Oct 31 2008
|
|
Mac on Ufological Views
Mac Tonnies has a new post titled Skeptics, Debunkers and Believers that gives good insight into the world of all three camps as they relate to Ufology.
As The Mackster says:
Followers of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence – whether “mainstream” exobiology or the marginal exploits of “ufology” — are routinely confronted with three terms that quietly challenge assumptions of reality: “skeptic,” “debunker” and “believer.” In the storm of claims, hypotheses and accusations that define esoteric research, these labels are routinely misused. I’d like to take this opportunity to look a bit closer at these emotionally charged words in order to see what they really mean, and how they sculpt the epistemological landscape. (I suspect that most readers versed in “forbidden science” secretly know all of this already, but the public arena incessantly distorts definitions to suit its own politics; consequently, one rarely sees “skeptic,” “debunker” or “believer” used in proper context.)
Here’s the rest of Mac’s post.
This entry was posted
on Friday, October 31st, 2008 at 5:16 am and is filed under UFOlogy. 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:
- Gorightly on Roswell »
- The Hill Case - Captured! »
- Tim Binnall Interview Tonight »
- Alien Worlds Cometh »
- Roswell: A Human Experiment »
- Ufological Things »
- McKinnon - The Latest »
- The Ufological Bigfoot »
- Mack & UFOs »
- Keel, UFOs and More »
|
|
Contribute Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
|
October 31st, 2008 at 9:50 am
The world is not so black and white as Mac paints it. There are all kinds of other categories that people can be shoehorned into, but the most important one of all is the disbeliever. This is the kind of person that, after investigating and evaluating the UFO phenomenon, have concluded that the evidence presented proves that the UFOs is unworthy of any further consideration — unless you want to count hoaxes, fads, ignorance, illusions, hallucinations, and mass delusions as something of interest. This is a reality that skeptics, debunkers, and believers want to ignore as if it didn’t exist, and why their existence is rarely acknowledged. What if the UFO mystery was solved many years ago, but no one within the UFO community is willing to acknowledge or consider that reality when there are book deals to be made, or conventions to be organized, or speeches to be invited to, or movies to be made, and so on? How many other topics are there where any armchair wannabee scientist can be an “expert” on the subject because the subject has been deliberately construed to be intangible and nebulous? It is like being an expert on invisible pink elephants. Where is the incentive for people outside the disbeliever circle to solve the mystery? It doesn’t exist.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:45 am
“Where is the incentive for people outside the disbeliever circle to solve the mystery? It doesn’t exist.”
My guess is that the incentive would be the possibility to open a brand new branch of science, be either in physics, psychology, etc. The idea of UFOs is, for me, much to attractive and full of ‘what ifs’ to let it pass by.
Having said that, I agree that there are many people out there who prefer the problem to remain unsolvable, and are too happy to keep talking about cases that were properly solved as misidentifications, an posting photos that have been deemed a hoax a log time ago. The Fortean phenomena have an astounding capacity for recycling.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am
“My guess is that the incentive would be the possibility to open a brand new branch of science, be either in physics, psychology, etc”
Why would that be an incentive?
“The idea of UFOs is, for me, much to attractive and full of ‘what ifs’ to let it pass by”
You are, once again, ignoring the possibility that it isn’t that it has passed you by, but it has already been solved.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:29 am
“Why would that be an incentive?”
Broading our knowledge whould always be an incentive for the Scientific community, Sage. Curiosity is the main drive of Science.
“You are, once again, ignoring the possibility that it isn’t that it has passed you by, but it has already been solved.”
Perhaps. But assuming that, we might also be making the mistake of assigning just ONE answer to the UFO mystery, when its origins might be muliple. From strange atmospherical phenomena we are not very familia with (e.g. plasma dinamics, sprites and all that), to misunderstood inffluences of EM in people’s perceptions. I think the UFO phenomenon is much too broad to be encapsullted with a one-for-all answer.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“Broading our knowledge whould always be an incentive for the Scientific community, Sage. Curiosity is the main drive of Science”
No it isn’t. Science is not about broadening our knowledge or satisfying a curiosity. Science is about how can we know that we know — anything? Another way of looking at this is, what do people have to lose if the UFO mystery was solved? Again, what they have to lose are the book deals to be made, the conventions to be organized, the speeches to be invited to, the movies to be made, and the armchair experts to be christened. The incentive to NOT solve the UFO mystery is clearly very great, but there is not a corresponding list of incentives to solve the UFO mystery, other then a very vague unspecified new branch of science. What new branch of science would be opened if the UFO mystery were solved? Be specific. So while the incentive to keep the UFO mystery a mystery is concrete and obvious, the incentive to solve the mystery is not.
