Skepticism vs. All The Other Kinds of Skeptoism
Hey, that’s it! Maybe. “Skepto” to denote the rabid, pathological, fundie,mondo, irrational skepticism, and to separate it from normal, everyday, “real” skepticism.
While we do have skepti-bunkies, skeptoid, etc. that seems to offend those that wear those shoes (tough) and confuse some others.
I like Colin Bennett’s chronic and cultural skepticism terms, but that may be too esoteric.
Whatever term you use, and I’ll probably keep on using various forms of rabid-pathological-fundie myself, the point is: there is skepticism, and then there’s something else entirely hiding behind the goodly term of skepticism.
My scholarly contribution to Regan Lee’s Poolitizer prize winning post–
Skeptoid
Skeptilian
Skeptazoid
Skepanthrope
Sketpticide
Skeptimania
Skepticommie
Skeptinazi
Skeptifascist
Skeptard
Skepticuler
Skepticmonger
Skeptibaiter
Skeptiskank
Skeptiraker
Antiskeptic
Askeptic
Skeptimorph
Skep-in-shit
Skeptashithead
Skeptashit
Skepti-scoffer
Skepdude
Skeptimonkey
Skepti-cali-fragilistic-expee-al- a-docious
Skeptistink
Skeptodorous
Skeptodious
Skeptinine
Skepped Up
Skepper
Skeppie
Skep
Skepskunk
Skep-can’t-tell-whizzo-butter-from-a-dead-crab
Skep-person
Skeptiboy
Skeptigirl
Skeptigranny
Skeptigrampa
Skeptimom
Skeptidad
Skeptischool
Skeptic Highway
Skepticland
“Hoisted by one’s own skeptard”
Skepterrific
Malskeptic
skepterroneous
skepteraneous
Skeptic-shuffle
Skeptabulous
Skeptasmagoria
Skeptorgasm
Skepetor
He-Skept and the Skeptoids of the Universe
Skeptformers
Skeptimus Prime
Skaepticus Maximus
Flabbiest Skepticus
skeptician
skepologist
skep-oist
Skerperd’s Pie
Skeptideity
Skeptigod
Skeptidol
Skeptidolatry
Mass skepticer
Sketpticide
Skepistic
Debunker
Defunker
Deskunker
Demonker
Debunkazoid
Funky Denbunker
Funky Debunkie
Funky Monkey Debunkie
Depunker
Punk Debunker
Funky Punky Monkey-faced Debunker
One more:
“Debunkspunk”
Usage: “He unloaded his debunkspunk all over the lectern.”
Better watch it! Regan has no-doubt thought of some of those and she’s likely to begin squeaking about you stealing her intellectual property!
I commented over at Regan’s blog, she zapped it like she always does. Here’s the unedited (less nice) version.
What’s kind of funny here is, I don’t know anyone that does this! Even “arch-skeptibunki†Klass never stated that UFOs didn’t exist, he stated that there was little or no evidence that UFOs represented an incursion of intelligent beings from another planet.
Speaking for myself, I believe UFOs exist, I’ve seen several over the years. Where I part company with most witnesses of such things is my ability to admit to myself that I really don’t know what I saw and to be comfortable with that idea.
Funny! I’ve had almost exactly the same experience with some moderator on a Yahoo group.
Not so astonishing, UFOlogy is as full of lies as the Bush Administration. But, allow me to correct you on one of a multitude of points, I for one do not despise UFOs no more than I despise automobiles or toasters. What I find objectionable is the lengths some proponents in the field of UFOlogy go in order to silence those whose opinions they dislike. I have no problem with UFo “enthusiasts†writing daily about whatever interests them. That’s not bad nor evil or even dangerous. Some people in UFOlogy demonstrate over and over again that they seem to be pathetic, obsessed and sad. What’s wrong with that? And what’s wrong with commenting on it?
You do! In fact you just did!
All this namecalling is silly, don’t you think?
That’s amusing Regan, as someone who’s been publicly called a psycho over and over again by yourself , not to mention all the other stuff that goes on with you “below channels.†I think you may be being a little hard on yourself!
Rid the world of woo? I wouldn’t dream of it! The world needs it’s woo just like the world needs skeptics.
But I agree with you on one point, we all need to keep questioning. We need to keep searching for answers to all of our questions. We need to find some common ground and we need to stop trying to silence each other. We need to start listening and try to show a little tolerance once and a while.
Is that so difficult?
