What are you?

[JerryScott]

I've been interested in the UFO topic and countless others since childhood,1960's. (Footnote:The UFO topic and related issues are interesting but not my sole study.)

And one thing I've been able to achieve is a great understanding of how people react to the UFO topic. And the big question has always been..

"What is it?"

And most people fall into four general categories being....and I stress general.

1. Serious believers (I communicate with my space brothers every other Tuesday)

2. Average believers(this would be your XX% of avg American's believe in...),

3. Skeptics (I wish there another word for skeptic,to easily confused with debunker)

4. Debunkers (don't show me any data my mind is made up).

I on the other hand am a...

5.True Observer

A true observer collect's and absorbs all data on a subject without injecting any belief system. Its all about pure data. No opinions are formed. The topic is your canvas.

A true observer never argues a point or position cause he has none. He only collects data. Hence he can be a boring conversationalist by just nodding occasionally in recognition of an opinion.

I would be real interested in knowing how others approach learning. Are you a believer,skeptic or debunker. Or who takes my approach as an Observer or a variation of it?

Thanks

[LotusExcelle]

Debunkers crave data as do skeptics.

[Tucson_Tim]

Debunkers crave data as do skeptics.

I agree. I'm sure that all the "debunkers' on this site would change their viewpoints immediately if there was any real evidence that UFOs are alien craft.

ETA: By your definitions I am a skeptic. If I was more knowledgeable, I might be a debunker.

[NorthGuy]

What's the point of gathering data unless you examine it and come to some conclusion even if the conclusion is that there is not enough data indicate that X is true?

[Swift]

3. Skeptics (I wish there another word for skeptic,to easily confused with debunker)

4. Debunkers (don't show me any data my mind is made up).

As others have said, I don't agree with your definition of debunker. I think skeptic and debunker are similar, it may mostly be how much they argue with "Serious Believers" ( I would probably use the term "True Believer").

I also think there is a category that is similar, but a little different than "True Observer". This is the "Wait and see" group, or maybe the "Agnostic" group. There is no evidence to believe that ETs are visiting us, but if they are willing to wait on more data.

And I think there are some categories between Serious Believer and Average Believer. There are the Serious Believers who think they aliens are talking with them (as you say). But there are other ones who don't go that far, but think, for example, that we've been visited (humans, not they themselves personally) and the Govement or the MIB is covering it all up.

[Fazor]

The term "Debunk" in an of itself implies using facts to disprove something:
(Dictionary.com)

to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated

Debunkers don't merely say "Nope, you're wrong. Don't bother with your 'evidence' you're wrong anyway." Specifically, debunkers respond to the individual claims of fact.

If anything, I'd create a separate category for Mules (as in, stubborn as a) that includes both sides, when the person refuses to listen or respond to claims and simply defaults to their already formed opinion.

[astrophotographer]

I disagree with your characterization of "debunkers". This is a typical UFO proponent label. I think it was Stanton Friedman who coined the phrase. Debunkers actually provide a service to UFO reports. They present potential explanations, which are not even considered by proponents or "investigators" of the UFO reports. Therefore, debunkers provide some sort of positive input to the discussion despite your labeling them with the "tar and feather" approach offerred by proponents. You can put me into the "debunker" category because I think there are reasonable explanations for UFO reports. I am also a skeptic because I don't believe that UFOs are anything extraordinary unless you can provide darn good evidence otherwise. I read everything I can about a case before I decide what I think is a most likely answer. If I can't produce a reasonable one, I usually figure there is not enough information and leave it as unidentified. That does not mean it is something extraordinary or exotic. It only means, I don't know and maybe something will show up to help explain it.

Now let's discuss your #5 "A true observer". According to you, you only collect data and have no opinion whatsoever. However, you immediately classified "debunkers" as people who have their minds made up and ignore the data. Therefore, you really are not a true observer because you have an opinion as to what "debunkers" are. As for the data, I love data and numbers. To me, the more data the better. Unfortunately, the "data" is highly subjective in almost all UFO reports. IMO, the more data you have the more likely the case will be solved. This was the case of the Arizona UFOs back in 1997. The 10PM event actually had plenty of real data with videos, locations, angles, etc. They definitely showed they were flares well south of Phoenix. This data was ignored by UFOlogists and still is today! The 8-8:30PM event also had plenty of data but it was not collected by the investigators correctly. Angular sizes, elevations, and speeds would have been great. Instead we got size estimates in yard, feets, miles, which nobody can estimate accurately with an unknown object in a dark sky. When one looks at the real data that was available, it appears that there is a likely explanation for that event as well. Again, it was ignored by those who wanted to perpetuate a mystery for their own gain.

