evidence.” It’s never supplied.  Yes, I’m sure they expect it to never materialize, but they would find it tough to argue against non-random results of carefully controlled experiments.  Rather, it’s the proponents of these psuedo sciences who maintain the phenomona exist in spite of their inability to achieve non-random results.  That’s irrational.”
See above incorporated reply to Doug

Ahh Taylor… you have bought into the hoaxers and the fraudsters claim that UFOs are alien spaceships. I do not – and never have – made such a claim. I did at one stage indicate that there is a hypothesis that UFOs are indeed extraterrestrial craft and that this might have supporting evidence – but nowhere have I associated myself with such a claim and nor I believe should any critically minded skeptic (except if they were to set up a rigorous scientific experiment to test the hypothesis – which I believe would be impossible to do). I therefore have some difficulty when you state “On the face of it, I find it unreasonable that aliens trying to be secretive will fly around in glowing spaceships.” as if I have somehow claimed that to be my position. Also, what IS so “unreasonable” about it? You must have evidential grounds for this claim aside from a mere unsubstantiated belief?
(continued next post)

(contiued from previous post)

Yes human perception is fallible. It is merely the degree to which it is so that we must now argue. I contend that thousands of highly qualified (stress highly and qualified) witnesses reporting exactly the same phenomena constitutes evidence that “something” is occurring – just what I have no idea. So can we get away from aliens please? This is a blind and unsubstantiated alley.

Passion should not be mistaken for credulity. My passion is for critical thinking. It is not for or against a belief in anything at all. It is knowledge that I seek and talk of ghosts, aliens, werewolves, vampires, goblins, fairies, and so on clouds knowledge and plays directly into the hands of the anti-rationalists, fraudsters and hoaxers.. These terms are merely labels invented by people because their minds abhor a vacuum and they psychologically need to label things they don’t understand. I have no such need – or at least – have the presence of mind to realise that these labels are essentially useless in the advancement of knowledge unless they take the form of testable hypotheses – which I believe, according to our current state of knowledge – they most assuredly do not.

To quote a great bard: other than the one who penned “There are more things in heaven and earth…” “Something’s happening, but you don’t know what it is, do you Mrs Jones”

(contiued from previous post). My passion is for critical thinking.

No, I don’t think it is.  You use that justification to attack those who don’t endorse your own beliefs, but you dispense with that “passion” when justifying your own.

For instance, you commit just what you accuse Ben Radford of…..hearing a couple sentences and assuming you know everything there is to know about his investigation.  In fact, your whole post draws sweeping generalizations about Ben’s investigative methods, which you could have no knowledge of based on that one podcast.  Ben was much more polite and respectful to you than you were to him, which certainly reflects well on him.

So I don’t accept that you have a higher level of rationality than those you criticize.  And you clearly have an axe to grind regarding paranormal abilities.

(1) My understanding of all of these military reports you cite is that they did not decide that “there was a very real phenomenon occurring”, except, again, in the sense that these were UFOs in the literal sense of the words—things that appeared to fly and were unidentified. But this could be true and they could all be natural (non-alien) phenomena.

What is at issue for the general public and the UFO enthusiasts is not to prove that there are unidentified things that appear to fly. That would be banal. The issue is to prove that we are being visited by aliens. And there is still no good evidence of the latter, far stronger, claim.

(2) What would winning Randi’s prize mean? I disagree with you very strongly that it would be meaningless. Sure, it would require careful replication before the scientific community would take it as an important finding. But I can assure you that Randi has enough standing within the scientific community (even though he himself is not a scientist, his work is taken seriously) that if someone had won the $1M, there would be scientists willing and eager to try to replicate the experiment. If they could replicate it, then I can also assure you that the phenomena in question would be taken seriously as well.

(3) Re. ganzfield: there has been a lot of criticism of the experimental setup of those experiments. The problem is that psi phenomena were initially claimed to produce very clear and obvious results: this is why so called “sensitives” or “mediums” claim to be able to see into the future, or read clearly words written at a distance, et cetera. However, any competent tests of such abilities resulted in abject failure. So then the whole direction shifted from clear and obvious results to very small, statistically practically irrelevant results. And of course, once we are in the latter camp, a very small error in protocol can make a failure into a success. In general, one can believe that an effect is nonexistent when it shows up just at the edge of statistical relevancy, and shows up less relevant the better structured is the experiment. This shows that most positives are false-positives due to bad experimental setup.

For more on this and the problems involved read, e.g., HERE and HERE for example.

Ben Radford? But that is another thread - and there I did concede that I may have been less than rigorous in my critique of his investigation and I supplied my reasons. However I also pointed out that I could only use the information he himself supplied in his own description of his own investigation. If that description was itself misleading as to the nature of his own investigation – then what can I do about it – we live and die by our own words. I am sure you would not find it legitimate if I replied to one of your critiques of me that oh, you should actually have read a post I supplied on website X 4 years ago and there you will find that your critique of my current statements to be unfounded. No. You would cry foul immediately. I directly criticised Radford for the comments he made in the podcast. If one draws a conclusion that at the time has insufficient justification without reference to other material, one should either not make the claim or explain that the conclusion may only be justified by reference to that other material - and enable access to that material so people may accurately judge for themselves.

I agree Ben was polite to me and that does him credit.

I have never claimed to have a higher level of rationality than anyone at all – in fact it is probable that I do not have a higher level of rationality. I am completely fallible and doubt my own conclusions often. However, I do stand by the thrust of my critiques of Nickell, Mazur and Radford - that judging them according to their own words on their respective Point of Inquiry podcasts - it is clear to me (but possibly not others) that they are not as critically minded or as rationally sceptical as they claim to be. My point is that they should be more rigorous and less dogmatic in making their claims.

I was drawn to these people’s podcasts initially because some well qualified scientists of my acquaintance recently fell into a conversation wherein they completely ridiculed the approach taken by these people and I decided, rather than just accept and go along with their derision at face value, that I should find out for myself what they had to say. What I found is that my colleague’s derision and ridicule was somewhat overstated, but I also found a certain dogmatism and lack of critical thinking that I could easily see how my colleagues, in the heat of the moment, could turn into their derision. This is unfortunate because I believe Point of Inquiry to be otherwise a valuable addition to the cause of rational thought – but if qualified scientist who teach young minds at graduate and post-graduate levels can find cause for ridicule and derision in such a project, it does not bode well for anyone. Hence my advice to Point of Inquiry to jettison these people in favour of your true, humble, garden variety scientist who is able to adequately speak in their own field of expertise.

