Is it acceptable to promote unverified information if it raises awareness?

[Garuda]

There is a 'behind the scenes' discussion going on between different members of the Exopolitics community, and it deals with the issue of whether unverified information should be published.

The discussion started after an article was published on Tomkins which referred to one of his superiors.
Investigation that was done after the article was published revealed no person with that alleged name existed.
Further investigation later revealed that the confusion was caused by a typo in the name.
So, in this case, it was a 'material error'.
But in the case of 'Capt. Kaye', e.g., it turned out that the names of his superiors were made up.

The discussion is about whether to publish unverified information, or not.

Activists and people with backgrounds in marketing thought it was OK to put the information out there, because it raises awareness and draws attention to the cause. The reasoning is that errors can be corrected afterwards.

People with a background in journalism or research thought it was not acceptable to put the information out there, unless it had been verified.
(Or rather: unless at least some of it is verified, and with the necessary caveats about items that have not been verified).

What do you think, and why? Fill out the form above, and post your comments below.

Thanks.

[Wally]

Any information that is unverified must clearly be labeled as such. However given the nature of ufology some claims can be difficult or even impossible to verify. Take for example the claims of civilizations on other planets outside our solar system. While none of it can be verified it still is fascinating to read about it.

[calikid]

Don't see how we can exclude such information without discounting all single witness sighting.
Does a reliable solo pilot who reports being buzzed deserve having his story shared? IMO such a case does rate promotion, if only to encourage others to search the area FOR verification.

Labeling the event "solo witness" would plainly paint the story unverified. Avoiding the unpleasant aspects of "Fake News".

[Garuda]

Don't see how we can exclude such information without discounting all single witness sighting.
Does a reliable solo pilot who reports being buzzed deserve having his story shared? IMO such a case does rate promotion, if only to encourage others to search the area FOR verification.

Labeling the event "solo witness" would plainly paint the story unverified. Avoiding the unpleasant aspects of "Fake News".

OK, sticking to your example. Somebody contacts you, says he's a pilot and saw a UFO yesterday while flying at 5 PM.
Do you announce to the world: "Pilot sees UFO!"
or do you check whether he indeed is a pilot, whether he was flying, whether he makes claims like that often, or ... ?

A solo witness does not mean nothing can be verified. Apart from content validation (did anybody else see a UFO? Can other causes be excluded? etc. ) there also is the factor of witness reliability. So, there actually is quite a bit of verifying that can be done...

[Longeyes]

I think it's fine to publish it as long as you say / quote the source. If you are uncertain or concerned about the veracity of the claims it would be a good to point that out clearly. It would also be wise to check as much as is possible if anything can be verified promoting nonsense doesn't help anyone it wastes time and confuses people, like we aren't confused enough. Tompkins arrogance and bullishness comes over very strongly in his books and interviews, I am yet to see anyone take him to task over his fabulous stories and pretty pathetic drawings.

[A99]

If it raises awareness and inspires others to share their own stories and experiences then I don't see anything wrong with those ones who are already sharing their unverified stories on forums and at conferences. In one way or another, all information is useful in this field because it helps us put the pieces of the puzzle together. Under the circumstances, that's the best we can do.

[calikid]

OK, sticking to your example. Somebody contacts you, says he's a pilot and saw a UFO yesterday while flying at 5 PM.
Do you announce to the world: "Pilot sees UFO!"
or do you check whether he indeed is a pilot, whether he was flying, whether he makes claims like that often, or ... ?

A solo witness does not mean nothing can be verified. Apart from content validation (did anybody else see a UFO? Can other causes be excluded? etc. ) there also is the factor of witness reliability. So, there actually is quite a bit of verifying that can be done...

Sounds as if the question is incomplete. Maybe add on a "...with complete lack of due diligence".

You are talking about investigating the reporting party, not the incident itself.
In my example, THE SIGHTING is the Headline/information to be published.
And that information, as we all well know from observational experience, may never be verified.

From a scientific perspective; would not every hypothesis be considered "unverified information" and therefore (if your statement holds true) be unworthy of publication?
Routinely hypothesis are put forth to elicit peer review, and hopefully attain verification.
As long as they are clearly flagged "theory", what's the damage?

[Doc]

I like Leonard Stringfield's philosophy, which was put the information out there as tentative or not yet investigated and let it fight for survival. (Not his words.) Better that than the information be lost.

[CasperParks]

I like Leonard Stringfield's philosophy, which was put the information out there as tentative or not yet investigated and let it fight for survival. (Not his words.) Better that than the information be lost.

I like that train-of-thought...

[M-Albion-3D]

I like Leonard Stringfield's philosophy, which was put the information out there as tentative or not yet investigated and let it fight for survival. (Not his words.) Better that than the information be lost.

Aptly put Doc....ditto here too.

[M-Albion-3D]

Is it acceptable to promote unverified information if it raises awareness.

I would like to explore this a little further if I may.

Let's take a look at the question:



1. "Is it acceptable".

Dictionary.com defines "acceptable" as:

adjective

1.capable or worthy of being accepted (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/accept).

2.pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome.

3.meeting only minimum requirements; barely adequate:an acceptable performance.

4.capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable:acceptable levels of radiation.



2. "To promote"


Dictionary.com defines "Promote" as:

1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further:to promote world peace.




3. "Unverified"


Dictionary.com defines "Verified" as:

adjective

1. confirmed as to the accuracy or truth by acceptable evidence, action, etc.

This to me, is the important part as; if the evidence is acceptable (or not) by an "authority" who, by consensus has the right therefore to make sound judgement. In other words; who is verifying the data and what are their qualifications?




4. "Information"


Dictionary.com defines "Information" as:

noun

1.knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news:information concerning a crime.


2.knowledge gained through study, communication,research, instruction, etc.; factual data:His wealth of general information is amazing.


Correct me if I am wrong here but for the most part, in respect to this thread, what we are examining at the very core of this discussion, is one simple argument:


"Is there acceptable evidence that an intelligent extraterrestrial specie exists"?


Everything either has traction or not in the process of "raising awareness" in this matter, as it lies at the very heart of every analysis in this forum. Conversely, if a UFO is found (verified) to be of human origin, great, so what, just another aircraft - nothing gained except perhaps if it has new technology, but,.....they ALL have new technology at one time.

By contrast, if one was to open the NASA website and there, was found a photograph that is stated, was taken by a NASA scientist of a landed saucer-like craft somewhere in the US western desert, where it shows two extraterrestrial beings standing in close proximity to the craft.

The question would then be; "would this be verifiable information worthy of raising awareness?


My guess is NO, no one would believe it! Why? Because in my opinion, the human race has been pre-wired "so to speak", to unconsciously reject anything that exhibits quasi "proof" that can show "life" as greater in intelligence than that of our own, and if the truth was known, I think this has been done by design! By whom, why and when, is anyone's guess.

In my thread "Life on Mars" there are one or two images which clearly show a data set of pattern recognition showing the defined shape of a recognisable life form on the Martian planetary surface.

The data was extracted directly from the a verifiable source i.e.


1. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter MRO image gathering equipment.

2. The data is downloaded directly from a NASA affiliated website.

3. The recognisable life form is confirmed is being evident in the RAW DATA image file.

And the response is: A DEAFENING SILENCE!