The Skeptic’s Mind-set

Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.

Readers here are familiar with my pal Zoam Chomsky and his atheistic UFO views.

And a few may be familiar with Gilles Fernandez’ anti-UFO views, preferring the IFO epithet: Identified Flying Objects.

And then there is Lance Moody, all but invisible lately, here.

These fellows are examples of skeptics, Chomsky whom I love, Moody a pal (I think), and Gilles, mon ami from France.

While I do not find any of their skeptical stances offensive, I do have caveats to their skeptical approach, not so much Zoam’s as the other two.

In the June 7, 2018 issue of The New York Review of Books is a review, by Marina  Warner of two books about Roman religions in the age(s) of the first Caesars, titles of which I’ll not note because few visiting here rarely read, and certainly not scholarly tomes.

But in Ms. Warner’s review, Holy Shape-Shifters, [Page34 ff], which you can find online, are some notes that apply, or should, to skeptical practitioners, especially when it comes to UFOs or Ufology.

Ms. Warner opens with a listing of Roman polytheism, that mimics the categories one finds in UFO lore, the various kinds of UFOs reported/sighted by witnesses: gods, goddesses, nymphs, divine heroes,, abstract virtues (appeared and disappeared).

And she cites first century B.C. scholar and writer “Varro [who] faced with the plethora of popular divinities, decided to square the circle, and proposed seeing the multiplicity of gods as a series of variations on a single divine principle.” (An observation not unlike one that might apply to ufology.)

And in noting one of the academic authors, Harriet I. Flower, Warner writes, “Flower prefers archaeological and historical evidence to literary narratives, and seems puzzlingly wary of using tales, especially literary ones, as sources.”

[This is not unlike Gilles Fernandez approach to UFO lore (reports of sightings and/or encounters.]

But Warner goes on to enlighten us to the reality: “Flower does, however, pass on a wild story from Pliny the Elder about the birth of Servius Tullius he legendary king of Rome.”

So, Ms. Flower does resort to tales when it suits her purpose(s)….not a bad thing by any means.

Warner also offers a juicy tale from Ovid (which you will find online at The NYRB in the review cited here.)

Warner states that such poems and works “deserve the attention of historians.”

My point? That while Gilles, Zoam, and maybe Lance eschew UFO tales, those tales do or can add to the eventual explanation of the enigmatic phenomenon (or whatever it is).

Gilles is currently trying to persuade readers of his Facebook UFO page that the Airship reports and stories from 1896/1897 are just that, stories, tales, concoctions or misrepresented observations.

While that's a skeptical method, it is not academic or scholarly.

Zoam, us you know, uses the Null Hypothesis to try and eliminate the “reality” of UFOs, and that approach has the patina of scholarship, but some of us find the Null Hypothesis as nutty as the idea that UFOs are ET craft.

Lance just hates UFO liars and foolishness altogether; not academic or scholarly, but an approach.

Skepticism needs as much discipline as UFO belief, belief being the essence of the review cited here, and belief an integral part of societal development, no matter how foolish it may seem to be.

So, God bless skeptics, especially those named here. I love them, each one, but don’t accept their “errant” approach to debunking UFOs. They don’t use scholarly rigor.

RR