Finally, I repeat, I have no axe to grind concerning paranormal phenomena. I only accept that a range of phenomena exists for which we can find no prosaic explanation according to the current state of our knowledge (remember – Maxwell’s electromagnetic fields were derided as “supernatural action at a distance” when he first proposed the theory – now they are accepted science). I am disappointed in the fact that you, who is so obviously invested in this topic, seem to have only folklore conception of what “paranormal phenomena” actually means. “Paranormal phenomena” most certainly does not mean “abilities” aliens, ghosts, etc etc. It is you, not I, who seem to have this conception and it is exactly THIS conception of the paranormal that I am trying to argue is most unhelpful to the advancement of rational thought and useful knowledge

...My point is that they should be more rigorous and less dogmatic in making their claims.

... I also found a certain dogmatism and lack of critical thinking that I could easily see how my colleagues, ...

Dogmatic is one of those 4-letter words in the science and science-fan community. We sort of hurl it like any vulgar profanity at whatever we disagree with. More specifically there is a trend toward conflating holding unsupported positions.. with holding any positions. Only in this way can a Joe Nickel be compared to a Pat Robertson.

Randi, scienstists and all reasonable men take a stand on an issue based on the weight of the evidence. People who are dogmatic take a stand with no regard for any sort of evidence. Ya see, your definition of dogmatic Rramjet is the usual definition of reasonable. Are we all supposed to ignore the mountains of evidence so that we can be “reasonable” like you? Are we supposed to hold implausible, negative beliefs to different standards from any other suggestion?

What you seem to be hedging at isn’t that we are or are not sure of UFOs but that we should never be sure of anything because we can not know anything. If you are correct then ghosts and UFOs become legitimate topics which will then lie in a grave next to all other topics and we shall all mourn the death of knowledge and discovery. But at least the dogmatism of people thinking they know things will end.

Okay sate –

I can see you require further evidence concerning my claim of dogmatism for Randi. Nickell, Mazur, Radford et al. because, as a true skeptic and critical thinker, you do not believe the concept applies as I have used it. I therefore supply the following link in my defense – I would be interested to hear what you think after reading the information contained therein:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

(Thereby also refuting your “Randi, scienstists and all reasonable men…” claim)

You stated “People who are dogmatic take a stand with no regard for any sort of evidence. Ya see, your definition of dogmatic Rramjet is the usual definition of reasonable.”

You will have to explain how your conclusion here logically follows from your premise – I cannot see the logic you imply exists here.

You stated “Are we all supposed to ignore the mountains of evidence so that we can be “reasonable” like you?”

Two points:
1.  WHAT “mountain” of evidence?
2.  I have never claimed to be reasonable. I am merely pointing out the “unreasonableness” of others. Just because you don’t like what I have to say does not mean you can abandon the evidence (of my own statements and claims) to attempt to assuage your outrage. This is not the thinking of a critical mind.

You stated ” Are we supposed to hold implausible, negative beliefs to different standards from any other suggestion?”

This does not make sense. What do you mean? You really must be a clear thinker to play in this sandbox. If you are not then why do you subscribe to a podcast aimed at promoting clear, rational thought? The same applies to the following twisted language from you “What you seem to be hedging at…”.  Language and its meaning become ALL important when we a seeking understanding. I suggest the language you use shows you are not as clear in your thinking as you might perhaps suppose.

When you state “…we should never be sure of anything because we can not know anything.” you imply that somewhere in my statements I have claimed, or that it is implied, that we can never know anything. I think if you read my posts carefully you will find this assumption unfounded. I contend that we can and DO know lots of information about the world we live in, but that we do not know everything. I think you will find that the statements of Randi, Nickell, Mazur, Radford, et al. imply that we DO know everything. THAT is the position I find implausible and am arguing against.

You stated “If you are correct then ghosts and UFOs become legitimate topics which will then lie in a grave next to all other topics and we shall all mourn the death of knowledge and discovery.”

Three points:
1.  Your use of the term “ghosts” implies that you know what the paranormal manifestation is? I stand to be corrected, but you mean by “ghost” “the incarnation of dead people’s souls in the physical world” don’t you?  I suggest that this conception has no evidential support whatsoever (or at least extremely circumstantial) and as a skeptical thinker you should be extremely wary of holding such beliefs without sufficient supporting evidence.
2.  I think also you have a misconception concerning the term “UFO”. The tone of your language implies that you have a belief that UFOs are somehow linked to “aliens”, “little green men”, or some such similar misconception. I contend that this belief also has no basis in fact. In holding such beliefs you are buying directly into the hoaxers and the fraudsters agenda. You really must be more critical in your approach.
3.  My contention is that there is a phenomenon (or set of phenomena) we loosely label “paranormal” for which we have no prosaic or rational explanation according to our current state of knowledge. There is irrefutable evidence for this. For example, if you hold to the belief that the “alien abduction syndrome” is merely an artifact of human cognition, then I believe that this is in itself a phenomenon entirely worthy of study. How can it be that so many disparate people from all walks of life have the experience in such a way that all describe it in strikingly similar terms? THIS begs explanation – merely stating that it IS an hallucinatory phenomenon just pushes the question further back – it does not explain it at all. I therefore do not understand how such lines of inquiry lead us to “the death of knowledge”. Surely you are a seeker of knowledge – or do you simply have a closed mind on the topic of “the paranormal” and seek to ridicule rather than critically examine?

As a final note I feel should be stressed here - I personally do not subscribe to ANY particular belief concerning paranormal phenomena, only the more general concept that SOMETHING is occurring for which we currently have no explanation (eg: alien abduction syndrome, but my point similarly applies to UFOs – remember “unidentified” means exactly that and nothing else - and so on). I find Randi, Nickell, Mazur, Radford et al.’s claims that NOTHING at all except overwrought imagination is occurring utterly unsupported by the evidence. When critically examined the evidence is overwhelming that SOMETHING is occurring – just what is a deep, deep mystery that has so far eluded rational explanation. It is mere denial and ridicule that will lead to the death of knowledge, not rational exploration and critical examination as you seem to imply.

