Why Do People Believe Weird Things... Confirmation Bias

tardis said:

Ohhh I see. You are doing personal attacks again so that you can use your selective memory to look at my return attacks and say "HA! Look at that guy, he's just mean which means he's with the devil which means that i'm the good guy which means I'm right since I don't like him!" Bro, you are trying to create a scenario where you can dismiss and forget all the things you learned about yourself and the fallacy of your religious beliefs by skimming over on a personal argument. Very common among both christians and ironically republicans (look at Hannity on fox news).

Keep justifying your evil ways to the world thru religion.

Click to expand...

It was just an observation, I'm sure your a swell guy lol

sleeperls93 said:

It was just an observation, I'm sure your a swell guy lol

Click to expand...

I'm a very beloved guy. And don't worry, your mind will find away to bend back around to filling your delusion because thats what the human brain does to ensure the status quo in the life you set up continues.

Believers turn into skeptics after conference
"Even the true believers at a UFO conference in Rotorua were skeptical after a keynote speaker's presentation. Leir's information was overly technical and his video finished before any details could be seen, leaving delegates questioning the doctor's motives. He declined all interviews. In his presentation Leir said 'they [skeptics] must be psychics because they come to conclusions before looking at any of the evidence'. Delegates told The Daily Post they were not convinced by his presentation."

So his sales pitch didn't work and Dr Leir sees that as skeptics not wanting to look at evidence.

What it looks like to me is Dr Leir is saying "yes we have evidence" but when asked to present it, you must buy his book or purchase info from his website. I would think proof of aliens would provide plenty of revenue without having to use the same business model as porn sites. For someone who claims not to know much about these implants personally, he sure charges a lot to hear it. He comments on UFO crashes and cases that have nothing to do with implants.

He bills himself as "Dr. Leir is well known and respected all over the world for his research into alien implants, and for the last forty-one years has been a successful physician here in the state of California." So when pressed for tech info he says he himself doesn't understand the implants, but when trying to draw a crowd he suddenly sounds like an expert.

Dr Leir says "I am not a UFO nut. I'm a doctor, a skeptical man of science. But until someone can prove otherwise, I have to work on the assumption that these implants are of alien origin." So he claims to be a skeptical scientists and then immediately outlines the opposite way science works. He's apparently never heard of Occam's razor.

The burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. Before we go looking for paranormal explanations we must rule out ordinary ones. It's clear that Dr Leir makes money off his claims and is not familiar with, or does not respect, the scientific method. Do I really need to go into the actual research?

Heisenberg said:

Believers turn into skeptics after conference
"Even the true believers at a UFO conference in Rotorua were skeptical after a keynote speaker's presentation. Leir's information was overly technical and his video finished before any details could be seen, leaving delegates questioning the doctor's motives. He declined all interviews. In his presentation Leir said 'they [skeptics] must be psychics because they come to conclusions before looking at any of the evidence'. Delegates told The Daily Post they were not convinced by his presentation."

So his sales pitch didn't work and Dr Leir sees that as skeptics not wanting to look at evidence.

What it looks like to me is Dr Leir is saying "yes we have evidence" but when asked to present it, you must buy his book or purchase info from his website. I would think proof of aliens would provide plenty of revenue without having to use the same business model as porn sites. For someone who claims not to know much about these implants personally, he sure charges a lot to hear it. He comments on UFO crashes and cases that have nothing to do with implants.

He bills himself as "Dr. Leir is well known and respected all over the world for his research into alien implants, and for the last forty-one years has been a successful physician here in the state of California." So when pressed for tech info he says he himself doesn't understand the implants, but when trying to draw a crowd he suddenly sounds like an expert.

Dr Leir says "I am not a UFO nut. I'm a doctor, a skeptical man of science. But until someone can prove otherwise, I have to work on the assumption that these implants are of alien origin." So he claims to be a skeptical scientists and then immediately outlines the opposite way science works. He's apparently never heard of Occam's razor.

The burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. Before we go looking for paranormal explanations we must rule out ordinary ones. It's clear that Dr Leir makes money off his claims and it not familiar with the scientific method. Do I really need to go into the actual research?

Click to expand...

Until proven otherwise I believe the ghost of Hitler is possessing Dr. Leir to promote an alien lie. Hitler was into aliens. So, like I said, until proven otherwise, this is all Hitlers ghosts doing to fool Americans.

tardis said:

Until proven otherwise I believe the ghost of Hitler is possessing Dr. Leir to promote an alien lie. Hitler was into aliens. So, like I said, until proven otherwise, this is all Hitlers ghosts doing to fool Americans.

Click to expand...

How much do you charge for proof of this information?

Heisenberg said:

How much do you charge for proof of this information?

Click to expand...

whatever the going rate for porn is.

Heisenberg said:

Believers turn into skeptics after conference
"Even the true believers at a UFO conference in Rotorua were skeptical after a keynote speaker's presentation. Leir's information was overly technical and his video finished before any details could be seen, leaving delegates questioning the doctor's motives. He declined all interviews. In his presentation Leir said 'they [skeptics] must be psychics because they come to conclusions before looking at any of the evidence'. Delegates told The Daily Post they were not convinced by his presentation."

So his sales pitch didn't work and Dr Leir sees that as skeptics not wanting to look at evidence.

What it looks like to me is Dr Leir is saying "yes we have evidence" but when asked to present it, you must buy his book or purchase info from his website. I would think proof of aliens would provide plenty of revenue without having to use the same business model as porn sites. For someone who claims not to know much about these implants personally, he sure charges a lot to hear it. He comments on UFO crashes and cases that have nothing to do with implants.

He bills himself as "Dr. Leir is well known and respected all over the world for his research into alien implants, and for the last forty-one years has been a successful physician here in the state of California." So when pressed for tech info he says he himself doesn't understand the implants, but when trying to draw a crowd he suddenly sounds like an expert.

Dr Leir says "I am not a UFO nut. I'm a doctor, a skeptical man of science. But until someone can prove otherwise, I have to work on the assumption that these implants are of alien origin." So he claims to be a skeptical scientists and then immediately outlines the opposite way science works. He's apparently never heard of Occam's razor.

The burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. Before we go looking for paranormal explanations we must rule out ordinary ones. It's clear that Dr Leir makes money off his claims and is not familiar with, or does not respect, the scientific method. Do I really need to go into the actual research?

Click to expand...

I dont know how hard it is for you to understand that he has worked with chemists and physicists and that they openly discuss their findings in interviews regularly. To say that he is not seeking pedestrian answers is patently false. Because he wants to make money is pretty reasonable, just because it upsets you is another matter entirely.

You are doing nothing here but trying to spread dirty laundry without actually being able to address the issue...since you cant debunk his work, you are left with what debunkers usually do when they fail- they attack the person, not the issue.

The Ruiner said:

I dont know how hard it is for you to understand that he has worked with chemists and physicists and that they openly discuss their findings in interviews regularly. To say that he is not seeking pedestrian answers is patently false. Because he wants to make money is pretty reasonable, just because it upsets you is another matter entirely.

You are doing nothing here but trying to spread dirty laundry without actually being able to address the issue...since you cant debunk his work, you are left with what debunkers usually do when they fail- they attack the person, not the issue.

Click to expand...

how can he debunk something that isn't proven?

The Ruiner said:

I dont know how hard it is for you to understand that he has worked with chemists and physicists and that they openly discuss their findings in interviews regularly. To say that he is not seeking pedestrian answers is patently false. Because he wants to make money is pretty reasonable, just because it upsets you is another matter entirely.

You are doing nothing here but trying to spread dirty laundry without actually being able to address the issue...since you cant debunk his work, you are left with what debunkers usually do when they fail- they attack the person, not the issue.

Click to expand...

What I was pointing out is his lack of scientific merit. He may be a perfectly pleasant person to have lunch with, I have no idea. But anytime we go looking into claims of actual proof of aliens, we find the same characteristics we are finding here. I am not impressed that he found a couple other scientists to back him up, even a whole team wouldn't impress me. What I need is independent replication and review but the scientific community as a whole. That is the same standard we apply to any other body of knowledge.

They may discuss openly that they have evidence, but details are charged for. I am not the one saying he isn't 'seeking pedestrian answers', he is. He blatantly stated "until someone can prove otherwise, I have to work on the assumption that these implants are of alien origin." Someone meaning someone else... he is content to assume they are alien. That is NOT science.

I held my opinion until I did some research. What I found was no proof, shady dealings, and no transparency. What I found was a man making mistakes because he doesn't understand how the scientific method works, or why we have it in the first place. What I found was the typical tricks and mistakes often made with paranormal claims. I found information that, for obvious reasons, does not pass peer review when examined by actual scientists, even though it was first presented in 1996.

Heisenberg said:

What I was pointing out is his lack of scientific merit. He may be a perfectly pleasant person to have lunch with, I have no idea. But anytime we go looking into claims of actual proof of aliens, we find the same characteristics we are finding here. I am not impressed that he found a couple other scientists to back him up, even a whole team wouldn't impress me. What I need is independent replication and review but the scientific community as a whole. That is the same standard we apply to any other body of knowledge.