Your "pure data" is not readily available when it comes to UFO reports. Take a look at the NUFORC database and read some of their reports:

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports.html

If you are a "true observer", you probably would reject many of these reports because of their subjective nature and lack of "data".

[Studioguy]

I'm a serious skeptic observer:

My Tuesday morning pow-wow with the alien elf in the flower bed told me I don't need any evidence and I should avoid forming opinions.

But seriously, would you really expect somebody to think that you're unbiased and sincere in your quest for "truth" when you consider that a "debunker" is completely closed to "evidence?" Do you really think I could use "more quotation marks?"

[NorthGuy]

I think a skeptic would say, "I need to see your evidence before I accept your conclusions." But a debunker would take a more active approach and say, "I've examined your evidence, and I think your conclusions are wrong because..."

[BertL]

Would a sceptic who thinks serious believers give a lot of false evidence and calls them out for it count as a sceptic or a debunker?

[Tucson_Tim]

What's the point of gathering data unless you examine it and come to some conclusion even if the conclusion is that there is not enough data indicate that X is true?

Good question. Being a "true observer" seems pointless.

[Gillianren]

I think a skeptic would say, "I need to see your evidence before I accept your conclusions." But a debunker would take a more active approach and say, "I've examined your evidence, and I think your conclusions are wrong because..."

That sounds about right to me, too. I'd love to know enough to be a debunker, but I only know enough to be a skeptic.

[Fazor]

I don't technically even count myself as a skeptic, but instead an interested observer of BAUT conversations.

Of course, you can't hang around here for long without developing a habit of arguing against stupid "science" when it crops up.

[astrophotographer]

I think a skeptic would say, "I need to see your evidence before I accept your conclusions." But a debunker would take a more active approach and say, "I've examined your evidence, and I think your conclusions are wrong because..."

I have to agree with that for the most part.

[astrophotographer]

We can probably add quite a few categories to this list:

1) Skeptical believer - wants to believe but won't because he is skeptical of the data and the reports. Allows his better judgement to interfere with a will to believe.

2) UFO proponent - Seriously believes the data indicates something extraordinary but won't come out and state it is ET. Only states that it might be ET or some other "intelligence".

3) ETH'er - Believes the UFO data is accurate and states it directly tells us that they are alien spaceships

4) Excited observer - All the data is unimportant. They want to believe they see alien spaceships, so when they see something in the sky they don't understand, they immediately tell everyone they saw an alien spaceship/UFO. When it is pointed out that it was something mundane (like Venus, the ISS, Iridium flare, etc.), they argue that they could not have been mistaken and you are calling them a liar.

5) UFO lecturer - Sells books about UFOs, lectures about UFOs, collects stories about UFOs and sells them. The better ones try and disguise it as a scientific endeavor. The more obvious ones just peddle DVDs. Anybody that disagrees with them has not looked at the facts and is a debunker.

[JerryScott]

OP here..thanks for all the responses. All very interesting.

I wish to clarify a few things.

My true observer classification is all about collecting data and information on a particular subject without a means to an end.

It can be a little difficult to wrap your head around the concept because your whole life you've "questioned the data". IOW my learning process is not to decide or determine if the subject matter is true or false but to "know" the subject. Doesn't matter if its Richard Feynman papers or The True History of Fairies and Pixies in Europe. Its all data. Read it..learn it...next.

What's the point of gathering data unless you examine it and come to some conclusion even if the conclusion is that there is not enough data indicate that X is true?

Good question.

Scientific research,forensics and similar professions all need to question the data. This is progress.

However when one takes information then run's it through a "believability filter," that information can then become and often is tailored to that individual in one of four ways. Four ways! (see op). Which for me is unacceptable. But I understand that some people need the emotional comfort of truth's or falsehoods. Centuries of conditioning here guy's.

I've read Phil's books. Great reads. In fact I read Neal Tyson's Death by Black Hole and Phil's Death from the Skies back to back. Cool books...

I read Tim Good's book Need to Know then Richard Dolan's UFO's and The National Security State. Again two fine books with lots of data.

Again I take it all as one. When Phil and Neal discuss the expansion of our Sun and our eventual demise I don't wonder or question..etc. When Tim Good or Rich Dolan discuss FOIA docs I don't dismiss or accept but gather and collect.

Hypothetical before I close out.....

Jim the "smart guy" goes to his local bookstore and buys Neil Tyson's Death by Black Hole. He rushes home and after a hearty meal of tuna fish on rye he begins reading. He eventually read's about these stellar monsters called Gamma Ray Burst's. "How can that be?" Jim gasp's. "So far away..how do they know? Who is this Neil guy with the funny middle name?. I can't believe it..he's wrong..no way..I'm done reading this trash. Never again will I read anything by him." Jim throws the book away then immediately run's to the washroom...tuna fish on rye?