“You are, once again, ignoring the possibility that it isn’t that it has passed you by, but it has already been solved.”
“Perhaps. But assuming that…”
But this isn’t about making assumptions, it is a question of what if the UFO mystery was already demonstrably solved, but no one wanted to hear about it or were in denial of it? What then?
Strange atmospheric phenomena or EM hallucinations are not UFOs and are a separate study on their own. Even if one or two UFO sightings were due to that, it still wouldn’t explain why or how they could be mistaken as an object, much less an unidentified flying object. That is taking subject and making it into an ever widening spiral of possibilities, rather then taking a subject and narrowing down the possibilities as science is supposed to do. Science is about tedious methodology, not about taking the scatter gun approach. Only charlatans and the unscrupulous would want to take a subject and muddle it with trillions of far fetched possibilities instead of taking the scientifically honest approach of whittling it down to just a few reasonable possibilities. It is a case of the ol’ if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS method.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:28 am
“Another way of looking at this is, what do people have to lose if the UFO mystery was solved? Again, what they have to lose are the book deals to be made, the conventions to be organized, the speeches to be invited to, the movies to be made, and the armchair experts to be christened.”
Sage, I agree with you. For many people that profit from the UFO subculture, the final solution to the UFO riddle —whatever that solution could be— would be personally catastrophic. Even our hosts in this page Nick & Greg agree with you on this one, as in several independent articles and comments they have claimed that they don’t believe the solution to this problem will come from the Ufologists themselves; and that even if the mythical landing on the White House lane ever occurred, after a brief ‘Told you so!’ from the UFOlogy community, they would be rapidly discarded by the Media as the Scientific community would take over. Obviously many people dread this scenario; not me BTW, I would be content with finding out the truth.
“What new branch of science would be opened if the UFO mystery were solved? Be specific.”
OK, for example: if it were proved beyond a reasonable doubt that some UFOs are indeed interplanetary vehicles—I say some, because I think we ALL agree that most UFO sightings can be explained with more mundane causes— that would prove that there is a way to traverse the immense distances between planetary systems that might be light-years away. I know that’s Stanton Friedman #1 in the list of why UFOs deserve serious scientific scrutiny; although he may be wrong and UFOs might turn out to be something completely different, which could then catapult our Science to other avenues we cannot even imagine at the moment.
Not only that, I may be naive, but I still honestly think that a final confirmation of the UFO phenomenon would bring about the final blow to our anthropocentric view of the world; to realize that we’re one of many intelligences “out there” would change our society in ways —both subtle and direct—we cannot even imagine… or people would just go “Meh…” and return to playing Gears of War 2
“But this isn’t about making assumptions, it is a question of what if the UFO mystery was already demonstrably solved,…”
Oh, so my ‘If’ is not permitted, but yours is?? Not fair, dude!
“Strange atmospheric phenomena or EM hallucinations are not UFOs and are a separate study on their own.”
That would depend on how broad or narrow is the definition of UFO we’re implementing. If we go to the classic UFOs=Flying Saucers, then you’re obviously correct.
“Even if one or two UFO sightings were due to that, it still wouldn’t explain why or how they could be mistaken as an object, much less an unidentified flying object.”
100% agreed. That’s why I don’t think the UFO can be solved with just one explanation. Many of us here think that even the nuts-&-bolts explanation comes short to explaining the weirder UFO cases.
“Science is about tedious methodology, not about taking the scatter gun approach. Only charlatans and the unscrupulous would want to take a subject and muddle it with trillions of far fetched possibilities instead of taking the scientifically honest approach of whittling it down to just a few reasonable possibilities.”
I agree also Sage. Nobody wants to do the hard tedious work; maybe they don’t know how, or they lack the funds or help to do it. We all know UFOlogy is not even an embrionary scientific discipline; there are cranks, con artists, gullible fools and also the occasional honest searcher for the truth.
But let me ask you this: do you think it’s possible that the culling of the far-fetched possibilities could lead not only to reasonable solutions, but also to counter-intuitive ones? That is, if your methodology was REALLY honest and as unbiased as humanly possible?
