[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::dejavu

Title:Psychic Phenomena
Notice:Please read note 1.0-1.* before writing
Moderator:JARETH::PAINTER
Created:Wed Jan 22 1986
Last Modified:Tue May 27 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2143
Total number of notes:41773

297.0. "Let's Discuss Debunking" by INK::KALLIS (Hallowe'en should be legal holiday) Fri Jan 30 1987 13:53

    Something philosophical, but necessary.  This is somewhat of a spinoff
    of the discussion quietly raging in the UFO note.
    
    It goes into the business of debunking, discrediting, and the opposite
    side of the coin, blind faith and unwavering fealty.
    
    Let's start off with a historical perspective.  In the rationalistic
    but (by our terms) primitive societies like ancient Greece,
    comparatively little was known about the natural world, and many
    phenomena such as winds, tides, and the like, were attributed to
    the whims of supernatural beings (reflected in the 1930s movies
    where the South Sea natives would look at a smoking and/or rumbling
    volcano amd mutter "The gods must be angry.").
    
    By the time of Sir Isaac Newton, thinkers thought everything could
    be explained deterministically -- that is, by the workings of blind,
    causal forces, much like a wind-up clock or music box.  By the middle
    of the 19th Century, there were many scientists who said, "All the
    next generation will have to do is to determine the next decimal
    place."
    
    When Galileo  viewed the night skies with a markewdly improved version
    of Hans Lippershey's "Optic Tube," (or telescope), he saw things
    neverrbefore known to have been seen by human eyes.  These included
    the moons of Jupiter (thus destroying one piece of philosophical
    argument for a geocentric solar system) and the rings of Saturn.
    However, when he wanted to show these phenomena to others, one high-
    ranking official refused to look through the telescope because what
    he'd see was at variance with what he believed.
    
    During the turn of the century (late 1800s-early 1900s), certain
    cracks began to appear in the wholly deterministic world view in
    science, and some scientists fought it bitterly.  X-rays were called
    that because the "X" represented the unknown -- as in an equation.
    The very idea that people could be interiorally examined without
    surgery was incomprehensible at first.
    
    Now in actuality, any new advance didn't obviate, but rather refined,
    what had gone on before.  In physics, for instance, Relativity doesn't
    invalidate Newton's laws; it just puts them in perspective.
    
    <enable point of base_note>
    
    Prior to the scientific method, people used to rely on Authority.
    "No, that's not right, because, you see, in Aristotle, you can read
    that ...."  Not a valid way to get at truth, but... it was -- and
    is -- used.
    
    We all are driven by our beliefs, to a certain extent.  But sometimes,
    we take our beliefs to be Universal Truths, and that's when we get
    into trouble.
    
    Taking the case of UFOs -- there are several possible explanations
    as to what's been reported:
    
    1) They are hoaxes.
    2) They are sightings of ordinary objects that aren't recognized.
    3) They are atmospheric optical phenomena.
    4) They are atmospheric electrical/plasmoid phenomena .  
    5) They are extra-atmospheric natural phenomena.
    6) They are extraterrestrial craft.
    7) They are extraterrestrial beings.
    8) They are supernatural beings.
    
    I personally lean towards a mixture of 2, 3, and 4.  [there have
    been some 1s, too.]  But until it's _proven_ that 5 through 8 are
    impossible, I won't close the door completely on them.
    
    Some folk, though, who want to debunk UFO reports refuse to acknowledge
    the possibility of even 5.  They seem to be of the school that says,
    "If it isn't in my belief system, it's impossible."
    
    So let's talk about debunkers ...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
297.1Just an natural thing? To dream.NEXUS::MORGANHeaven&#039;s died and gone to HellSun Feb 01 1987 21:4323
    I don't think I have seen or read one single case of a real sighting.
    All of them were along the lines of "Well I think I saw this...".
    
    Although my mind is open and I believe that we are _not_ alone,
    I think that most of the debunking is probably justified.
    
    When people do not understand their "wants" and "desires" they
    sometimes suffer from their lack of understanding.  Perhaps this
    is a natural function of man; one man dreams of extraterresterial
    visitation and another man dreams about a man who dreams of
    extraterresterial visits.


           +-----------------------------------------------------+
           |                    Mike Morgan                      |
           |           NEXUS::MORGAN  Colorado Springs           |
           +-----------------------------------------------------+
           |    "We never learn but we know too well that,       |
           |          Heaven's died and gone to Hell!"           |
           |                    ** Berlin **                     |
           +-----------------------------------------------------+
297.2sifting out the chaffBAXTA::PUSHARD_MIKEMon Feb 02 1987 03:1214
    
     In order to find that one piece of the puzzle in among a thousand
    others,requires illiminating those that donot fit.Some look close
    and others dont.At some point you find the one that fits.I'm sure
    that there are reports which cannot be explained and remain a mystery.
    Debunking serves its purpose,but probably diverts people away from
    discovering the truth for themselves.
     I have no first hand knowledge of UFOs,but,i have an open mind
    and donot deny that they may exist.I do have a feeling that if they
    do exist that they are visitors from our past,that is,they are our
    ancestors and keep track of our progress.
                                               MIKE
    
    ancestors and they keep track of our progress
297.3Another Form Of ManipulationSPIDER::PAREMon Feb 02 1987 08:4428
    Debunking, like religion and censorship, seems at times to exist for
    no other purpose than to control our thoughts and to direct our
    striving for truth in whatever manner the debunkers deem acceptable.
    
    The threatening manner of debunkers (example: Klass's threats of
    law suits and accusations of "un-american" ideas) is similar to
    the threatening manner of some religious and government power figures
    who seem only to want to control people by controlling the way they
    think.  ANYONE who tells you what you will be allowed to think about
    and what you will not be allowed to think about is dangerous.
    
    Historically, power figures who have done this in the past, have done
    so to protect their own self interests.  (I didn't expect the Spanish
    Inquisition :-)  Debunking is not an objective, clear, scientific
    study.  It's another form of censorship.  WE HAVE SO MUCH TO LEARN.
    There is so much we don't know about our own world, about time and
    how it works and why, about the entrophy created by our ordered
    world.  We can't afford to disregard the anomoly because it doesn't
    fit into some power hungry dogmatic's idea of what is and what isn't
    real.  And what's more, we have the right to the TRUTH.  Whatever
    that truth may be.  We have the right to think and learn and study
    and not be thrown false and misleading information because someone
    -somewhere doesn't feel we should be thinking about that subject
    at all.  Knowledge does not belong to the college professor or the
    department of defense.  Knowledge belongs to us all, as a species.
297.4Would you want to visit?PRANCR::LAFORESTMake Love, Not WarMon Feb 02 1987 16:0719
       It is hard to put down the possibility of 'intelegent' life
    elsewhere in the universe, considering the billions of stars and
    the possibilities of solar systems that can support life. The real
    problem with visits from other beings, in my estimation, is the
    distances involved.  It seems to me that any intelegent life form
    would have had to solve the problems of traveling through time before
    they could visit our planet.  Perhaps they have solved that problem
    and show up from time to time just to see how we are advancing.
    
       They would know that we are in a very dangerous period in our
    development.  We are at a crossroads and can either move toward
    fantastic scientific discovery and achievement or we can blow it
    all and the human race with it.  Given the state of our development,
    if you were in their place, would you want to become acquainted
    with the people of this planet?
    
       My vote is for the existance of beings far more intelegent than
    us that come for a visit now and then just to see if we are still
    around.
297.6How come .....LEDS::KARWANRav Karwan/ShrewsburyMon Feb 02 1987 16:5417
    Re: .4

    If they (UFOnauts) are so advanced, how come they:

    1. Sometimes manifest themselves waering dark clothes, talking with a German
       accent (Men in Black)

    2. Engage in satanic rituals (mutilation, etc)

    3. Don't understand earthly communication media at all (communicate with
       ordinary folks, wanting them to spread their message, but don't know
       that a very effective way to make themselves really known would be to
       land during a nationally broadcast football game)

    4. Etc. etc.

    -- Rav Karwan
297.9Support Your Local Debunker!SKYLRK::BILLFri Mar 13 1987 19:0423
    We need more debunkers.  We need more James Randis (The Great Randi).
    
    Here in the San Francisco Bay area we have a group called "Bay Area
    Skeptics."  They really have the local psychics, New Age people
    etc, spooked.
    
    What people don't realize is that a lot of these psychics charge
    money for their services.  Bay Area Skeptics shows these people
    for the frauds that they are.  The psychics don't like it.  For
    services like "Michael Channeling" charges of $100/hour and up are
    not uncommon.
    
    Some local fortune tellers in this area have managed to extract
    huge amounts of money, $10,000 or more, from their customers.  Neither
    the police nor the debunkers can keep up with all these people.
    
    It is fun to see Shirley McClain on tv.  It is even more fun to
    see the Great Randi on TV exposing a fake faith-healer evangelist
    or debunking Uri Geller and his spoon bending.  It is wonderful
    to hear Bay Area Skeptics on the radio, talking about uncovering
    Tarot Card frauds at a psychic faire.  Debunkers are spoil-sports,
    yes.  But they can provide us with a great deal of amusement, as
    well.
297.10Support truth, whatever it is ...ERASER::KALLISHallowe&#039;en should be legal holidayTue Mar 17 1987 16:5738
    Re .9:
    
    I think this is getting somewhat off the track.
    
    One of the greatest debunkers was the late Erich ("Harry Houdini)
    Weiss.  He spent his time debunking fraudulent mediums. His claim was 
    that there was nothing he'd seen at any seance that he couldn't
    duplicate non-supernaturally.  Yet even he was openminded enough
    to try an experiment (so far inconclusive) as to whether there were
    or are truer mediums.
    
    The problem here is that there may be some wheat in the chaff. 
    But how much, and of what kind, is difficult to determine.  Worse,
    if there's a buck to be made, someone will try to make one (see
    the note on charlatans).
    
    _Is_ there any wheat?  I suspect so.  Is there a lot of chaff? 
    You bet!
    
    But the question is, what is the psychology of the debunker?  Is
    he or she honest, or does he or she have an axe to grind?  Randi,
    who did a great service in his _The Magic of Uri Geller_, then penned
    a very strident book, _Flim-Flam!_, knocking certain areas of the
    paranormal.  His final chapter is less someone making a rational
    discussion as it is of someone who's lost his temper.
    
    Having a Randi-type; that is, a professional illusionist; present
    at help assure investigators that no fraud is being perpetrated.
    However having that person set him- or herself up as the Ultimate
    Authority is just as bad as having Swami Poobah do the same.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S. James ("The `Amazing' Randi") Zwinge's stage name is as in
    the parentheses.
    
    -S
297.11chaffchaffwheatchaffchaffWAGON::DONHAMTue Mar 31 1987 11:4127
    
    re .10
    
    I think that Steve has made the point of this discussion: In the
    midst of all of the charlatans and buck-grabbers is a very small,
    very quiet core of folk who actually are in touch with their inner
    power.
    
    It reminds me a bit of the health-food craze in the U.S. Go into
    almost any `health food' store in the country and on the shelves
    you'll find JUNK. The stuff they sell is only slightly better than
    what you can get at the A&P...and an entire industry is thriving
    on selling this food to people who don't know any better. There
    is a small group of folk who can go into these stores and pick out
    which foods are OK and which are trafe; I'm thinking specifically
    about the macrobiotics, but anyone with a concern about what they
    ingest can figure it out.
    
    Similarly, there's a bunch of trash being put out in the world of
    spiritual growth. I don't think that `channeling' is genuine, at
    least not the kind that's being popularized these days. It's very
    hard to get through the hype to find those small pockets of genuine
    spiritualists; the help given to us by the debunkers is invaluable,
    regardless of their motives.
    
    -Perry