... SOMETHING is occurring for which we currently have no explanation (eg: alien abduction syndrome, but my point similarly applies to UFOs – remember “unidentified” means exactly that and nothing else - and so on). I find Randi, Nickell, Mazur, Radford et al.’s claims that NOTHING at all except overwrought imagination is occurring utterly unsupported by the evidence. When critically examined the evidence is overwhelming that SOMETHING is occurring – just what is a deep, deep mystery that has so far eluded rational explanation.

The question is how you claim to know this. What is the part that literally cannot be explained by present rational explanations?

Why can’t it all be explained by overwrought imagination? Give some detailed examples of cases that cannot be so explained, with independently documented evidence to back them up.

Doug - you conceded in a previous post (above) that the UFO investigation reports I referred to (eg: the French Government, Brazilian government and the U.S. Blue Book, Sign, Grudge etc) conclude that UFOs (in the strict sense of the phrase) exist without formal explanation. THIS I contend is compelling evidence that SOMETHING is occurring for which we have no rational explanation. Many hypotheses have been proposed for the UFO phenomenon. Your primary contention that it is purely imagination fails as a rational hypothesis simply (trivially) because of the officially documented radar/visual sightings by qualified military radar operators and pilots. Is it your contention that both civilian and military radar and highly qualified human observers are regularly and simultaneously hallucinating – this is a very worrying claim - no, I contend we simply use Occam’s razor and say that there IS something there – just that we cannot explain it. Is that so difficult a concept to grasp? What are you afraid of in not accepting this evidence? There are many such cases on official record. There are also many cases where literally thousands of witnesses have observed and completely independently provided descriptions of objects that we must conclude is (are) either the same object or a very close duplicate. The gigantic triangular daylight UFO that preceded the Phoenix Lights episode is one such of the more recent cases (I suggest you also look up the LA WWII incident for a case that preceded the so called “skeptics” UFO beginnings). These and similar cases also are listed in official government accounts. There are also literally thousands (indeed millions) of individual and group observations of UFOs that extend from present day as far back into recorded history as we care to examine. To claim that all this amounts to “imagination” is to deny the obvious. SOMETHING is going on here. I think what DOES scare you is the very fact that we CANNOT and DO NOT have explanations for many thousands of these UFO reports.

I contend that this is not “banal” (as you characterise it) - it is exactly the evidence for my contention that you call for.

I further reiterate. I have NO agenda here except to expunge the total credulity and lack of critical thinking of the so called skeptics (more accurately debunkers) when it comes to this topic. You have indicated you do not have an open minded, critical approach to this topic. It would be helpful if you allowed others to explore the issue rationally and critically without the prejudices and baggage you (exactly like the hoaxers and fraudsters) seem to have accumulated concerning the issue.

All I ask is for you and others to apply the same rigorous, critical analysis techniques to this topic as you would to any scientific line of investigation and allow that if we do not know the answer – we should be able to say so – without attracting ridicule and derision - which I can only speculate arises from a fear of the unknown.

...Oh, I am compelled to add that because I stated “…observations of UFOs that extend from present day as far back into recorded history as we care to examine.” You of course will reply that we have accounts of fairies at the bottom of the garden that similarly extend back into history. I can only add that we have rational sociological explanations for people’s belief in fairies – we DO NOT have a similar account for UFOs. Also, I think you will find that very few people indeed actually report seeing fairies, as for UFOs, reports come in on a daily basis from all over the world.

...Oh, I am compelled to add that because I stated “…observations of UFOs that extend from present day as far back into recorded history as we care to examine.” You of course will reply that we have accounts of fairies at the bottom of the garden that similarly extend back into history. I can only add that we have rational sociological explanations for people’s belief in fairies – we DO NOT have a similar account for UFOs.

Sure we do. UFOs are modern fairies, witches and night terrors for some people. We see things we don’t understand, and we interpret them using the templates that are around us at the time. Nowadays some part of the public thinks of B-movies and Star Trek, so we say “UFO”. In the old days people would have said Zeus or Thor.

Is it your contention that both civilian and military radar and highly qualified human observers are regularly and simultaneously hallucinating – this is a very worrying claim - no, I contend we simply use Occam’s razor and say that there IS something there – just that we cannot explain it.

The point here is that you are making an unjustified conclusion, which is that what is there is an “it”, a singular phenomenon that is being repeated. All we have are disparate unexplained claims. And yes, it is perfectly plausible that some of them could be hallucinations, although that is nothing more than a modest hypothesis that does not require “extraordinary evidence”.

I am sure that if you go into any police department of a modern city you will find cases that are also unexplained; not simply murders and thefts, but odd noises that went reported but never followed up. Heck, I lose socks in the dryer, and that is unexplained.

Are you claiming that all of these are due to magic gremlins? Clearly not. You are going to say only that they are Unidentified Perpetrators.

Every day we see things which are, yes, trivially and banally unexplained, because we don’t have the time or interest to go about attempting to explain every last bump and light in the night. The problem is not that things are unexplained, although clearly it would be nice to know every last thing there is to know. The problem is the litany of mystery-mongers who make money off the unsuspecting public, and frighten many, with absurd and completely uncorroborated fables about “what’s really going on”.

Doug –

You stated: “UFOs are modern fairies, witches and night terrors for some people“

Are you serious? I cannot believe you are being serious. I think you are now just making things up for the sake of argument. Having some fun perhaps because you are bored? Or do you take me or anyone who might read this post for a fool? Or do you have no respect at all for rational thought? Or perhaps you are simply ignorant of history. Whatever, it is clear you have never studied the history of fairies, witches, night terrors or UFOs. Otherwise you could never make such a patently ridiculous statement. I thought you claimed a PhD in philosophy? Clearly it has not helped your rational thought processes in this instance. Please Doug – you must get real and argue your case rationally or just give it up. You are doing no service to anyone who might read this. In abandoning any sense of rationality here you disappoint me. I truly thought you were better than this.

“We see things we don’t understand, and we interpret them using the templates that are around us at the time.”

Tell me Doug – having a PhD in philosophy does not give you pause to consider what you just said here? Obviously history or historical precedent does not matter to you at all. I can only shake my head in disbelief.

