Or is he content to hide behind derision and pseudoscientific skepticism?
During our recent interview, the host Michael Decon suggested that a discussion, or debate, about the Billy Meier UFO contacts with skeptic Michael Shermer would make for a very interesting show. Of course, I expressed my willingness to do so.
Ad Hominem – Subtract Credibility
However, as has become the standard default among people who define themselves as Skeptics – a statement of prejudice by those who have not yet achieved the level of professionalism, competence and objectivity of real scientists – Shermer ran from the opportunity.
Further diminishing his own credibility, he said that the Billy Meier UFO photos “are so risibly ridiculous that I cannot imagine devoting more than 10 seconds to the topic”. Apparently, he missed the opportunity to also laugh at Sotheby’s – and the person(s) who paid $16,500 for a number of Meier’s UFO photos at auction.
Shermer added some disparaging words about me, as well. Put those two responses together and we have ad hominem and cowardice instead of credibility.
Fair Is Fair
It’s a matter of record that while I’ve been critical of the various skeptics, including Michael Shermer, I’ve had no trouble being fair in my assessment of him. There are always things about other people with which we may agree or disagree.
Unfortunately, from a professional standpoint, Shermer doesn’t seem to possess the depth and breadth of critical thinking, nor the intellectual honesty necessary to objectively evaluate the evidence he prematurely attacked and dismissed.
Skeptic or SCIENTIST?
Shermer, a supposedly “former” religious devotee, gives further credence to the claim that Skepticism is an anti-scientific religion, a pseudoscience at best, promoted by agenda-driven true believers in their own narrow world view.
Assuming he’d like his legacy to be that of a scientist, here’s a defining moment, the opportunity to apply whatever scientific experience and excellence he presumes himself to possess, to make his case in a mature, credible and well-substantiated manner.
Shermer obviously has a real reluctance to discussing this with me, probably because he fears that the evidence, and my ability to deliver it, would result in his humiliation…which would only happen if he remained in denial when presented with it.
But would it really be worse than the cloud of questions about his professionalism and competence that otherwise hang over his head? Could he allow himself the opportunity to learn, acknowledge the facts and be appreciated for demonstrating scientific and intellectual honesty and exemplary integrity?
Recently, I was compiling some of my previous blogs that include the topic of MMO (means, motive and opportunity). Dating back about 9 years, each of them includes a reference to the application of MMO in trying to determine if Meier’s evidence is genuine or somehow, magically, hoaxed.
While it has yet to happen, I would very much like to see credible scientists apply these standard protocols to all of the evidence in the Meier contacts.
Perhaps Michael Shermer would like to review and address the information and conclusions in these articles…in preparation for what I’m sure would be a very engaging and informative discussion: