Good Post on Bad Astromony
Greg Taylor at the Daily Grail writes about the recent brouhaha involving Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait and his summary debunking of the UFO subject. This was of course precipitated by the Edgar Mitchell ruckus from last week.
In a video, Plait also declared that no astronomer had ever reported a UFO. At the Universe Today site, I responded with:
…while I respect Plait’s commentary and credentials, he should look things up before making an unequivocal statement.
From wikipedia:
Jacques F. Vallée, Ph.D., (September 24, 1939) is a French-born venture capitalist, computer scientist, ufologist and former astronomer.
In May 1955, Vallée first sighted an unidentified flying object over his Pontoise home. Six years later in 1961, while working on the staff of the French Space Committee, Vallée witnessed the destruction of the tracking tapes of unknown objects orbiting the earth. These events contributed to Vallée’s long-standing interest in the UFO phenomenon.
8/02: And here is an update I just found while looking at the Wiki entry on J. Allen Hynek:
Another shift in Hynek’s opinions came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s. Among those he queried was Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the dwarf planet Pluto. Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 percent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science. Most of these astronomers had not widely shared their accounts for fear of ridicule or of damage to their reputations or careers (Tombaugh was an exception, having openly discussed his own UFO sightings). Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs. Furthermore, the astronomers were presumably more knowledgeable about observing and evaluating the skies than the general public, so their observations were arguably more impressive. Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses.
This entry was posted
on Friday, August 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am and is filed under Astronomy/Space, Blogroll, Evidence, UFOlogy, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- The Wrong Argument Again »
- Closeups Of Mars Caves »
- Fallen Angels »
- Roswell Continues… »
- Mac Rethinks ET »
- Tonnies on UFOs »
- Hostage Hallucinations & UFOs »
- Mac on Ufological Views »
- Normal or Not? »
- Wrinkly Ufologists »
|
Aug 01 2008 
August 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
LOL! Well done Greg.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
It is a good response, Greg. Alas, I
doubt Plait is going to pay it the
slightest attention. Looking at the
rest of the comments ( Over 400 at his
personnal blog, over 100 at the U-Today
site ) I don’t see him responding to
any of them. Like you, I have a lot
of respect for his writing, but its
clear that he regards the phenomena as
a threat to reason and science…
August 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
*sigh* My dear Greg. You’re asking for a glass of water in the desert
August 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Greg, it’s really bugging me because I can’t recall the exact source, so I hope this jogs someones memory…maybe the Condon Report? I’m not sure…
But I recall an anonymous poll of astronomers to gauge how many of them saw things they would describe as UFOs, and a significant number responded that they had seen them, but that they would also not go public with their experiences out of concern of being ridiculed by fellow astronomers or scientists…
I hope someone else can recall the source of that anonymous poll with more detail.
Plait is talking out his arse.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Greg. Vallee’s experience with the French Space Committee was the first thing I thought of, too, when I read that post.I didn’t bother mentioning it, though, because, well, because I doubt it would be noticed.
dduncan–I think it is the Condon Report. I will go and do some digging, because I have read about that anonymous poll, but I can’t remember where.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Not to brag or anything but I was roasted over at Bad Astronomy for my “actual matrix plan” expose — back before “bad astronomy” rode on the Richard Dawkins’ post-911 craze (a connection Jon Downes’ points out in his new amazing tome, “Island of Paradise.”)
Phil Plait needs to read Charles Fort’s LO! — astronomy is rotten to the core without the help of tricksters.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 am
Well, I don’t know about the Condon Report, but from the BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) files I found one answer about astronomers who’ve seen UFOs.
At the end of the second paragraph:
http://www.bufora.org.uk/Articles/Astronomers_and_UFOs.pdf
In 1976, over a thousand members of the American Astronomical Society were asked in a survey if they had experienced any UFO-type observations. A small but significant number, amounting to about five per cent of the members, responded that they had in fact seen an object which they were unable to explain, and which they would classify as a UFO.
