Do you believe in UFOs?

[George Szaszvari]

It's a common criticism of sceptics that they have closed minds. Someone who dismisses claims without examining them probably falls into that category. The flip side of that is gullibility. Sceptics are in neither group.

I'll happily dismiss remote healing and Moon landing hoax theories as nonsense. They lack any basis in reality. UFOs are more interesting because in most cases there is a real phenomenon to be explained - a light or object in the sky that cannot be immediately identified. Something like 10% of such cases are left unexplained after investigation. Anyone with the time, energy and skill can continue to investigate if they wish, but most of us have to get on with more important things.

It is not, however, reasonable to ascribe those unexplained cases to one's favoured explanation by default. This is what the UFO believers tend to do. In fact, they often argue against some of the explanations established for other cases, even when there is no good reason to do so. They have made up their minds that 'strange lights in the sky' equals 'alien spaceships', and they cannot be shifted from that view. They have closed minds.

And what of the sceptics? Ninety per cent of UFOs are actually identified as not being alien spaceships, while the other 10% offer no evidence for extraterrestrial visitors precisely because all we can say about them is that we don't know what they are. So the sceptical position is that we are not being visited by ET, but that any future evidence will be examined with interest - and an open mind.

Anyone who still wishes to claim that I have an 'absurdly closed mind' should reflect on the above.

In principle you make a lot of sense, and you argue well with an element of open mindedness in some things,
but... (deep breath) ... you spoiled it by continuing to dismiss remote healing as nonsense, which is just an
opinion/(dis)belief. People who benefit from healing and choose to share the fact with others, including non
believers, are not expressing opinion, but relating personal experience. That's their reality. Your reality might
not encompass the experience of others, but does that make the experience of others nonsense? There is
also a large amount of documented evidence for psychic/spiritual healing.

Btw I'm not sure that I fully understand your reference to the moon landing hoax.

[Nick Thomas]

George Szaszvari said:

There is also a large amount of documented evidence for psychic/spiritual healing

I am very interested in having a look at what you consider the most compelling.

[Ian Kingston]

... you spoiled it by continuing to dismiss remote healing as nonsense, which is just an
opinion/(dis)belief

It's only an opinion if I can't back it up. The reason I didn't go into it last time is that the topic under discussion here is UFOs. However, one can apply a similar analysis to remote healing: look for the evidence. There isn't any. The classic study by Benson et al. (2006) on prayer, which is one kind of remote healing, is a good example.

There's an extra line of reasoning you can use as well: if remote healing did work, the medical establishment would be all over it: no equipment needed, no hospital facilities, no drugs - fantastic! Politicians and taxpayers would be pretty keen too.

Btw I'm not sure that I fully understand your reference to the moon landing hoax.

Only mentioned because it was in one of your links. A small group of people believe that NASA faked the Moon landings, with everything filmed in a secret studio somewhere. Unfortunately, believing this requires one to accept a conspiracy theory involving the tens of thousands of people directly involved, as well as the connivance of all of America's enemies. And there's that irritating lack of evidence as well.

[Rob Thompson]

seeing as i kicked off my first response here with a comic, i think it's time to throw another in. This is related to the economic argument mentioned by Ian.

Personally,with regard to remote healing, UFOs, God (as discussed in another thread), etc., i like to apply one simple maxim: "evidence or STFU."

[George Szaszvari]

It's only an opinion if I can't back it up. The reason I didn't go into it last time is that the topic under discussion here is UFOs. However, one can apply a similar analysis to remote healing: look for the evidence. There isn't any. The classic study by Benson et al. (2006) on prayer, which is one kind of remote healing, is a good example.
There's an extra line of reasoning you can use as well: if remote healing did work, the medical establishment would be all over it: no equipment needed, no hospital facilities, no drugs - fantastic! Politicians and taxpayers would
be pretty keen too.

Academics writing papers (thus earning their living) to validate/invalidate matters of other peoples' personal
experience? The medical, or, for that matter, any kind of bureaucratic establishment voluntarily and collectively
en masse opening their minds to totally new vistas of understanding, hey, presto, just like that? The whole
medical/ pharmaceutical industry suddenly disappearing overnight? And then the politicians and the electorate
(taxpayers) understanding and embracing it all just like that? And you consider UFO sightings to be far fetched!
I think I'll just stick with my own personal experience, thanks.

Only mentioned because it was in one of your links. A small group of people believe that NASA faked the Moon landings, with everything filmed in a secret studio somewhere. Unfortunately, believing this requires one to accept a conspiracy theory involving the tens of thousands of people directly involved, as well as the connivance of all of America's enemies. And there's that irritating lack of evidence as well

Right, but as pointed out, the context was more to do with O'Leary expressing mistrust of government and
what he thought they were potentially capable of in terms of cover ups, rather than any actual "sympathy"
for the hoax theories.

[George Szaszvari]

George Szaszvari said:

There is also a large amount of documented evidence for psychic/spiritual healing

I am very interested in having a look at what you consider the most compelling.

Most compelling? All I'm going to say is check out the older (before the current New Age craze)
literature on healing. One has to really want to find out for oneself being aware that there is
a vast industry promoting chaff of various alluring colors that covers up the wheat. Probably best
start reading and researching the New Testament in terms of Jesus as healer. Should you have
an antipathy to Christian healing traditions, then there are various others.... everyone has their
own particular path. It is one thing to stick my own neck out on stating my own position, but
I'm loath to give specific references just to have them ridiculed here..."cast ye not your pearls
before the swine", and it is always best to do one's own homework: "seek and ye shall find".