November 11th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“If it were proved beyond a reasonable doubt that some UFOs are indeed interplanetary vehicles…Not only that…the UFO phenomenon would bring about the final blow to our anthropocentric view of the world”
That would be a revelation or epiphany, not an incentive. By the mid-20th century it was discovered that the poor, the blacks, and women are indeed human beings, but has this revelation brought about the final blow to our anti-poor, anti-black, anti-women-centric view of the world? No, it hasn’t.
“Oh, so my ‘If’ is not permitted, but yours is?? Not fair, dude!”
You are not only twisting my words, you are dodging and evading the question of what if the solution was already discovered but nobody wanted to know about it. I can understand why you would think that was unfair because it would make your viewpoint(s) of the situation, obsolete. The majority of people do not want to even consider the possibility and whenever the question comes up, they dodge and evade the subject, i.e. — I say what if there was already one solution, and you say there are many possibilities, thereby evading having to discuss the issue of one possibility and its consequences. Sound familiar?
“That would depend on how broad or narrow is the definition of UFO we’re implementing”
Ah, the ol’ logical fallacy of moving the goalposts. That most definitely would not be an honest approach in the pursuit of truth.
“That’s why I don’t think the UFO can be solved with just one explanation”
But what if there an explanation that can solve the issue, it is just the one you haven’t thought of yet? What would the consequences of that be?
“But let me ask you this: do you think it’s possible that the culling of the far-fetched possibilities could lead not only to reasonable solutions, but also to counter-intuitive ones? That is, if your methodology was REALLY honest and as unbiased as humanly possible?”
No, because an honest search for truth means that one does not make something up out of thin air as an explanation, but rather, one uses only what they know to be true in combination with a little “I dunno” to use as an explanation. Both scientific induction and deduction are based on a logical extension of known facts and not of unknown facts. Deducing or inferring explanations from limitless unknown facts can lead to any kind of conclusion you wish for without restraint because while imagination is limitless, reality is not. The only unknown fact is the subject of the investigation — any other unknown facts are confabulation. In the case of UFOs, only the actual UFOs are the unknown facts. The talk about mind powers, alternate realities, remote viewing, conspiracies, warp drives, and so on, are only confabulations. While confabulations are entertaining, they are not reality or truth.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:09 am
“I say what if there was already one solution, and you say there are many possibilities, thereby evading having to discuss the issue of one possibility and its consequences. Sound familiar?”
Ok, so you wanted me to assume that we could live in a world where the UFO mystery was already solved—by whom, you don’t specify—but no one, not governments, religious institutions, or the populace in general wanted to acknowledge that. Well, in that case you would find yourself in the same psychological conundrum of all the contactees and UFO witnesses, that are reminded again and again that in this society, sanity is graded by the majority; and if you don’t believe in what most people do, the problem is probably with you, not the rest of the world… and yet, truth should not be a democratic thing, right? Just because most people believe in something, doesn’t make it true. How ironic that two opposite stances—hardcore skepticism and unquestionable belief—should find themselves in the same level of social ostracism; both screaming in the desert.
“Ah, the ol’ logical fallacy of moving the goalposts. That most definitely would not be an honest approach in the pursuit of truth.”
How can I move the goalposts, if we first don’t determine the limits of the game court? Before going about solving the UFO riddle, we should have a coherent & universal definition of what a UFO is. I think right now there are as many UFO definitions as are UFOlogists.
No, because an honest search for truth means that one does not make something up out of thin air as an explanation, but rather, one uses only what they know to be true in combination with a little “I dunno” to use as an explanation
Very well; but you have to agree that there are many areas of Science where the explanations are completely counter-intuitive—i.e. the bending of space-time, the entanglement of quantum particles, perception of the flow of time, etc.
“Both scientific induction and deduction are based on a logical extension of known facts and not of unknown facts”, you wrote. I agree with that; but where we don’t agree is in your dismissal of the UFO phenomenon because—according to you—once under honest close scrutiny, all the cases would be explained. I’m not even sure that the UFO phenomenon could ever be explained; maybe it is one of those phenomena that will be forever a mystery, like human consciousness—BTW, I’m not the only one who believes that, that would also be Jaron Lanier, one of the fathers of cyberspace.
The only unknown fact is the subject of the investigation — any other unknown facts are confabulation. In the case of UFOs, only the actual UFOs are the unknown facts. The talk about mind powers, alternate realities, remote viewing, conspiracies, warp drives, and so on, are only confabulations. While confabulations are entertaining, they are not reality or truth.