There’s also a great list of UFO sightings by astronomers, going back at least 300 years here:
http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm
And, of course, Clyde Tombaugh (the discoverer of Pluto) had a UFO sighting way back in 1949.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Don’t forget your recent post about the apparent astronomer, Copernicus, titled “A Scientist Defends UFO Phenomenon”. Of course, that wouldn’t make a very strong case so you might want to check out the names and reports of numerous astronomers who have had sightings over at http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
A reader contributed the following link to me, which may be what I recall. It does seem familiar.
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/stork1-7a.htm
I also had some thoughts. Phil Plait’s “astronomers don’t see UFOs” argument is essentially a statistical one. And while one would assume that those whose job has them looking at the stars would see them more often than most other people, if UFOs are real, it is reasonable to question that assumption.
In fact, is skywatching at all relevant to UFO spotting?
Good UFO sightings tend to happen when people are not looking for them, and don’t astronomers spend more time looking more deeply into small regions of the sky at any given time, more distant regions where the good UFO sightings have not typically occurred?
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
His argument was also flawed in stating that astronomers are the best qualified observers of aerial phenomena, because he himself was fooled —briefly— by a flock of ducks. So he wants to convince people that astronomers are these incredibly trained professionals capable of discerning not only ALL astronomical features, but also meteorological, biological, oh! and they also know by heart all kinds of aerial craft built by man. Yeah, right…
I’m sure that an astronomer would recognize in a tenth of a second if a light in the morning sky is Venus or another planet, but I seriosuly doubt they would be able to recognize every single thing that goes flying in the air.
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
dmduncan
Although most professional astronomers do indeed work indoors and in front of computer screens, and sometimes remotely from the observatory, they are more familiar with the sky than the non-astronomers and do look up more often.
The term “skywatching”, or stargazing, is often used to describe what amateur astronomers do. They’re the ones most often looking up at the sky as much as they look through their telescope, at night for long periods of time. There are amateur organizations that also contribute to science through their observations as well. And there really isn’t much of any UFO sighting reported by them. I have not heard of any.
“Good UFO sightings tend to happen when people are not looking for them,”
What difference does this make? Are UFO phenomenon somehow waiting to pounce on unsuspecting people and hiding from those who have a hobby of looking up at the sky?
August 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
red pill junkie,
“but I seriosuly doubt they would be able to recognize every single thing that goes flying in the air.”
This is a valid point of skepticism regarding UFO sightings. Most people will naturally assume this about themselves. But when the night is dark, there are no sounds and a few colorful points of light, that man-made flying craft can look very out-of-worldly.
A Venus story: I once woke up just after sunrise and looked out my window, I saw a very bright point of light, which after I realized wasn’t a plane moving in my line of sight, I was almost convinced it was a supernova. After a few seconds it became clear it was Venus. I had forgotten how bright the planet could really get.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I agree nd; I’ve been spooked myself by some unusually bright lights once or twice. Not to the point of screaming “Take me! Take me!”, but pretty darn close
August 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Craig,
Yeah, the modus operandi is to make up your mind before data proves or disproves, although I’m afraid that’s difficult with UFOs.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
dduncan,
Yes, the ridicule factor is high. It seems that this was the main reason for astronomers who shied away from reporting their sightings.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Helgarde,
I only mentioned it in the post because I wanted to, and possibly one out of the hundreds or thousands who read that site might say “hmm.”
August 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Drew,
Plait will never, ever read “Lo!”
August 5th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Kithra,
People like Plait who are in the public eye need to reinforce their (and their audience’s) preconceptions with absolutist statements. That’s why we almost never hear from thoughtful researchers of any stripe.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Sage,
Thanks for the link. This shows that people should be careful when they say “none,” “never,” “always” etc.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:29 am
About Phil Plait’s dismissal, yes he can be quick to dismiss the various topics that have a history of quackery, this is very understandable. Given that the term UFO is synonymous with ET and that there is no solid proof of this it’s very understandable that professional astronomers would not want to report something they just could not put a finger on. Another reason not to bring it up is because of people often jump to the conclusion that if it can’t be associated as terrestrial it must be ET in origin.
After hearing so many inconclusive reports and even shoddy “research” that have been debunked, one becomes cynical.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
nd,
Then Plait appears to be contributing to a general misunderstanding with shoddy assumptions and derision. I don’t think that is representing science very well.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Greg Bishop,
Well given the lack of any solid evidence and the questionable, shoddy and debunked work that appears to pervade ufology, it has not shown itself anything serious to put time and effort into.
Besides, I can never tell when someone says UFO, if they mean ET spacecraft or some event that could not be nailed down as something terrestrial.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I have been going over the “A LIST OF SIGHTINGS BY ASTRONOMERS” at
http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm and there
are some issues with it. It’s not clear exactly what it’s supposed to
establish. Given the range and quality of the sightings listed, the
definition of UFO is very broad. It even includes legitimate
astronomical events. Are the compilers of the list trying to prove
UFOs are ET in origin? UFO means exactly that, “unidentified objects”?
Sane people see strange things?
Here are some criticisms:
1) The title is misleading. The term “astronomer” is synonymous with
professional astronomer, someone scientifically trained and active in
astronomical research. Granted there are amateur astronomers who
have high end equipment and contribute to research, but the majority
of them are hobbyists as are at least half of the observers mentioned
in the list.
2) There are a lot of low quality sightings that’s hard to tell if
it’s an observer’s confusion or something extraordinarily
bizarre. Simply not enough info to go on.
3) Some are plain ridiculous.
4) Some are actual astronomical observations with no mystery to them.
5) The list is a summary of the actual sightings and are second or
third hand accounts. This list would mean something only if you took
them at face value.
I’ll be posting comments on specific entries in the list in a
follow-up.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Here are my comments on some of the entries. I tried to verify entries that had enough detail to use in a planetarium software. I’m referencing them by date only for brevity.
August 18th, 1783: Description fits a bolide perfectly. Here’s a news coverage of a very recent bolide, to give an idea of what they’re like. Some amazing videos too: http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/bolid-nad-hrvatskom.html
October 19th, 1863: Another bolide. Identified as such by the observer. Why is this in a list of UFO sightings?
November 17th, 1623: The very first item in the list. Likely a bolide as well.
March 21st, 1676: Again, this sounds striking like a bolide as well.
There are several other entries on objects identified as bolides. A natural phenomenon. They add nothing to a list of UFO sightings?
August 9th, 1762: Can’t place this one. There was no transit of Mercury across the sun that year. There was one of Venus in 1761.
“December 1895: Muller, of Nymegen, Holland saw a luminous object near Venus.” Not enough info. What can one say about this?
“November 20th, 1952: Desert Center, California, USA. George Adamski’s historic contact with Venusian” Ooooookaaay. Moving along….
March 8th, 1955: I checked this with some planetarium software. There was a brightish star next to the Moon that night.
April 7th, 1955: The Moon was full that day, not first quarter as mentioned. It was first quarter around 27-28. Although the Moon did occult a star or two around the given time on the 7th.
June 3rd 1955: Planets between the Earth and the Moon?! Four of them?!
November 26th, 1956: Cross shaped object seen at the Moon’s terminator. This should be easy to verify. The Moon is still there.
c.early-October 1958: Letters from the Latin alphabet seen on the Moon. I mean come on! This could happen if you had both eyes open at the eyepiece. No idea what he could have been looking at with the other eye. But still.
“c.early-December 1965: ‘Objects from Jupiter - ” … “He added they might possibly have come from Jupiter.” How did he come to this conclusion on objects whose nature is not known?
April 25th, 1966: A verified bolide, but this guy attests that it’s not.
August 28th, 1999: “round/disclike object going across the moon.” Escaped balloons?
It looks to me like there are quite a few entries that are just fillers. There are interesting sightings as well but they appear to suffer from the typical inconclusiveness of the evidence.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:12 am
nd,
If you don’t think that it is worth your time, that’s fine. I tend to think that there is a core of evidence that points to something that is as yet outside our realm of understanding, but may not be in the future. If some people choose to frame it exclusively in the “ET” mold, they may have boxed themselves into a realm which ignores many other possibilities.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:42 am
There is always something outside our understanding when it comes to nature
August 7th, 2008 at 5:53 am
ditto for human nature as well.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Greg,
Would you welcome an undeniable demonstration of presence by the ETs?
Do you think the community of UFO researchers/analysts would welcome such proof?
Suppose you and a few others invited the “skeptics”, including Phil Plait, Seth Shostak, et al., to join you in asking NASA this question. Obviously NASA cannot answer “Yes”, because elements of NASA or higher authorities know the ETs might regard this as an invitation, and respond.
My guess is the “skeptics” would run and hide if you asked this question…
Wouldn’t this end the UFO debate, by demonstrating that the “skeptics”, who are always ranting about “Give us evidence!”, in fact don’t want the evidence and are part of an effort to prevent folks from knowing the truth?
I generally agree with Helgarde’s analysis some time ago, which you & Nick supported, that the whole range of UFO stuff is more than just some guys in flying saucers. On the other hand, we know at least some of them or it is/are absolutely “real” and physically competent (unlike spacefairies, or “alien abductors”) to shut down specific weapons systems, etc., so they might well understand and respond to an invitation.
I asked this question on Bad Astronomy, not very eloquently, but of course they ignored it:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/01/so-so-close-but-ufologist-blows-it/
and search for “joeo33″ comment.
Do you believe that humankind is more likely to survive and prosper by ignoring any possibility of learning from the ETs about the nature of life in the Universe, and the mistakes of past civilizations?
Somewhat OT: Is “Space Kitty” all one word, or does it have a space (as on EM site), and is it usable, or do you discourage unsolicited email?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
joeo33,
Of course I would “welcome” it. If you have read any of my other posts on the UFO/ ET issue, you would see that I think that this would be unlikely, since the phenomenon seems to reside in an area outside of our ability to perceive it properly. I hesitate to make assumptions (such as “there are ETs visiting us”) based on evidence that cannot be demonstrated on demand for everyone. The “Truth” that many people demand I think would confuse more than enlighten. I’m pretty sure that the reality of extra-human intelligence (if there is any, and I suspect that there is) has almost surely confused and worried those who may know more than the general public.
August 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
ND: While the list is flawed, it does list *some* UFO sightings by *some* astronomers. It disproves the claim that “no astronomers have ever seen or reported UFOs”. Thanks to the CIA, astronomers and airline pilots are, in general, fearful to report UFO sightings so the sightings that are valid within the framework of the definition of a UFO are only the tip of an iceberg.
JOEO33: If you could actually demonstrate the presence of ETs, what is stopping you from demonstrating the presence of ETs? Don’t blame it on NASA unless you can provide undeniable demonstrable proof from the ETs that they will not reveal themselves “until NASA asks them to”. I predict you will fail to substantiate your assertion. To claim that it would take a response from NASA to get the ETs to suddenly appear is clearly nothing more than wishful thinking.
GREG: The phenomenon does not simply reside in some as yet undisclosed area outside of our ability to perceive it properly, it simply does not seem to reside anywhere in our reality. If it actually existed somewhere in our reality, it would leave evidence to that effect, but all we have ever had are poorly told storytales to go along with the poorly taken photos. That is far from convincing and is evidence that the phenomenon is a hysterical fad rather then an actual real-life experience.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Sage,
Thanks to the CIA? I can so simple social pressures not to report a UFO as a very strong motivation. What did the CIA do?