“Nowadays some part of the public thinks of B-movies and Star Trek, so we say “UFO”.

Now you ARE playing me for a fool. You have not read or understood a single word I have written in all this time I have been posting. Doug – help me to understand – what part of UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object do you not understand? What part of “You are insensibly, gullibley, uncritically, irrationally buying into (AND perpetuating) the fraudsters and hoaxers agenda when you claim UFOs are aliens, or Star Trek dreams, little green men, etc etc”. I am truly bewildered by your insensible intractability – by the sheer closed mindedness you display – you wanton obtuseness…

“In the old days people would have said Zeus or Thor.”

Ughh… are you really this ill-educated?

“All we have are disparate unexplained claims. And yes, it is perfectly plausible that some of them could be hallucinations, although that is nothing more than a modest hypothesis that does not require “extraordinary evidence”.

According to you, all over the world billions of people are hallucinating the same things – (have you evidence that it is NOT a single phenomena being repeated?) - a good proportion of these people being highly qualified and trained observers and holding positions of vital power where their observations matter to human wellbeing and you have the insensible temerity, the bloody minded audacity, to claim this to be a “modest” hypothesis? Philosopher, philosopher, wherefore art thou? (I suppose you now also claim to believe in animism? Radars now hallucinate too?)

“I am sure that if you go into any police department of a modern city..” Here is EXACTLY your problem Doug. You make sweeping generalisations, loaded with unfounded assumptions, about which you “are sure” of but when examined you have absolutely no evidence for. You have mere beliefs Doug and this is not enough to convince anyone of you critical thinking credentials.

You lose socks in your dryer and have no explanation? The more you write the more I doubt your powers of rational cognition.

“Are you claiming that all of these are due to magic gremlins? Clearly not. You are going to say only that they are Unidentified Perpetrators.”

You have lost me here Doug. This statement, hanging in the middle of your post with no context, a sentence paragraph, refers to what exactly?…if it was supposed to be part of the previous paragraph, your powers of divination of my thought processes are clearly inadequate. I WOULD say the cause was unknown. Full stop. “Perpetrators” makes an unfounded assumption. You are too quick to make these types of assumptions Doug. You really must try and think clearly, for your own sake if not for mine. I will add an insight for free - I WOULD NOT claim the cause to be unknowable upon rational investigation. You deny even the possibility of rational investigation.

“The problem is the litany of mystery-mongers who make money off the unsuspecting public, and frighten many, with absurd and completely uncorroborated fables about “what’s really going on”.

First I think you should look up the meaning of “litany” (but now I am nitpicking – see how you frustrate me Doug?) … I actually tend to agree with your general meaning here EXCEPT for your utterly loose and imprecise language and unfounded assumption that people are “frightened” by the “mystery-mongers” (indeed a strange term to use here unless you have an a priori cognitive bias against mysteries).

I have absolutely no doubt you have never actually studied the UFO phenomenon. As a philosopher I would have thought you might understand the dangers of pronouncing on a subject about which you know only what the hoaxers and fraudsters have told you to believe. As you should know, mere beliefs do not constitute knowledge.

I also get the sense from you Doug that your are living in fear. You are trying to make the entire world a completely rational enterprise as if your own sanity might be at stake. I refer you again to A F Chalmers and there you might discover that science itself is far from being the model of a truly rational enterprise you suppose it is. As a philosopher I would have expected you to pause when it comes to claiming that we can reduce everything to “rationality”.  There is a very real possibility that the universe is not amenable to (or reducible according to) human “rationality”. You should have a little humility Doug. You are not a God. You can legitimately argue against irrational thought and legitimately argue for a sound methodology for critical thinking. BUT you make illegitimate your own program if you do not apply that same critical methodology to your own circumstances and pronouncements.

It is clear to me now that on this issue (at least) your mind is completely closed and no amount of evidence or pleas for rational thought will convince you to open it one iota. You should perhaps explore another theory - Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory – it may provide you with some valuable insights into human rationality.  Perhaps also you should study some basic psychology and you may understand more exactly in what ways human perception is fallible – for this seems to be misconceived in you also.

That’s quite a blizzard of words and, frankly, personal abuse from you, Rramjet, about which you have been warned before. (“wanton obtuseness…” “ill-educated”, “you are living in fear”, etc.)

However, reading it over now three times, I can’t yet actually see any coherent arguments in it.

The only actually recognizable claim I can make out is that “all over the world billions of people are hallucinating the same things” which is a patent falsehood.

As for your obscurantist move against rationality (which for some reason you put in scare quotes), that is really the final refuge of those without argument.

I would be interested to hear what you think after reading the information contained therein:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

I have done as you asked and read Prescott’s essay. It is persuasive if only in a he-said, she-said way. Lots of references to statements and tape recordings that can not be substantiated. Still I find Prescott to be neither rigorous nor compelling. He nitpicks anecdotal details and strives so hard to find faults he makes .. well, stupid mistakes. For example he thinks Randi had never been to the SRI, even though in the same book he had produced drawn diagrams of the room and hole in the wall. Prescott’s proof? A line from the book (published in 1982) where Randi says he has not stepped foot at SRI. A little bit of research and Prescott would have found photographs of Randi at SRI -> http://www.randi.org/jr/082302.html and Randi admits the passage should have read “yet”. This is rigorous skepticism? This is a joke. The mysterious tape recording never emerges.

Add to the silliness the defense of widely-disproven scam artist Uri Gellar (I especially like his humiliation on Carson’s show) and you’ve lost all credibility.

Listen, I’m a follower of no one. You have good evidence Randi is a fraud? I’d love to see it. Frankly I’m not a big fan of Joe Nickel either.. I just think he’s honest and reasonable, so far as I can tell. I think Michael Prescott is probably a good guy too but he lets his bias-of-the-day and lack of research acumen embarass himself. He had no problem with Flim-Flam back when he agreed with its perspective but found all sorts of problems as soon as he didn’t. That indicates maybe he sees whatever he wants to see at the moment. Maybe.

Sate: “People who are dogmatic take a stand with no regard for any sort of evidence. Ya see, your definition of dogmatic Rramjet is the usual definition of reasonable.”

