UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 22

Re: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:28:02 -0800
Archived: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:18:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI

>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:23:47 -0600
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:00:21 -0800
>>Archived: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:13:28 -0500
>>Subject: Wikipedia UFO Entries & CSICOP/CSI [was: Kaku...]

>>I've been recently trying to edit a very slanted article on the
>>ETH over on Wikipedia which failed to present such arguments
>>in favor of the ETH. When I tried to insert some of Kaku's
>>arguments and others by Bernard Haisch, one of the CSICOP
>>debunkers came in and deleted them all - while leaving
>>detailed arguments against untouched.


>I'm actually rather surprised to hear that. As much as I
>disagree with 'movement' skepticism, I always assumed they were
>still part of the reality-based community, as one Bush advisor
>derisively called people who valued facts. But deleting
>information unfavorable to their positions rather than just
>arguing against it is more like the radical conservatives who
>believe in the Biblical accoount of creation. And these
>'skeptics" presume to call themselves defenders of reason. I
>doubt that even the farthest-out 'pro-UFO' people would dream
>of doing that.

>>So I encourage people here to become Wikipedia editors. The
>>level of knowledge here on UFOs is much, much higher than the
>>usual poorly informed, overly-opinionated, pseudoskeptic college
>>science student types who tend to haunt Wikipedia, thinking
>>they already know it all.

>That sounds like it's worth a try. The main Wiki entry on UFOs
>appears to present the subject of UFOs in a balanced manor,
>although I've only skimmed over it:


>Maybe it hasn't yet occurred to the so-called skeptics to
>'correct' it yet.

The main article had problems too for many months. Another one
of these censoring morons came through and started deleting
everything. The "rationale" was usually, "Those citations are
from a UFO conspiratorialist's website or some UFO fanatic's
book, therefore the material is all invalid." Then--POOF--the
material gets deleted. Fortunately on this article, it got so
decimated and it was so obvious what was going on, that the
article finally got restored.

The self-image and mindset of these CSICOPIAN censors seems to
be, "I'm brilliant, I've got a science degree or will get one,
"science" and therefore I know all that is true, I know UFOs are
all a bunch of nonsense, and it is my sacred duty to carry
science and truth to the unwashed, uneducated, gullible masses.
They shall not hear otherwise."

The reality is the CSICOPian censors are arrogant, egocentric
mental cases who can only feel secure if their world view goes
unchallenged. They are totally intolerant of other points of
view, no matter how well documented. The irony is that
"science", which they always profess to be defending, is exactly
the opposite of this (at least ideally).

Recently deceased author Robert Anton Wilson noticed the
striking similarity between the CSICOPIAN mindset and that of
religious fanatics and wrote a book about it, "The New
Inquisitiion." His description in an interview was, "I coined
the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be
rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of
taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and
frightened, and uptight and dogmatic... I wrote this book
because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity... I
decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change,
because the two are equally comical... The materialist
fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists,
because they think they're rational! ...They're never skeptical
about anything except the things they have a prejudice against.
None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or
about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma.
They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them.
They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught
when they were in college..."

I think Wilson nailed it right on the head!

David Rudiak

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com