August 10th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Prior to 1952, the CIA promoted the belief in UFOs in a mad attempt to discredit legitimate sightings of some of their top secret planes, such as the A-12 spy plane (the precursor to the SR-71 Blackbird). Of course this backfired because it made the public all the more interested in making observations of strange things in the sky, so in 1952 the CIA commissioned the Robertson Panel, whose main objective was to debunk and ridicule UFOs. This time they tried something new: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt or FUD. Fear of ridicule is a very strong deterrent to reporting UFOs and the CIA took a three-pronged approach. The CIA first infiltrated all major media, such as CBS. Then there is the alleged link between the CIA and the National Enquirer, a claim which is in such a position as to allow the CIA room for (not so) plausible denial (see Gene Pope and Bill Bates). While the Robertson Panel did a fairly good job at discrediting the type of people who claimed to see UFOs (but a poor job at scientifically discrediting UFO sightings), and major media did an about face and started avoiding reporting UFO sightings altogether so as to keep people in the dark, the National Enquirer seems to have done an excellent job at inducing a Pavlovian response within the general public to associate anything connected to UFOs with the giggle factor. This three-pronged approach worked better at discouraging reports of legitimate sightings of top secret aircraft than promoting the belief in UFOs did. It was one of the few things the CIA ever did right, even if it was for all the wrong reasons.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
ND:
1) I didn’t say I “could demonstrate the presence”, rather I implied NASA could, and NASA won’t. NASA is simply carrying out USG policy.
2) Why is it necessary to provide “undeniable proof” before asking NASA a simple question about their policy? Proving something about the ETs involves proving the ETs exist, in which case NASA would be irrelevant. Further, if NASA cannot answer this simple question, why shouldn’t they, in some sense, be “blamed” or perhaps be praised, for keeping us from knowing the truth? It should be obvious that, if they can’t answer “Yes”, then they don’t want to risk a public response from ETs. The scientist/skeptics, however, will likely not ask this obvious question (perhaps for the same reason).
3) As to predictions, if NASA publicly answers “Yes” to this question, then the public will, as a result, learn of at least the fact, if not the details, of an ET presence, by one or more of several means.
4) I didn’t claim “that it would take a response from NASA”, rather I said it would be sufficient. However, saying that the assertion is “clearly nothing more than wishful thinking” is a good excuse for not asking the question.
GREG:
I believe what you will find (at the next level above us) are far post-singularity folks who thoroughly understand not only the physics of space-time, but the physics of consciousness and “psychic” phenomena, and thus all the realms of fairies and angels, etc., and thus can do all the things humans might call “high strangeness”; but they could also invite you for a ride on a “physically-real” flying saucer, and you could take pictures, and bring back a “physically-real” souvenir; or they could crash at Roswell, etc. I have read much of your writing, and am very grateful for the information and analysis, and believe I understand the views expressed, but don’t know why it would be necessary to assume that “ETs are visiting us”–a “Yes” answer is a test not only of their presence, but willingness to communicate, etc. If evidence could already be “demonstrated on demand” then there would be no need to ask the question…
And I agree regarding your “confused and worried” comment; but believe the question should be: compared to what? If you consider some of the issues our civilization faces, and will face in the next few decades, shouldn’t we consider asking the ETs something like “If you have something to say, and we’re more likely to survive and prosper by hearing it now, then tell us…”?
And my point is that UFO folks or scientists or any reporter, etc., could ask this question–though I certainly understand their reluctance–and end the “UFO debate” now. E.g., if Stan Friedman asked this of Seth Shostak on Larry King… And that instead of a debate about whether an ETI is present, the debate should be about whether we should try to communicate, or simply observe.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
joeo,
You seem to assume the “ET”s (by this I take you to mean extraterrestrials) exist as a fact. I am not ready to make this leap. If that keeps these supposed ETs away, I can live with that.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Sage,
Our take on things is different. You appear to assume (or know) that we have all of the tools to understand our existence and how to test for “reality.” I look at history and assume that we are still developing methods of study, perception, and theorizing.
