Research Discussion: Being AUFO Debunker Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry, Or Even Making A Lick Of Sense!

Being AUFO Debunker Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry, Or Even Making A Lick Of Sense!
Posts: 36

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2010-03-04 04:54:15 EST
Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even
making a lick of sense!
Sage advice by John F. Schuessler

Debunkers: I have heard it said that the most frustrating and least
useful aspect of ufology is the machinations of the debunkers.
Debunkers are experts at the use of disinformation, misinformation,
and propaganda. They provide prosaic explanations for everything. If
the first story gets challenged, they simply generate another story
and do not even apologize for changing their position. No information
or data supplied by the ufologist is ever good enough for them. Truth,
honesty, ethics and things like that are foreign to their way of
operating because it might erode their position. They seldom do real
investigations.

Most of their explanations are canned and used over and over so that
they do not feel it necessary to do investigations. All this is very
frustrating to the ufologists that conduct extensive investigations,
record every little detail of a UFO incident, assemble statistics,
maintain vast databases, and probably most of all, respect the good
and honest witnesses who report their UFO incidents.

Perhaps it would help ufologists to deal with the debunkers if they
understood why the debunkers act in such a manner. This is best
described in The Argument Culture, a book by Georgetown University
professor Deborah Tannen. These machinations are an example of what
the cultural linguist Walter Ong calls "agonism" or "programmed
contentiousness." Agonism does not refer to disagreement, conflict, or
vigorous dispute. It refers to ritualized opposition.

Professor Tannen says: "The way we train our students, conduct our
classes and our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print
are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry
is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption,
that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize,
find fault, and attack." Further, she says: "Many aspects of our
academic lives can be described as agonistic. For example, in our
scholarly papers, most of us follow a conventional framework that
requires us to position our work in opposition to someone else's,
which we prove wrong.

The framework tempts, almost requires us to oversimplify or even
misrepresent others' positions; cite the weakest example to make a
generally reasonable work appear less so; and ignore facts that
support other's views, citing only evidence that supports our own
positions."

This approach "fosters a stance of arrogance and narrow-mindedness."
There is much more of value in The Argument Culture, but in these few
words, I believe Professor Tannen has clearly exposed the operating
technique used by most debunkers. With this information in mind, it is
fairly obvious that we are stuck with a continuing tirade by the
debunkers and it will continue until they all die off. They are unable
to change, they are
programmed to act as they do.

Fortunately, most ufologists have no desire to play the debunkers
game. Programmed contentiousness is viewed as dishonest, unfair and
unethical. It puts an end to exploring ideas, uncovering nuances,
comparing and contrasting different interpretations of a particular
work, and gaining a deeper and more accurate understanding of the
material. It kills the quest for open-minded inquiry.

Even knowing all of this, ufologists still allow themselves to be
stressed by the actions of debunkers. A good investigator is likely to
be provoked by a debunker's announcement that a certain UFO was
actually Venus when everyone knows that Venus was not visible at the
time. A debunker's demand for "all of your investigative files so I
can identify the UFO," is another provoking ploy. They play on your
ego by saying "I have never seen any credible evidence of a UFO,"
hoping you will try to provide some evidence that will convince them.
Will it convince them? No! Their debunker's pre-subscribed dogma will
not allow it. If all else fails, they will claim it is your
responsibility as an investigator to respond to their demands. Don't
fall for that ploy. Only you and the organization you represent can
define your responsibilities.

A formula for avoiding stress caused by the actions of the debunkers
is to follow industry's lead in looking for "value added" in any
interchange or effort. If there is nothing to be gained from
responding to them, then don't do it. Apply your energies where they
will make a difference. Don't play their game. It takes two to make a
game and if you do not respond to their provocation, then they do not
have a game. They lose and you are not stressed.
+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++++===+++===+
"Science of Not Knowing" by John E. Mack, M.D.

Despite official skepticism and even cynicism in media, government,
and scientific circles, it must be evident to many Americans that
something extraordinary-at least from the standpoint of the Western
worldview-is going on. No conventional explanation for the thousands
of reported cases of encounters with alien beings has been sufficient,
and this remains true in spite of the fact that the experiencers
themselves would, with rare exceptions, welcome any explanation other
than that they are being visited without their permission by humanoid
creatures from another place.