They may discuss openly that they have evidence, but details are charged for. I am not the one saying he isn't 'seeking pedestrian answers', he is. He blatantly stated "until someone can prove otherwise, I have to work on the assumption that these implants are of alien origin." Someone meaning someone else... he is content to assume they are alien. That is NOT science.

I held my opinion until I did some research. What I found was no proof, shady dealings, and no transparency. What I found was a man making mistakes because he doesn't understand how the scientific method works, or why we have it in the first place. What I found was the typical tricks and mistakes often made with paranormal claims. I found information that, for obvious reasons, does not pass peer review when examined by actual scientists, even though it was first presented in 1996.

Click to expand...

Until proven otherwise, we shall all accept as a fact that Heisenberg is an agent of an evil alien race posting here to throw us all off of the aliens trail using his sinister logic!

Heisenberg said:

What I was pointing out is his lack of scientific merit. He may be a perfectly pleasant person to have lunch with, I have no idea. But anytime we go looking into claims of actual proof of aliens, we find the same characteristics we are finding here. I am not impressed that he found a couple other scientists to back him up, even a whole team wouldn't impress me. What I need is independent replication and review but the scientific community as a whole. That is the same standard we apply to any other body of knowledge.

They may discuss openly that they have evidence, but details are charged for. I am not the one saying he isn't 'seeking pedestrian answers', he is. He blatantly stated "until someone can prove otherwise, I have to work on the assumption that these implants are of alien origin." Someone meaning someone else... he is content to assume they are alien. That is NOT science.

I held my opinion until I did some research. What I found was no proof, shady dealings, and no transparency. What I found was a man making mistakes because he doesn't understand how the scientific method works, or why we have it in the first place. What I found was the typical tricks and mistakes often made with paranormal claims. I found information that, for obvious reasons, does not pass peer review when examined by actual scientists, even though it was first presented in 1996.

Click to expand...

When the scientific community wont take the time to properly examine the findings and essentially allow his work to be published you are demanding he find a way out of his catch-22. If they are so easily discredited then why isnt there anything out there showing such? His lab reports are available, any scientist that had the notion to debunk what he has could easily obtain them for themselves and do so, but no one has...Why? How come that since he is actually trying to put his work out on an even playing field (get published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal) means to you that he is not pursuing the scientific method? Someone could have taken his lab analysis of the objects and found out what they are already, especially since they have been available since 1996. And, if they are so afraid of damaging their reputations by publishing him in their journals, why haven't they actually taken the time to convincingly and conclusively debunk him?

You speak of tricks, mistakes, shady dealings, and no transparency...and with what proof? What has been presented to you?

He has the objects, he has witnesses, he has the analysis and results, what else are you looking for? For him to freely give up the ghost on what could very well be one the greatest discoveries ever made would completely foolish.

So the scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to ignore one of the most important discoveries of all time? As I said, the burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. It is not up to skeptics to disprove his claims, it's up to him. Disproving his own claim should be first on his list of priorities.

He has the objects, which only he and his associates seem to think are extraordinary. He has witnesses... anecdotal evidence amounts to nothing in science. (and for good reason) He has the analysis and results? Apparently that analysis was flawed, which is why it doesn't pass peer review. Again, this is the same standard we hold to any other field of research.

How come that since he is actually trying to put his work out on an even playing field (get published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal) means to you that he is not pursuing the scientific method?

Click to expand...

Peer review and the scientific method are two different things. The scientific method was designed to help us avoid mistakes and trust results. Peer review was designed not only to weed out the quacks, but to make sure those lone scientists with strange, but valid, ideas are not ignored. Hes been submitting findings since 1996, and in that time no one but his team has ever seen anything of interest here. What makes me think he doesn't understand the scientific method is his statement that, his default stance is alien implants unless someone proves him wrong.

This subject has all the ear-marks of pseudoscience. It quacks like a duck because it is a duck.

The Ruiner said:

Well, considering that he works with other scientists (Bob Koontz, Steve Colbern, some others) and has had a lab analysis done by Los Alamos Labratory whose findings leaned towards the materials being E.T. in origin I would say he has put it out there enough.

Click to expand...

Yet no one has seen these reports. Los Alamos hasn't released any findings.

mindphuk said:

Yet no one has seen these reports. Los Alamos hasn't released any findings.

Click to expand...

Los Alamos couldnt release private data...

Heisenberg said:

So the scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to ignore one of the most important discoveries of all time? As I said, the burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. It is not up to skeptics to disprove his claims, it's up to him. Disproving his own claim should be first on his list of priorities.

