|
|
the skeptic's bunker
#############################################
skeptic: one who instinctively doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions
#############################################
Welcome to the Skeptic's Bunker, a little slice of sanity on the web…
This webpage was created for those who do not automatically believe every new conjecture, belief, and theory that they run across. It is for those who prefer logic and rational thought to blindly believing everything they hear.
In creating this page, I am hoping to offer alternative theories to explain certain controversial phenomena. I don't claim that these are the only explanations for these phenomena, but in many cases I think that they may be better explanations.
Your submissions are wanted! If you have anything that you think would add to this site, please e-mail me...
I am interested in articles concerning a skeptical look at any paranormal phenomena…
Please sign the guestbook…
Visit the Message Board...
#############################################
Before we go on, I should explain why I believe the way I do...
Simply put, I prefer the methodology of science to blind conjecture…
I prefer evidence to unfounded claims…
When one creates a new theory, a theory that does not conform to accepted scientific theories and laws, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. For example, if one claims that human life was "seeded" on the Earth by alien beings, the responsibility of proof lies with the one claiming this. It is not the responsibility of "mainstream" science to disprove these claims. In fact, one must assume that any new theory is incorrect until proven otherwise.
#############################################
The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
#############################################
But what evidence should we accept?
In any situation, physical evidence is always best.
However, when discussing many controversial subjects (such as UFOlogy), there is little or no physical evidence supporting the claims.
What then? What should be acceptable as evidence? It should be apparent that some sorts of evidence are better than others.
Both video and still photography have serious drawbacks as evidence, mostly because of the possibility of hoaxing. With the technology commonly available today, almost anyone can create a hoaxed photograph that is difficult or impossible to expose as being a hoax.
Anecdotal evidence, such as personal eyewitness accounts, usually can not be used as scientific evidence. Eyewitnesses, as human beings, are subject to misidentifying or misinterpreting what they see, as well as being subject to optical illusions or delusions.
When evidence of any form does appear, how should this evidence be interpreted? Experts in the respective fields should examine this evidence, obviously.
But which experts, and how many? In my own opinion, I believe that six experts are optimal: two believers (in whatever phenomena is being discussed), two skeptics, and two who have formed no opinion whatsoever. I would also like to hear these expert's opinions, not only of the evidence examined, but also of each other. In this way, all possible biases can be seen and judged against each other, as well as showing any disagreements or agreements differing experts might have.
#############################################
Index
Skeptical articles...
A few links...
#############################################
All content of the page(s) are copyrighted by Sam Nash.
Your webmaster is Sam "Snake" Nash.
If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, or submissions, please e-mail me...
Proud member of--
Thanks to
Fastcounter for this counter…
|
Journey around [Next Site] [Prev Site] [Random] [List Next 5] [List All Sites] |