Speaking of lawsuits, Klass loves to threaten them when one of his boy-toys grows up and break away from him.
How about Skeptipedophile.
Oh sorry, I meant The Amazing Bearded Randi, not the In Hell Now Klass. But, Klass probably poked boys too, don’t you think?
Speaking for myself, I believe UFOs exist, I’ve seen several over the years.
So do I, and so have I, believe it or not. I saw something many years ago, that I couldn’t explain then, and I still can’t explain, now. I don’t know what it was.
My principle area of critique is and always has been the lack of restraint, the jumping to conclusions, the treating of speculation as “fact,” the practice of ranking “hearsay” on the same plane as scientific evidence, and constructing elaborate theories based on said hearsay. Along with the New Age mindset, which has always been a component of the ufological fringe, but has lately infiltrated it to the degree that nutball contactee-types – Richard Boylan, Steven Greer, Michael Salla, Alfred Webre, Michael Horn, Sean David Morton, et al – are fast becoming the mainstay of UFO conventions and late night talk shows. It comes as no suprise that some are accusing that the latest ufological “crockumentary” Fastwalkers is slanted towards the Greer/Salla vision of what it’s all about.
One who never gets mentioned much in this context, either – is Carol Rosin (one time assistant to Werner von Braun, and close personal friend to Timothy Leary) who in a letter a couple years ago wrote to me that she was living in South America because the powers-that-be are out to get her. It’s no suprise that she should be the director (or was) of the very same “Peace in Space”organization to which Alfred Webre belongs. Or that both she and Webre should defend the likes of Richard Boylan. Or that they should all show up to give their support on the “issue” of disclosure, as if the government was any less confused than the rest of us.
I think a lot of ufo-types think “government” and they have some kind of image in their mind of this kind of “fractal” Oil Can Harry, e.g., one macro villain, made up of levels of “nested villains,” and so on, and so forth, all conspiring with an amazing degree of success to keep the smoking bullet from smoking. The X-Files gave them names: Deep Throat, the Smoking Man, etc. I also think ufo-types view themselves and the “ufological community” as a macro Fox Mulder, made up of levels of nested truth-seeking heroes, unsung and unappreciated, and brutally pistol whipped by the Oil Can Harrys.
(All this is “my opinion,” I should qualify. Although, if anyone is ever thinking of suing me – think again. I haven’t got a pot to piss in. The ex-wife got it all in the divorce. And I never made any money criticizing ufology.)
When I was more closely allied with the “serious” ufological community, I was always pushing the idea of dispassionate, objective study by individuals who have, or who are willing to obtain the necessary expertise to engage in such study (no, not a MUFON training). Yet, among those I was communicating with on a daily basis, even a substantial proportion of those couldn’t or wouldn’t disengage their guts from their heads enough for them to think clearly about various ufological problems.
As for the “ufological community” which Regan Lee presumes to address, there isn’t one – not in the sense that there is a scientific community, or a community of political analysts, or a community of pedagogues. “Community” implies a structure, a mutually beneficial give and take, a certain solidarity of position. The “ufological community” has none of these. At best, I would call it a loose aggregate of nutballs, buffs, the socially and politically disenfranchised, and a hodgepodge of self-proclaimed “ufologists” or “ufoists” or what-the-fuck-ever they choose to call themselves. All as quick to demonize the dissenter as is any debunker they accuse of demonizing them.
I wonder if Regan Lee could recount the sad tale of Allan Hendry, one time CUFOS official. I recounted it once, in another venue, according to Robert Sheaffer’s account, and Jerry Clark was ever-so-quick to squelch that with his own observations, making the whole affair seem less odious than it was. As per usual, and par for the course.
Some of the most qualified, insightful and intelligent people I have met in this biz have withdrawn from the dialog completely, appalled by this sad, and ever-degenerating, state of affairs. That’s the other 10%.
Then there’s me. Who has given up on “mainstream” ufology. If anything is ever learned, it will be by some “invisible college” who will never be known to me, or you, or Regan Lee. It will be invisible because they won’t be able to afford risking any of us getting our hooks into it. But I don’t hold out much hope for that, either.
But I agree with you on one point, we all need to keep questioning. We need to keep searching for answers to all of our questions. We need to find some common ground and we need to stop trying to silence each other. We need to start listening and try to show a little tolerance once and a while.
Is that so difficult?
It is. It sounds so simple, but it’s so very hard for human beings, on any number of fronts, be they ufology or Iraq.