Agreed, but the thing is that Science would be meaningless if it didn’t try to give an explanation for a particular natural event. The beauty of Science is in trying to create a scaffold where everything is correlated and fits into place. But the bigger you want to make it, the more fragile will it be.
We all need to explain things, and for that we create artificial mental constructs—fantasies if you prefer— that can be completely wrong, or very close to the truth—one example: the Meme, it doesn’t really exist but it’s really helpful when explaining social events.
And you always inject your personal cultural baggage—garbage?—specially when dealing with the truly fantastic. So if an Amazonian shaman has visions of serpents when ingesting Ayahuasca, a PhD might have visions of DNA strands; who is closer to the truth? maybe none of them.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“Ok, so you wanted me to assume that we could live in a world where the UFO mystery was already solved…”
Exactly and yet you still didn’t answer the question. This is the third time you have dodged and evaded this question. Again, what would the consequences be for the UFO community or yourself if the UFO phenomenon were truly solved many years ago, only no one wanted to admit it?
“How can I move the goalposts, if we first don’t determine the limits of the game court?”
Now you are resorting to the logical fallacy of moving the limits of the game court. By trying to distort the subject so much that it becomes vague and uncertain, one can pretend any one thing about the subject as being ‘truth’, no matter how far-fetched or ludicrous it actually is. Furthermore, no one can tell us that they can or cannot understand a subject that they cannot even define or describe…
‘While I understand fibonomics, I do not understand confabology’
‘Can you define and describe what fibonomics or confabology is?’
‘Sorry, I have no clue’
‘How can you say you can or cannot understand something when you do not even know what it is you are talking about?’
I hope that sounds ludicrous because that is exactly what it is.
“Before going about solving the UFO riddle, we should have a coherent & universal definition of what a UFO is”
So the UFO phenomenon a free-for-all where anything goes. Can something be real or truth yet allow one to randomly pick and choose whatever one feels like believing in about it? No, so when a particular community resorts to defining and redefining a subject to their every whim, it becomes a slippery free-for-all psuedoscientific flea market, and not an honest pursuit of truth. Besides, last time I looked, there was a coherent and universal SCIENTIFIC definition of UFO and it was Unidentified Flying Object. In one way or another, everything in the UFO world derives from that original definition. Only the non-scientific and illogical types constantly change the definition so it will conform to their personal viewpoints.
“Agreed, but the thing is that Science would be meaningless if it didn’t try to give an explanation for a particular natural event”
Then science is meaningless…so what?
“We all need to explain things, and for that we create…[things that] doesn’t really exist but it’s really helpful when explaining social events”
Invisible pink elephants can explain just as much as memes or God or thetans can, but what can explain the complete and total lack of evidence of the existence of invisible pink elephants, memes, Gods, or thetans? If a fantasy is well thought out enough, it can explain anything but the fantasy itself is illogical and unscientific, therefore the only logically proper thing to do is to dismiss such ideas.
“So if an Amazonian shaman has visions of serpents when ingesting Ayahuasca, a PhD might have visions of DNA strands; who is closer to the truth? maybe none of them”
Accidentally finding the truth is not a very reliable or efficient way to find the truth, as history has demonstrated time and time again. Better stick to what is logical and rational, instead of ludicrous and illegal.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:37 am
“Exactly and yet you still didn’t answer the question. This is the third time you have dodged and evaded this question. Again, what would the consequences be for the UFO community or yourself if the UFO phenomenon were truly solved many years ago, only no one wanted to admit it?”
The answer to your assumption (because it remains an assumption) is this: on a general level to the UFOlogy community, they would still be preaching to their usual little crowd.
And on a personal level, I can assure you that if the evidence supposed to explain the UFO phenomenon was truly convincing, then I would still be interested in UFOs from a sociological point of view—i.e. as a modern myth.
But the way things are, I haven’t seen that evidence yet, so I’m still intrigued in the UFO phenomenon, as a more profound mystery that’s ALSO the roots of many modern myths; and possibly a couple of ancient ones.
“Now you are resorting to the logical fallacy of moving the limits of the game court. By trying to distort the subject so much that it becomes vague and uncertain, one can pretend any one thing about the subject as being ‘truth’, no matter how far-fetched or ludicrous it actually is. Furthermore, no one can tell us that they can or cannot understand a subject that they cannot even define or describe…”
Well, I certainly didn’t understand THAT paragraph!
