Pseudo-Skeptical Science - Alien Abduction

Pseudo-Skeptical Science
February 21, 2009
by Steve Bass
American Chronicle

In January 2009, I had the distinct pleasure to meet one of the greats of Ufology. Kathleen Marden is the niece of Betty Hill, who was involved with her husband Barney, in a highly publicized abduction on September 20, 1961. The factor that makes this unique is that the abductors brought their victims on board a spaceship, the likes of which defied imagination.

Betty and Barney Hills account is documented in the well written book CAPTURED! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience by Kathy Marden and Ufologist and original Roswell crash researcher, Stanton T. Friedman, MSc, so I will not try to duplicate efforts. Instead, I will refer you to their work for the historical account.

This abduction by alien entities originated several notable firsts. This would become the most publicized alien abduction in history to date, due in part to the amazing level of detail that has become known. This account also benefitted from the believability of Betty and Barney. Never were there two people who shunned the spotlight more than the Hills. The Hills were leaders in their community and well-respected. Betty was a social worker, and both were members of the NAACP. Barney was passionate about his civil rights work, having contributed to the movement as a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in his home state of New Hampshire.

Another first would be the use of hypnosis in the treatment of the Hills to uncover their hidden memories. Contrary to some claims, the Hills did not immediately remember everything that had occurred. The treatment was undertaken by Dr. Benjamin Simon, who was the first to theorize and later prove the validity of hypnotherapy in the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among war veterans. This was not the only factor that made Dr. Simon the perfect person to treat the Hills. Dr. Simon did not believe in the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the belief that some unidentified flying objects are in reality extraterrestrial spacecraft piloted by alien entities, what some derisively refer to as "little green men". By believing there to be another causal factor to their condition, the Hills were not "led" by the doctor into erroneous memory recollections. The introduction of Dr. Simon lent to the validity of the account of abduction by aliens.

Another key factor to emerge is clarification between people who call themselves skeptics and those who Kathy Marden referred to as pseudo-skeptics. Kathy defined skeptics as "one who engages in inquiry through intellectual caution and suspended judgment. One who applies reason and critical thinking in the investigation of ideas". A skeptic is one who investigates with an open but critical mind, who will finally accept as truth that which cannot be proven false.

Kathy defined a pseudo-skeptic as "one who passes judgment without inquiry, discredits rather than investigates, ridicules rather than argues, launches ad hominem attacks on opponents, makes unsubstantiated counterclaims and labels proponents as promoters or pseudo-scientists". Some Ufologists (those who scientifically investigate and research unidentified aerial phenomenon and the extraterrestrial hypothesis) believe that pseudo-skeptics are lacking in intelligence and imagination. In reality, it sometimes takes great cleverness and creativity to come up with some of the excuses they find for anomalous events. For example, in the case of the Hill abduction, some made the frivolous case that the light Betty was watching, that she later claimed was a spacecraft, was the planet Venus. Even though the complete testimony is available for all who wish to research the incident, pseudo-skeptics would intentionally neglect to incorporate the fact that the light they labeled Venus was seen to change location and move around in the sky, even passing in front of the moon. Needless to say, it is impossible for Venus to come between the Earth and its moon without at least a small disturbance to our environment!

It also takes a commendable amount of courage to expose themselves in front of other intellects and chance the amazing amount of critical examination and ridicule they could face. All total, pseudo-skeptics are a terrible waste of inventiveness and aptitude, all of which could have been put to better use. Pseudo-skeptics are comparable to the teenager with incredible potential that devotes themselves to a life of underachievement.

The truly incredible part of the skeptic/pseudo-skeptic comparison is with whom this evaluation originated. The late Marcello Truzzi was a sociology professor at New College of Florida and Eastern Michigan University. Before he died on February 2, 2003, Truzzi co-founded a group named CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigations of Claims of the Paranormal. Truzzi distanced himself from CSICOP when he began to realize that the organization had become dominated by pseudo-skeptics and was engaging in "bad science". From his commentary On Pseudo-Skepticism, Truzzi states, "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof". Instead of saying an assertion is not proven, pseudo-skeptics make contrary allegations without themselves providing the scientific proof they so desperately need.

Pseudo-skeptics should become known for what they are, and science will benefit as a result. Science is about unclouded analysis and sometimes the results are vague, but they cannot then be manhandled into being what they are not. A lack of proof does not necessarily mean a lack of truth.