Things like gorillas, meteorites, and elements that exist for a few nanoseconds were not in the scientific vocabulary before we made efforts to study them. I think that this is a fair assessment of how knowledge progresses.
I also noticed that you wrote about the UFO phenomenon: “it simply does not seem to reside anywhere in our reality.” I liked your choice of words in that sentence. I often prefer “seem” to “is,” and “our reality” to “reality.”
August 12th, 2008 at 5:46 am
ND: Sorry, I meant Sage.
Greg: Understood. Thanks.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
ND, if you could only prove the statement that NASA could demonstrate the presence of ETs exists outside of your imagination, you wouldn’t need NASA to do or say anything. The proof that NASA could do such a thing would be more than sufficient. But of course you and I know you have no proof that NASA could do any such thing. It is just a fairytale that you choose to believe in and not actual reality.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Greg, humans do not know all there is to know about reality, but what little we humans know, we know extremely well. More importantly, what we do not know cannot contradict what we do know, since that would be resorting to a logical fallacy. For example, I am overweight. That is reality and I know it extremely well (unfortunately for me). There is no repository of knowledge, known or unknown, that will ever change that fact. That is because, by definition, facts are invariant.
Gorillas and meteorites were thought to have not existed at one time yet they did, but so what? Epicycles, leeches, and snake oil were thought to have not existed at one time and sure enough, they don’t. Your kind of argument neither proves nor disproves anything in regards to UFOs, ETs, or cryptozoology. And just so you know, it was the application of scientific reason that led us to the correct beliefs in all those cases. Last and not least, gorillas and meteorites did not change any KNOWN facts, they only changed people’s OPINIONS.
This is all reflected in your attempt to re-word my statement about things that do/don’t exist in our reality. The things you talk about do not exist in THIS reality, they only exist in YOUR reality. That is a fact. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating any of the things you believe in ANY reality.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Sage,
I am not trying to argue that my view of things is correct, just to explain my strong suspicion that there is always more to know and things that will change our collective view of what exists and can be said to be worth investigating. There appears to be something (i.e. UFOs and other “paranormal” events) that occasionally impinges on our reality which does not fit in with current views.
If you have a idea that there is some sort of fixed “reality,” then that’s where we disagree. There may be, but I think that our views of it change. According to some physicists, our view actually changes that “fixed” state. You can also read “view” for “opinion.”
I think that the phenomenon of UFOs deserves serious attention (based on what has been observed) while you appear to think that it doesn’t.
As for your challenge, I don’t feel that I could ever prove you wrong, because your opinions appear to be fixed. I want to leave the door open on the UFO question, even if you think it’s a waste of time.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
“If you have a idea that there is some sort of fixed ‘reality,’ then that’s where we disagree. There may be…”
“There may be” is not a disagreement, it is an admission of doubt and uncertainty.
“…but I think that our views of it change”
Bingo! Reality does not change, only our viewpoints of it do. So the real issue here is one of terminology. From my experience with scientific reasoning and methods, I say there is a reality on one hand, and a perception of reality on the other, and the two rarely correspond to the other. You say there is a reality on one hand, and our perception of reality on the other — and they are both a part of the sum total of reality. While it is true that an imaginary reality is still a reality of sorts, yet if one wishes to know reality as it actually is instead of what they imagine or wish it were like, then they have to be willing to discard their perceptions of it. Actual reality outside of the world of illusions, delusions, hallucinations, and wishful thinking that we have of it, cannot be found by referring to the (mis)perceptions that we have of it in the first place. You can always trust reality but you cannot always trust perception of that reality. You can always trust facts but you cannot always trust viewpoints.
