“The Truth” About UFOs
Many people believe that the TRUTH about UFOs is “out there.” This “out there” is apparently in government files, or in space, or on another planet, or in books, or all of these things.
The obvious problem with this is that the truths are manyfold. It also depends on how you arrive at this Truth. In the UFO arena especially, the Truth is usually what people decide before they have begun looking, and in many cases, without looking at all. This sort of behavior is almost standard with any subject that emotion-based thinkers tend to encounter. “What the thinker thinks, the prover proves” as Robert Anton Wilson said. This of course applies to the scientific fundamentalist as well. Many UFO enthusiasts may be vaguely comfortable with careful speculation, but woe be to anyone who suggests that a reviled skeptic may have a point.
What we seem to have with the UFO subject is a vast data pool of strange occurrences, hundreds of which are well-documented and reported by multiple, reliable witnesses. This should indicate that there is something here worthy of scientific and philosophical scrutiny. UFOs do not stand up to our codified rules for proof, but that may partially be the fault of the rules–derived from our language, our emotional makeup and our senses.
It is reasonably safe to state that there is no reliable proof that UFOs and aliens are coming here from other planets and galaxies, but that doesn’t stop people from believing it. There’s nothing wrong with this, until the sort of person that believes this as Truth begins to irrationally and fervently defend it against those who suggest that the belief is without a factual foundation. The extraterrestrial hypothesis is based on what we expect, not on what has been proven to be true. It is mainly derived from inference and cultural references to aliens. It’s what we’re supposed to think, so it finds easy acceptance, and some UFO researchers continually look for evidence of its veracity.
Some abductees say that their captors told them that they come from other star systems, but until one of these aliens takes one of us (or preferably a few cultural and/or scientific icons) on a ride, with news media at the liftoff point, we are stuck with unverifiable stories, and these “aliens” may be lying. While many of the accounts are interesting, and some contain elements that make us question the direction we’re taking and our place in the universe, most, if not all of these issues have been dealt with by humans already.
That leaves us with the question of non-human intelligence visiting this planet. Based on the evidence, something is happening, but to assume that extraterrestrial aliens are taking people out of their beds and engaging in secret deals with world governments is likely taking things too far.
The problem with the UFO question is that like many areas of inquiry, the right questions need to be asked. What sort of truth are we asking for? Here are a few questions:
What accounts for the variety of UFO shapes?
Why does there seem to be less variety in reported aliens now as opposed to the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s?
Why do people seem to have alien abduction experiences after ingesting the psychedelic drug DMT?
If aliens are so advanced, why do they need to abduct people over and over to harvest our DNA? (Same for cattle mutilations.)
How do we come to our views of what an alien civilization may be doing here when all we have is our own species and its ideas to refer to?
Why was there cultural difference in the reported appearance of aliens in the early years (1940s-70s)?
If a UFO lands in the forest and there is no one to see it, was it actually there? 
There is a real phenomenon that we’re interested in here, but there is probably more than one reason that it interacts with us, and within that interaction may be part of the answer.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 at 12:06 am and is filed under Beliefs, UFOlogists, UFOlogy, UFOmystic Exclusive, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Problems »
- Ufology: What’s The Point? »
- UFO Disclosure Imminent (Not) »
- Alien Worlds 4 »
- Vote For “Hall of Fame” Ufologists »
|
May 28 2008 
May 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
“All proofs inevitably lead to propositions which have no proof. All things are known because we want to believe in them.”
Excerpt from ‘Children of Dune’, by Frank Herbert.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“The truth is out there but so are the lies” (Scully from THE XFILES)
The problem is that people are generally incapable of being able to tell the difference between a lie and a truth. I still remember one of the biggest reasons we went to Iraq to fight a war was because someone mistook an Ice Cream Truck for a Mobile Biological Warfare Factory or some such nonsense. People will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous, if the right person says it is so. Is there anything to be done about it? Probably not, but one can sure hope.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
This reminds me of Kimball’s recent blog post but then he moderates so what’s the point of commenting? haha. At least he admits he’s elitist.
Still I’m with these comments — “violation of logic is not proof” is the classic Hynek quote which I believe needs to be reversed: Logic does not need proof.
The most radical logic is the “self-transcending” nature of “I,” so that we can infer it’s source as pure consciousness. The process of logical inference is listening while the West relies on visual measurements using “symmetry.”
So, as per Kimball, there’s a good reason science can’t “prove” any of this stuff — because science relies on the wrong paradigm of logic. My schtick is that nonwestern music provides the correct paradigm but that it also goes the opposite direction as civilization.
