Thursday, November 17, 2005

Rupert Sheldrake:

It's easy to be a media skeptic. You get the last word. You can say what you like. You don't have to spend years doing actual research. And you yourself can remain immune from criticism, because those you criticize have no right of reply. [. . .]

The problem seems to be in part that the media feel the need to present a "balanced" view, and this creates an opportunity for negative skeptics to pursue their agenda. Well-funded skeptical advocacy organizations like CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, concentrate their attention on getting their message into the media as often as possible, always with the privilege of the last word. They are very successful. Some TV channels, including National Geographic in its current "Is It Real?" series, have allowed themselves to become mass-market vehicles for organized skepticism.

If the media want to give a balanced view, one simple solution would be to reverse the normal procedure. Ask the skeptics to speak first, saying why they think something like telepathy is impossible, and then let those who have carried out real investigations present actual evidence. Better still, create a level playing field. Allow replies. This would be much more interesting for readers and viewers.

Unfortunately, media skeptics like Michael Shermer seem to be afraid of real debates. I would love to see a televised dialogue between you and him, with equal time on both sides. But I think he would do his best to avoid such an encounter. (Via The Anomalist.)


The irony is that real skepticism is a priceless intellectual tool. But Shermer and his associates prefer to cling to pseudoskepticism when faced with phenomena outside their realm of expertise. Consequently, the media's perception of "skepticism" has become a flaccid caricature. We desperately need to jettison this shopworn false dichotomy.

5 comments:

Gerald T said...

It’s all relative Mac.

I may say that I go over hundreds of Mars Spirit Rover photos, and discard thousands of anomalies from contention before posting them to my Rover Blog, scrutinizing each odd object that I spot utilizing an innate pattern recognition ability, judging each item based on symmetry, counting each ninety and forty five degree angel that I see, looking closely for repeating patterns, precise rectangles, circles, and triangles, and Yet…

And Yet, one of those POS skeptics would take a quick cursory look at the Mars Relay Station, and state that it is ‘nothing but’ me creating connect the dots patterns in my mind, avoiding any discussion of the features mentioned above.

Well, who needs that scum sucking vermin any how, they don’t count for squat in my world.
Question Mac, just why and how much do they count in you world?

In the end we exist inside a Reflective Sphere, the enemy is in/of our own minds, the skeptics are of/are the same madness that we are imbued with, only by letting go of…

…but I have started to ramble, Take a look at the latest artifact, WOW!

http://marsrelaystation.blogspot.com/

One of the best ever,

or its ‘nothing but’ a rock. ;]

The Odd Emperor said...

Now see; many would call me an uber-skeptic (or some less flattering term.)

I am very skeptical of (my words) “opinion couched as fact.” But, I might look at a Mars anomaly and say “well, this might be an artifact/animal/vegetable- etc but since I’m not an expert in Mars geology, I don’t have deep knowledge of the equipment used to take the photographs. I do have very good knowledge regarding photo manipulation and filtering. In this light it’s very difficult for me to render any opinion pro or con.” But that’s about all I will say about a single piece of evidence (or even a vast body of evidence.)

But, where are all the reflexive skeptical morons out there insanely debunking everything? I’ve never met one and I’d like to. I’d tell them that they are being stupid.

People have a natural tendency to simplify their own feelings as apposed to following the simplest data path. If one believes strongly enough it’s quite simple to weight evidence based on that belief rather than on its own merits.

But this is not science nor is it skepticism.

The Odd Emperor said...

Some good points.

Most of the JPL bunch, being engineers (etc) will not be particularly open-minded about anomalous stuff.

W.M. Bear said
Certainly the term "anomaly" correctly applies to many Martian formations. They are DIFFICULT to explain in strictly geological terms. Which means, in effect, not that "experts" can't come up with orthodox explanations, but simply that these explanations (in many cases) seem like a real stretch.


Well certainly an expert is capable of coming up with a fantastic explanation for a given anomaly. But you have to remember that what might be strange to a lay-person is probably known to an expert. Someone might look at a Mars photo which (we think) depicts a very obvious artificial widget and say (derisively) “rock!” Why? Because he (or she) is close-minded? Because they are not prepared for the advent of artifacts on Mars?

No; they have probably seen far more rocks like that then you or I have. Also, they are not looking for widgets because the *rocks themselves* are fascinating. Just like an auto mechanic would not take kindly to you or I telling them that your car has an evil spirit inside or a pilot being told that there is a spaceship pacing their aircraft.

The mark of a true expert is that, by definition they will see *far less* anomalies than a lay person. Anomalies are not usually a part of the job and often they detract from the original task.

But, my blanket statement about Mars widgets is that no one has any business covering such things up. Heck I wish someone would find a freaking spanner on Mars, we’d have spacecraft there in two years.

Gerald T said...

The skeptics who have posted here have not done one thing, they have not gone to my blog and looked at an anomaly, and explained why it is more likely to be natural than artificial.

Why? Their reasons are stated, the experts already know way more about the objects then they do, so…no use in them taking a look…

To advance to a higher state of awareness on must become as a child,

Go
Look
Describe
Enjoy




http://marsrelaystation.blogspot.com/

The Odd Emperor said...

Well I think it’s important to keep an open mind on the subject. Finding artifacts on Mars would be utterly fascinating. Seeing a clear artifact image that has not been photographically blown up or otherwise massaged would be the high point of my life—no less. But I haven’t seen one yet, I’ve seen thousands of interesting images that If I use my imagination I could interpret as all kinds of strange things.

Gerald T said...
The skeptics who have posted here have not done one thing, they have not gone to my blog and looked at an anomaly, and explained why it is more likely to be natural than artificial.


Heh! would you like me to do that? Most of the time the opinions of a skeptic are not exactly welcome.

Gerald T said...
Why? Their reasons are stated, the experts already know way more about the objects then they do, so…no use in them taking a look….

Really! Who said that? I mentioned that experts probably *know* more about this kind of photo analysis, that’s why they are called experts. Laypeople (like us) can look all we want (with the added irony of an organization supposedly covering up data while at the same time handing up the data on public channels.) We (as laypeople) will probably make more mistakes in our analyses than the experts, that’s my point.

This is not to say that a layperson cannot make a contribution, simply that it’s far more likely any given conclusion’s going to erroneous. This is exactly why the experts appear to ignore stuff we laypeople might think significant. Primarily they are just looking for rocks. Rocks being (as was said) fascinating all by themselves. Secondly, the experts risk nothing less than getting the sack for making wild claims. This fact will make them far more conservative than someone with little or nothing at stake.