Hidden Truth

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Hidden Truth / Hidden Truth.iso / data / newspostings / reports / 401-500 / 408 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-19 | 22.6 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news From: dkettler@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports Subject: What is the SKEPTICULT? (1 of 3) Date: 19 Jun 1996 08:54:07 GMT Organization: TIFPC - The Internet Fax Psychic Connection Lines: 521 Message-ID: <4q8f7f$j4b@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: den-co14-05.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 19 1:54:07 AM PDT 1996 X-Newsreader: OUI 1.3.0 PART 1 OF 3 PARTS BEGIN: -------------------------------------------------------- ----- Copyright 1996 --- Bruce Daniel Kettler UPDATE: June 18, 1996 NOTE: The use of the word "PRO." I use that word, since I prefer it to "believer." "PRO," as I use it here, applies to the term "PRO" vs "ANTI." This is copyrighted material, and may not be reproduced without e-mail written permission. Write to me, the author, Bruce Daniel Kettler, dkettler@ix.netcom.com, and I will probably give you permission to post to any newsgroups you like. However, I only ask that you: 1. Give me the opportunity to e-mail the latest revision to you just before you post. 2. If you do this every 2 weeks when the posting disappears from newsgroups, please check with me first for the latest revision. 3. Tell me what newsgroups you are posting to each time with e-mail: dkettler@ix.netcom.com ======================================================== == If you use your World Wide Web browser and select the "Search Engine" YAHOO or ALTA VISTA, then select "USENET," and then a certain e-mail address, you will be able to see the postings of many of the people mentioned in this writing. ======================================================== === I've been reading the postings on USENET of the following: bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu gxkambic@bme.ri.ccf.org A.Patki@inter.nl.net carscadd@pps.duke.du skepticmag@aol.com peter.m@mbox200.swipnet.se dhanle2@icarus.cc.uic.edu richardm@kbss.bt.co.uk scribe@onramp.net johnf@melbpc.org.au john.wright@midkent.ac.uk psychic@asgo.net gothic@netaxs.com and others both the proponents and the debunkers. I believe in paranormal phenomena: ESP, KARMA -- SPIRITUAL LAW, UFO'S, NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES, MAGICK, and others. However, I **DON'T** believe in debating the fact that they are real. Most of the time, I don't do it. I don't condemn others for doing it, only my observation of such debate leads me to believe that it's a frustrating waste of time and energy, most of the time. To summarize, there are those who wish to disprove the authenticity of paranormal phenomenon by challenging the proponents to prove it. Others want to show that it is authentic. Most importantly, the question here is not about paranormal phenomena, but rather basic psychological issues. The writings of these so-called skeptics should make people wonder... 1. Are the so-called "skeptics" truly skeptical? 2. Why do the skeptics go to forums of on-line services and newsgroups on USENET designated for those who believe in such phenomena -- those who wish to exchange information amongst themselves? The newsgroups the "skeptics" post on, mostly, have writings of people who are not there to debate. In noticing the debate over these issues with skeptics, I found one person in dialogue with a so-called "skeptic" who was absolutely ignorant on the subject of UFO evidence. What a waste of time? As the writer pointed out, he/she had been debating the issues to clue-less "skeptics" and didn't want to go over the material again. This is common in my experience, that the so-called "skeptics" I debated very seldom had any knowledge of the body of evidence that exists regarding UFO'S, psychic phenomena, or anything similar. For the most part, they spout off *DOCTRINES* of the so-called "skeptic's" religion, like: "We merely challenge you to prove, but are not here to disprove." Indeed, why go over any material? Why not just quote the locations of research papers, and titles and authors of other sources and ask them to investigate it themselves? Who cares what they believe? Why care? Don't get caught in a "SAVING THEM" trip! Help those who *WANT* help. I care, but not what they believe, rather WHAT GOES ON INSIDE THESE **SO-CALLED** "SKEPTICS," what motivates them -- makes them "tick." 1. These people who argue these points, have shown time and time again, that they are not "skeptical." A skeptic reserves judgement until the proof is there. As the so-called "skeptics" say, "How can you prove that which is a negative?" When you read their writing, it doesn't say what a true skeptic would: "Well, we reserve judgement for the time being." It states that certain things are *NOT* true. There is no allowance for future discoveries, only dogmatic statements that no other discoveries are possible. Find some statement from a so- called "skeptic" that allows for the *possibility* that Astrology is real. You might find one or two. Even if their "proof" is that no one they have challenged has given them what they consider to be sufficient evidence, why challenge? Who gave them the right to decide what "sufficient" evidence is? Monetary prizes offered to psychics are not the fruits of a "skeptic," only a so-called one. A skeptic does not need these devices to prove anything. These prizes, not yet won (supposedly), to the so-called "skeptics" are their "proof." 