Just having a little fun with Jim. And yea I know, before you guys pick apart my story.... yes Niel has sources,as do all the author's I mentioned here

thanks

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." AE

[A.DIM]

Is there a CT in here somewhere?

Perhaps this should be in LiS?

[Extracelestial]

I've been interested in the UFO topic and countless others since childhood,1960's. (Footnote:The UFO topic and related issues are interesting but not my sole study.)

And one thing I've been able to achieve is a great understanding of how people react to the UFO topic. And the big question has always been..

"What is it?"

And most people fall into four general categories being....and I stress general.

1. Serious believers (I communicate with my space brothers every other Tuesday)

2. Average believers(this would be your XX% of avg American's believe in...),

3. Skeptics (I wish there another word for skeptic,to easily confused with debunker)

4. Debunkers (don't show me any data my mind is made up).

I on the other hand am a...

5.True Observer

A true observer collect's and absorbs all data on a subject without injecting any belief system. Its all about pure data. No opinions are formed. The topic is your canvas.

A true observer never argues a point or position cause he has none. He only collects data. Hence he can be a boring conversationalist by just nodding occasionally in recognition of an opinion.

I would be real interested in knowing how others approach learning. Are you a believer,skeptic or debunker. Or who takes my approach as an Observer or a variation of it?

Thanks

Hello JerryScott - welcome to the board.
sorry to sound pedantic but I couldn't help but to think "this is but one category only!" when I read your post. The reason is that your categories do not differ (i.e. distinguish themselves) by some profound or elementary quality but only by the degree of one common quality. And this is the degree of belief in a given interpretation. I.e. that you're putting every "commenters" on a scale where they differ merely by weight and not by some other attribute such as colour or shape. This seems to be an arbitrary classification and I'd be interested why you've chosen this.
Apart from that I disagree on your definitions: debunkers are merely sceptics who take the pain in deconstructing actively superstition whereas a sceptic simply doesn't believe anything at first sight.
My approach to learning has been open; I hope. In my youth I was avidly making my own "research" in PSI, paranormal and UFOs but when neither materialised and the pro arguments began to sound repetitious and shallow I lost interest. I still belive that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim.
So the easiest way to convince me is to present evidence that is not categorized "as never before seen footage on YouTube".
Extracelestial

[Tucson_Tim]

I still belive that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim.

I believe the same.

I'd wager that most of the "debunkers" on this site feel the same way about the possibility of other intelligent life in the universe.

[R.A.F.]

My true observer classification is all about collecting data and information on a particular subject without a means to an end.

As has been pointed out by others, a seemingly pointless endeavour.

It can be a little difficult to wrap your head around the concept because your whole life you've "questioned the data". IOW my learning process is not to decide or determine if the subject matter is true or false but to "know" the subject.

What "learning process"?? If you don't have an opinion on the truth or falseness of any given subject, then just what have you learned??

I understand that some people need the emotional comfort of truth's or falsehoods. Centuries of conditioning here guy's.

There is a very real world "need to know" what is real and what is not. Lives literally depend on knowing what reality "is".

What that has to do with "emotional comfort", I have no idea.

[Swift]

<snip>
However when one takes information then run's it through a "believability filter," that information can then become and often is tailored to that individual in one of four ways. Four ways! (see op). Which for me is unacceptable. But I understand that some people need the emotional comfort of truth's or falsehoods. Centuries of conditioning here guy's.

Yes, but without some sort of filter or other mechanism, how do you weigh the relative worth of the different pieces of information?

Take a non-UFO example - I'm feeling sick and I have a list of symptoms. A doctor tells me I have a bacterial infection and I need an antibiotic. Some guy I bump into on the bus tells me I have bad karma and need to move the furniture around in my house. Do I give these two pieces of information equal weight? If not, how do I judge which one to follow? If three random people tell me its bad karma, does that mean the majority is right and the doctor is wrong?

Its not a question of emotional comfort, its a question as to how one makes decisions.

I'm reminded of the signature line of a BAUT member who I don't think is around much anymore: "An open mind is like an open window, without a good screen, a lot of bugs get in".

[Swift]

Is there a CT in here somewhere?

Perhaps this should be in LiS?

Ok, now I'm putting my moderator cap on...

A.DIM raises a valid point. I'm willing to let this brew here for a little longer, since we have often discussed UFO topics in CT. I can't speak for all other moderators.

JerryScott, it might be useful to know where you are going with this topic. Is this just a casual interest and a question you are interested in by itself? Or is this leading to some further discussion about UFOs? Is there an actual conspiracy somewhere in this?

[JerryScott]

My approach to learning has been open; I hope. In my youth I was avidly making my own "research" in PSI, paranormal and UFOs but when neither materialised and the pro arguments began to sound repetitious and shallow I lost interest. I still belive that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim.l

Thanks Extracelestial. You make interesting points and I appreciate your opinions.