You will have to explain how your conclusion here logically follows from your premise – I cannot see the logic you imply exists here.

Sure. You have called the dismissal of what is widely called “paranormal” dogmatic. Here is a quote from earlier in the thread: It seems Point of Enquiry has become particularly dogmatic and close minded when it comes to so called paranormal or otherwise anomalous phenomena. To deny that there are unexplained or even inexplicable phenomena is to arrogantly assume the ultimate knowledge of a god.
Dismissing something for which there is no positive evidence and a wide array of disconfirming evidence is what most would agree is “reasonable”. There is no positive evidence for anything paranormal. If concievable mundane explanations are possible then the phenomena is normal by definition not paranormal. There is a wide array of disconfirming evidence in the documentation of how human senses are faulty and how the so-called “phenomena” echos our social fears and biases. There is a long, long list of debunked claims. Thus, no positive evidence… wide array of disconfirming evidence. Therefore it is reasonable to reject such claims. You call this very act dogmatic. I hope this helps to clear it up.

1.  WHAT “mountain” of evidence?

How about the long, long list of exposed deliberate frauds and natural phenomena misreported as UFO/ghost? How about the total, absolute 100% poverty of any physical evidence? How about the sociological research that reveals our biases projected onto the supernatural? It’s no accident that sexually repressed victorians reported seeing lusty Incubi and succubi. It’s no accident that a society of the mid 20th century terrified of technological annihilation from Nuclear Bombs, artificial satellites and so on started imagining menacing metal invaders in the sky. At least our fears are relatively benign- in some parts of the world they still burn witches who have become the target of social fears.

Sate:” Are we supposed to hold implausible, negative beliefs to different standards from any other suggestion?”

This does not make sense. What do you mean? You really must be a clear thinker to play in this sandbox

There is nothing unclear about what I said. implausible means implausible. Negative means a “prove there isn’t X” sort of belief. Maybe I just need to use smaller or more words to play in this sandbox. Hey is that your pail? What I am saying is no other theory has gotten to hold credibility after decades of zero evidence. Asking us to keep considering this one anew is asking for special treatment.

Cutting to the chase a bit..

When critically examined the evidence is overwhelming that SOMETHING is occurring…

I disagree. There is no evidence of any single pervasive “phenomena”. Individual instances can be studied but not grouped with other disparate unexplained events. Nor should any of it be taken in advance to be evidence of some “deep deep mystery” without cause.  There is no such cause, no such evidence.

Oh, don’t be so sensitive Doug… you should be happy, “wanton obtuseness”, “ill-educated” and “you are living in fear” are professional diagnoses (now further supported by the evidence of your most recent post) that I have provided you without a fee :) Besides it is clear from your statements you take me for a fool, so if that is the worst I call you, count yourself lucky :|

Nevertheless I will add another diagnosis – your comprehension of the English language is very poor.

You stated “The only actually recognizable claim I can make out is that “all over the world billions of people are hallucinating the same things” which is a patent falsehood.”

Here (for example) you display “wanton obtuseness” and “poor comprehension”. Wanton obtuseness because I began the statement (you quoted above) with “You claim…” (meaning YOU Doug) and yet you write as if it is I that is making the assertion. Poor comprehension of the English language because if I understand what you WANTED to say, it is not the “hallucinating” claim you question (for it is your very own), rather the fact that I put the words “billions” and “the same thing” into your mouth. That is I quantify and qualify your open ended “hallucination” claim with facts and it is veracity of those quantifications and qualifications that you really question – yet you were not sufficiently literate to convey that.

To provide some background for you - “billions” is extrapolated from official population prevalence studies of public reporting versus non-reporting of UFOs: “the same thing” because ostensibly we have all these reports of observed objects performing similar (known)-physics defying feats in and above earth’s atmosphere – and BECAUSE it is unknown what these objects are, it would be indefensible (unjustifiable) to claim more than one source for such a phenomena.

You stated: “As for your obscurantist move against rationality (which for some reason you put in scare quotes), that is really the final refuge of those without ”argument.”

No Doug: it is not “obscurantist” (I will allow you to make up words for this point) it is actually a philosophically relativistic position. Do you REALLY have an education in philosophy? As for it being a “final refuge” I know now you are ENTIRELY IGNORANT of philosophy and as for your claim of a PhD in philosophy…  – for your information relativism is a well established philosophical tradition extending back centuries – and for your further information I have not taken a “position” on the subject at all – if you read carefully I am merely pointing out that the philosophical position exists, not that I support it. You really MUST read things more carefully Doug…oh, you read it over three times!? Oh dear, you really do have problems with comprehension don’t you.

And –“scare quotes”? I do not understand what this term means. Is it something you have just made up that sounds good to you, or is it an established aphorism I am unaware of?

You also place “argument” in quotes as if the definition of “argument” might be in question. DO you question established definitions of “argument”? – I placed my quotes around “rationality” because that may be a disputable term in the context of our “argument” – that is the ESTABLISHED CONVENTION Doug. I am surprised you are unaware of this – actually no… by now I am not surprised at all by your ignorance in such matters.

Finally you stated in reference to my previous post “However, reading it over now three times, I can’t yet actually see any coherent arguments in it.”

I will let the readers judge this one….

I will read and respond to TAYLOR’s extensive post in due course – I will say I appreciate the time and thought put into it. I will respond accordingly.

Thank you TAYLOR, you have done as I suggested and come to your own conclusions. I might not agree with them, and could argue more about them, but I respect the fact that you actually conducted a little research and made up your own mind. FYI another interesting article on the general topic may be found at: http://www.aiprinc.org/para-C05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf

You stated in reference to my claim that Point of Inquiry is dogmatic in dismissing paranormal phenomena : “Dismissing something for which there is no positive evidence and a wide array of disconfirming evidence is what most would agree is “reasonable”.”

Would you deny for example that the alien abduction phenomenon does not exist? Clearly it does. Various hypotheses have been put forth to explain it, none hold up under rigorous investigation. The latter is an assertion based on all the empirical studies I have read concerning the phenomenon, but that is an entirely different thing to claim the phenomenon does not exist. Similarly with UFOs and ghosts. The very fact that they are PERSISTENT in MAINSTREAM society gives us a clue as to the lack of rational explicability concerning such phenomena. I would further suggest that things like vampires, fairies, werewolves, and other mythologies that are often lumped in with paranormal phenomenon are NOT “mainstream” beliefs in the way UFOs and ghosts are and I would suggest this is because we have sounder sociological explanations for the development of such mythologies – and consequently it is rare for reports of people claiming to see fairies, vampires, werewolves etc, in fact, historically and contemporarily, first hand reports of these things are extremely rare. UFOs and ghosts on the other hand are reported daily.