“Your opinions appear to be fixed”
So the next question becomes, do you want to leave the door open to the possibility that my opinions are not fixed, or is that not an option?
“I want to leave the door open on the UFO question…”
But are you also willing to close door on the UFO question, if the facts of the matter dictate it must close, or are you only willing for the the door to remain open forever?
“…even if you think it’s a waste of time”
If I supposedly think it is a waste of time, why do I bother to spend time corresponding on this blog? If you don’t know the answer to that question, then you clearly are not in any position to know what I think is a waste of time or not. That is simply your (mis)perception and viewpoint of the matter, and not actual reality.
MULDER: “The truth is out there Scully”
SCULLY: “But so are the lies”
August 15th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Sage,
“…an admission of doubt and uncertainty”
Bingo! My perception of a thing is not the thing itself, it is my perception. We ultimately work with models of reality. The best effort we can make with our senses and instruments (filtered through our senses) defines our perception of whatever ultimate “reality” is out there. If we look at ultimate reality as Plato’s “perfect chair,” we really have no way of directly perceiving it.
Therefore, I admit to the leap of faith required to build our models. I do not only leave the question of UFOs open, I leave the question of everything open. If a model of the paranormal appears which seems to explain everything, I will probably question that too, if I have the intellectual capacity to to do so. It may be “true” (or at least robust in the way that a chemical reaction happens in the same way every time) but I will still want to examine it.
Either that, or I will move on to travel writing or something.
I think that you spend time here because 1) You appear to think that the UFO question is interesting, but that the subject is populated by belief systems which get in the way of the “reality” of the situation, and 2) You enjoy debates.
There. I walked into your trap.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Obviously perception is irrelevant to knowing reality as it actually is. Perception is not just doubtful and uncertain, it is also very limited. Just because you thought you saw a UFO does not mean it was a UFO, afterall, just because you cannot identify it does not mean that nobody else could or has identified it. So the next question becomes, what are you basing your models on? It can’t be perception because as you and I have already seen, perception is doubtful, uncertain, and limited. We also wouldn’t need models if perception alone worked, but since perception does not work, now what?
“Therefore, I admit to the leap of faith required to build our models”
Unfortunately, faith is just another word for “pretending”, therefore faith is not an answer but make believe. We know your models are based on faith because you have told us so, but there are models that aren’t based on faith, but on facts. It is those kind of models, unlike the faith-based models, that have been very successful in telling us what reality is like outside of our perceptions or blind faith beliefs of it have been or still are. No other method or belief works better at telling us what reality or truth is, than scientific reasoning.
“I think that you spend time here because…”
You cannot know what I think without asking me what I think. There is no such thing as ESP. Don’t try to guess why I am here or what agenda I may have, let’s just enjoy the pursuit of truth together and forget all that.
“There. I walked into your trap”
It is not a trap and there is nothing wrong with debating, afterall, what better way to find flaws in our reasoning or experimental procedure than to have someone else with similar expertise in our field of work, critique our work? It is called peer review and it is a part of the ever successful scientific process. Sometimes we may perceive a legitimate critique as an attack, but ultimately it is for our own best good.
To bring this back around: There is one door you must forever leave open in regards to the UFO phenomenon, and that is the possibility that UFOs are a hysterical fad rather then a real life experience. We know this for a fact because UFOs, in the sense that the general public uses the term, is not perceivable by the typical, everyday person, never leaves any evidence of its existence behind, can never be competently and clearly photographed or videotaped. Even most of the stories told of them sound childishly contrived and amateurishly conceived. I can’t think of a more logical conclusion or one that is more inclusive of ALL the facts, can you?
August 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The Sage,
To repeat my position: Our picture of reality is based on our sensory apparatus and the prevailing wisdom of the time. This has changed throughout history, and I expect it to keep on changing. For my own purposes, I would amend your statement to read “Few other methods or beliefs work better at getting us closer to what reality or truth is, than scientific reasoning” which I agree with, but scientific models continue to change.
