From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:54:36 -0000
Archived: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:30:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Ray Stanford's Open Letter To Tony Bragalia


>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:32:21 -0500
>Subject: Re: Ray Stanford's Open Letter To Tony Bragalia

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:44:35 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Ray Stanford's Open Letter To Tony Bragalia

>"Conscientious skepticism"? Come on, Martin. Put those violins
>away.

I'm not sure why my complaint about Bragalia's "explanation" so
ruffles your feathers, Jerry. You object to my phrase but then
you go on to say that scepticism is proper and necessary, and
since I can't imagine any sane argument against
conscientiousness, you appear to agree that conscientious
scepticism is a desirable mind-set, one that we can only wish
was more widely aspired to (even if none of us perfects it). The
implication, then, is that you are accusing me of exploiting the
phrase insincerely, and saying that my criticism is only
crocodile tears from someone who is really neither more
conscientious nor more properly sceptical than Bragalia.

If you intended that insult I'd like to know what your grounds
are for making it. If you didn't, I'd like to know what meaning
you did intend as the rest of your post does not clarify.

>The current silliness re the Socorro case only typifies how
>"skepticism" is applied to puzzling UFO reports. (Pardon the
>scare quotes, please; I'm afraid they're going to be
>necessary.)

The only sensible interpretation here is that you are conceding
the value of scepticism if applied conscientously, whilst
objecting to the way in which the notion of scepticism is in
practice abused or perverted (by people - such as Bragalia - who
are by definition not acting or reasoning conscientiously). Your
tone implies that I am expected to disagree with this, but since
it is in fact what I myself said this implication is totally
mysterious.

>It's how "conscientious skepticism" - an animal much more
>imagined than observed - works, even if in the present instance
>the principal theorist happens not to be a debunker in other
>contexts. But when it suits their purposes, UFO proponents are
>quite able, as history amply demonstrates, to take lessons from
>pelicanist birders, who long ago winged away with "skepticism"
>and all adjectives, including the just-cited c-one, preceding
>it. Mogul balloon, anyone?

This is opaque, but as far as I can tell I am guilty of using a
phrase so corrupted by prior misuse (it wouldn't surprise me,
but I am totally unaware of it) that it no longer has a place in
honest discourse. The "c-word" must be whispered behind a hand.
Presumably, although "scepticism"  (= "proper caution and
doubt") and "conscientiousness" are individually admirable
qualities, together they have become either a red flag of two-
face prejudice masquerading as sincerity, or an invitation to be
sneered at as naive. You must enlighten the list as to which
target you had in mind.

>As a general principle in a perfect world, skepticism - as in
>proper caution and doubt - is a very good and necessary thing.
>In rhetorical practice, when applied to the UFO phenomenon and
>other heresies, however, it's simply a set-in-stone
>predisposition against anomalous reports.

Now at last, the fresh air of a plain insult. I regard myself as
having a sceptical approach to anomalies. So this means I have a
set-in-stone negative prejudice against evidence of novelty.
Right, at least we know where we stand.

>In the real world, "conscientious skepticism," at least as
>Martin means it (in the spirit, one might say, of the triumph
>of hope over experience), amounts to an oxymoron.

In the real world, Jerry, what I mean when I use the phrase
(excuse me for presuming to intend a meaning other than the one
your set-in-stone presumption insists that I ought to mean) is
the thorough, objective, non-prejudicial evaluation of evidence
in the light of reason and science to which I myself aspire (no
doubt pitifully inadequately). As the present exchange itself
illustrates, this is a difficult trick to pull off without being
accused of closet debunkery, just because the atmosphere if the
debate is so prejudicial. My complaint is that my aspiration
(which I believe is one we should all share) is not well served
by having the likes of Bragalia making it still easier for lazy,
credulous rumour-mongering to steal the clothes of robust
scepticism.

>Far better, in
>fact and practice, to investigate, analyze, and let the facts
>fall where they may without ritual mouthing of worn-out
>rhetorical tropes.Whether it pretends to be conscientious or
>not,

Do I so pretend? I see, then by all means have at me with your
investigations, your analysis and your facts proving that my
efforts to be conscientiously sceptical are no more than the
pretence of a hard-right ideological disbeliever (to borrow your
colourful rthetoric) and I promise that never will another worn-
out ritual rhetorical trope pass my lips on this List.

"skepticism" long ago lost any actual meaning in
>ufological/anomalistic discourse, except as a more respectable-
>sounding expression of the hard-right ideology otherwise known
>as the disbelief tradition.

Well, that's thoroughly put _me_ in my place. I'll tell you
what, Jerry - with friends like you, who needs enemies?


Martin Shough



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.