Yet the debate that is devoted to the UFO abduction phenomenon remains
focused largely on the question of whether or not it is real in the
strictly physical sense. Some skeptics even claim or imply that,
insofar as the physical evidence for the reality of the phenomenon
does not meet standards of scientific proof, we can presume for
practical purposes that it does not exist at all.

But what if the phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may
manifest in the physical world, but derive from a source which by its
very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would
satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? If so,
might we not be losing an opportunity to learn and grow as a species
by remaining so wedded to an epistemology of physical proof?

What if, instead, we were to acknowledge that the abduction phenomenon
is intrinsically mysterious and, ultimately, beyond our present
framework of knowledge? What if we were to admit our puzzlement before
this mystery?

Might not such an attitude of humility become, paradoxically, a way to
enlarge upon what could then be learned? Is it possible that adopting
an open attitude could result in greater knowledge not only about the
physical aspects of the phenomenon, but about numinous dimensions as
well?

And might not this opening of consciousness enable us to learn of
unseen realities now obscured by our too limited epistemology,
allowing us to rediscover the sacred and the divinity in nature and in
ourselves?

HVAC
2010-03-04 06:36:38 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...


> Being a Debunker means never having to say


Request denied.



--
Harlow Victor Allen Campbell
Moderator
alt.alien.research alt.alien.visitors sci.skeptic alt.conspiracy
alt.astronomy





Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2010-03-04 13:15:38 EST
On Mar 4, 3:36 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in messagenews:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Being a Debunker means never having to say
>
> Request denied.

Whoelow: let's review:

Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even
making a lick of sense!
Sage advice by John F. Schuessler

Debunkers: I have heard it said that the most frustrating and least
useful aspect of ufology is the machinations of the debunkers.
Debunkers are experts at the use of disinformation, misinformation,
and propaganda. They provide prosaic explanations for everything. If
the first story gets challenged, they simply generate another story
and do not even apologize for changing their position. No information
or data supplied by the ufologist is ever good enough for them. Truth,
honesty, ethics and things like that are foreign to their way of
operating because it might erode their position. They seldom do real
investigations.

Most of their explanations are canned and used over and over so that
they do not feel it necessary to do investigations. All this is very
frustrating to the ufologists that conduct extensive investigations,
record every little detail of a UFO incident, assemble statistics,
maintain vast databases, and probably most of all, respect the good
and honest witnesses who report their UFO incidents.

Perhaps it would help ufologists to deal with the debunkers if they
understood why the debunkers act in such a manner. This is best
described in The Argument Culture, a book by Georgetown University
professor Deborah Tannen. These machinations are an example of what
the cultural linguist Walter Ong calls "agonism" or "programmed
contentiousness." Agonism does not refer to disagreement, conflict, or
vigorous dispute. It refers to ritualized opposition.

Professor Tannen says: "The way we train our students, conduct our
classes and our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print
are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry
is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption,
that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize,
find fault, and attack." Further, she says: "Many aspects of our
academic lives can be described as agonistic. For example, in our
scholarly papers, most of us follow a conventional framework that
requires us to position our work in opposition to someone else's,
which we prove wrong.

The framework tempts, almost requires us to oversimplify or even
misrepresent others' positions; cite the weakest example to make a
generally reasonable work appear less so; and ignore facts that
support other's views, citing only evidence that supports our own
positions."

This approach "fosters a stance of arrogance and narrow-mindedness."
There is much more of value in The Argument Culture, but in these few
words, I believe Professor Tannen has clearly exposed the operating
technique used by most debunkers. With this information in mind, it is
fairly obvious that we are stuck with a continuing tirade by the
debunkers and it will continue until they all die off. They are unable
to change, they are
programmed to act as they do.

Fortunately, most ufologists have no desire to play the debunkers
game. Programmed contentiousness is viewed as dishonest, unfair and
unethical. It puts an end to exploring ideas, uncovering nuances,
comparing and contrasting different interpretations of a particular
work, and gaining a deeper and more accurate understanding of the
material. It kills the quest for open-minded inquiry.