He has the objects, which only he and his associates seem to think are extraordinary. He has witnesses... anecdotal evidence amounts to nothing in science. (and for good reason) He has the analysis and results? Apparently that analysis was flawed, which is why it doesn't pass peer review. Again, this is the same standard we hold to any other field of research.

Peer review and the scientific method are two different things. The scientific method was designed to help us avoid mistakes and trust results. Peer review was designed not only to weed out the quacks, but to make sure those lone scientists with strange, but valid, ideas are not ignored. Hes been submitting findings since 1996, and in that time no one but his team has ever seen anything of interest here. What makes me think he doesn't understand the scientific method is his statement that, his default stance is alien implants unless someone proves him wrong.

This subject has all the ear-marks of pseudoscience. It quacks like a duck because it is a duck.

Click to expand...

You want him to disprove his own claim, and yet you are asserting that it doesnt hold up under peer review? (which you are still YET to produce). Obviously, that's a conflict...solution: release the hounds on him, put everything he has under a microscope, give him the limelight...if they can knock it down so easily I dont understand why it hasnt happened. You are taking the reluctance of the scientific community as an out.

Just because he has not been given the fair chance doesnt mean that he doesnt have something significant.

Again, you have nothing to discredit him other than an absence of fair examination, something that he is actually seeking.

So wtf are these implants made out of? It's "E.T. in origin"? What element is that exactly?

The Ruiner said:

You want him to disprove his own claim, and yet you are asserting that it doesnt hold up under peer review? (which you are still YET to produce). Obviously, that's a conflict...solution: release the hounds on him, put everything he has under a microscope, give him the limelight...if they can knock it down so easily I dont understand why it hasnt happened. You are taking the reluctance of the scientific community as an out.

Just because he has not been given the fair chance doesnt mean that he doesnt have something significant.

Again, you have nothing to discredit him other than an absence of fair examination, something that he is actually seeking.

Click to expand...

Sorry no. He has had plenty of time, over 15 years, to have his results verified and release the findings that would probably win him the Nobel Prize. Instead, he runs a website that charges people to see the 'evidence' and run around the UFO conferences charging for his speaking appearances. If he had ANY legitimate samples of extraterrestrial origin, he would be the most celebrated scientist on the planet.

guy incognito said:

So wtf are these implants made out of? It's "E.T. in origin"? What element is that exactly?

Click to expand...

Well I haven't read his book or come across any published analysis, but according to skeptic and even a creationist website, the implants which have been tested are biological, and quite common. Some implants cause everyone in the room to grow nausous and weak, some appear to be part mechanical and part biological. When these particular samples were sent for analysis, they disappeared! Of course the explination was (I dont know if Leir himself said this) that the aliens came and took the implants back. This qualifies as special pleading so we have yet another ear-mark of pseudoscience.

mindphuk said:

Sorry no. He has had plenty of time, over 15 years, to have his results verified and release the findings that would probably win him the Nobel Prize. Instead, he runs a website that charges people to see the 'evidence' and run around the UFO conferences charging for his speaking appearances. If he had ANY legitimate samples of extraterrestrial origin, he would be the most celebrated scientist on the planet.

Click to expand...

Great point, and don't forget the JREF million dollar challenge. If money was his aim, and he had real evidence, freely submitting it would be the way to go.

Again, you have nothing to discredit him other than an absence of fair examination, something that he is actually seeking.

Click to expand...

Fair examination is NOT peer review. Disproving his own claim is the goal of any good scientist and happens before peer review. When a scientist exhausts all efforts to disprove his own claim, he then turns it over to the community as a way to say, I can't falsify this, can you? I don't understand how you see this as conflict. My proof that he has failed peer review is that, he submitted in 1996 and nothing has came of it. I think the 'knock-down' you say didn't happen, happened so mundanely and routinely that you didn't notice it.

If he had any actual empirical evidence, he should be submitting papers to refereed journals submitting to the rest of the world. The Los Alamos lab would have scientists that would be co-authors, because this is how it is done. Scientists don't try to keep their findings secret, they announce it to the world and let it be judged on its own merits. The scientific community is very harsh and critical of scientists that hold press conferences detailing a papers making broad pronouncements without first having been scrutinized by his or her peers, i.e the scientists in that specific discipline(s). If he truly has found something, then he's doing everyone a disservice by withholding his findings. The Ruiner should be cursing rather than praising him for keeping mankind in the dark about such an incredible discovery. So he's either an ass or a conman, and I certainly don't find him credible.