Starchild Skull Debate-Discussion

Discuss and vote on debates.
Forum rules
Debate participants, please wait until your debate is over before engaging in discussion about your debate.

Starchild Skull Debate-Discussion

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Mon May 09, 2011 5:52 am

An excellent Debate between Carleas and Gaiaguerrila:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=174934

Discuss it here.

In all honesty, had the terms of winning the Debate been different, this would have probably been the most evenly-matched Debate I've ever had the honor of Judging.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Starchild Skull Debate-Discussion

Postby Carleas » Mon May 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Thanks for you judgement, Pav, thorough as always. It was a nail-biter of a decision; your recap had me cringing at my own mistakes at times, and I was convinced Gaia had forced me to conjecture enough that he had made his case.

Ultimately, though, I agree with your evaluation that Gaia "could not conclusively demonstrate said factor due to the lack of research." This is unfortunate, since it seemed that a substantial secondary goal of his argument was aimed at convincing of the need for new research. However, as currently presented, the case is weak in that the most important questions haven't been asked.

In my opinion, the fibers and the red residue have the most potential for establishing that the skull is truly extraordinary, but at present they can't be counted as evidence; they simply haven't been studied. Part of my goal in answering Gaia's questions about these (and other) phenomena was to point out alternative explanations that aren't ruled out by the evidence provided, and that's easy when the extent of the evidence is that these things have been visually observed. I should have made the point more clearly: the null hypothesis for any sample has to be that it is ordinary, and that extraordinary things about it are the result of contamination or error.

I think Pye hurts the cause for further research of the skull by exaggerating the importance of minor finds. If he approached it as just an interesting aberration, he would be more likely to get mainstream support. If the skull is as bizarre as he thinks, he should be able to find much stronger evidence to call into question the null hypothesis. Proclaiming the weirdness of, e.g., the red residue before he can say anything more about it than that it is red makes his questions seem answered before they've been investigated, and scientists (and the funding committees they sit on) are likely to find that to be a reason not to fund him.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5440
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Starchild Skull Debate-Discussion

Postby Gaiaguerrilla » Tue May 10, 2011 7:28 am

Before I forget, I want to share with you the early news that Pye tipped me off on his coming interview in William Shatner's Weird or What episode. As you probably know, this skull and Andrew, its caretaker, have already appeared in several magazines and TV shows. Despite the fact that Andrew was unable to comment, he has actually been seeing this debate we had (how much of it I don't know). I was absolutely fortunate to get a few words with the man himself as we debated. I had attempted to persuade him to comment on the forum . . . but I shouldn't push my luck. :D Aside from the starstruck eyes of a "fan" (I guess you could say), in light of this fact, I think all of that is not a moot point! For those of you that believe there is genuine science being involved in this skull, then you can be proud that your involvement in this discussion could genuinely influence *where* the research goes in terms of television and popculture.

For those of you that believe the science in this skull is not really genuine- I don't blame you at all. I am on the cusp of "belief" if you'd call it that. I've spent the past few years trying to figure out whether or not I've really entered the twilight zone or whether I'd lost touch with reality. So I think a hard debate is the best medicine. There are too many attitudes that the skeptics are the "enemy." And likewise, very easy to lopside everyone who says "what if it's real" to be on the side with all the lunatics.

As you can see I have a lot of great interest toward this skull. So for me the reply by Andrew was like the equivalent of a Michael Jackson fan meeting the king of Pop himself. This king of Pop himself does agree that I could have made a better case in my defense. But he also thinks (as one would assume) that the ambush against its proponents of weirdness are also overtly aggressive. I like to think that because I don't know, and yet would really really like to find out, this gives me a nice even territory - so that I don't feel the need to lash out at either side of the debate. Sound argument only brings us closer to the truth. I am by no regard a polemicist on the matter.

A couple things in hindsight . . .

*A little more research would have gotten me a lot further way. With the time I had, I could have at least inserted a few hyperlinks and numbers to really sell my points. Eg, the carbon dating. Pav is right. He doesn't have to research what I don't give him, so failure to provide this can spell failure in factoring in some important data.

