From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:14:11 -0500
Archived: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:15:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Ray Stanford's Open Letter To Tony Bragalia


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:54:36 -0000
>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.

What I objected to, Martin, was what struck me as your pious
tone. I hoped that you didn't really mean it - after all, we
don't write UpDates posts as we write material for formal
publication between covers; nuance, in other words, often gets
lost here - and that's why I attempted to address you personally
as minimally as possible. I was trying to make a broader point
which evidently you missed. Let me try again:

"Skepticism" - again, pardon the scare quotes; necessary, I'm
afraid - is not a delicate endangered species needing your or
anybody's protection. "Skepticism" in the context of anomalies
discussions has long been an ideological construct, and a
profoundly powerful one, in whose name UFOs and other alleged
anomalies have been driven out of polite society and scientific
attention. It is not a good thing. It has retarded knowledge and
warped judgment. It is not to be confused with ordinary,
necessary sound critical thinking in which (in all kinds of
varying degrees, this being a complicated world) some claims are
rejected, some embraced, others left to wait in an intermediate
state pending further developments. "Skepticism" is not about
well-considered doubt but about reflexive negative certainty.

It's sound, critical thinking, which "skeptics" practice no more
than do credulous fools, that is the delicate endangered
species. _That_ is what needs protection. "Skepticism," with or
without soothing adjectives (such as the c-word "conscientious")
in front of it, has been an enormously destructive force in our
effort to research, investigate, analyze, and discuss anomalous
claims in any meaningful fashion. "Skepticism," in other words,
has strayed so far from its intended definition (which, as you
rightly observe, should be unexceptionable) that it ought to be
jettisoned, its absence treated as an occasion of relief freeing
properly thoughtful consideration to proceed.

I bear you no animosity - to the contrary, much respect - but
your wording just happened to touch a nerve. Sorry; nothing
personal was meant.


Jerry Clark



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.