2. I've asked these people why they choose to post to groups where they have not been invited, to argue. I received one answer, "d." below: they want to save us. I believe the answers are one or more of the following: a. They are totally bored people with *NO LIFE* and it's just something to do. You can always spot these people by their "witty," cutting remarks. If their main motivation was other than amusement, and "fun" over the fact that someone may have their feelings hurt, they wouldn't try to be so witty, expressing ridicule at every opportunity. Often enough, they have no beliefs either way. Their main goal is to get an impassioned, long, response. Their statements lack knowledge or substance and are usually quite short. If they can get a person to take a lot of time, expend effort and feeling, while they do practically nothing, that temporarily satisfies them. Isn't there something abnormal about that motivation? b. They have to PROVE SOMETHING. There's some deep-seated psychological reason to BE CORRECT -- and that could be about any subject ie: from what is the correct way to walk to what are the correct rules of evidence for paranormal phenomena. c. They are insecure, in that living in an uncertain universe scares them, so they must have the answers to EVERYTHING. Paranormal phenomena is too insecure, too mysterious, to them. If they get rid of it, everything will be closer to predictability, control, and familiarity. One reinforces one's own beliefs by convincing, or attempting to convince, others. That's the main reason for zealots trying to convert others. There's safety and security in beliefs, and when one feels a bit insecure at the possibility of losing them, one at least *tries* to convert others. You can't *prove* anything to so-called "skeptics." They will see what they want to see. Crop circles will remain hoaxes to them *no matter what,* whether the stalks have other properties that hoaxers cannot make, or whatever. To remain secure they will even hallucinate their own reality. d. To these people, so-called "SKEPTICISM" is a religion, no different than for a fundamentalist Christian, in that the "skeptic" must save us all from the "delusion" of "psychics" and "UFO buffs." It's really ironic and humorous when a so-called "skeptic" tries to "save" a fundamentalist Christian from delusion, while the "fundie" is trying to save the "skeptic" from "hell" after he or she dies. It's not a *TRUE* reason, since it's a delusion. They may believe saving people is their reason, but since they are not actually *saving* anyone from anything harmful, it's not a *real* reason. If this brand of so-called "skepticism" is not a religion of zealots, why not just *BE* a skeptic without getting on a soap box? Why not just let people exchange their views and mind one's own business? If it's not a religion, why such doctrines as: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." The one answer I received from those I questioned was that they wanted to *SAVE* us. No-one ever told the truth of their reasons. Did they, themselves, know the truth? Some did. Some did not. I urge those presently debating these "skeptics" to start investigating them psychologically. Ask them the appropriate questions. If you pay attention to the *PSYCHOLOGICAL* issues many will leave these newsgroups. In some cases they will be helped. If you continue to debate, they will stay for any or all of the A, B, C, D, reasons above and continue to sap your precious time and energy -- what you could be using to help better your world spiritually. In other words, they will ***USE*** you. I believe that those reading the challenges from skeptics may be influenced by the lack of response to the "skeptics," that they may believe that since the challenges are not met, there must be nothing to paranormal phenomena. There's plenty of evidence in public libraries. If their final research is on some USENET newsgroup, let them keep what they find there. Why not ask these "skeptics" why they write in "ALT.PARANORMAL" rather than "SCI.SKEPTIC"? Give those reading the one-sided challenges something to ponder over about their motives. For the so-called skeptics: Ask yourself, deep down inside, why you try to *prove your truth*? Don't get on USENET about "why." It's within your own soul. Check out the numbers. How many people subscribe to SKEPTICAL INQUIRER? How many subscribe to BODY MIND and SPIRIT? Will you ever get a show with the number of viewers who watch *SIGHTINGS* on TV? Being in the majority does not prove truth. However, when one finds similar views to one's own in proportionately less of the world's population year after year, one has to ask why. There may be a good, sound, reason for