*We were both humble and aggressive in the places where it was important to do so. But I had a feeling Pav would use that one last quote I made toward the end. It can easily be transliterated into me saying "You win, I lose" :lol:

*Andrew reminded me that he is not a doctor in the formal sense. A point that I decided to simply not bring up as I knew it probably wouldn't be challenged :D . . . a challenge I think would have been considerably strong.

Now that I'm not taking a side on the debate, I really would like to see some sort of website devoted to going in between the "belief" and "skepticism." I agree with Carleas that although there is some very good information on the SCP website, it is also a bit lopsided (appropriately) as it is of course the domain of its proponents of the "weird" theory. So it is the responsibility of people to get to the bottom of it by finding a thinner line. The skeptical websites I have seen I do not believe to be very informed, and they boast an aire of sophistication on their side when I actually find them quite ignorant on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, this debate we've had is so far one of the best provisions on the internet to give a fair and balanced explanation on the skull. That's partly a compliment to us, and partly an insult to the lack of ability in the public eye to get real facts on the matter minus the gobbledigook.

Anyhow, even though I didn't say the words, Carleas is right because I overtly imply it in many of my posts. I wonder that the ET thing could be real. As it stands right now, and for the past few years, I am in complete internal debate as to whether the history of human civilization is anything close to what we perceive as accurate in our day. I honestly will not be surprised if soon the day comes that congress opens up with a speech on their released information of ET presence. (As some documents imply, a plan that is already being implemented.) I am happy to promise you I will not be one of the idiots either killing themselves in order to join the mothership (Heaven's Gate), nor one of the idiots climbing their pickup with a rifle aimed at the sky (War of the Worlds premier). I'll just retort "I told you so . . . well sort of"

For those that may feel my same inclination, I'd encourage you not to bang your head so far on whether or not it's true. Moreso, about even if it were true, does that mean the presentation of it would still spin the tale accurately?


Carol wrote:When I was a Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries from 1974 through 1977 . . . The strategy that Wernher Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered to be the enemy. . . . Then terrorists would be identified . . . Then we were going to identify third-world country "crazies." . . . But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons. The next enemy was asteroids. . . . over and over and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving speeches for him, he would bring up that last card. "And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We are going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens and all of it is a lie."
-Carol
(Can't seem to hyperlink: http://www.rense.com/general50/ec.htm)
Image
User avatar
Gaiaguerrilla
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:25 pm

Re: Starchild Skull Debate-Discussion

Postby Carleas » Wed May 11, 2011 12:15 am

I'm glad that the SCP was following our discussion, and I hope it helps their investigations moving forward. Honestly, the skeptical treatments of the SCP's claims I found in researching this debate were really sub par. The most comprehensive response I found was sadly incomplete, and the points to which it did respond were directly addressed on the SCP website. I didn't find a single source offering an alternative explanation of the red residue or the fibers.

That's especially unfortunate because, though I disagree with the SCP's conclusions, I think that by and large their approach is to be commended. They are actually doing genetic testing, they acknowledge when the analysis needs to be refined, and their goal is to subject the skull to further testing. I made several points to the effect that they are slightly blinded by their ideology, but not nearly to the extent of other theorists I've come across in my net-wanderings. As far as radical organizations that support fringe-scientific theories go, they are noteworthy.

Huge revisions of our collective world view are much more likely to be incorrect than our current world view. We're definitely wrong, our governments are almost certainly keeping important facts from us, and yet leaps of reasoning in the absence of those facts are likely to land us farther away from true north than skeptical and incremental probing of the accepted story. As I said above, the accepted story is the null hypothesis, and in the absence of enough evidence to rule it out, it is irresponsible to conclude (though not to suppose) that it is otherwise. The SCP's conclusions, and even more so the conclusions of Mr. Pye regarding the history of extraterrestrials on our planet, require almost unimaginable evidence to support. On the other hand, investigations like that into the origin of the SC skull require almost no evidence to justify.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5440
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA


Return to Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users