Besides, last time I looked, there was a coherent and universal SCIENTIFIC definition of UFO and it was Unidentified Flying Object.
…Which can acomodate MANY things, from space junk re-entering the atmosphere to the misidentification of a secret military project; to something more… exotic.
“Then science is meaningless…so what?”
So what? Do you negate the role in Science as tool to find order in the world? Do you find meaningless the natural curiosity of our species, that enabled us to rub together two pieces of flint in order to make fire?
If you deny the human passion that fuels the impetus of Science,then maybe you don’t understand much about both human beings in general, and Science in particular.
“Invisible pink elephants can explain just as much as memes or God or thetans can, but what can explain the complete and total lack of evidence of the existence of invisible pink elephants, memes, Gods, or thetans?”
There you go with your beloved pink elephants, Sage. You just can’t wait to include them in your arguments, can’t ya?
Nobody is positing the existence of pink elephants outside the realm of social ideas. And frankly, to put UFOs in the same basket with them is just too simplistic.
“Accidentally finding the truth is not a very reliable or efficient way to find the truth, as history has demonstrated time and time again.”
Maybe, but that’s the way most discoveries are made. Serendipitously. Or maybe guided by an outside influence, who knows?
“Better stick to what is logical and rational, instead of ludicrous and illegal.”
Good idea. But then again, just how do you define the limits of what’s logical and rational, if you don’t dare to probe the borders of irrationality once in a while?
Besides, logical and rational are socially malleable terms. What we do in our daily lives would be considered insane by our ancestors of merely 2 generations ago. Likewise we’ll probably won’t be too comfortable with the habits and customs of our grandchildren. They might end up applying to themselves artificial or genetically engineered limbs, the way today’s adolescents play with tattoos or body piercing. Take a look at this, for example.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:40 am
I’ve responded your last post, Sage. But I included a URL link, so… you know how picky Wordpress is. Hopefully it will appear later in the day.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“The answer to your assumption…”
That remark in itself is an assumption, since you have not seen this evidence yet.
“If the evidence supposed to explain the UFO phenomenon was truly convincing, then I would still be interested in UFOs from a sociological point of view”
But you are not describing a consequence, but a reaction. They are not the same thing.
I would expect the consequences to be very serious. People that had all along been pushing their viewpoints on us will be exposed as liars, hoaxers, delusional, scientifically illiterate, opportunists, etc. What would that tell you about people from a sociological point of view then?
“Well, I certainly didn’t understand THAT paragraph!”
But I am certain you understood the dialog that followed that paragraph. Again, how can you claim to know or study something you cannot come to know or study?
“Do you negate the role in Science as tool to find order in the world?”
No, I only negate your implied claim that Science has meaning. Meaning is an imaginary quality, not a physically real thing.
“If you deny the human passion that fuels the impetus of Science…”
And what if I don’t deny that? Are you assuming that passion and meaning are synonyms? Are you assuming that Science and Scientists are the same exact thing? You are wrong if you do.
“To put UFOs in the same basket with [pink elephants] is just too simplistic”
Apparently you have never heard of Occam’s Razor.
Sage. “Accidentally finding the truth is not a very reliable or efficient way to find the truth, as history has demonstrated time and time again”
RP. “Maybe, but that’s the way most discoveries are made”
That is a viewpoint you will not find can be supported with any facts, but even if it could, it would not change the fact that it is still the most inefficient way or unreliable way to find the truth.
“But then again, just how do you define the limits of what’s logical and rational, if you don’t dare to probe the borders of irrationality once in a while?”
“Probing the irrational” has never been a valid method by which logical and rational arguments have ever been made or defined. What defines them is what always works in reality and in truth, without self-contradiction or being vague.
“Besides, logical and rational are socially malleable terms”
But we are not talking about this from a social point of view, but from a logical and rational point of view. That makes the social point of view irrelevant. Those terms are *misused* by the generally scientifically illiterate social population, but the scientific usage and meaning of the terms is a different story.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:06 am
“That remark in itself is an assumption, since you have not seen this evidence yet.”
That’s right. We’re both making assumptions here, to know the point of view of the other one.
“But you are not describing a consequence, but a reaction. They are not the same thing.”
I assume you ascribe to the definition of consequence as “a conclusion derived through logic”; whereas reaction would be a conclusin derived by reasons other than logic (i.e. emotions).