Even knowing all of this, ufologists still allow themselves to be
stressed by the actions of debunkers. A good investigator is likely to
be provoked by a debunker's announcement that a certain UFO was
actually Venus when everyone knows that Venus was not visible at the
time. A debunker's demand for "all of your investigative files so I
can identify the UFO," is another provoking ploy. They play on your
ego by saying "I have never seen any credible evidence of a UFO,"
hoping you will try to provide some evidence that will convince them.
Will it convince them? No! Their debunker's pre-subscribed dogma will
not allow it. If all else fails, they will claim it is your
responsibility as an investigator to respond to their demands. Don't
fall for that ploy. Only you and the organization you represent can
define your responsibilities.

A formula for avoiding stress caused by the actions of the debunkers
is to follow industry's lead in looking for "value added" in any
interchange or effort. If there is nothing to be gained from
responding to them, then don't do it. Apply your energies where they
will make a difference. Don't play their game. It takes two to make a
game and if you do not respond to their provocation, then they do not
have a game. They lose and you are not stressed.
+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++++===+++===+
"Science of Not Knowing" by John E. Mack, M.D.

Despite official skepticism and even cynicism in media, government,
and scientific circles, it must be evident to many Americans that
something extraordinary-at least from the standpoint of the Western
worldview-is going on. No conventional explanation for the thousands
of reported cases of encounters with alien beings has been sufficient,
and this remains true in spite of the fact that the experiencers
themselves would, with rare exceptions, welcome any explanation other
than that they are being visited without their permission by humanoid
creatures from another place.

Yet the debate that is devoted to the UFO abduction phenomenon remains
focused largely on the question of whether or not it is real in the
strictly physical sense. Some skeptics even claim or imply that,
insofar as the physical evidence for the reality of the phenomenon
does not meet standards of scientific proof, we can presume for
practical purposes that it does not exist at all.

But what if the phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may
manifest in the physical world, but derive from a source which by its
very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would
satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? If so,
might we not be losing an opportunity to learn and grow as a species
by remaining so wedded to an epistemology of physical proof?

What if, instead, we were to acknowledge that the abduction phenomenon
is intrinsically mysterious and, ultimately, beyond our present
framework of knowledge? What if we were to admit our puzzlement before
this mystery?

Might not such an attitude of humility become, paradoxically, a way to
enlarge upon what could then be learned? Is it possible that adopting
an open attitude could result in greater knowledge not only about the
physical aspects of the phenomenon, but about numinous dimensions as
well?

And might not this opening of consciousness enable us to learn of
unseen realities now obscured by our too limited epistemology,
allowing us to rediscover the sacred and the divinity in nature and in
ourselves?


HVAC
2010-03-04 13:50:58 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:f1950c28-2069-4560-b9b9-cf5b1b8d35fa@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 3:36 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
> messagenews:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Being a Debunker means never having to say
>
> Request denied.

Whoelow: let's review:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Review request denied. Apology accepted.




--
Harlow Victor Allen Campbell
Moderator
alt.alien.research alt.alien.visitors sci.skeptic alt.conspiracy
alt.astronomy





Luke Nichols
2010-03-04 15:48:08 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even
> making a lick of sense!
> Sage advice by John F. Schuessler
>

The latest debunking I saw was on a Memphis Article on UFOS. Saying black
triagulars are jets flying in formation. I've seen 3 black triangulars, and
they were only like 60 feet above my head, moving at around 35 mphs.

I believe in UFOS, because I've seen.
I believe in Jesus, because I have also seen.

