Skeptic, Debunker, or Open-minded? 8/15/2009 6:40:45 AM
These discussions amuse me. A friend of mine pointed me toward an event coming up October 9 - 11, of this year, in Tucson--a gathering of “skeptics” discussing the “myth” of UFOs on our culture (see first link, below). It interested me in that it might be interesting to see a room full of intelligent, theoretically open-minded individuals, diss-ing extraterrestrial existence. But it also again got me interested in the topic of what being a “skeptic” is. IS a skeptic open-minded? A “debunker”? Is it a GOOD THING to be so-labeled? Are these mindsets really looking for answers, i.e., any so-called “truth”?
In my experience, and in a word: negative (ah, that means “no”).
I state this because those whom *I’ve* observed “in the act of skeptical discourse” have not exhibited an aura of open-mindedness. At all. When I went through high school and college I was taught a scientific method (see link, below), through the collection of measurable data, the formulation and testing of an hypothesis (a proposed explanation) of said data, and that these things should be repeatable. To me this implies an open mind. Critical thinking. Yet, what I’ve found over time is that scientists are people, too (perish the thought!), and as such, and as obvious as that may be, are prone to all the inherent foibles and idiosyncrasies to which we all fall prey. Sometimes more so, because, well, they’re SCIENTISTS, and, by God, they’re SMARTER than your average bear. And where there’s extreme smarts there is/may be a well-developed...“sense of rightness.” And this is understandable, after all, since these people have spent a good chunk of their lives specializing in UNDERSTANDING and DEVELOPING concepts and outcomes out in the rarified ethers of life. Places most do not travel. They have spent their lives in detailed and exhaustive analysis of the finer details of what makes something tick, not tick, tick in a different way than something else. So--theoretically--they have a mindset that is tempered in the fires of logic, reason, and scrutiny.
Yet...
We have what we have on this www.ufocon.org website. Which is also on Larry King, in print, and happens nearly every time someone brings up a “far-out” topic, like psychics, UFOs, pre-historic civilizations, and Nessie (or Champ!) “monsters.” I can somewhat understand Nessie and Champ not being believable, because there have been intense scientific investigations undertaken, and nothing has been discovered (last I’ve heard; don’t follow it much any more), but on the first two, I find the mindsets roundly UNscientific. And when discussing said, the belligerent ridicule unprofessional and wholly juvenile.
Since when is making fun--loudmouthed and confrontational mockery--of another point of view, at the very least, any kind of respectful? If anything it’s outright bullyish. Why all the public derision?
I don’t know that I can answer that. Could be any number of things...fear, conspiracy theories, low self-esteem, playing to the media, who knows.
But I ask that scientists--true scientists--need to be more open-minded. Anyone out there with a critical thought in their head...don’t laugh and deride another just because they don’t believe in what you believe. Just because you haven’t seen or [re]created something another has observed. An absence of data does not mean an absence of fact. It simply means you have no data. Sounds stupid, huh?, but there it is. That you may not have the proper tools to see or do what actually exists. That being the case, how can anyone formulate an opinion based on no data (I know, there is a lot of “anecdotal” [see tiny URL below] or “hearsay” data out there, and that, in itself, actually constitutes a “data pool,” but it’s subject to far too many variables to really nail down in a way that many consider scientifically “usable”)?
Try explaining a computer to a Neanderthal.
And perhaps...most of the loudmouthed bullying is not even by actual scientists themselves...but by those who simply fancy themselves as “critical thinkers.” Yeah, they might have a science degree, might have even cracked a book on physics or chemistry once in college, before dropping the course, and feel the louder they speak the more right they are. A science degree does not a scientist make. Because with all I’ve said, and I certainly mean no disrespect to scientists as a whole, I sincerely hope THEY do not label themselves “skeptics” nor “debunkers”...for that does not only them, but their professions, a tremendous disservice. I would like to think that it is the loudmouthed “intellectual bullies” out there who are making all the racket.
In any case, in all the definitions I find for “skeptic,” they all seem to revolve around doubting. Not believing. In all the “debunk” definitions, it’s exposing something--and, it seems, while ridiculing, as an added “vector.” But to go through life actively doubting and ridiculing everything is a pessimistic way to live one’s life, if you ask me. I’m not saying to believe everything you see and hear (yeah, look a all the viral e-mail and Internet hoaxes out there!), but look and think with a critical eye. “Yes, I do see something, but what is it?” People see “strange things” all the time; maybe alcohol was involved, and maybe not. Maybe ultra-secret government projects were involved, and maybe not. Maybe it really was Jupiter or Venus. Maybe not. But if critical judgment and an open mind is truly and intentionally applied, by one truly curious and not an Armchair Blowhard Know-It-All, there could be a great give and take, a wonderful collaboration and understanding. There could be a more positive open-minded culture. Even a little respect.