As for me, almost no one was listening then, and almost no one is listening now, so I might as well stand on my head in the nude and pick up nickels with my tongue while singing “Anchors Away.”
RDB
Oh sorry, I meant The Amazing Bearded Randi, not the In Hell Now Klass. But, Klass probably poked boys too, don’t you think?
One can never be sure of anything, in these troubled times. In fact, I cannot even be 100% sure you’re a total doofus.
Please, feel free to entertain me, though. Talk about my warped sexual proclivities, challenge my manhood, my intelligence, my right to survive. Tell me I’m going to hell, where I will roast with Klass. Think up the most vile insults possible. Give it your all. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You never know, I might go out in the rain and cry and eat fat, juicy night-crawlers all night long.
Get righteous. Tear me a new one. Keep at it, until you feel better.
I see this as a softening of the field (if that’s even possible.) Lead on by cheerleaders like Ms Lee and a few others, the field is becoming a fertile breeding ground for all kinds of religious- cultie types who have very little interest in solving a mystery or advancing knowledge. They seek to silence anyone who can’t or won’t subscribe to their little tunnel reality, squash all opposition and shout down all dissent. Once one takes science out of the equation, one has very little except religion, superstition and belief.
The kicker in this line of thought always leads me back to this, say that UFOs are caused by the action of some unknown entity, one that is outside of our normal experiences. Is it not nto then the purpose of these encounters to sow suspicion, paranoia and confusion? Would it not behoove us to stop playing that game and get down to brass tacks with this stuff? To really find out what those silly lights in the sky are?
I see this as a softening of the field (if that’s even possible.)
I agree, and I make the supposition that said “softening of the field” probably goes hand in hand with a “softening of the head,” as a result of the ongoing dumbing down of America.
religious- cultie types who have very little interest in solving a mystery or advancing knowledge.
Which calls to mind the late John Mack’s admonition that we need to learn to trust purely the psyche as an “instrument of knowing.” Funny how a Harvard MD never took pause and wondered why, when “pure mind” was used as the solitary instrument of knowing, it was always employed in the receipt of messages from galactic civilizations, or pondering the significance of abductee interactions with hybrid alien children, or remote viewing and predicting the future. Never was the psyche successfully employed in predicting the kinetic energy liberated in a moving system of collisions, or the quadratic equation describing the parabolic arc of a rocket trajectory.
Here’s an interesting test. Blindfold Sylvia Brown and drive her to some location that differs substantially in altitude from the starting locale. This would be easy, here – so many mountains so close at hand. After a couple of hours driving this way and that way, to confuse her, you stop, let her out of the car, and ask her to “psych” what her altitude above sea level is, to within 100 feet. Shouldn’t be too hard – if she can’t “psyche” the adiabatic temperature lapse and thus the altitude, or extract a measurement based on how many times her ears have popped, she should be able to read the minds of those with her, who know the altitude.
Point: The “mind as an instrument of knowing,” in and of itself, does very well with airy, insubstantial, non-corporeal things that may or may not have any “objective reality” whatsoever. It does not do nearly so well in “psyching” elementary physical constants. Which is why we have bank thermometers and barometers and anemometers, and all manner and variety of scientific instruments.
Yet, within ufology, we are continually asked to accept that police officers, den-mothers, airline pilots, night watchmen,
teachers, doctors, lawyers, garbage men, etc., ad infinitum, are able to accurately grasp, describe and recount, a brief, unexpected, and dramatic event that interposes itself upon their mundane daily routine. Time after time after time. Even when a host of experiments have indicated that human beings are notoriously bad observers. Half the time, we can’t even separate the observation itself from our conclusions about the observation, which is obvious if you just go and read the NUFORC UFO database.
And then there’s the “abduction phenomenon.” ‘Nuff said.