There is a method to the madness which I describe in my blogbook.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The Truth is a million-eyed monster. It is hidden in all animals and selves.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Logic simply is the resolution of the ambiguity of statements. There is no other kind of logic. Period.
You cannot (mis)use logic to try and prove if a given premise is true or false, but you can prove if the deduction from a set of given premises is true or false. Science provides a welcomed extension to logic — if a premise cannot be backed up with valid data, that premise is invalid. The end.
The HARRY POTTER series is logically consistent and logically correct given the premises that the story stands on, but that obviously does not mean that any of those premises are true. Does magick exist? There is absolutely no evidence for that therefore HARRY POTTER is irrelevant to science. Likewise, the UFO series is (sometimes) logically consistent and logically correct given the premises that the stories stand on, but that obviously does not mean that any of those premises are true. Do the visitors and their vehicles exist? There is no evidence for that therefore that is why UFOs are irrelevant to science. They will remain that way until someone comes up with some real evidence instead of the continual over-dramatized fairytales they feed us now.
Show us a visitor or show us evidence of a visitor or their vehicles, but don’t expect thinking people to believe in any storytale about the visitors, no matter how well told it is. It wouldn’t be the intelligent thing to do. Speaking of thinking, don’t you think that if the visitors are so intent on looking like they are transparent to reality, why wouldn’t you want to give them their wish and treat them that way, since for all practical purposes, being transparent to reality is exactly the same thing as not existing?
People cannot see Truth because they have hidden themselves away from it, not because it is hidden away from them. The Truth is freely available to all who are brave enough to partake of it, but the problem is that people would rather be comforted by a Lie then hurt by the Truth, so they continually hide themselves away from it by seeking Lies.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. “She sings beautifully.” “He is a good man.” “I love you.” These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.”
William D. Phillips, Nobel Laureate.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Well I just read the ETH response to Greg’s blog post. It’s really sad to see “science” as some sort of “rational” or “objective” worldview. So the blogger states that science would enable us to travel to “their” planet therefore we can infer that aliens would use science to travel to our planet. That has to be the most circular reasoning on the planet!
As for what I said about the difference between logic and proof, relying on Hynek’s statement, “Violation of logic is not proof,” consider this comment from Betrand Russell:
“Thus irrationals are not proved to exist but may be merely convenient fictions to describe the relations of the a’s and b’s.” (p. 282, The Principles of Mathematics).
Now “irrationals” happen to be the foundation of science — yet even “irrationals are not proved to exist.”
So, therefore science does not exist and if science does not exist then there’s no way in hell that aliens could use science to travel to this planet.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
UFOs indicate that something is wrong with reality itself. Concepts like proof and truth will not solve this problem.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
0uterj0in,
“UFOs indicate that something is wrong with reality itself.”
…or our concept of it.
Your comment may be the only “truth” that we can hang onto at this point!
May 30th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Long time no type, Greg–been really busy–but just wanted to pop in and say hi! And I’ve missed these great posts of yours…another good thought-provoking muse. I love reading your stuff.
I sort of subscribe to the theory that culture shapes what we see, and what we see in turn shapes culture. There’s something going on, but we can’t tell exactly what because people see what they expect to see. And in the present day culture, if a strange light flies overhead, we expect aliens, and then they show up in our bedrooms. Just like the Chinese saw dragons in the sky and Dark Age Europe saw witches.
So the closest I can come to an explanation of UFOs is that they’re definitely a real phenomenon, but it might be impossible to determine their actual shape…and perhaps they HAVE no actual shape, perhaps they depend on our current cultural perspective and without us are nothing.
Wow, I’d forgotten how neat it was discussing stuff like this. I shall have to make time to pop in here more often.
~Y
May 30th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific…[they] are not the only useful way of looking at life”
No one has stated any requirements that every statement be scientific, but if you want to continue to talk about the pursuit of truth, only scientific statements can tell you that. No matter how rational or important your statements may be, they are completely off course in the pursuit of truth because no other method comes even close to working better at giving demonstrable results for knowing reality as it actually is than scientific ones.
“Therefore science does not exist and if science does not exist then there’s no way in hell that aliens could use science to travel to this planet.
Just because mathematical constructs do not physically exist does not prove that physical constructs do not physically exist either. Mathematics is a descriptive language, not a science, therefore your argument is invalid.
