75bf34e7
XPost: alt.alien.visitors, alt.alien.research, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.conspiracy
From: mr.hvac@gmail.com
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." wrote in
message
news:c9275010-7b5d-448b-a46e-5451ee808f62@42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even
> making a lick of sense!
Request to lick a debunker is denied.
--
Harlow Victor Allen Campbell
Moderator
alt.alien.research alt.alien.visitors
sci.skeptic alt.conspiracy alt.astronomy
> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