Luke
http://www.ashesaid.com

> Debunkers: I have heard it said that the most frustrating and least
> useful aspect of ufology is the machinations of the debunkers.
> Debunkers are experts at the use of disinformation, misinformation,
> and propaganda. They provide prosaic explanations for everything. If
> the first story gets challenged, they simply generate another story
> and do not even apologize for changing their position. No information
> or data supplied by the ufologist is ever good enough for them. Truth,
> honesty, ethics and things like that are foreign to their way of
> operating because it might erode their position. They seldom do real
> investigations.
>
> Most of their explanations are canned and used over and over so that
> they do not feel it necessary to do investigations. All this is very
> frustrating to the ufologists that conduct extensive investigations,
> record every little detail of a UFO incident, assemble statistics,
> maintain vast databases, and probably most of all, respect the good
> and honest witnesses who report their UFO incidents.
>
> Perhaps it would help ufologists to deal with the debunkers if they
> understood why the debunkers act in such a manner. This is best
> described in The Argument Culture, a book by Georgetown University
> professor Deborah Tannen. These machinations are an example of what
> the cultural linguist Walter Ong calls "agonism" or "programmed
> contentiousness." Agonism does not refer to disagreement, conflict, or
> vigorous dispute. It refers to ritualized opposition.
>
> Professor Tannen says: "The way we train our students, conduct our
> classes and our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print
> are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry
> is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption,
> that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize,
> find fault, and attack." Further, she says: "Many aspects of our
> academic lives can be described as agonistic. For example, in our
> scholarly papers, most of us follow a conventional framework that
> requires us to position our work in opposition to someone else's,
> which we prove wrong.
>
> The framework tempts, almost requires us to oversimplify or even
> misrepresent others' positions; cite the weakest example to make a
> generally reasonable work appear less so; and ignore facts that
> support other's views, citing only evidence that supports our own
> positions."
>
> This approach "fosters a stance of arrogance and narrow-mindedness."
> There is much more of value in The Argument Culture, but in these few
> words, I believe Professor Tannen has clearly exposed the operating
> technique used by most debunkers. With this information in mind, it is
> fairly obvious that we are stuck with a continuing tirade by the
> debunkers and it will continue until they all die off. They are unable
> to change, they are
> programmed to act as they do.
>
> Fortunately, most ufologists have no desire to play the debunkers
> game. Programmed contentiousness is viewed as dishonest, unfair and
> unethical. It puts an end to exploring ideas, uncovering nuances,
> comparing and contrasting different interpretations of a particular
> work, and gaining a deeper and more accurate understanding of the
> material. It kills the quest for open-minded inquiry.
>
> Even knowing all of this, ufologists still allow themselves to be
> stressed by the actions of debunkers. A good investigator is likely to
> be provoked by a debunker's announcement that a certain UFO was
> actually Venus when everyone knows that Venus was not visible at the
> time. A debunker's demand for "all of your investigative files so I
> can identify the UFO," is another provoking ploy. They play on your
> ego by saying "I have never seen any credible evidence of a UFO,"
> hoping you will try to provide some evidence that will convince them.
> Will it convince them? No! Their debunker's pre-subscribed dogma will
> not allow it. If all else fails, they will claim it is your
> responsibility as an investigator to respond to their demands. Don't
> fall for that ploy. Only you and the organization you represent can
> define your responsibilities.
>
> A formula for avoiding stress caused by the actions of the debunkers
> is to follow industry's lead in looking for "value added" in any
> interchange or effort. If there is nothing to be gained from
> responding to them, then don't do it. Apply your energies where they
> will make a difference. Don't play their game. It takes two to make a
> game and if you do not respond to their provocation, then they do not
> have a game. They lose and you are not stressed.
> +++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++++===+++===+
> "Science of Not Knowing" by John E. Mack, M.D.
>
> Despite official skepticism and even cynicism in media, government,
> and scientific circles, it must be evident to many Americans that
> something extraordinary-at least from the standpoint of the Western
> worldview-is going on. No conventional explanation for the thousands
> of reported cases of encounters with alien beings has been sufficient,
> and this remains true in spite of the fact that the experiencers
> themselves would, with rare exceptions, welcome any explanation other
> than that they are being visited without their permission by humanoid
> creatures from another place.
>
> Yet the debate that is devoted to the UFO abduction phenomenon remains
> focused largely on the question of whether or not it is real in the
> strictly physical sense. Some skeptics even claim or imply that,
> insofar as the physical evidence for the reality of the phenomenon
> does not meet standards of scientific proof, we can presume for
> practical purposes that it does not exist at all.
>
> But what if the phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may
> manifest in the physical world, but derive from a source which by its
> very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would
> satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? If so,
> might we not be losing an opportunity to learn and grow as a species
> by remaining so wedded to an epistemology of physical proof?
>
> What if, instead, we were to acknowledge that the abduction phenomenon
> is intrinsically mysterious and, ultimately, beyond our present
> framework of knowledge? What if we were to admit our puzzlement before
> this mystery?
>
> Might not such an attitude of humility become, paradoxically, a way to
> enlarge upon what could then be learned? Is it possible that adopting
> an open attitude could result in greater knowledge not only about the
> physical aspects of the phenomenon, but about numinous dimensions as
> well?
>
> And might not this opening of consciousness enable us to learn of
> unseen realities now obscured by our too limited epistemology,
> allowing us to rediscover the sacred and the divinity in nature and in
> ourselves?



