Pretty sure.

Are you sure?

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.

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.

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.

“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?

“…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.

“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”

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.

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.