The “leap of faith” comes from trusting that our instruments and sensory data are as close to describing reality as we can get. Nothing wrong with that, but we must accept that the perceived version of reality is not what is actually there, but our picture of it. Perhaps the model is closer than it has been in the past.
As for UFOs, I don’t think that science has been able to prove anything conclusive yet, at least not as science is practiced in the mainstream. That does not mean that there is nothing to study and wonder about.
I don’t think UFOs Are (cap not a typo) a hysterical fad. The phenomenon comprises many things, only some of which may possibly be labeled “hysterical fad.” “Typical, everyday” people (whatever that loose term means) are probably the bulk of witnesses. Whether they see something anomalous or not is open to question. Some of them may. Photographs are rare and always debatable, since UFOs are not available on demand. Besides, if we don’t know what is photographed, how can we make a conclusion about it? Some photos are intriguing to me. “Childishly contrived and amateurishly conceived” sounds like a judgment call to me, and not at all close to an objective assessment.
I don’t feel that a conclusion about the UFO subject needs to be made at this point.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
There is NO, NONE, NADA, ZERO, NULL other method or belief that even BEGINS TO WORK, much less works better than scientific reasoning. Just try to find something that works and you will experience the meaning of the term, “chasing ghosts”.
Just as nature abhors a vacuum, science abhors a faith, even a faith in your instruments. That is because just as a vacuum is absence of matter, faith is the absence of knowledge. When it comes to the pursuit of truth, faith has had a long history of failing, miserably.
“Perhaps the model is closer than it has been in the past”
A scientific model does not model reality, it only describes our knowledge of a particular subject or phenomenon, so naturally scientific models are always changing.
If you truly believe that our knowledge of reality is almost non-existent or woefully inadequate; if you cannot justify a belief in this reality, then certainly you will never be able to justify a belief in UFOs. But I know better. What little we know of reality we know extremely well and anything that contradicts that knowledge is not reality. Take for example, laws of motion.
“As for UFOs, I don’t think that science has been able to prove anything conclusive yet”
My mainstream University textbook on scientific reasoning states that UFOs only exist in reports of them, and they do not appear anywhere outside of those reports. That is the conclusion many have about UFOs time and time again (re: Bluebook, Robertson Panel, etc) — are you going to deny that science has reached at least that one conclusion about UFOs so far?
Whether alleged UFO witnesses have seen something anomalous or not is open to question because science teaches us that the only logically proper thing to do when presented with an extraordinary claim in the complete absence of evidence where much evidence is expected, is to doubt or dismiss the claim. There is absolutely no proof to back up any UFO testimony ever given, therefore that is why science continues to dismiss or deny the UFO claim. Yet despite that fact, you are still keeping that UFO door wide open when there clearly is nothing behind that door and never has been. And still you are unwilling to open the door to the one hypothesis (hysteria) that fits ALL the facts. That’s because you want to believe. It has nothing to do with reason or facts or science, it is simply a faith to you. That’s okay. You are free to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but while faith is limitless, reality has its limits, therefore that is why science pays no more attention to the subject.
By the way, photographs of UFOs are very common and while not all photographs are debatable, ever UFO photograph ever made has been debatable.
“‘Childishly contrived and amateurishly conceived’ sounds like a judgment call to me, and not at all close to an objective assessment”
But that is exactly what they are. Have you read ALIEN IDENTITIES by Richard L Thompson for example? Pay particular attention to the chapter on “Technical Gibberish”. The last thing the UFO visitors need to talk about are things they know nothing about and are easily disproved.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:56 am
The Sage,
You appear to continue to respond to what you think I am expressing, and not what I actually intended to communicate, so I must not be able to make my meaning clear to you.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“You appear to continue to respond to what you think I am expressing, and not what I actually intended to communicate, so I must not be able to make my meaning clear to you”
Are you sure?
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
The Sage,
Pretty sure.