I subscribe to a number of Skeptic publications; and over the last year I've seen quite a number of articles published in those publications. I consider myself to be a skeptic, but I feel that perhaps there are a few people out there whom claim to be skeptic when really they only stand to debunk anything that threatens the status quo.
To me a skeptic is someone who doesn't just take what they're told by someone and accepts it. Instead, a skeptic will investigate, research and come to their own independent conclusion. To enter a situation with an unbiased and open mind, weigh up the facts and come to the simplest, most logical conclusion. But it seems to me there are quite a lot of people whom call themselves skeptics but really should be better known as debunkers. These are the sorts of people who go out of their way to try to prove that certain phenomenon, be it UFOs, ghosts, other paranormal, spiritual or mystical events, or things like swine flu vaccine being unsafe.
They're the sorts of people whom, instead of digging for the truth, will accept official versions of events from government organisations or other persons whom are invested in the cause. Debunkers are the complete opposite of a conspiracy theist, basically doing everything in there power to convince people that the status quo is the only logical answer. It's almost as if these people were employed by some interested party in order to persuaded the general public there is "nothing to see here". Of course I'm not actually suggesting this is the case, merely using the euphemism to highly how these people operate.
Increasingly I'm finding these sorts of people being published in one skeptic publication in particular; that being Skeptic Magazine. You may have heard their ad play on TopHogg FM from time to time. I am also finding these sorts of people representing skeptics everywhere on all manner of documentaries into the paranormal. Frankly, as an intelligent, well educated person, very capable of critequing and making up my own mind about events, I find some of the things these sorts of debunkers say offensive. They give the skeptic community an unwarranted perception of close minded, illogical fools.
Sometimes for whatever plausible reason, (for example the event happening as so often it is, a surprise and thus there being no camera handy) there may be little to no physical evidence. This however doesn't mean that it never happened, it just means further investigation and research may be warranted should the anecdotal evidence suggest so. This brings me to 2 quite major points.
(1) Science is far from having all the answers, regardless of what any scientist might suggest to you there is still a great deal about ourselves, our planet, our co-inhabitants and the universe around us that we simply don't understand, nor have come anywhere close to it. While humanity has spread to much of the earths land mass, we still find somewhere around 1000 new species a DAY! Most of them being insects sure, but there is still the odd larger animal in there. There is much that happens on the planet that humanity still has no answers for.
(2) Debunkers like to ignore anecdotal evidence all together, stating that it is often fraught with unreliability and thus can't be trusted of given any weight to. But I counter that statement with this simple fact. Very often our legal system uses anecdotal evidence as either part of, or even sometimes as their entire case against crime. While I concede that there are cases in nwhich due to this evidence innocent people are convicted of crime, but this is in the grand scheme of things quite rare. So thus I submit this question to you. Courts demand a high amount of reliability from the evidence they receive on a case, there are plenty of new technologies which are inadmissible in court because they aren't proven to hold high levels of accuracy. It, for example, took over a decade for DNA evidence to become something which was looked at in a court with weight. Yet anecdotal evidence has remained weighted and relied upon. If such evidence is anywhere near as unreliable as debunkers suggest, then how is it our legal system still uses it?
The fact of the matter is that there are SOME cases which debunkers dismiss due to anecdotal evidence and the lack of much in the way of the physical which do indeed warrant additional research and investigation. There are (while fewer still) some cases which while having the same amount of evidence as the previously mentioned, in their own right suggest through the anecdotal something extraordinary happening.
I am offended when debunkers try to pass off phenomenon as mass hysteria, collective imagination or some sort of psychological disorder. All too often I hear so called skeptics using such arguments to explain away UFOs for example. Trying to pass them off as a mix of collective imagination and mass hysteria. While I'm not going to say that little green men are flying all over the planet; I do find it insulting to my intelligence to be told these so called UFO phenomena are in the same category as "monsters" and "demons" as popular fiction.
To me communities telling stories about monsters between themselves or to their children, as well as stories about demons to help explain their world and scare people into a moral life; are completely different to someone telling me they seen a UFO. Now there might be a million other explanations for it beyond alien beings, but to rule it out as ever happening simply because it's only anecdotal in nature is very very wrong. A true skeptic would listen, look at how believable the story sounds and then, if believable perhaps investigate further, setting up equipment, tests or whatever is appropriate to document some form of physical evidence. I would suggest to you, never accept someone as a self professed skeptic if their mind is not open to possibilities.
XML Feeds