it. Note, please, that I use the term "so-called skeptics." As for *true* skepticism, I am skeptical I believe everyone is -- some more than others. My writing does *NOT* condemn skepticism, reason or common sense. Indeed, if I were not skeptical, I'd believe everything anyone wrote or said. Certainly I've read and heard material about many paranormal claims, and filtered through that which is acceptable and that which is not, requiring proof before believing certain things I have not investigated. That *is* true skepticism. A *true* skeptic may be someone who does not believe in paranormal phenomena. It's fine not to believe. However, if one's unbelief becomes a *BELIEF* ie: "I believe that this is not true," it's no different than "I believe this is true." It's quite arrogant to assert knowledge of something beyond one's experience. How can one experience that there is no DIVINE FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE? One cannot experience a negative. One can be an agnostic, and that's true skepticism, but to assert that one *KNOWS* they must think they know everything and that they are omnipotent. This arrogance is what the so-called "skeptics" exhibit. These are the "zealots," the religious fanatics who call themselves "skeptics." They *DO* believe in their tenet *I DO BELIEVE .... IS NOT TRUE.* As with most zealots, they mask their true ideal. There are the secret tenets of every group of fanatics. Then there's the mask, and with the so-called "skeptics," the masking label they use is "skepticism," They say they do not assert anything, only question the beliefs of others. They ask for others to prove their claims. However, when you go into depth, and examine their methods and the consistency of their statements, their true nature becomes evident. ****************************************** WHAT MAKES THE SKEP-TI-CULT different from that of the PRO's? ****************************************** Well, there's variety in the PRO's UFO's PSYCHIC ASTROLOGY MAGICK and from each of the above, there is a representation of many religions, many types of books read and quoted, and many different magazines. When you try to communicate with a SKEP-TI-CULT person, you get the same old stuff, over and over. The same attitudes, same writing, and quotes from the same people. It's all just *ANTI* whatever is not orthodox "science." In fact, they only vary in degree of hateful behavior, level of education, and degree of zealousness. You can put 3 skeptics in a written USENET thread, arguing against one PRO, and one cannot tell one skeptic from the other. They are like the same person. "SKEPTIC" in the dictionary: doubting, questioning, thoughtful inquiry suspended judgement I do that. I'm a skeptic. The meaning of the "'skeptic' cult" (Change that to "SKEP-TI-CULT" since it's easier to say.) however, is entirely different. They don't doubt at all. They say they do, but most of them are quite sure that what people find as real of the paranormal is *ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.* Their so-called "investigations" are nothing more than formalities to find their own truth. Have you read "sTARBABY"? Well, I'm still investigating the details of it, and there are two sides of the story. However, the many postings I've read of "skeptics" seems to show a group mind attitude that's like the accusations of the FATE Magazine article, "sTARBABY." In this article, which can be located at the WWW site: http://www.asgo.net/~psychic/ ________________________________________________________ (Opposing views can be found from the "skeptic" site: http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/) I, and a co-author, are currently studying some material from the "skeptics" that was downloaded from an Mr. Lippard's FTP site. ________________________________________________________ If sTARBABY is factual, it indicates that one of the person's who founded CSICOP (Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) was investigating some statistical studies about Astrology. His findings, allegedly, indicated statistics that were favorable to Astrology being a real factor in human events. He, according to this article, tried to have the facts published in the CSICOP periodical, but it was censored. Later, he was dismissed from CSICOP, according to this account. The libelous slander that is so prevelant from so-called "skeptics" on USENET is also indicated by the writings of "skeptics" about Uri Geller. in print. There seems to be an often repeated pattern here. For information regarding libel legal issues, the Uri Geller site is: http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/ Contrary views are in the (FAQ) Frequently Asked Questions of SCI.SKEPTIC. For those skeptics, true skeptics, who have no belief in anything paranormal, I do respect them. Perhaps they have not investigated. Someday they may. It's not my place in life to try to change them. Skepticism, as with any mode of thought in it's pure form, does not require a "soap-box." The same is true of Christianity, which is fine. If you believe, or if you do not believe, the purest form of whatever you represent is in your life, or some simple statement of your position, not your "soap-box" reenactment, distorted representation, or consistent attempts to show that claims of psychic abilities, flying objects, or others are without foundation. