Judy, I finally got through your suggested exchange on the skeptic board. That very interesting and brought out many important points about testing, objectivity and bias.
This is a great topic for self-discovery. Most people are skewed by financial gain, but not always. I spent a fair amount of my mortgage banking career counseling people NOT to buy a home at that particular time, which went against my own financial interest. But in many cases as a mortgage professional, I was the only person in the transaction willing to be objective about it. The home buyers were on home-ownership drugs, and the Realtors wanted their commissions. But my years of seeing people getting financially demolished by buying a home too soon put me in the best position to help home buyers understand what the reality would be after I got them a loan. This ethical code helped me sleep at night but the loan meltdown we see today is evidence that my style was in the extreme minority in the industry. In my life I am trying to find my own balance of enjoying the benifits of age and having been around the block a bit. I don't have the same "anything is possible" stars in my eyes of my youth, but I have also lived long enough to have experienced amazing and unexpected things in life. It is a tricky balance to set one's own BS meter isn't it? Regarding the crop circles: I found that my ability to assess the claims of unusual findings at some sites is severely limited. Although I am skeptical of claims that people know what any of this means (i.e. UFOs), I understand my limits in evaluating their reporting truthfulness, or accuracy, and what any of it may mean. I am willing to move the whole topic of unusual findings at circle sites into the "I don't have a clue" bin rather than some attempt to judge it with zero tools or training, or even an ability to assess the sincerity of the reporters. But someone's financial interest in something doesn't exclude their information right away outside of serious scientific studies. For this kind of topic those people may be the only ones really paying full attention to the question. It is an interesting question blending what we know about using the scientific method combined with the half-assed application we end up with in our personal lives when evaluating claims. I appreciate the thought you have given the topic and your directing me to the discussion. It was helpful, and for a philosophy hack like myself, a lot of fun to read. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Judy: "Would you acknowledge the possibility that for > > one who has very thoroughly studied crop circles, > > what may seem "biased" views to you may in fact > > be quite objective? > > Rereading it, I'm not sure I made this question as > clear as it should have been. > > I *didn't* mean to suggest that someone who has > studied crop circles simply *perceives* him/herself > to be objective because s/he's done a lot of > research. > > I *did* mean to suggest that it's possible someone > who has looked closely at all the data may actually > *be* more objective than someone who has not > regarding what appear to be extraordinary claims > (i.e., that the circles are not all manmade). > > If that's what you were answering "yes" to, Curtis, > good for you. (And note I'm not *asserting* that > such a person is objective, simply suggesting that > it's a possibility--that the data *may* actually > point convincingly to the conclusion that the > circles aren't all manmade.) > > I think there can be a tendency to assume that > someone who supports an extraordinary claim is > biased in favor of that claim, whereas they may > be supporting it on the basis of solid evidence-- > that is, objectively. > > Trying to determine which is the case, from the > outside, as it were, is really difficult. > > > Would you also acknowledge that your own view > > is distinctly biased, especially given that you > > *haven't* studied the phenomenon?" > > > > ME: Totally "yes" and "yes". The chances of me having to shift my > > perspective from what I had coming in is 100% That's why I am > > enjoying the ride. > > > > Judy: " I don't know that you should even carry that > > > particular "theory" around in your head as a > > > provisional goal if you're seriously looking > > > into this stuff, because it's liable to > > > automatically bias you against the phenomenon > > > by setting up two alternatives: Either the > > > circles are manmade, or they're made by aliens. > > > > > > Better to look for what can be *ruled out* as > > > possible explanations, and then take account > > > of what's left. > > > > > > Final point: There are many layers to the hoax- > > > versus-genuine aspect of the crop circle > > > phenomenon, in the sense that there's some > > > evidence of a highly motivated and determined > > > counterhoaxing movement, i.e., spurious claims > > > to have made certain circles, dubious claims > > > about the number of hoaxers, and so forth. > > > This makes it quite difficult to come to any > > > solid conclusions, which may be the reason for > > > the counterhoaxing efforts. > > > > > > So use the same degree of skepticism when > > > evaluating the purported claims of hoaxing as > > > you do when evaluating claims about "genuine" > > > crop circles." > > > > Me: Excellent in every way. I wish I had written it! This > > subject is such a perfect mirror for how I approach new fields > > of knowledge that I have a bias with. Thanks. > > Crop circles is a particularly tough field for this > kind of endeavor for a lot of reasons having to do > with the nature of the phenomenon. I can't think of > another "paranormal" area in which there is this kind > of competition between researchers and hoaxers, where > the hoaxers aren't trying to *get away* with their > hoaxes but are making a point of the fact that they're > doing them, if you see what I mean. > > If you have lots of time on your hands, you might be > interested in reading a *long*, very detailed, > generally theoretical discussion between a skeptic > named Brant (posting from sci.skeptic) and me > (posting from alt.m.t) about bias (both skeptical > and non-) and how it can skew testing of extraordinary > claims. We covered a lot of ground pretty thoroughly, > and with a relative lack of hostility and emphasis on > logic and reason. Several other people contributed as > well. > > It had nothing to do with crop circles, but I thought > it brought out some interesting points concerning the > epistemology of testing such claims. > > The exchange is in the thread titled "If he's > interested in a scientific test, so am I," and it > begins here-- > > http://tinyurl.com/2jrc88 > > --about six posts down, with a post of mine dated August > 16, 1998. It continues through August 25, after which > Brant dropped out and the thread diverged into other > topics. > > I won't be offended if you don't want to read it! > Maybe just file away the URL for when you have > nothing better to do. >
