May 20 2009
|
|
The Less Sense It Makes, The More True It Is
This piece was sat in the “drafts” box for several weeks while I tried to make sense of the title, which came to me while listening to a podcast about the paranormal. It was also cued by my research into the history of the E Clampus Vitus group, whose motto is “Credo quia absurdum,” (I believe because it is absurd.) The phrase is also a bowdlerized quote from the writings of Tertullian, a second century Christian apologist.
The phrase is tailor-made for the study of the paranormal. Like Charles Fort, we research reports of the strange because the absurd thumbs its nose at the concepts and theories that underlie the collective and authoritarian version of “reality.” Reports that defy current concepts of what is possible shouldn’t be there, but accounts and studies continue to arrive. Some of them may even be accurate, or as close to accurate as we allow ourselves to be.
Things that “don’t make sense” force us to re-examine what we define as “possible.” In this sense, the weird sometimes draws us to new concepts and theories, leading us by our curiosity. As an example: Matter in the universe is not moving at a steady rate, which would be the case if the theory of the Big Bang was accurate. This forced astronomers to try and account for the discrepancy, which led to the theory of “dark matter” (and “dark energy”) which can’t be seen or measured as yet, but are inferred from their observed effects. Of course, the Big Bang theory is constantly under debate as well.
Unlike stars, galaxies and nebulae, UFOs, ghosts and ESP effects can’t be observed by everyone on demand, but if we trust at least some observers, there is something happening that occurs with some regularity. Just because something is currently unexplained does not mean that it is unreal.
We might amend the above-quoted phrase to read “I am curious because it does not make sense.” The anomalous leads us forward in our quest to find the truth and acts as a check on our misconceptions. This would include belief masquerading as fact, as well as facts and theories which are open to question. Some theories are so robust that we accept them as truth (an airplane flies because of the pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of a wing) others need a bit of work (UFOs are flying vehicles piloted by beings from other planets.)
In this sense, the most “truth” may be found in an honest quest for answers, even if that truth is constantly changing. Marrying ourselves to a conclusion that is occasionally called into question may be comforting, but may ultimately stall a more accurate worldview, which should be constantly evolving. One fringe benefit is that it keeps things interesting and maybe even fun.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 at 5:58 am and is filed under Astronomy/Space, Beliefs, Evidence, UFOmystic Exclusive, 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:
- Not a UFO, but… »
- Abductions and DMT »
- Love in an Alien Purgatory »
- Kimball Comments On MJ12 »
- Carl Sagan Was A Pothead »
- “Unproveable” UFOs? »
- Bob Dean: A New Lecture »
- Abductions, UFOs & More »
- Alien Worlds: Issue 2 »
- Remembering Gray Barker »
|
May 20th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“Matter in the universe is not moving at a steady rate, which would be the case if the theory of the Big Bang was accurate. This forced astronomers to try and account for the discrepancy, which led to the theory of ‘dark matter’ (and ‘dark energy’) which can’t be seen or measured as yet, but are inferred from their observed effects”
Dark matter is an excuse to explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies. The Sun is orbiting the Milky Way at 220 km/sec, which is 60 km/sec faster than it should be according to Newton’s Laws. The only way the Sun and it’s planets can orbit the Milky Way at that speed and distance, is if they had 9 times more mass than they currently are known to have. The missing mass is presumed to be dark matter, but if there are the equivalent of nine Suns permeating our entire Solar System, then where is it?
Dark energy is used to explain the expansion of the local universe. All extragalactic objects appear to be traveling away from us at a speed of between 50 to 100kms for every 3.26e6 light years (read: parsec) of distance between us and those objects. The fact that extragalactic objects appear to be moving away from us is only an illusion though, because in reality they are not actually moving. What is happening is that the space between extragalactic objects is expanding. What is expanding into space is presumed to be dark energy. Space is expanding everywhere around us so again, where is it?
“Of course, the Big Bang theory is constantly under debate as well”
The Big Bang is obsolete. “…the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity — a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these qualities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply then” (The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe by Andrei Linde, Nov 1994 issue of Scientific American). Another of putting this is, black holes don’t explode. The only thing under debate is the origin of the local universe we find ourselves in, the most popular hypothesis being Inflation.
“Just because something is currently unexplained does not mean that it is unreal”
…and since it also does not prove it is real, it is a nonsense statement and/or logical fallacy.
“In this sense, the most ‘truth’ may be found in an honest quest for answers, even if that truth is constantly changing”
But as you can see above, even when the truth is readily available, not everyone is aware of it already existing for the taking. That is why in the pursuit of truth, one has to learn how to expand their perspective so that they may embrace more truth. It is also why we have peer review, since no one can know everything there is to know about everything. UFOlogists have earned a reputation for narrowing down their perspective to just one little “theory” to the exclusion of all others, and they have earned a reputation for avoiding peer review at all costs. The result is that the UFO community has alienated themselves from the truth as far as one can be.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:01 am
Inflation…isn’t that what usually
happens when something explodes?
“The result is that the UFO community has alienated themselves from the truth as far as one can be.”
I don’t really mind being called
delusional because of my passing
interest in anomalous phenomena, but
tarring the whole “UFO Community”
with the same brush isn’t science.