The believe word is used often. What does it really mean? Is is it just the easy way out? To believe or not believe.

You state.."I still believe that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim" .

Now let me pick out key words or phrases that run counter to my learning paradigm.

believe,may,more than one,odds,pretty slim.

Your statement is based on a belief system albeit an educated one. However I respectfully ask how you have drawn this conclusion.

Now before I get ahead of myself I have nothing against people who believe in things. Is to know a better option than believing?

[Gillianren]

Again I take it all as one. When Phil and Neal discuss the expansion of our Sun and our eventual demise I don't wonder or question..etc. When Tim Good or Rich Dolan discuss FOIA docs I don't dismiss or accept but gather and collect.

So what's the point? You can go around collecting all kinds of garbage, but without using some kind of filter, it's all just garbage in your head unrelated to anything. It's when you start to assess and analyze that it becomes of any use to anybody. I can assure you that some information is more valid than others. Data points can be made up; do you consider those just as valid? If you do, what's the point of collecting the information in the first place?

[JerryScott]

Ok, now I'm putting my moderator cap on...

A.DIM raises a valid point. I'm willing to let this brew here for a little longer, since we have often discussed UFO topics in CT. I can't speak for all other moderators.

JerryScott, it might be useful to know where you are going with this topic. Is this just a casual interest and a question you are interested in by itself? Or is this leading to some further discussion about UFOs? Is there an actual conspiracy somewhere in this?

Actually it started as sort of an observation on how people react to say the UFO phenomenon and how they deal with information. To get the ball rolling I detailed my methods and such. Also listing in general terms various categories.

Clearly not conspiratorial. My bad.

At this point I'm just replying and such. I apologize for it not being topical.

[astrophotographer]

I read Tim Good's book Need to Know then Richard Dolan's UFO's and The National Security State. Again two fine books with lots of data.

Hmmmm......I am not so sure about these two books. I have read some of Good's other books (above top secret for one) and a lot of it looks interesting but upon further fact checking you find his "data" comes from a lot of dubious sources (people who claim to be something they are not). I have yet to read Dolan's book but from what I have seen of his other writings, I am one to suggest that his claims are probably inflated and biased towards his believe in a conspiracy. Both of these authors are conspiracy theorists regarding the US government and UFOs. A lot of speculation but no real "data" that can be substantiated. Feel free to elaborate what "data" in these books is so good to confirm that there is a conspiracy? I would be interested to hear what you consider good "data".

[Swift]

Actually it started as sort of an observation on how people react to say the UFO phenomenon and how they deal with information. To get the ball rolling I detailed my methods and such. Also listing in general terms various categories.

Clearly not conspiratorial. My bad.

At this point I'm just replying and such. I apologize for it not being topical.

No harm, no foul.

Since this seems to be more of a discussion on how people deal with information, I'm going to move the thread to Science and Technology, though depending on how things evolve, I may change that yet again.

Given that, this needs to not become a discussion of UFOs and conspiracies, or other non-mainstream ideas.

[R.A.F.]

...this needs to not become a discussion of UFOs and conspiracies, or other non-mainstream ideas.

So what becomes of Astrophotographer's last question?

[JerryScott]

So what's the point? You can go around collecting all kinds of garbage, but without using some kind of filter, it's all just garbage in your head unrelated to anything. It's when you start to assess and analyze that it becomes of any use to anybody. I can assure you that some information is more valid than others. Data points can be made up; do you consider those just as valid? If you do, what's the point of collecting the information in the first place?

Thanks Gilliam well put...

Of course your correct.

One mans garbage is another mans treasure or so they say.

This statement...."The Man in the Moon".

Is there a actual man on the moon. No of course not. You accept it I assume as a phrase,part off folklore,from a song etc..

Take this concept of accepting and apply it a 1000 fold. This is my approach.
It's a tad complex but there is an element of common sense to the madness But I gotta roll this is way off topic.

[JerryScott]

Hmmmm......I am not so sure about these two books. I have read some of Good's other books (above top secret for one) and a lot of it looks interesting but upon further fact checking you find his "data" comes from a lot of dubious sources (people who claim to be something they are not). I have yet to read Dolan's book but from what I have seen of his other writings, I am one to suggest that his claims are probably inflated and biased towards his believe in a conspiracy. Both of these authors are conspiracy theorists regarding the US government and UFOs. A lot of speculation but no real "data" that can be substantiated. Feel free to elaborate what "data" in these books is so good to confirm that there is a conspiracy? I would be interested to hear what you consider good "data".

thanks astro..well put.

I just liked the books. And they seem to be the "go to" books on the topic.