- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
I sense an implicit set of biases that are evident (but perhaps not intended) in some of the comments posted to date. These biases relate to the orientation of the observer and the presumptive outcome of that observer's conclusion regarding a particular observation incident. IMHO these biases confuse the context of discussion and perhaps confound the originally stated point of this discussion. Beyond that, I feel to the extent these biases are actually held I dispute them.
These biases generally imply fixed points where there is no solid ground.
One such bias is that there's a clear relationship between experiential observation and belief, as if a given observation has to be taken as evidence in one or the other direction of belief. Interpretation is separate from perception, there's no reason one observation cannot induce multiple interpretations on the spot, and initial interpretations of a perception are difficult to overturn once they're embedded in memory.
More evident is the bias that one is either a true believer or a skeptic - an either / or proposition that permits no middle ground. This bias insinuates that no matter where one's belief falls in the wake of a given observation it has to be clearly on one or the other side. Such a strictly binary, black / white, orientation is inimical to Forteanism specifically and ludicrous in general.
Related to this second point is the bias that belief invested in UFO sightings is an "all or nothing" proposition. This implies if you flip from one to the other side of the line with respect to a particular incident or observation you're necessarily flipping to that side with respect to any / all such incidents / observations.
My original understanding of this thread's theme was whether persons skeptical about widespread interpretations and / or beliefs of UFO sightings had personally experienced any UFO sightings themselves. I didn't see anything about "Damascene conversion" (confessed or attributed) or doctrinaire self-identification being part of the topic at issue here.
These biases generally imply fixed points where there is no solid ground.
One such bias is that there's a clear relationship between experiential observation and belief, as if a given observation has to be taken as evidence in one or the other direction of belief. Interpretation is separate from perception, there's no reason one observation cannot induce multiple interpretations on the spot, and initial interpretations of a perception are difficult to overturn once they're embedded in memory.
More evident is the bias that one is either a true believer or a skeptic - an either / or proposition that permits no middle ground. This bias insinuates that no matter where one's belief falls in the wake of a given observation it has to be clearly on one or the other side. Such a strictly binary, black / white, orientation is inimical to Forteanism specifically and ludicrous in general.
Related to this second point is the bias that belief invested in UFO sightings is an "all or nothing" proposition. This implies if you flip from one to the other side of the line with respect to a particular incident or observation you're necessarily flipping to that side with respect to any / all such incidents / observations.
My original understanding of this thread's theme was whether persons skeptical about widespread interpretations and / or beliefs of UFO sightings had personally experienced any UFO sightings themselves. I didn't see anything about "Damascene conversion" (confessed or attributed) or doctrinaire self-identification being part of the topic at issue here.