Wow. That was a chore to get through, well almost through, as I could only take 40 minutes of this discussion of pseudoscience. The sheer amount of word salad/woo woo/esoteric word nonsense was breathtaking. I mean, the yeah buts that Ben made throughout his talk with Justin was annoying, but this conversation with Daniel Pinchbeck was excruciating to have to sit through. Journalistic skepticism and a demand for supporting evidence? Well that just goes out the door when discussing alien visitation. Ben, the physical evidence for alien visitation is not just "not very good" as you put it, it is nonexistent. Pinchbeck has about as much credibility as Whitley Strieber. Which is to say, none. What's next? Uri Geller and some spoon bending? The Bermuda triangle? How about the guys from that groundbreaking cryptozoology program: Finding Bigfoot. The word skepticism actually has meaning in the scientific community. Credulity is the devil's volleyball and the enemy of journalistic credibility.
I agree we need to maintain a degree of skepticism, combined with a degree of openness.
I do want to say that your comment reminds me of the kinds of responses I got 20 years ago when I started writing and speaking about psychedelics. There was a lot of knee-jerk ridicule and putdowns - almost like people wanted to shame me for even trying to speak about something that was outside of the accepted paradigm. Now, they are viewed much differently. I can't guarantee that the ET / UFO phenomenon will follow the exact same trajectory, but it is definitely being taken very seriously by mainstream media establishments like The NY Times. (The Times also took Uri Geller's psychic powers quite seriously in a recent article).
If there was a lot of indecision in my responses, it is because these subjects are extremely difficult to talk about without sounding insane... and I admit I might fail at that. Apparently I did, from your perspective. But my efforts to understand all of this are authentic, and I do my best to acknowledge the lack of direct evidence, etc, although I have also had (like Ben) very strange experiences that suggest there is some kind of reality to this phenomena... although the term "reality" for me, incorporates this understanding of analytic idealism, where everything we experience occurs within consciousness and is not intrinsically different than a dream.
I'll leave aside the unpleasant personal attacks and unnecessarily rude tone of your comment. It's revealing that you make zero attempts to engage in any of the issues we discussed, and appear to have not understood them either. If you have a specific issue, I'd be glad to respectfully discuss.
Just listened to your excellent interview on Aliens and the Ecological crisis. Loved the points you made, especially the crop circle response to the CERN transmission. Your cautions are excellent, particularly about being careful about who we make deals with. My concern is if the latest information is accurate about governments having already made contact , we may not 1) have any say in the matter 2) It doesn't appear like their help/ example has raised our moral intelligences, created World peace, ended poverty or saved the planet. So perhaps we have made deals with the devils we already resemble. Meaning we medically experiment on animals, we look down on and exploit supposedly lower life forms. Heck we even have been known to enslave each other. If we consider a sort of Galactic prime directive perhaps it has a clause related to the logic of the Golden rule : as you do unto others it can be done to you. Likewise what if we first have to clean up our acts morally-ethically before these higher more benevolent beings can come more forward?
Daniel are you a supporter of the Rosario blog/ views on Banter, that tagged along with your Aliens and the Ecological Crisis interview?
Wow. That was a chore to get through, well almost through, as I could only take 40 minutes of this discussion of pseudoscience. The sheer amount of word salad/woo woo/esoteric word nonsense was breathtaking. I mean, the yeah buts that Ben made throughout his talk with Justin was annoying, but this conversation with Daniel Pinchbeck was excruciating to have to sit through. Journalistic skepticism and a demand for supporting evidence? Well that just goes out the door when discussing alien visitation. Ben, the physical evidence for alien visitation is not just "not very good" as you put it, it is nonexistent. Pinchbeck has about as much credibility as Whitley Strieber. Which is to say, none. What's next? Uri Geller and some spoon bending? The Bermuda triangle? How about the guys from that groundbreaking cryptozoology program: Finding Bigfoot. The word skepticism actually has meaning in the scientific community. Credulity is the devil's volleyball and the enemy of journalistic credibility.
Dear Doubting Thomas,
I agree we need to maintain a degree of skepticism, combined with a degree of openness.
I do want to say that your comment reminds me of the kinds of responses I got 20 years ago when I started writing and speaking about psychedelics. There was a lot of knee-jerk ridicule and putdowns - almost like people wanted to shame me for even trying to speak about something that was outside of the accepted paradigm. Now, they are viewed much differently. I can't guarantee that the ET / UFO phenomenon will follow the exact same trajectory, but it is definitely being taken very seriously by mainstream media establishments like The NY Times. (The Times also took Uri Geller's psychic powers quite seriously in a recent article).
If there was a lot of indecision in my responses, it is because these subjects are extremely difficult to talk about without sounding insane... and I admit I might fail at that. Apparently I did, from your perspective. But my efforts to understand all of this are authentic, and I do my best to acknowledge the lack of direct evidence, etc, although I have also had (like Ben) very strange experiences that suggest there is some kind of reality to this phenomena... although the term "reality" for me, incorporates this understanding of analytic idealism, where everything we experience occurs within consciousness and is not intrinsically different than a dream.
I'll leave aside the unpleasant personal attacks and unnecessarily rude tone of your comment. It's revealing that you make zero attempts to engage in any of the issues we discussed, and appear to have not understood them either. If you have a specific issue, I'd be glad to respectfully discuss.
Just listened to your excellent interview on Aliens and the Ecological crisis. Loved the points you made, especially the crop circle response to the CERN transmission. Your cautions are excellent, particularly about being careful about who we make deals with. My concern is if the latest information is accurate about governments having already made contact , we may not 1) have any say in the matter 2) It doesn't appear like their help/ example has raised our moral intelligences, created World peace, ended poverty or saved the planet. So perhaps we have made deals with the devils we already resemble. Meaning we medically experiment on animals, we look down on and exploit supposedly lower life forms. Heck we even have been known to enslave each other. If we consider a sort of Galactic prime directive perhaps it has a clause related to the logic of the Golden rule : as you do unto others it can be done to you. Likewise what if we first have to clean up our acts morally-ethically before these higher more benevolent beings can come more forward?
Daniel are you a supporter of the Rosario blog/ views on Banter, that tagged along with your Aliens and the Ecological Crisis interview?