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + **** SCIENCE AND THE SO-CALLED "SKEPTIC" **** In the ALT.PARANORMAL, SCI.SKEPTIC and other USENET Newsgroups I've discovered some patterns of thought in the exchange of ideas. First, I noticed a *BLACK OR WHITE* mentality on the part of the so-called "skeptics." I'm not taking notice of *ONLY* these exchanges, but have compared many other encounters, and found the pattern has shown, in my experience, for years. A BLACK AND WHITE way of thinking is, in fact, THE REALITY OF A PERSON. Some would call it their "perspective." The following words work hand-in-hand with BLACK OR WHITE: fundamentalism -- any religion orthodoxy -- in religion and medicine science -- excluding psychology and statistics making it thus "orthodox" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++ Here's some brief examples of USENET postings that showed the black-white mentality: A so-called "skeptic" gave one example about people "proving" their psychic abilities. The methods were obviously fraudulent, with children being entitled to take their experimental objects home. This was a written example from one of RANDI'S books. That was the "skeptics" example of unorthodox science. The other idea, obviously, in the mind of this person was the "orthodox" science. No-where, evidently, did something of a shade of grey exist in this person's head. This so-called "skeptic," responding to my request to examine some evidence outside of Randi's criteria for it, by asking me if one should just take the demonstrators word for it. Here, again, the writing completely lacked the allowance of grey shades. This BLACK - WHITE is also termed an EITHER - OR mentality. In the first example, above, there is orthodox science, and there is fraud. One requires consistently repeatable results. The other is fraud. In the shades of grey, statistics are permitted as a criteria of proof, and the shades of grey become the varying degrees of control required in a scientific study, which depend, in large part, upon the funding available. In the second example, above, there's Randi's debunking of evidence followed by the "true believer" so-called "skeptic," and there's the allowing for fraud by not checking the subject at all. The shades of grey would be so-called "skeptics" allowing themselves to objectively examine the *actual* evidence, that is, the research papers of respected scientists, and I'm not referring here to only that of Uri Geller at SRI International, but to research papers of psychic testing in laboratories worldwide. -------------------------------------------------------- --------- The same type of thought exists in a FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN as in the ZEALOTS who call themselves "skeptics." Both are fixated upon facts. To both a fundamentalist and a "skeptic," it's all they want: THE FACTS To Joseph Campbell, whether Jesus Christ existed or not is not material. The MYTH is the essence of truth, whether it, in fact, happened or not. The same is true of readers of Carlos Castenada, that whether certain things *happened.* Whether a person named *Don Juan* actually existed on the Mexican desert is not the issue, rather what the teachings are, and what they mean to certain people. To both the fundamentalist and the so-called skeptic, THE FACTS are all that matter. Fundamentalists take literal meaning from every word in their books, whether Hindu, Moslem or Christian. There are no symbolic meanings. It's all just fact, each and every word: exact and literal. According to fundamentalist Christians, each and every word in the Bible is dictated by God. A Fundamentalist must believe all parts of the Bible, the Koran or whatever. If any say they believe only part, the rest of their group will consider them "heretics." EITHER - OR Either the whole book is correct, or we cannot trust any of it. The "scientific method," is the *orthodox* Scientist's Bible. It, like the Bible of the fundamentalist Christian, is absolutely and without any variation, the true. And the facts, to that mentality are 100 percent proves the truth of a scientific experiment 80 percent is as useful an indication as 0 percent statistics and science are two different things, and never shall the two meet ________________________________________________________ _______ Jerome & Heather Grisanti (jerome@iglou.com) wrote: Who's to say science isn't just as much a religion as any other? There are those who preach the gospel of proof and scientific method... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++ ________________________________________________________ ___________ FROM BDK dkettler@ix.netcom.com: Take note, reader, that the person writing the following evidently had no knowledge of experiments that have been done for decades, with cards, and through other methods, in universities. If he had, he'd never have written this. END PART 1 OF 3 PARTS