In that case, your judgement of my response is arbitrary, for how do you know my conclussion wasn’t based on logic?
“I would expect the consequences to be very serious. People that had all along been pushing their viewpoints on us will be exposed as liars, hoaxers, delusional, scientifically illiterate, opportunists, etc. What would that tell you about people from a sociological point of view then?”
But you’re changing your original assumption. If I remember correctly, this discussion started when you proposed the possibility that the UFO phenomenon could have been solved many years ago, and yet everybody would have chosen not to pay attention; so in that case all those liars and hoaxers would remain unexposed.
Now, from a sociological poitn of view, that fascinates me because I’m very interested in belief systems. I grew up as a Catholic and was taught all my life in Catholic schools; I no longer cnsider myself a Catholc, but that was not because of the classic religious apathy displayed by many people, but out of a serious personal moral dilemma: I couldn’t believe what I was supposed to believe without question.
And I can assure you, I try to apply those same principles to other areas of interest in my life; the UFO phenomenon being one fo them. I have not turned UFOs into a surrogate religion or anything; although I can certainly see many paralellisms between them.
“No, I only negate your implied claim that Science has meaning. Meaning is an imaginary quality, not a physically real thing.”
“And what if I don’t deny that? Are you assuming that passion and meaning are synonyms? Are you assuming that Science and Scientists are the same exact thing? You are wrong if you do.”
Very well, I think I see where you are going with this. You are tying to make a clear distinction between the people that pursue Scientific endeavours,a and Science per se. Based on that I suppose you’re correct in that Science doesn’t have to have meaning… which is perhaps the reason why it DOES have meaning
It’s like something a friend of mine once wrote: that because human beings were aware of their insignificance, was the very same reason why we were significant.
“That is a viewpoint you will not find can be supported with any facts, but even if it could, it would not change the fact that it is still the most inefficient way or unreliable way to find the truth.”
There are plenty of serendipitous discoveries: Penicillin, LSD, America, etc. Yes, it is very inefficient and unreliable. But since we’ve already established that Science need not have meaning, then why do we insist that it should also be efficient? The LHC has cost many millions and years to build, and perhaps it won’t detect the mythical Higgs Boson, or proof of other dimensions; if that happens, would we have the right to say it was all a big waste? Of course not.
“But we are not talking about this from a social point of view, but from a logical and rational point of view. That makes the social point of view irrelevant. Those terms are *misused* by the generally scientifically illiterate social population, but the scientific usage and meaning of the terms is a different story.”
Very well; forgetting about the social discourse about logic and rationality, please re-read my last paragraph on the LHC example to know my response. The LHC, or the building of a prototype Fusion reactor in France, might be a huge gamble, but they are not illogical endeavours.
Why couldn’t we apply the same logic with the UFO phenomenon? Studying UFOs is a huge gamble for Science; but is it an illogical one?
November 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
“We’re both making assumptions here…”
No we are not. I am merely asking a “what if” question. You are assuming that my question is based on assumption, but you don’t know since you never asked or researched the possibility.
A consequence is “the outcome of an event especially as relative to an individual”. To determine the outcome does require logical inference but a reaction is not a logical inference but a personal response. The DIFFERENCE (which is what I asked for but you did not provide) is one is based on inference while the other is not. The keywords of your response were “interested”, “on a personal level”, “assure”, and “intrigued”. Those are feeling words, not the words of a logical inference, and I didn’t ask you what you felt. “If” and “therefore” are two kind of words used in logical inferences, therefore your response was a reaction, not a logical inference. But that is okay. I know and you know that you were never going to answer my question in a straightforward and honest manner, so I did it for you.
“But you’re changing your original assumption. If I remember correctly, this discussion started when you proposed the possibility that the UFO phenomenon could have been solved many years ago…”
That it was presented as only a “possibility” clearly proves that it was never an assumption but a premise, and one of my premises has always been and always will be, “What if the UFO problem was solved many years ago?” and the other was “What if no one wanted to admit it?”.
“…and yet everybody would have chosen not to pay attention; so in that case all those liars and hoaxers would remain unexposed”
What I actually stated was, what if “no one wanted to admit it?”, not what if “no one payed attention”. No wants to admit it logically implies that we are presuming (not to be confused with assuming) that people knew of, were aware of, or had heard about a solution, but they didn’t care. These would be the kind of people who were not interested in answers, but in perpetuating whatever agenda they already had. That would logically imply that those kind of people would be exposed as liars, hoaxers, delusional, scientifically illiterate, opportunists, and/or obsolete thinkers.
