Slashdot Mirror
Why Are Skeptics Such a Negative Bunch?
Makin Waves asks: "Skeptics are very good at 'disproving' things that can't be proven in the first place, so, how about offering me a reasonable, rational explanation for all the cattle mutilations in Argentina instead? (200 at last count). A decent explanation must include the following...Where did all the blood go? What portable instrument does the cauterized cuts? Why won't scavengers touch the dead bodies? Why are there no tracks or blood around the bodies? Why do they take tissues that have a lot of nerves? Last but not least, if not aliens....then Who, Why and How? A Google search will get you all the info you need. For the lazy, this place has a lot of stories. C'mon skeptics, put your money where your mouth is. Maybe it was 'auto-suggestion' eh?"
I did. Im a Robot Vampire, created by extremist Argentinian environmentalists that foresaw the need to control the number of cattle, lest they eat all of their fodder and starve themselves. I use an array of surgical tools, of which are in place of my arms. These tools are far beyond the known scope of human science. These dangerously hot and pointy tools are used to remove tissues with a high density of nerves so that I may graft them to my metallic facade in order to pass for human one day and drink from the fount of human life, and not have to feed from bovine blood (which is of course processed and used by by my bio-mechanic innards). Scavengers wont touch my leftovers because of the keen and smelly scent I leave behind, untraceble by humans and their petty, near useless senses. ...
Aliens are more interested in probing, silly.
With all of that probing, who has time for messy endeavours such as analysing what robot vampires eat for dinner?
"Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." -- Salvador Dali
By the way, the link doesn't work. Try this.
-- Cheers!
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Skeptics don't really disprove anything (I'm generalizing here). They simply prove that a proponent of an extraordinary claim are not able to prove that claims.
It's a "put up or shut up" argument. Are there dead cows on the side of the road? Sure, I suppose occasionally a cow dies here or there. And occasionally teenagers go out and kill a bunch on a lark (I'm guessing).
Are there cows with no blood, cauterized wounds (why cauterize them if the blood has been drained?), and that no longer appear appetizing to vultures? Hm. That's interesting. Where are these? How many? And, most importantly, have they been independently verified?
Skeptics are, as a rule, willing to believe. But nobody who's come forward with an incredible claim has been able to show that they were what was claimed in the first place. It's easy to say that you've been abducted by aliens. Anyone can do it. It's difficult to prove that you've been abducted, and without some kind of proof, skepticism is the only proper response.
It's been said by many (and I've already seen it mentioned here) that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That's what it comes down to.
If you can document, with careful undoctored photographs of dead cows, medical examinations of their drained bodies and cauterized wounds, surveilance of un-vultured corpses (with additional surveilance of other dead animals in the region at the same time to be sure it's not just a vulture holiday), and bring all that, properly reported and analyzed, then a skeptic might be willing to say that something weird's going on.
But bring them all that information, and then say "see, aliens did it!", then not only will you have an unprovable claim, but you're likely to cast a shadow on otherwise proper research. (good tip -- if you're trying to be an authority on cattle mutiliations, don't pose for a photo in a crop circle.) And don't forget, no matter how well-performed your research, it's still possible you introduced an unintentional bias in the methods or results, and the report that the deaths are "weird" might itself not even be valid.
I might also mention that the vast amount of bad science in the field of paranormal studies strongly discourages real scientists from getting into the field, so the posssibility of real, controlled, precice research into any of these is only hampered by the wackos complaining that nobody's listening to them.
So, no, skeptics aren't a "negative" bunch. To paraphrase Fox Mulder, many "want to believe." But to be comfortable in that belief, they need something more than badly-designed web pages and the Weekly World News.
Where did all the blood go? What portable instrument does the cauterized cuts? Why won't scavengers touch the dead bodies? Why are there no tracks or blood around the bodies? Why do they take tissues that have a lot of nerves?
That's a lot of questions. Add to it, Did the blood really go? How robust was the research into scavengers? Has there been any research into whether the meat was edible? Why are you talking about "they"?
Now, let's try "it were aliens" as the answer. How many questions have we answered? None. Do we get any new questions? Yes - How can aliens come to earth, How come no-one noticed them even with extremely refined rader equipment etc, and Why in heck would they do a thing like this.
An answer that answers nothing and only poses new, rather hard questions is not a very good answer.
Unfortunately the link is Slashdotted. I'd look into the facts first - how thorough was the research that makes those claims?
Last but not least, if not aliens....then Who, Why and How?
Those have to be answered if you argue it was done by aliens, too.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
C'mon skeptics, put your money where your mouth is.
You obviously have never heard of James Randi. He (and his foundation) have offered a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can scientifically prove claims of the paranormal.
Guess what. Nobody has ever collected. In fact, nobody has ever passed a preliminary screening test for the prize.
I don't have a copy of Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural with me at work, but I'm sure there's an entry about cattle mutilations. You might borrow that book from the library sometime (or any of Randi's other books, or a tape of his PBS Nova special). It would definitely give you some perspective, even if it didn't answer your questions about dead bovines.
Skeptics are skeptical because we believe that there are a set of rules to follow when observing phenomena and formulating explainations for them. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to believe. Just because I can't readily provide a rational explanation for dead cattle doesn't mean that "aliens must have done it." If that sounds like a cop-out, consider it this way: just because I can't provide a rational explanation of how a magician appears to levitate somebody on stage doesn't mean that he has supernatural powers. Most of us know that magicians don't have super-powers, yet most of us can't explain how their tricks work (at least, the good ones).
Add to that the fact that many people want to believe in the supernatural, even if they're proven wrong! Many people still believe that crop circles are made by visitors from another world, even though it has been shown (many times!) that all you need is a 2x4, some surveyor's tape, a few buddies, and 6 hours in the dark.
So skeptics aren't negative, they're just less easily excited. That may make them seem like party-poopers, but it's really just the fact that many people are waaaaaaaay too willing to believe.