[Nick Thomas]

George Szaszvari said:

There is also a large amount of documented evidence for psychic/spiritual healing

I am very interested in having a look at what you consider the most compelling.

Most compelling? All I'm going to say is check out the older (before the current New Age craze)
literature on healing. One has to really want to find out for oneself being aware that there is
a vast industry promoting chaff of various alluring colors that covers up the wheat. Probably best
start reading and researching the New Testament in terms of Jesus as healer. Should you have
an antipathy to Christian healing traditions, then there are various others.... everyone has their
own particular path. It is one thing to stick my own neck out on stating my own position, but
I'm loath to give specific references just to have them ridiculed here..."cast ye not your pearls
before the swine", and it is always best to do one's own homework: "seek and ye shall find".

Oh I see. Thanks for your reply. BTW I don't think you should be concerned about being ridiculed for quoting specific sources of good quality evidence.

[George Szaszvari]

[
Oh I see. Thanks for your reply. BTW I don't think you should be concerned about being ridiculed for quoting specific sources of good quality evidence.

Please get it right. It is one thing to stick my own neck out on stating my own position, but
I'm loath to give specific references just to have them ridiculed here

[Rob Thompson]

Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. With no evidence at all shown, i am not going to believe your remarkable claims. Continual refusal to show your evidence does nothing to help your position.

[George Szaszvari]

Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. With no evidence at all shown, i am not going to believe your remarkable claims. Continual refusal to show your evidence does nothing to help your position.

There is nothing particularly "remarkable" about healing, certainly not more than existence itself.
You want evidence, you go find it. You've been given pointers, now do your own work. Should you
insist on having a secondhand reality served up to you on a platter, then good luck. And why does
my position need help? You're the one looking for help.

[Alex Holowczak]

You want evidence, you go find it.

Damn, I should have used that one in my dissertation.

[Ian Kingston]

Academics writing papers (thus earning their living) to validate/invalidate matters of other peoples' personal
experience? The medical, or, for that matter, any kind of bureaucratic establishment voluntarily and collectively
en masse opening their minds to totally new vistas of understanding, hey, presto, just like that? The whole
medical/ pharmaceutical industry suddenly disappearing overnight? And then the politicians and the electorate
(taxpayers) understanding and embracing it all just like that? And you consider UFO sightings to be far fetched!
I think I'll just stick with my own personal experience, thanks.

Overnight? No. It takes time to test the claims of any form of therapy. The medical world has exhaustively and extensively tested the claims of various kinds of alternative medicine. If they work, they lose the 'alternative' qualifier and become part of standard practice. Sadly (and I do mean that, because effective, inexpensive, non-invasive medical treatments are exactly what doctors want), almost all of them do no better than a placebo.

Medicine used to be based on individual doctors' personal experiences. Then it was persuaded to look for and examine evidence rather than relying on anecdotes. The results speak for themselves.

A couple of resources for anyone interested:

• Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (see also http://www.badscience.net/)
• Dara O'Briain using humour to make similar points to mine (some bad language)

[George Szaszvari]

You want evidence, you go find it.

Damn, I should have used that one in my dissertation.

How does one "prove" personal experience? There is a lot of published evidence (if you are prepared to accept
testimonies as evidence) easily accessible to those who want to check it out, but none of it is going to prove
anything to someone predisposed to disbelieving those testimonies. It has already been repeated in this (and
the God) thread that these issues are not resolved by argument, but rather by personal experience. The proof
of the pudding is in the eating, not arguing about it.

[George Szaszvari]

Overnight? No. It takes time to test the claims of any form of therapy. The medical world has exhaustively and extensively tested the claims of various kinds of alternative medicine. If they work, they lose the 'alternative' qualifier and become part of standard practice. Sadly (and I do mean that, because effective, inexpensive, non-invasive medical treatments are exactly what doctors want), almost all of them do no better than a placebo.
Medicine used to be based on individual doctors' personal experiences. Then it was persuaded to look for and examine evidence rather than relying on anecdotes. The results speak for themselves.
A couple of resources for anyone interested:

• Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (see also http://www.badscience.net/)
• Dara O'Briain using humour to make similar points to mine (some bad language)

Sure, that's how "official" medicine works. Stuff that worked empirically for centuries gets the official stamp
of approval after modern methods of investigation. Plant life of the southwestern desert and their medicinal
properties is a little hobby of mine, and much of traditional native use is still unknown to modern official science.
There are some local universities, as well as a few non-affiliated individuals, investigating these "alternative"
remedies, as of now still "fringe", but I don't know anyone arrogant enough out here to denigrate it as "witch
doctoring", especially when it has saved many a life and limb. The harsh realities of surviving out here forces
one to adopt very different attitudes to those smugly living in their phony cocoons of comfort and smart alec
self righteousness.... Exhaustive and extensive? Impressive as much of the work must seem, have they really
even scratched the surface yet? The older among us remember how acupuncture was persistently debunked
by the medical association for decades, only recently to gain grudging acceptance as an "alternative" treatment.

[George Szaszvari]

http://www.badscience.net/

Very interesting website btw. I've put it on my favorites list.