I can’t begin to describe how incredibly frustrating it is when you “step outside the culture” and look back in, and notice that so many of the “certainties” within ufology have been arrived at via “fudge factor” – by downplaying the observational limitations of human beings, by applying the term “data” to information derived based on anecdotal testimony rather than instrumentation, by implying that testimony which would be accepted in a court of law is sufficient for a “court of science,” by simply repeating the statement, year after year, that there have been “thousands of UFO reports,” even though it is common knowledge that 90%+ of UFO sightings are misperceptions. It is also curious that, with “so many cases,” they continue to hash and rehash the same, decades old “classics.” I belonged to the Project-1947 private listserv for years, and I can personally vouch for the fact that the mainstay of conversation there was rehashing “classic cases,” defining the difference between debunkery and “proper skepticism,” debating, restating, and clarifying minutiae, disclosure of the latest FOIA docs that have at best minimal relation to matters of ufological import (maybe something about which direction General Ramey wiped his ass, front to back or vice versa) ongoing vituperous exchanges between Jerry Clark and Peter Brookesmith, Jerry Clark and Andy Roberts, Jerry Clark and David Clarke, Jerry Clark and John Rimmer, Jerry Clark and Herb Taylor, Jerry Clark and myself, Jan Aldrich and Chris Aubeck, Jan Aldrich defending Barry Greenwood from Chris Aubeck, Don Ledger (author of “Dark Object”) canonizing the “pilot witness” because he has his pilot’s license, and even though he once displayed considerable confusion about a fundmental statement involving the sexagesimal measurement system….blah, blah, and blah-de-fucking-blah…
And, of course, they label you an asshole when you make these observations. The behaviors are so predictable, it’s almost like there’s a “UFO believers handbook” which outlines standard responses to various situations.
Enter Regan Lee, endeavoring to find her “niche” within the “serious ufological community”: classifying and defining the gulf between “ufoists” and “anti-ufoists” [label substitution allowed], and trying to convince others that this all in the interest of advancing understanding of the UFO phenomenon, while employing all the aformentioned fudge factors, and more, to delude herself that she’s on the “right side” of the fence that has more reality in her head and heart than it does in the real world. It just appears fencelike because she’s in the habit of demonizing anyone who doesn’t see things her way, ergo, building a fence between herself and “anti-ufoists” across which no meaningful information may pass.
It’s the “small frog in the small pond syndrome” all over again.
Would it not behoove us to stop playing that game and get down to brass tacks with this stuff? To really find out what those silly lights in the sky are?
To quote someone, “The game’s the thing,” and “The game’s afoot.” But, in answer to your question, yes, it would behoove us immensely.
RDB
There is, it’s called Human nature, and it follows a set of rules.
Rule number 1, most people have an innate desire to be liked.
2,) Most people think they are geniuses or at least, have above average intelligence.
3,) Most people lie to themselves far more than they believe.
5,) Everyone thinks they invented sex.
6,) Everyone lies about sex.
7,) People want validation of their own decisions and their beliefs, no matter if they are right or wrong. A compulsive gambler will rationalize their habit, a litter-bug will tell you how littering keeps street cleaners employed etc.
8,) In a group, people generally follow the loudest, best dressed member. Those who reject such a group’s conventions are frequently labeled enemy whether they are or not.
9,) Everyone lies about how much alcohol they drink.
10,) Most people desire to be special.
Not an exhaustive list mind you…
Rule number 1, most people have an innate desire to be liked.
Must be my headspace – I had to do a double-take, because I intially read this as: “most people have an innate desire to be killed…”
People want validation of their own decisions and their beliefs, no matter if they are right or wrong
A quotation I have posted at AAMB, right now:
“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
– Bertrand Russell
8,) In a group, people generally follow the loudest, best dressed member. Those who reject such a group’s conventions are frequently labeled enemy whether they are or not.
To be sure. I think it’s a simian sort of behavior. Like the gorilla with the best dominance display and the most grey hair on his back gets to be head honcho. Or the baboon with the reddest, nastiest ass, or whatever.
Sometimes I think we’re barely out of the “poo-throwing” stage. Look at some of the language we use: “Don’t give me no shit, man,” “he gave me a ration of shit,” “I aint takin’ no shit offa the likes of you,” etc,” “You’re full of shit,” etc. Plus, the kind of stuff that I used to think only dogs did are now tried and true elements of the porn industry.
I suppose I shouldn’t take it to heart, so. We’re all just behaving pretty much like the naked apes that we are.
RDB
Thankyou R.D. Brock, for encouraging me. Are you a female or male?
Thankyou R.D. Brock, for encouraging me. Are you a female or male?
I’m a hermaphrodite, so take yer pick.
Thankyou R.D. Brock! I sensed that, but didn’t want to put it in as the 3rd option in my question. You must enjoy your body very much.
>Thankyou R.D. Brock! I sensed that, but didn’t want to put it in as the 3rd option in my question. You must enjoy your >body very much.
It’s allright, but I wouldn’t kick a cross between Orson Welles and Liv Tyler out of my bed, either.
Hi Rod,
You forgot “Chris Aubeck and Brad Sparks”