The reason werewolves, witches, vampires, fairies, goblins & c. are lumped into the “paranormal” by the dogmatist skeptics IS exactly an attempt to discredit by association in the face of a lack of disconfirming evidence. One needs to critically distinguish “mythology” (which includes established religions – concerning which some would like “theology” to be a breakaway) - which is a serious and well establish academic discipline with established investigative techniques supported by critically determined hypotheses and rationally determined conclusions - from the “paranormal” which has very little of any of these properties. If we constantly confuse the two, as the sceptical dogmatists would wish we do, we will never be able to rationally investigate and come to a rational conclusion concerning any of it

You don’t see any of the skeptics having PhDs in mythology or theology do you? And you don’t see any of them claiming to have studied UFO phenomenon either. Some do claim to have investigated ghosts – but only from the perspective that ghosts are “the incarnate souls of dead people” and that is but ONE of a range of competing hypotheses. Similarly with Psi, and here we have a range of competing evidence – although the skeptics never mention the positive studies…).

You stated: “There is a wide array of disconfirming evidence in the documentation of how human senses are faulty”

Someone should really study some psychology here. Perceptive illusions primarily occur under very precise and delineated circumstances, in other words we have a very good idea of when and where our senses will be mislead. Unfortunately for the skeptics the circumstantial criteria for our senses being mislead when it comes to UFOs, in most cases, is not met. In other words, “hallucination” is simply NOT a tenable hypothesis to explain the majority of UFO sightings. Mistaken identity of natural phenomena do occur, but the sheer volume and the independent observations of the same things at different times and places (ie: repeatability of observation IS observed) mitigates against many of the skeptics “mistaken identity” claims also.

“How about the long, long list of exposed deliberate frauds and natural phenomena misreported as UFO/ghost?”

I have covered natural phenomena, but deliberate fraud occurs in established science equally – there are many, many instances of established scientists discovered making bogus claims in peer reviewed journals – it happens all the time – we do not throw out physics or chemistry because there are nutters involved in the field.

“How about the total, absolute 100% poverty of any physical evidence?”

Oh but there is physical evidence – look up Lonnie Zamora for example. There are also many, many other cases where such physical trace evidence is left behind and officially documented. The skeptics just don’t tell you (or don’t know) about it. But if you are asking for a crashed alien craft…well, are you really asking for a crashed alien craft…? :)

“How about the sociological research that reveals our biases projected onto the supernatural?”

I think perhaps you mean psychology, here I would refer you to Tversky and Kahneman (co-authors of heuristics and biases), sociology is more broadly based but here I would refer you to Festinger (cognitive dissonance theory).

“Hey is that your pail?”

Why…so it is! And that’s my dump-truck too ...now how did that get in here!? :)

“What I am saying is no other theory has gotten to hold credibility after decades of zero evidence.”

Start with Zamora. Then go to The Battle of Los Angeles, then, come back for more if you’re interested.

To cut to the chase… examine the evidence (as you did with Randi) and then consider your response.

Oh, don’t be so sensitive Doug… you should be happy, “wanton obtuseness”, “ill-educated” and “you are living in fear” are professional diagnoses (now further supported by the evidence of your most recent post) that I have provided you without a fee :) Besides it is clear from your statements you take me for a fool, so if that is the worst I call you, count yourself lucky :|

Not for those in the psychology field, esp not to their face, because it is a form of name calling.

Okay, okay, We need to call a halt to this.
I admit it is getting a bit close to the edge ...but I intensely dislike being taken for a fool.

So I will now formally offer my apologies to Doug as I know I must because my comments will have caused him offense…. I do not wish to start a flame war - but I do want to argue against dogmatism and uncritical acceptance of “folklaw” concerning the paranormal, but I want to do it logically and critically and that can only happen if both sides agree that is how it should be.

I just wish Doug would reply to my posts by addressing the points I raise and not by completely ignoring the questions and points of argument I put to him. However, I’ll simply have to keep reminding myself that once a belief is strongly enough held, no amount of evidence is likely to change that (for psychologists refer to Festinger). Others have quite successfully replied to my posts in this way (asanta, TALOR…) and have garnered my respect for doing so.

I think that skeptics like Randi et al and now Doug are deliberately obtuse when it comes to this sort of stuff because they are fearful that if they really did critically examine the evidence, or try to defend their own positions against logical argument, then they just might have to admit that something is going on that we have no explanation for.

No rational conclusion can stand or fall on one case alone - but for critical thinkers, Lonnie Zamora might be a good place to begin, perhaps then the Battle of LA and maybe the UK Rendlesham Forrest incident (read the transcripts and the witness interviews)... I have not much interest in ghosts so I don’t have any decent references for evidence either way in such cases… BUT for the true rational critical thinker I think one would find The Paracast (with Gene Steinberg and David Biedne) as good a critical thinker’s paranormal focused show as you could get.

Personally, IF I were to listen to a paranormal show, I prefer Audio Martini podcast and I also think Randi is good too, but that isn’t the point of the thread.

However, when Doug was referring to “faries” as you called it, I think he meant that UFOs or even aliens have actually visited us.  Not like those cut little eggheads you see on Stargate (one is called Thor, I think) at least or strong boistrous Klingons.  The thing is, I seriously doubt, if they can get this far, the would want to visit us humans.  Too violent.

I also don’t think Doug fears meeting anyone from another planet, if it were possible.  It’s just that more than likely they won’t look a thing like those in Science Fiction or on those stories where people were supposedly kidnapped by aliens and brought back.  It would even be nice if there were people who looked like the humanoid cats of Andre Norton’s Star Ka’at World, but as much as I’d like it to be true, as a cat lover, I seriously doubt that is a possibility.  Those cows supposedly attacked by aliens are probably one of two things- photo shop or bats.  UFOs are generally some photo shop program or other manipulation program.