“Science doesn’t have to have meaning… which is perhaps the reason why it DOES have meaning”
That is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.
“Then why do we insist that it [science] should also be efficient?”
No one is insisting anything here, but rather I am making an objective observation. The vast majority of discoveries were not made accidentally via serendipity, but were deliberately made via methodology. You are jumping to conclusions by citing a few exceptions to the rule as if the exceptions to the rule was thee rule.
“The LHC has cost many millions and years to build, and perhaps it won’t detect the mythical Higgs Boson, or proof of other dimensions; if that happens, would we have the right to say it was all a big waste? Of course not”
The only reason for building the LHC was NOT for finding other dimensions or the Higgs Boson, otherwise, by definition, it would have been a waste. The LHC was developed as a very useful tool for furthering science in non-speculative ways for nuclear scientists and physicists who regularly use such devices for their work. Finding other dimensions or a Higgs Boson was the most sensationalist potential use of the LHC that the typically MEDIA dramatized upon so they could sell more airtime and papers.
“Why couldn’t we apply the same logic with the UFO phenomenon? Studying UFOs is a huge gamble for Science; but is it an illogical one?”
There is no logic to studying UFOs, when the limits to the topic are vague and nebulous, and the goalposts are constantly moving. Studying UFOs will not provide a useful tool for anything else that actually is scientific either. It is a lose-lose situation.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“No we are not. I am merely asking a “what if” question. You are assuming that my question is based on assumption, but you don’t know since you never asked or researched the possibility.”
Ok… so, you’re making a “what if” question… that’s not based in an assumption… right (!?) o_O
“A consequence is “the outcome of an event especially as relative to an individual”. To determine the outcome does require logical inference but a reaction is not a logical inference but a personal response.”
But a consequence and a reaction are still both relative to an individual, are they not?
Sage, you can complicate this discussion with semantics all you want. We can argue the differences between “consequence” & “reaction” ’til Hell freezes over, my butt gets sored for sitting on this uncomfortable chair, or we both loose our broadband connections that allow us to check Wikipedia and other on-line dictionaries. Frankly, it’s starting to feel (is that a consequence or a reaction? knock yourself out!) as if you’re determined to maintain a negative attitude in this discussion; I’ve tried to agree with you on some points, but you have yet to concede anything.
“But that is okay. I know and you know that you were never going to answer my question in a straightforward and honest manner, so I did it for you.”
It’s so reassuring to know you know me better than I know myself, Sage!
“That it was presented as only a “possibility” clearly proves that it was never an assumption but a premise (…)”
There you go with semantics again! Webster on-line’s Thesaurus says both are synonimous. Maybe you should write them a letter
Your premise/assumption/whatever that “no one wanted to admit” that the UFO phenomenon had already been explained does not specify if the reasons of this denial are particular or communal. Surely many people in this thought experiment would close their eyes in denial for many different reasons. Yes, some would choose to keep business as usual to maintain their way of living —which in that case would be very different to the believers’ refusal to “see the light”, because the former would imply a conscious recognition that the UFO is nothing but a fairy tale; whereas the latter would mean a rationalization that would permit a person to preserve their belief system, even at the face of uncontrovertible evidence.
Either way the outcome is the same: a sad case of intellectual sollipsism by the person who was able to discern the truth about UFOs… and no one listened to.
“That is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.”
Relax, it was merely a personal observation. Without persons to make observations, or make scientific explorations, this ‘Science’ of yours would be as imaginary as your beloved pink elephants. Maybe that’s our ultimate function in the Universe, have you ever wondered about that? Or does your ‘cold’ logic system prevents you from wondering?
“No one is insisting anything here, but rather I am making an objective observation.The vast majority of discoveries were not made accidentally via serendipity, but were deliberately made via methodology. You are jumping to conclusions by citing a few exceptions to the rule as if the exceptions to the rule was thee rule.
“
The vast majority of discoveries were tiny incremental gains in our knowledge of the natural systems. BUT, the really juicy ones, the ones that made true paradigm shifts, were many times the result of pure chance/luck/divine inspiration? Yes, we stand on the shoulders of giants, but where are THEY standing on?
“The LHC was developed as a very useful tool for furthering science in non-speculative ways for nuclear scientists and physicists who regularly use such devices for their work”
Sure… those particle physicists are really among the least speculative guys you can find, right Sage?
“There is no logic to studying UFOs, when the limits to the topic are vague and nebulous, and the goalposts are constantly moving. Studying UFOs will not provide a useful tool for anything else that actually is scientific either. It is a lose-lose situation.”
I humbly disagree. It seems to me (and yes, this is the personal observation of a ’scientifically illetirate’ individual) that in all human endeavours (Science among them) the beginning of a journey is always plagued with shadows, uncertainty, and unclear goal posts. But the rewards at the end of the ‘rabbit hole’ can be either merely rabbit shit, or a pot of gold (I think it’s often an funny mix beteen the two). You never know until you take the first step, and stick to your goal ’til the end.
And with this I conclude my participation in this discussion. It’s been fun, Sage. why don’t we move along to the nex one?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 am
“Ok… so, you’re making a ‘what if’ question…”
…and you are still coming up with all kinds of ways to not answer it.
“But a consequence and a reaction are still both relative to an individual, are they not?”
“You can complicate this discussion with semantics all you want”
Maybe it is only you pretending to misunderstand simple questions? Besides, the question you ask above demonstrates you are the only one here trying to turn this conversation into a debate about semantics, instead of just simply answering the darn question. You are an expert at dodging and evading questions that you don’t want to honestly answer, so why ask you anymore? (That is a rhetorical question)
“We can argue the differences …but you have yet to concede anything”
The search for truth is about recognizing a fact when you see one and you have had none so far, so there is nothing to concede to.
Since you are still trying to twist my words around and dodge and evade this issue by deflecting the issue onto semantics or going off on a tangent, I will restate my original proposal and answer it myself…
Premise 1) What if the UFO problem was solved many years ago?
Premise 2) What if no one wanted to admit it?
What this is missing is a conclusion, so I asked you to be honest and tell us, what would the consequences be? I was obviously asking for a conclusion and you never gave us one that was related to the premises. You never answered the question, you are still not answering question, and you will never answer that question, so I will answer it myself…
Conclusion) It would demonstrate that the vast majority of UFO proponents are either liars, hoaxers, delusional, scientifically illiterate, opportunist, or obsolete.
Given the premises, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, but it raises the question of what incentive is there for people to continue in such a dire state and not want to solve the mystery then? No one has ever come up with a good answer to this that is honest, conforms to observation, and makes sense…except one. That answer is, there is no incentive to solve the mystery because they have a lot to lose in the form of book deals to be made, conventions to be organized, pompous speeches to be invited to, movies to be made, and the armchair experts to be self-christened.
The UFO community is like a bunch of spoiled little brats who want to play house and the grown up scientists don’t want to play with them. They want the scientific community to forget all that they know to be true and become gullible and ignorant idiots who will believe anything they say, but that isn’t ever going to happen. Then the UFO community whines and cries about how real science doesn’t want to take them seriously, when they cannot ever give a rational reason for real scientists who practice real science to ever take them seriously.
So what was the solution to the UFO problem then? That there is a historical precedence for the current UFO fad and history is merely only repeating itself. Read WHAT COLUMBUS ‘SAW’ IN 1492, by Bernard Cohen, Sci American, Dec 1992, pg 103, or read Carl Jung’s book on UFOs to see what I am talking about. The UFO phenomenon was solved many years ago — it was solved by psychologists. The UFO phenomenon is a psychological fad and nothing more. There is absolutely nothing else that can so elegantly explain the complete and absolute and total absence of any actual physical evidence for any UFO report ever made in the entire history of human civilization. Something that is purely imaginary or embellished upon will always fail to leave evidence behind that it ever existed as claimed — just like imaginary UFOs and their imaginary occupants always do.
By the way, just so you know, you have no idea what science is or how it is conducted. Science never operates on speculation or accidental discovery. Those make good cover stories for the press and those are the kind of stories you will be likely to come across, but they are exceptions to the rule and not the rule itself, as they and you have tried to portray it as being. Please research your topics out before inventing things about them that are not true. Might I suggest the University textbook, UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING by Ronald N Gierre? I still have my copy and am able and willing to quote from it anytime you are ready for the truth about what science is and what science does.
“And with this I conclude my participation in this discussion. It’s been fun, Sage. why don’t we move along to the nex one?”
If you say so, then I agree…current thread terminated.