Government Shill #2
2010-03-04 16:01:34 EST
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:48:08 -0500, "Luke Nichols" <luken@frontiernet.net>
wrote:

>I believe in Jesus, because I have also seen.
>
>Luke

Delusions aren't evidence of anything, Luke.

--
Shill #2

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
Robert M. Pirsig

Cujo DeSockpuppet
2010-03-04 17:16:49 EST
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in
news:f1950c28-2069-4560-b9b9-cf5b1b8d35fa@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 4, 3:36\ufffdam, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
>> messa
> genews:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.co
> m...
>>
>> > Being a Debunker means never having to say
>>
>> Request denied.
>
> Whoelow: let's review:

Let's not, kook.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"I was an astrologer 1000 times in Babylon." - Edmo the loon.

Hagar
2010-03-04 18:02:06 EST

"Luke Nichols" <luken@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:o0Vjn.55693$0N3.11048@newsfe09.iad...
>
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in
> message
> news:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even
>> making a lick of sense!
>> Sage advice by John F. Schuessler
>>
>
> The latest debunking I saw was on a Memphis Article on UFOS. Saying black
> triagulars are jets flying in formation. I've seen 3 black triangulars,
> and they were only like 60 feet above my head, moving at around 35 mphs.
>

Oh yea ... UFOs are known for their lightning-fast speed ... 35mph is
right up there ...



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2010-03-05 13:45:28 EST
On Mar 4, 10:50 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in messagenews:f1950c28-2069-4560-b9b9-cf5b1b8d35fa@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 3:36 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Being a Debunker means never having to say
>
> > Request denied.
>
> Whoelow: let's review:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Review request denied.

You and your kind do NOT have the authority to MAKE a request.

Let's review --- wait for it -- here it is:

Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even
making a lick of sense! Sage advice by John F. Schuessler

Debunkers: I have heard it said that the most frustrating and least
useful aspect of ufology is the machinations of the debunkers.
Debunkers are experts at the use of disinformation, misinformation,
and propaganda. They provide prosaic explanations for everything. If
the first story gets challenged, they simply generate another story
and do not even apologize for changing their position. No information
or data supplied by the ufologist is ever good enough for them. Truth,
honesty, ethics and things like that are foreign to their way of
operating because it might erode their position. They seldom do real
investigations.

Most of their explanations are canned and used over and over so that
they do not feel it necessary to do investigations. All this is very
frustrating to the ufologists that conduct extensive investigations,
record every little detail of a UFO incident, assemble statistics,
maintain vast databases, and probably most of all, respect the good
and honest witnesses who report their UFO incidents.

Perhaps it would help ufologists to deal with the debunkers if they
understood why the debunkers act in such a manner. This is best
described in The Argument Culture, a book by Georgetown University
professor Deborah Tannen. These machinations are an example of what
the cultural linguist Walter Ong calls "agonism" or "programmed
contentiousness." Agonism does not refer to disagreement, conflict, or
vigorous dispute. It refers to ritualized opposition.

Professor Tannen says: "The way we train our students, conduct our
classes and our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print
are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry
is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption,
that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize,
find fault, and attack." Further, she says: "Many aspects of our
academic lives can be described as agonistic. For example, in our
scholarly papers, most of us follow a conventional framework that
requires us to position our work in opposition to someone else's,
which we prove wrong.

The framework tempts, almost requires us to oversimplify or even
misrepresent others' positions; cite the weakest example to make a
generally reasonable work appear less so; and ignore facts that
support other's views, citing only evidence that supports our own
positions."

