Within the UFO community, many labels are thrown around to characterize people, their opinions, and the veracity of their beliefs. “Believer” (or similar term) is often used derogatorily to characterize anyone who thinks NHI may exist and is used to indicate that a person believes (and will be forever unwilling to acknowledge otherwise) that aliens have come to Earth or walk among us or that there is a grand world-wide alien conspiracy. On the other hand, “skeptic” and “non-believer” (or similar term) can be used to characterize and criticize anyone who questions or doubts any aspect of NHI and is suggestive that their views are forever immovable.
These terms are used along with other broad characterizations like “everyone in this sub” or “people in this sub” to assert that the vast majority of the community is iron-clad, conclusive, and unwavering in their stance (you can see countless examples of such phrasing used to support completely opposite positions). In reality, however, the vast majority of people are likely people with no firm belief and rather spend their time evaluating and analyzing the totality of available information, and based on that information, forming a general opinion on the issues and recognizing the need for additional information (regardless of what that information may support).
Unfortunately, due to some sociological or psychological reason, extreme positions tend to garner substantial interaction and attention. This creates an unrealistic and misguided approximation of “the community” and in effect perpetuates itself whereby reasonable thinkers end up using the existence of opposing viewpoint extremism as a sword and a shield. Not only does this further misrepresent the nature of “the community” but can result in a reasonable thinker coming off as or being labeled and viewed as one of the extremists.
Extremist talking points or counter-points then begin to infect the channels of reasonable and critical discourse and quickly the forest is lost for the trees.
One way this has occurred is with the concept of “evidence.” In the extremist sect of dogmatic naysayers (whether innocent or nefarious), “evidence” is the blackball of choice in objecting to any argument suggesting any possibility of NHI. This then finds its way into regular discourse as people say “well I just want evidence,” or “where is the evidence,” or “I’ll believe it when I see the evidence.” Even a reasonable person may not realize they have succumbed to the bastardized extremist classification of “evidence.”
“Evidence” is an amazingly mobile goalpost. So good, that it can serve as a counter-argument in every conceivable situation. Why? Because the word “evidence” has no inherent meaning. We quickly forget that “evidence” can be a loaded term used to lend credibility for or against information.
When thinking critically, however, one must realize that the empirical or evidentiary value of information falls on a spectrum of credibility, reliability, and supportability. It requires nuance.
Thus, we unfortunately can become trapped or distracted by black and white thinking (or a need to devolve arguments into reaching some black and white conclusion) – for example, there either is or there is not NHI.
Despite what the extremists would have you believe, most people who could be fairly characterized as “believers” are not taking the position that there definitively is NHI. They are saying that the available information raises reasonable questions as to which we should pursue the answer and in doing so hopefully obtain additional information. We can then assess the totality of the available information, assess credibility, weigh different factors critically, and develop a view on the likelihood of certain things. That likelihood of things could be even potentially unrelated to NHI but still important and thus worth pursuing – like the possibility that the US government is hiding something from the public and not comporting with constitutionally mandated congressional oversight.
We then push that and see what information arises. No rational person should be opposed to the primary goal of most so-called believers, which is simply more transparency and open and honest disclosure to the people and congress from the other parts of the government and on-government-payroll contractors. We still can have interesting discussions about NHI and whether it exists based on circumstantial information and other information of varying degrees of credibility, reliability, and supportability, but the primary focus and goal is to obtain all potentially relevant information so that we (including members of the scientific community) are in a position to conduct an informed and critical analysis of that information and of the entire picture.
So regardless of your beliefs on NHI, do not fall into the trap of uncritical black and white thinking or get distracted into a semantics debate on “evidence,” instead remember that transparency, open-honest-fulsome disclosure, and unfettered access to information is a positive goal and positive outcome whether you believe in NHI or do not. Let’s fight that battle and not waste time and energy on simply trying to win an argument or be “right”.
submitted by /u/CYBERCONSCIOUSNESSES
[link] [comments]