You don’t see any of the skeptics having PhDs in mythology or theology do you?

Um… yes I do- one is Robert Price.  He has a PhD in theology and he’s a skeptic.  There are others too, but I need to look up their actual degrees.

Be that as it may, what I wish and what is reality, more than likely is not Star Trek nor are there cute little eggheads like Thor on Stargate, no matter how much I wish it to be true and I think that is the point Doug was trying to make.  Science Fiction and reality are two different things.  Many of us wish it to be so and that is why there are so many SciFi programs.

Thank you TAYLOR, you have done as I suggested and come to your own conclusions….

RRamjet, do you mean to be addressing me? I authored the post about Prescott’s essay. I’m glad you’re pleased, I think everyone should get a fair hearing. That said I will not always be able to indulge as time may not allow.

Would you deny for example that the alien abduction phenomenon does not exist? ... with UFOs and ghosts. The very fact that they are PERSISTENT in MAINSTREAM society gives us a clue as to the lack of rational explicability ...The reason werewolves, witches, vampires, fairies, goblins & c. are lumped into the “paranormal” by the dogmatist skeptics IS exactly an attempt to discredit by association ...

To answer, yes. I would say it does not exist. You say reports of werewolves etc were rare, historically speaking but this is not true once you consider social and technological changes over time. Three and four hundred years ago there was not a news media nor preponderance of documenting media such as we have today. Also, you did not have so many people living in urban/suburban areas nor so many people, period. All of these factors would have limited the number of “reportings” that made it into the record for us to study later.
I see no reason to ascribe unsavory motives to the skeptical investigators. The question is, are eye witnesses dependable/accurate? Clearly not. Have eye witnesses reported all manner of fantasy creatures/apparitions of the centuries? Clearly yes. Hell, how many freakin’ Elvis sightings do we still get a year?

In other words, “hallucination” is simply NOT a tenable hypothesis to explain the majority of UFO sightings. Mistaken identity of natural phenomena do occur, but the sheer volume and the independent observations of the same things at different times and places (ie: repeatability of observation IS observed) mitigates against many of the skeptics “mistaken identity” claims also.

I think hallucination is relatively rare but then when you have 300 million+ people in our nation alone rare turns into required. I was referring more to natural phenomena which can present strange experiences as well as conventional technology that people are not all that familiar with- such as the military flares used in AZ that got so many people all UFO-crazy. You say this does not account for everything and I agree- but it does prove one important fact. People are incredibly easy to totally convince with the simplest of illusions (a floating burning stick, for example). Those witnesses did not merely report, by the way.. they immediately started producing reasons the lights could not be natural. Fooled, and biased.. instantly. This is good reason to a priory doubt other accounts (but not proof of their inauthenticity).

...many, many instances of established scientists discovered making bogus claims in peer reviewed journals – it happens all the time – we do not throw out physics or chemistry because there are nutters involved in the field.

Frankly I’m not sure how frequent this is. Certainly many research projects are insufficiently rigorous or poorly designed but this is not the same as making “bogus claims”.  We do throw out the research and if an entire topic is covered by bogus research we throw out the topic too, such as cold fusion. Similarly we dismiss UFOlogy and the like.

Oh but there is physical evidence – look up Lonnie Zamora for example. There are also many, many other cases where such physical trace evidence is left behind and officially documented. The skeptics just don’t tell you (or don’t know) about it. But if you are asking for a crashed alien craft…well, are you really asking for a crashed alien craft…?

What I meant was definitive evidence. A wide range of people could produce burned bushes and sand. What do you mean the “skeptics don’t tell me”? You think I ask them? If the suggestion is that there are alien craft, then convincing physical evidence would be any sort of specimen definitively unearthly or say, a craft landing in Times Square. Zamora’s case is interesting but CSICOP’s Gary Posner suggests it may be a hoax (read here- http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/posner_klass.html )
I’m not just a skeptic though. I know that some witnesses are honest and sober. I know because I am one of them.

Oh, sorry sate, I am juggling two or three threads at this point….

The alien abduction phenomenon does not exist? I think you are confusing the phenomenon with the dogmatic debunkers “aliens”. It is one thing to hypothesise that aliens do not exist. It is another to deny that millions of people all over the world are reporting ostensibly similar experiences of “aliens” – clearly they do – thus it is a phenomenon that needs explanation. If you hypothesise the explanation to be hallucination, then you must develop clear evidence to support that hypothesis – if you can show me this clear evidence, then I will be more likely to agree with the hypothesis. If you cannot show me the clear evidence, then the hypothesis remains just that – speculation without foundation. This is what Randi, Nickell, Mazur et al. (and of course Doug) excel at – providing speculation without foundation.

I think if you studied the evidence (please) we actually do NOT get reliable sightings of Elvis reported (or fairies, etc) – yet we DO get reliable UFO and ghost reports occurring daily (what I mean by “reliable” is observations (often by multiple witness) made by qualified observers – pilots, policemen, astronomers, astronauts, etc). Historically, this has always been the case.

The motives of skeptics – I have a little saying that I usually place at the bottom of my email correspondence – “Please investigate the vested interests behind any information you receive – if you are not sure, bet on self interest”.

My vested interest? Critical thinking. All I am calling for is a critical examination of the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

You stated “military flares used in AZ that got so many people all UFO-crazy”

I presume you are talking about the Phoenix Lights? I think you would do well to study the evidence in this case also and to really think about the physics and chemistry of the “military flare” explanation. Have you ever seen the documentary “Out of the Blue”? I recommend you watch it and see if your “military flare” hypothesis is supported by the evidence.

You stated “People are incredibly easy to totally convince with the simplest of illusions…This is good reason to a priory doubt other accounts (but not proof of their inauthenticity).

I think “a priori” is the term you are looking for. Ughhh,. Illusions, hallucinations… this perennial favourite of the dogmatic debunkers is just not supported by the evidence. The twisted logic behind it seems to be “I do not understand what you saw, therefore because it is possible for you to be mistaken, what you saw does not exist.” It simply does not make sense. It is akin to saying “I am a God and I know everything, so if you tell me about something I do not know about – you must be mistaken because you are human”. Yes, and the earth was flat. The universe revolved around the earth. Newton was the last word in physics. Maxwell was a crank peddling supernatural action at a distance. Einstein thought quantum physics ridiculous – history is replete with examples of those who would not accept the evidence and vainly tried to call into question the sanity of the proponents of that evidence. Thus it ever was and thus, unfortunately for rationalism, it will ever be.