This approach "fosters a stance of arrogance and narrow-mindedness."
There is much more of value in The Argument Culture, but in these few
words, I believe Professor Tannen has clearly exposed the operating
technique used by most debunkers. With this information in mind, it is
fairly obvious that we are stuck with a continuing tirade by the
debunkers and it will continue until they all die off. They are unable
to change, they are
programmed to act as they do.

Fortunately, most ufologists have no desire to play the debunkers
game. Programmed contentiousness is viewed as dishonest, unfair and
unethical. It puts an end to exploring ideas, uncovering nuances,
comparing and contrasting different interpretations of a particular
work, and gaining a deeper and more accurate understanding of the
material. It kills the quest for open-minded inquiry.

Even knowing all of this, ufologists still allow themselves to be
stressed by the actions of debunkers. A good investigator is likely to
be provoked by a debunker's announcement that a certain UFO was
actually Venus when everyone knows that Venus was not visible at the
time. A debunker's demand for "all of your investigative files so I
can identify the UFO," is another provoking ploy. They play on your
ego by saying "I have never seen any credible evidence of a UFO,"
hoping you will try to provide some evidence that will convince them.
Will it convince them? No! Their debunker's pre-subscribed dogma will
not allow it. If all else fails, they will claim it is your
responsibility as an investigator to respond to their demands. Don't
fall for that ploy. Only you and the organization you represent can
define your responsibilities.

A formula for avoiding stress caused by the actions of the debunkers
is to follow industry's lead in looking for "value added" in any
interchange or effort. If there is nothing to be gained from
responding to them, then don't do it. Apply your energies where they
will make a difference. Don't play their game. It takes two to make a
game and if you do not respond to their provocation, then they do not
have a game. They lose and you are not stressed.
+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++++===+++===+
"Science of Not Knowing" by John E. Mack, M.D.

Despite official skepticism and even cynicism in media, government,
and scientific circles, it must be evident to many Americans that
something extraordinary-at least from the standpoint of the Western
worldview-is going on. No conventional explanation for the thousands
of reported cases of encounters with alien beings has been sufficient,
and this remains true in spite of the fact that the experiencers
themselves would, with rare exceptions, welcome any explanation other
than that they are being visited without their permission by humanoid
creatures from another place.

Yet the debate that is devoted to the UFO abduction phenomenon remains
focused largely on the question of whether or not it is real in the
strictly physical sense. Some skeptics even claim or imply that,
insofar as the physical evidence for the reality of the phenomenon
does not meet standards of scientific proof, we can presume for
practical purposes that it does not exist at all.

But what if the phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may
manifest in the physical world, but derive from a source which by its
very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would
satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? If so,
might we not be losing an opportunity to learn and grow as a species
by remaining so wedded to an epistemology of physical proof?

What if, instead, we were to acknowledge that the abduction phenomenon
is intrinsically mysterious and, ultimately, beyond our present
framework of knowledge? What if we were to admit our puzzlement before
this mystery?

Might not such an attitude of humility become, paradoxically, a way to
enlarge upon what could then be learned? Is it possible that adopting
an open attitude could result in greater knowledge not only about the
physical aspects of the phenomenon, but about numinous dimensions as
well?

And might not this opening of consciousness enable us to learn of
unseen realities now obscured by our too limited epistemology,
allowing us to rediscover the sacred and the divinity in nature and in
ourselves?

Cujo DeSockpuppet
2010-03-05 16:36:30 EST
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in
news:c3795c53-bb2b-42ed-b5bc-a0bbd8a0d259@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 4, 10:50\ufffdam, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
>> messa
> genews:f1950c28-2069-4560-b9b9-cf5b1b8d35fa@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.co
> m...
>> On Mar 4, 3:36 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
>> > messagenews:18a156e4-401f-4de6-84e8-7f49e0608ee8@c34g2000pri.googleg
>> > rou
> ps.com...
>>
>> > > Being a Debunker means never having to say
>>
>> > Request denied.
>>
>> Whoelow: let's review:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Review request denied.
>
> You and your kind [slap!]

DENIED.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Is it true you are some gay stalker freak like Pete said?" - Edmo
employs the Kook Info Nutworks to get the facts wrong again.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron