--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
