|
|
|
 |
|
SKEPTICAL OF SKEPTICS
You can always recognize the
pioneers by the arrows in their backs… |
IEA recognizes the need for skepticism as a valuable component of the
scientific method and discovery process. We believe that both data and
theory should be continuously questioned and scrutinized. IEA is willing
to let go of pet ideas when the facts do not support them. Only by
constant reality testing can we discover the truth. This is the positive
use of skepticism.
However, negative skepticism has impeded scientific investigation of
many leading edge topics unjustly and inappropriately. Skeptics may gain
notoriety and profit by writing articles attacking the efforts of
scientists working at the boundaries of conventional theory. These
skeptics may actually, intentionally or unintentionally, obstruct
research leading to significant discoveries that might otherwise be
made. When they “de-popularize” leading-edge topics, scientists do not
venture into these areas for fear of ridicule. IEA maintains that
questions deserve answers and that answers should be questioned. No
question should be “taboo” simply because it has been impaled on a
skeptic’s barb.
The quality of skeptics’ assertions should be questioned as much as any
other scientific theory or hypothesis. But somehow, skeptics’ assertions
seem to escape the questioning process that is a mainstay of the
scientific method. Frequently, skeptics are unaware of how to practice
the scientific method because they are not actual researchers. They
often select data to prove their point. Optimally, researchers reach
conclusions and hypotheses after evaluating a complete set of data at
hand. Skeptics rarely take the time to understand and evaluate all the
facts. Rather, they separate parts of the data relevant to their points
of view, to use as fuel and “proof” to negatively oppose scientists’
endeavors. Sociologist Marcello Truzzi distinguished between
constructive skepticism (which he termed “zeteticism”) on one end of a
continuum and a thinly-veiled form of propangandizing to promote one’s
existing belief system (usually religious). Truzzi suggested that a
true, open-minded skeptic approached data with no preconceptions—those
skeptics who used their criticism simply to maintain a “status quo”
position were not truly skeptics. For the sake of discussion in this
paper, we will refer to open-minded skeptics as “zetetics” and those
working to further their own positions as “skeptics.”
Skeptics rarely offer alternative ideas, as is done in good scientific
dialogue. Rather, they negatively target and attempt to wrongly
discredit research topics as well as targeting scientists supposedly in
the name of “science.” Instead of writing for scientific journals where
their opinions can be scrutinized by scientists (“peer reviewing”),
skeptics frequently bypass peer-review and directly distribute their
opinions via mass media to a public often incapable of discerning the
validity of their opinions. The wide distribution of skeptical
viewpoints via mass media discourages legitimate investigation of
leading-edge topics because the skeptic’s public assertions create
obstacles to funding of valid scientific efforts. Appealing to the
public directly via mass media adds to the public’s confusion about the
validity of all leading-edge topics including Earthlights.
We need a reality check on skepticism
Skeptics’ assumptions and viewpoints can be mistaken, or even
intentionally misleading. Skeptics’ opinions can be written in technical
terms that sound scientific (“technobabble”) but in fact may be as
unfounded as the claims they attempt to dispel. Skeptics promote their
(seldom experimentally-verified) opinions as reality rather than as the
hypotheses they are. Unfortunately, the public often accepts skeptics’
opinions because there is a tacit belief that scientific-sounding
negative criticism is more valid than exploration and discovery.
Skeptics often accuse leading edge scientists of tenaciously attempting
to prove their theories. The reverse is also true. Skeptics may also be
extremely rigid in their quest to prove a point, as much so as the
scientists they often accuse of the same behavior. For instance,
skeptics often believe that because they have proclaimed a plausible
mechanism that such mechanism then applies to each and every incident or
circumstance of a phenomenon. Often, as is the case for Earthlights,
there are multiple causes for light observations. A skeptic may be
correct in explaining a particular observation as car headlights. But he
has not gone far enough. Car headlights only apply to part of the
observations. There are many observations, such as those in the air at
close range, which could not possibly be car headlights. It would be
very mistaken to dismiss the entire phenomenon as having been explained
in this manner.
The mystery of Earthlights will eventually be solved by assigning
various causes to various observations. Most Earthlight observations are
artifacts, explained by ordinary means. However, after artifactual
explanations are eliminated, there remains a residual that cannot be
explained by the existing taxonomy. This does not mean that this
residual is supernatural or inexplicable, it may simply mean our
knowledge and theories are at present incomplete and awaiting new theory
and technology that may demystify the phenomena.
“Round about the accredited and orderly facts of every science there
ever floats a sort of dust cloud of exceptional observations, of
occurrences minute and irregular and seldom met with , which it always
proves more easy to ignore than to attend to...Anyone will renovate his
science who will steadily look after the irregular phenomena, and when
science is renewed, its new formulas often have more of the voice of the
exceptions in them than of what were supposed to be the rules.” -William
James
The best means to gain knowledge and reveal truth is by impartial,
thorough, and extensive evaluation of available scientific data using
state-of-the-art technology and professional expertise. IEA welcomes
alternative viewpoints as part of hypothesis testing and scientific
advancement. Empirical observations, and open minds without preconceived
notions, are needed in Earthlight investigation. That is IEA’s mission.
Page by Marsha Hancock Adams, February 24, 2004 |
|
|
 |
|
top |
|
|
|