“UFOlogists have earned a
reputation…” isn’t the language of
science, its the language of a gossip
colummist. I can’t help but notice
that while you seem to be
suggesting the notion of Dark Matter
and Dark energy is flawed, you offer \
nothing in
the way of a solution or explanation.
And no sources apart from a fifteen
year old article from Scientific
American.
Nice try.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:16 am
There is also non-rational truth which is experienced and communicated directly, and carries with it its own confirmation. A ridiculous idea for those who are only rational.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am
“Inflation…isn’t that what usually happens when something explodes?”
I inflated a rubber raft the other day and it didn’t explode.
“Tarring the whole ‘UFO Community’ with the same brush isn’t science”
It is called objective observation.
“‘UFOlogists have earned a reputation…’ isn’t the language of science, its the language of a gossip colummist”
And you know that because you read a lot of gossip I take it? Since what I claimed was not a lie, you cannot call it a lie. Since you cannot claim I am lying, you call me a gossip columnist. Of course, since what I am discussion, by definition, is not called gossip, you clearly do not know. Why don’t you talk about something you do know?
“I can’t help but notice that while you seem to be suggesting the notion of Dark Matter and Dark energy is flawed, you offer nothing in the way of a solution or explanation”
I can’t help but notice you are not familiar with the scientific concept of peer review, which is all about finding flaws without having to offer alternative explanations. For any theory to be proven false, all that is required is to find one single flaw with it. Just because you cannot offer an alternate explanation does not mean that the flaw should still be accepted.
“And no sources apart from a fifteen year old article from Scientific American”
According to your “logic” here, Einstein wrote his paper on relativity more than 15 years ago, there Einstein is incorrect and wrong. Clearly, logic is not one of your strong points.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
“There is also non-rational truth which is experienced and communicated directly, and carries with it its own confirmation. A ridiculous idea for those who are only rational”
On the contrary, it is a logical idea. “I love chocolate” is a non-rational truth and it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately for your argument, there non-rational truths are something that only exists in your mind and not outside of your mind.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Have you guys seen the Spanish movie “The Orphanage” (produced by Guillermo del Toro)?
I highly recommend it.
In that movie, Geraldine Chaplin plays the part of a psychic, and in a scene she says “The point is not about seeing in order to believe, it’s about believing in order to see.”
That statement both attracts and repels me at the same time, because it seems awfully pertinent to the Fortean lore, but at the same time it implicates such a massive blow to the idea of consensus reality.
It’s almost as a key that free us from our prison, but are we really sure that we want to escape?
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:22 am
I have seen it-not quite as good as ‘Devil’s Backbone’ but good. I
understand the attraction/repulsion
thing quite well, though. My wife
has a fondness for the Ghost
Hunters show on SCI-FI…while
I find some of the ‘investigations’
intriguing, the way the show presents
its ’science’ is pretty sad-no controls
at all, just bald assertions. Still,
I remain fascinated by Ghost stories.
A prison, though? I like the idea of consensues reality-keeps me from floating off the Earth.
Sage, your last inference is absurd.
My point was that you provide nothing
beyond that source to back your assertions. Fifteen years ago, String
theory was being touted as the route
to the TOE. That, as I expect you keep
up with the literature, is no longer the
case. You can continue to insult my intelligence and character until the
heat death of the universe, and the intelligence and character of others
fascinated by anomalous phenomena, and
it really won’t bother me. You don’t have a proof, you just have a dogma.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 am
And as it happens, I am familiar
with the concept and practice of Peer
review. Within the Academic disciplines,
its a useful and effective tool. But no-one here is submitting a paper to Nature or defending their
disertation-this is public discourse,
and I submit that you do have an
obligation to demonstrate that your
assertions are more than simple bluster.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
“‘The point is not about seeing in order to believe, it’s about believing in order to see’…[which] implicates such a massive blow to the idea of consensus reality”
Fictional storytales have no effect on reality. Pretending or imagining or entertaining the thought that something is real will not make it real.That’s because imagination is limitless and reality is not.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
“And as it happens, I am familiar with the concept and practice of Peer review”
No you aren’t, as you clearly go on to demonstrate (I told you not to talk about things you know nothing about)…
“But no-one here is submitting a paper to Nature or defending their disertation-this is public discourse”
That is a logical fallacy since you are taking my statement out-of-context. I was repeating some peer review of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which is perfectly appropriate in any setting, including this forum.
“I submit…”
Since this forum isn’t Nature, why should I be obligated to respond to any of your childish taunts? Besides, you actually have (had) nothing to submit. Next time, if you ever come up with a legitimate criticism, offer that instead. All you have proved so far is that you are good at blind faith accusations, but poor at defending your accusations with logic and reason. But enough of this tit-for-tat, it is time to change the subject from THE_SAGE back to the topic of this thread again…
I claimed the UFO community has alienated themselves from the truth because they avoid peer review at all costs. That is called a “truism” because it is so obvious — there are no peer reviewed UFO journals, books, or venues. All you have to do to prove me wrong, is just show us one. One is all it will take. Are you up to the challenge or would you rather take the coward’s way out and attack ME instead of my ARGUMENT again? In other words, are you going to bark all day little doggy, or are you going to bite?
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Personal attacks, baiting and name-calling are fair reasons to be banned from this site.
Please be considerate of each other on our forums.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
Curious. I was born in the year of
the dog…
My apologies, Greg-it won’t happen again.