Let's get one thing straight that never gets straight. Being skeptical is GOOD if you really want to find some answers. Especially in the UFO world. I commonly hear "the skeptics" in a negative way and in the Stanton Friedman way it is termed" noisy negativists". And in many ways he seems suspect to his own "rules". Not that Stan hasn't done good work and opened the eyes of many to the UFO possibilities, but that those possibilities are those of his own conclusions and not exactly balance by other negativists if you want to call them that.
Now there is a difference between a non-thinking debunker and a skeptic. Non-thinking
debunkers are those that just go through a laundry list of why ANY UFO is bunk. These debunkers and true believers are basically in the same boat. They have beliefs of how things are and they are bullet-proof to anything else. There are many of these in the UFO world. And none of them can impart any useful information in this study.
But then there is a narrower band of thinkers and researchers that merges towards centrism. The true open minded skeptic. The person that weighs heavily on skepticism but maintains an open mind to all possibilites. There is no such person. You either lean towards UFO's being real or not, even if the lean is a precarious little tilt. But the thing is, that most official groups are not very diversified. The opinions tend to fall squareley on one side or the other. Like minds tend to gather together and they seem to have no sense of checking themselves or their conclusions.
This is a problem for truth. Or at least those that want productive progress in the ufological field. No matter the difference of opinion these people (skeptics and co-called believers) need to somehow unite. Maybe they don't need to hold hands daily and they don't necessarily have to like each other, but it might serve as a great library of information and opinion. This type of forum, where skeptics, pro or con on the existance of UFO's, would intelligently and courteously present data. They would come to conclusions together to try and solve this thing. This would give the best opinion and data supporting the reality of UFO's.
We need the skeptics as our checks and balances. Then we may begin to understand how data can produce drastictly different results. We never seem to have the forums that present both sides of a topic. This is exactly what we need. Both sides. Because when you have both sides, even if they may be opposed, you have a better chance of reaching a centered and reasonable conclusion than having heard only one version. Period.
Here is a list of things that may help solve this impossible mystery. It is just food for thought, but if I could present some guidelines or rules that allow for understanding the people involved and an avenue for exporing such topics.
1. All members must pass lie detector tests or battery of tests. This may inhibit people making wild claims and those that do will need to pass this test validating, if only in their minds, their claims.
2. All members background and financial status must be disclosed, verified, and openly distributed on request. This stuff may be invasive but can be an important consideration when judging the nature and integrity of a person. Certainly this isn't everything, but people should know.
3. I think that even their beliefs on many topics should be disclosed as well. This is just an intensive and scutinizing way of organizing a productive group and I think, at this point, it may be needed. Not that there beliefs are even wrong, but from this information we can know where they are shooting from. Again, just something we should know.
4. Open and non-threatening way of meeting, discussing, presenting and compiling of data, and starting to form a "group" opinion using tools of science and deductive reason.
5. Peer review is only possible when such a group has operated cooperatively and congruently in a way that forms a more unified consensus on cases and presented evidence. This would take a number of years at least to consistenly come up with enough "heads in the mix" so to speak for a longer tenure to establish the validity and respectability of having competent peers review their work.
I know that I will have a lot more to say about this topic, but at this point I will at least get some of these ideas out onto the blog. Yeah the blog that no one reads, but nonetheless, it is there if only for me to think and rethink. To form logical opinions on how we may be able to undress the mysteriously cloaked enigma that is ufology.
Now there is a difference between a non-thinking debunker and a skeptic. Non-thinking
debunkers are those that just go through a laundry list of why ANY UFO is bunk. These debunkers and true believers are basically in the same boat. They have beliefs of how things are and they are bullet-proof to anything else. There are many of these in the UFO world. And none of them can impart any useful information in this study.But then there is a narrower band of thinkers and researchers that merges towards centrism. The true open minded skeptic. The person that weighs heavily on skepticism but maintains an open mind to all possibilites. There is no such person. You either lean towards UFO's being real or not, even if the lean is a precarious little tilt. But the thing is, that most official groups are not very diversified. The opinions tend to fall squareley on one side or the other. Like minds tend to gather together and they seem to have no sense of checking themselves or their conclusions.
This is a problem for truth. Or at least those that want productive progress in the ufological field. No matter the difference of opinion these people (skeptics and co-called believers) need to somehow unite. Maybe they don't need to hold hands daily and they don't necessarily have to like each other, but it might serve as a great library of information and opinion. This type of forum, where skeptics, pro or con on the existance of UFO's, would intelligently and courteously present data. They would come to conclusions together to try and solve this thing. This would give the best opinion and data supporting the reality of UFO's.
We need the skeptics as our checks and balances. Then we may begin to understand how data can produce drastictly different results. We never seem to have the forums that present both sides of a topic. This is exactly what we need. Both sides. Because when you have both sides, even if they may be opposed, you have a better chance of reaching a centered and reasonable conclusion than having heard only one version. Period.Here is a list of things that may help solve this impossible mystery. It is just food for thought, but if I could present some guidelines or rules that allow for understanding the people involved and an avenue for exporing such topics.
1. All members must pass lie detector tests or battery of tests. This may inhibit people making wild claims and those that do will need to pass this test validating, if only in their minds, their claims.
2. All members background and financial status must be disclosed, verified, and openly distributed on request. This stuff may be invasive but can be an important consideration when judging the nature and integrity of a person. Certainly this isn't everything, but people should know.
3. I think that even their beliefs on many topics should be disclosed as well. This is just an intensive and scutinizing way of organizing a productive group and I think, at this point, it may be needed. Not that there beliefs are even wrong, but from this information we can know where they are shooting from. Again, just something we should know.
4. Open and non-threatening way of meeting, discussing, presenting and compiling of data, and starting to form a "group" opinion using tools of science and deductive reason.
5. Peer review is only possible when such a group has operated cooperatively and congruently in a way that forms a more unified consensus on cases and presented evidence. This would take a number of years at least to consistenly come up with enough "heads in the mix" so to speak for a longer tenure to establish the validity and respectability of having competent peers review their work.
I know that I will have a lot more to say about this topic, but at this point I will at least get some of these ideas out onto the blog. Yeah the blog that no one reads, but nonetheless, it is there if only for me to think and rethink. To form logical opinions on how we may be able to undress the mysteriously cloaked enigma that is ufology.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment