--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, > > I finally got through your suggested exchange on the skeptic board.
Oh, man, that should get you some kind of medal. > That very interesting and brought out many important points about > testing, objectivity and bias. It was fun to be able to hash it out in that kind of detail. > This is a great topic for self-discovery. Most people are skewed > by financial gain, but not always. I spent a fair amount of my > mortgage banking career counseling people NOT to buy a home at > that particular time, which went against my own financial > interest. But in many cases as a mortgage professional, I was > the only person in the transaction willing to be objective about > it. The home buyers were on home-ownership drugs, and the Realtors > wanted their commissions. But my years of seeing people getting > financially demolished by buying a home too soon put me in the best > position to help home buyers understand what the reality would be > after I got them a loan. This ethical code helped me sleep at > night but the loan meltdown we see today is evidence that my style > was in the extreme minority in the industry. Boy, I'll say. But you made a decent living anyway, right? You ought to think about writing an op-ed piece on your experiences. > In my life I am trying to find my own balance of enjoying the > benifits of age and having been around the block a bit. I don't > have the same "anything is possible" stars in my eyes of my youth, > but I have also lived long enough to have experienced amazing and > unexpected things in life. It is a tricky balance to set one's own > BS meter isn't it? It is indeed. Also frustrating because so many people seem to have theirs skewed toward one end of the spectrum or the other. > Regarding the crop circles: I found that my ability to assess the > claims of unusual findings at some sites is severely limited. > Although I am skeptical of claims that people know what any of this > means (i.e. UFOs), I understand my limits in evaluating their > reporting truthfulness, or accuracy, and what any of it may mean. I > am willing to move the whole topic of unusual findings at circle > sites into the "I don't have a clue" bin That's *precisely* where it belongs, IMHO. Anything else is either skeptopathic or credulous. rather than some attempt to judge > it with zero tools or training, or even an ability to assess the > sincerity of the reporters. But someone's financial interest in > something doesn't exclude their information right away outside of > serious scientific studies. For this kind of topic those people > may be the only ones really paying full attention to the question. Yes, that's a hard point to get across. And it may not even be *financial* interest, the TM researchers being a good example. They may have an interest in making money for the TMO, but it's also their belief system at stake. > It is an interesting question blending what we know about using the > scientific method combined with the half-assed application we end up > with in our personal lives when evaluating claims. <grin> Yes, indeed. Too many of us don't even try. Kudos to you for making the attempt. I appreciate the > thought you have given the topic and your directing me to the > discussion. It was helpful, and for a philosophy hack like myself, > a lot of fun to read. You're more than welcome. Glad you enjoyed it, and many thanks for the feedback. BTW, I realized I have a copy of the book that one guy published on crop circles, "Vital Signs." It has really stunning photos, aerial and closeup, and a lot of good discussion of the ins and outs of the whole thing. It's in paperback, $15, if you're interested; Amazon has it: http://tinyurl.com/32tkbt