Believe me, I am a published scientist and I have peer reviewed countless proposed and accepted research papers. I KNOW how much “fudging” of the data and how many outright fraudulent and bogus claims are made by ostensibly qualified and supposedly reputable scientists. You, the public, just do not get to hear about it. Unfortunately the claims promulgated by Randi et al are not subject to such rigorous peer review before they are foisted on an unsuspecting public. All I am doing here is calling for some critical analysis of the claims of these people and also a rational assessment of the evidence surrounding so called paranormal activity.

On Zamora – actually in that interview you point to Klass tries to make out it was just a publicity stunt. But this was NOT his first attempt at an explanation… He also suggested Hynek’s investigation was brief…It lasted well over a year! Further, Klass has never been able to produce either the physicist or “the man in his garden” he claims both to have interviewed. Simply I contend either Klass is a liar or he has not investigated that which he claims… :)

On Hynek… “My original investigations, directed toward breaking apart Zamora’s account by seeking mutual contradictions in it and also to establish Zamora as an unreliable witness, were fruitless … I was impressed by the high regard in which Zamora was held by his colleagues, and I am personally willing today to accept his testimony as genuine…”

I suggest that people look at the Blue Book investigation. Go to the source… not to the hearsay of many that followed.

RRamjet-

Before I get into the details a few points.
1. Don’t lump me in with the “dogmatic debunkers”. I am not a part of this or any such group or following. Refuting them is not refuting me, ok? Like you yourself claim, I have absolutely no “vested interest” beyond the truth.
2. I am not as stupid as you suppose that I automatically take the word of any so-called expect of any variety. I’ve disagreed strongly with plenty from doctors, skeptics, laywers, biologists, researchers, philosophers, etc.., each “expert” in their opinion.
3. Because I disagree with you does not mean I do not have the same level of informity on a topic.

Moving on,

RRamjet:The alien abduction phenomenon does not exist? I think you are confusing the phenomenon with the dogmatic debunkers “aliens”. It is one thing to hypothesise that aliens do not exist. It is another to deny that millions of people all over the world are reporting ostensibly similar experiences of “aliens” – clearly they do – thus it is a phenomenon that needs explanation.

Didn’t you tell me I needed to be clear in my thinking here? You call something the alien abduction phenomena which has nothing to do with aliens? Not very clear. Clear would be something like Abduction Experience phenomena or alleged abduction victim phenomena. There is a phenomena, but I do not classify it as “paranormal” nor do I find it unexplained. Show me video of it transpiring.. that would be a mystery worth attention.

I think if you studied the evidence (please) we actually do NOT get reliable sightings of Elvis reported (or fairies, etc) – yet we DO get reliable UFO and ghost reports occurring daily (what I mean by “reliable” is observations (often by multiple witness) made by qualified observers – pilots, policemen, astronomers, astronauts, etc). Historically, this has always been the case.

I did not claim we get reliable sightings of Elvis or fairies today. It is amazing there are any sightings of those things.. but there are. I take exception with your basis of “reliable” witnesses. You have said: I KNOW how much “fudging” of the data and how many outright fraudulent and bogus claims are made by ostensibly qualified and supposedly reputable scientists. Uh okay.. but then you say I’m supposed to listen to some sort of professional because they are a professional (astronomer, etc) ? So you take into account a person’s credentials when you need to shore up your case but not when you don’t? This is critical thinking? There is no reason any of these people are better witnesses than a farmer or store clerk. Recently, a Policeman was accomplice to a Bigfoot hoax. Excuse.. I meant to say ex-cop now that he’s been fired. Also I remind you I am a witness myself. When I speak of “UFO” witnesses I am in that group. But hey I’m not an astronomer or liar cop so I’m not reliable. Right?

Illusions, hallucinations… this perennial favourite of the dogmatic debunkers is just not supported by the evidence. The twisted logic behind it seems to be “I do not understand what you saw, therefore because it is possible for you to be mistaken, what you saw does not exist.”

Perhaps it is the perennial favourite because it is the most reasonable conclusion. Regardless your strawman is simply not true. Again I remind you I am not part of this “dogmatic debunkers” group. I have looked at the evidence and sought the most likely answer. No amount of investigation may tell you exactly where I had lunch 6 years ago today. You may not find evidence even to place me in a particular city. Being unable to resolve this “mystery” does not make all hypotheses equal. There is no reason to believe me or anyone else if I said the answer was ‘orbiting jupiter’. I believe most of the witnesses- because I am a witness. I believe they saw something or at least are convinced of it. I believe they are sometimes terrified because I was. None of this makes the most outlandish guesses more sane.

Newton was the last word in physics. Maxwell was a crank peddling supernatural action at a distance. Einstein thought quantum physics ridiculous

Except that they all had data on their side. For every Maxwell or Darwin shaking things up, there were 10,000 raving idiots who were dead wrong or dead crazy. Being popularly rejected is not proof you are correct. Statistically, quite the opposite (strictly speaking it is irrelevant of course). Pulling the ‘oh yeah well people said we’d never walk on the moon and we did!’ card seems like a desperate tactic. How about sticking to evidence of the issues at hand?

On Zamora – actually in that interview you point to Klass tries to make out it was just a publicity stunt. But this was NOT his first attempt at an explanation… ...Further, Klass has never been able to produce either the physicist

Presumably the point of investigation is to piece together an event which no doubt often requires entertaining different guesses in the process. I don’t see sufficient reason to call Klass a liar, as for the witnesses that is for Klass to address not myself. Still the remaining details, uncontested, do create a suspicious picture.

The Blue Book investigations are hardly in your favor. The vast majority of its what, 12000+ cases turn out to be pedestrian. BB was shut down and forgotten.. an utter failure to demonstrate any real “phenomena” is out there. The Zamora case definitely sticks out as it does not appear to be fraudulent. The reason it sticks out is such a case is so rare, because the whole “field” is so totally full of bullshit. Shouldn’t there be “millions” of cases like this one instead of uh.. one?