The opening sentence of the feature began with the question "why do people believe in phenomena such as UFOs, alien abductions, psychic surgery and ghosts, when the evidence is so scant and unconvincing?" What?! The evidence may be unconvincing to some - but SCANT? I think not. Obviously Wilson de Silva, editor provocateur, is living under a mushroom. Scant evidence of the UFO phenomenon? He's got to be kidding.
The article goes on to infer that we're all suffering from collective delusions complete with "false or exaggerated beliefs that arise spontaneously, spread rapidly in a population,, and temporarily affect a region, culture or whole nation." This mass hysteria, which apparently we suffer from, contains many factors that "contribute to the rise and spread of such collective delusions, such as rumors, extraordinary public anxiety or excitement, shared cultural beliefs or stereotypes, and amplification of these by the mass media, as well as reinforcing actions by authorities such as politicians, the police or the military." Huh?
But wait - there's more. Carl Sagan, now deceased born again UFO supporter turned skeptic, (no he hasn't reincarnated) is quoted as saying that "the scientific method and the clarity it brings can help us overcome our fuzzy thinking. Thinking critically and clearly," he says, "is the means...by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." The article goes on to quote Sagan as arguing, "it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Well right back at you Carl.
Next in de Silva's list of quotees is retired stage magician, skeptic and founding member of CSICOP, James Randi who states "that real science searches for the truth through rigorous methods; it strives to leave no questions unanswered; it provides solid evidence any other researcher can reproduce. Criticism and questioning is encouraged and constantly leads to an evolution of science in the face of new evidence." (cough, splutter) Who can disagree with that, if it actually ever occurred. All I ask is that people like Randi and his skeptical following stand in front of a mirror when they spout such insights.
But is the real argument here whether science, and inevitably scientists, are doing what they proclaim, or is the real issue about the psychology of those with different perspectives not being able to escape the instinctual need to harass, debunk, bully and inevitably ostracize people in the UFO community who think differently and challenge their rusty herd mentality? To explore this let's ask ourselves how a skeptic might handle a claim about UFOs from a magician. What if the UFO community held up an opinion from such a person to support an argument for the reality of UFOs? Don't you think they might ask how the opinion of a stage magician claiming to be a "scientific investigator who exposes the falsities of pseudoscience" (see www.randi.org) can be offered to shed light on anything of a paranormal nature? I think they would. No strike that. I KNOW they would and they'd scoff loudly in the face of those who entertained such "silliness and delusion".
Meanwhile, back in the real world, it seems de Silva remains unaware of credible witness testimony when it comes to the UFO phenomenon, although he does present a mascot photo of Edgar Mitchell with the caption "Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell has claimed there is a US government cover-up about alien visitations" but that's as far as he appears willing to go in debunking a witness who holds 3 science degrees, one of which is a PhD, plus 4 honorary degrees in engineering (see www.edmitchellapollo14.com/edmbio.htm). Perhaps if Dr Mitchell had a background in magic de Silva might go further.
The feature goes on to include the debunking of Crop Circles, stating, "it's hard enough to conceive why intergalactic aliens would opt to write in grain fields rather than public parks or on a piece of paper." This is where Randi chimes in with his thoughts that, "the irrefutable evidence, of course, is that crop circles are hoaxes, perpetrated by pranksters, artists and children." Predictably, Randi points to "the adventures of Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, who came forward in the early 1990s to admit they were behind the original crop circles that kicked off the craze in Britain." He seems to have conveniently forgotten that the crop circle phenomenon came to public attention in the last 1970s and botanical documents containing descriptions of such formations date back to the 1800s. This only covers the English speaking world so we have no idea how long such things may have existed in locations like China, South America or Africa.
It goes without saying that obviously hoaxes exist. We also know that human teams of people will go out into the fields and create this land-art for reasons not associated to hoaxing per-se. Whatever the driving force there seems to be a phenomenon within the phenomenon that makes us want to talk to each other in this manner. Now THAT'S weird!
But I digress. Apparently getting a skeptic to look at the evidence for genuine formations is a hard act to fulfill as David Guest, plant pathologist and agricultural scientist at the University of Sydney, proclaims there is no documented evidence to be found anywhere. Has Glass actually asked for this documentation or merely made a flying visit to the web site of BLT Research in Massachussetts, the worlds largest crop circle site that uses scientific methods to test plant samples. My guess is it was a quick visit followed by a declaration of debunking.
Honestly, after reading this feature which also explores the so-called "delusional" results of homeopathy and chiropractic manipulation, one wonders how long this magazine will remain in circulation when it's contents fly in the face of the public who are living better lives because of these modalities. But I digress.
Cosmos is obviously written by skeptics with a cause - or is it a vendetta? Either way skeptics need to realize that it is THEY who are the minority group here. As they have clearly demonstrated through their own behaviour, that their fragile psyche would be the first to crumble into a jibbering heap if ET did make open contact.
I don't know if they realize it but from my perspective skeptics appear to be stuck and unwilling to move forward in this great learning curve we call life. Their behaviour is dishonest, uncivil, discourteous, unhelpful and invalidating to others. The skeptical approach aims to destroy the social bonds that naturally form when we behave in the opposite manner. It's as if they subconsciously realize this and lash out at others as a form of compensation. If they were honest enough to look deeply within themselves they might realize it is they who have isolated themselves from the greater tribe of humanity. In their effort to ostracize others through their condescending behavior they have actually ostracized themselves and inevitably suffer the consequences of their invalidation. Ultimately they have become their own victims.