“UFOs indicate that something is wrong with reality itself. Concepts like proof and truth will not solve this problem”
What problem? There is no problem with something that cannot be demonstrated to exist to begin with. Likewise, there is nothing to explain where nothing can be demonstrated to exist to begin with. The only demonstrable thing that can be proven to exist in regards to UFOs are reports of UFOs, and not evidence of the things reported.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Sage, how do you scientifically prove and measure things like LOVE. And don’t tell me that’s not a big part of reality… or you’re gonna make me cry
Have a good weekend.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Sage looks like you stepped in it big time. Let me give you a basic lesson in logic. Here’s what you typed:
“Just because mathematical constructs do not physically exist does not prove that physical constructs do not physically exist either. Mathematics is a descriptive language, not a science, therefore your argument is invalid.”
You have made an “error of logical type” by trying to classify mathematics as “not a science.” You logically imply that there are different types of science (which is blatantly obvious) and that math is not a type of science (again blatantly obvious). What you want to ignore is that ALL TYPES OF SCIENCE ARE BASED ON MATH.
So if we want to use science to “prove” that aliens exist and also to reverse-engineer the logic to argue that since science exists therefore aliens must use science to travel here — we need to admit that science as a whole relies on math and that aliens therefore already rely on math to travel here.
But, as you’ve just read, a top mathematician and logician admits straight up that the foundation of math is “not proven.” So if the foundation for all science, the basis of math, is not proven, then how can we use science to prove that aliens exist, much less assume that aliens use science (and math) to travel here?
Ahh it’s all so simple yet science is just a huge cult — for example there’s only 20 years of freshwater on the planet. Science obviously exists as “physical reality” but just what kind of reality is it?
May 30th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“The only demonstrable thing that can be proven to exist in regards to UFOs are reports of UFOs, and not evidence of the things reported.” But why stop there? Why not claim the reports themselves cannot be proven to exist? Or perhaps this comment thread doesn’t really exist? You’ve anchored your doubt at an arbitrary point in the rabbit hole.
I’m peering further in, presuming the credible witnesses see what they say the see, and speculating thus: 1) The things that UFOs and aliens do are difficult in objective reality, but are easy to do in virtual reality. 2) Their actions are more comprehendible as entities who have “admin access” to reality than as visitors from another planet. 3) The ridiculous amounts of personal significance that many encounters are freighted with suggests that about 90% of the observable phenomenon are being generated out of our minds, as a kind of coping mechnanism for being exposed to external data that we are unable to process.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:57 am
“How do you scientifically prove and measure things like LOVE”
Scientists do not call it love, they call it “affectional systems”. Science has proved there are many different types of love and the intensity or motivational drive has been measured. I would suggest reading the university textbook “Learning to Love” by Harry F Harlow for more information on this, but this is all irrelevant since studying UFOs are not like studying love and don’t try to tell me that they are the same thing.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:36 am
“Sage looks like you stepped in it big time. Let me give you a basic lesson in logic”
If you cannot see the blatant logical flaw in your own arguments, you have no place trying to teach logic to someone else when you have no clue what it is yourself. Your “argument” was that math uses an imaginary construct called “irrational numbers” and since irrational numbers are imaginary, therefore all of science is imaginary (read: non-existent). Just because irrational numbers are imaginary does not prove that science is imaginary, at best it could only prove math is imaginary and imaginary does not mean non-existent so your conclusion is ludicrous. Correct your arguments first and then you will finally be in the superior position to be able to correct me.
More importantly, your “rebuttal” is based on nothing but ATTACKING the scientific viewpoint rather than SUPPORTING the validity of an alternate viewpoint. There is a reason for that and that is, like I have said before, and that is because science has been responsible for producing, in the last two centuries alone, electric light and power, radio, television, atomics, the entire science of organic chemistry ranging from dyes to synthetic drugs, automobiles, airplanes — practically an entirely new civilization — whereas your alternate viewpoints have produced absolutely nothing in that same time frame. Science can stand on its demonstrable results, unlike your alternate viewpoints. It is as if you are naively hoping that if can destroy science with mere words alone, that the only thing left to do then would be for all of us to take you at your word that reality is whatever you pretend it to be. But your words are just that — all talk and no experimental demonstration, therefore your “rebuttal” consists of the logical fallacy of ad hominem and emotion instead of calm and reasoned logic, making your whole charade irrelevant to this thread.
There is only one thing we need to hear from you: what you have found that works better than science. Science may not be perfect but it is far better than anything you can offer in its place.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:51 am
“Presuming the credible witnesses see what they say the see, and speculating thus: 1) The things that UFOs and aliens do are difficult in objective reality, but are easy to do in virtual reality. 2) Their actions are more comprehendible as entities who have “admin access” to reality than as visitors from another planet. 3) The ridiculous amounts of personal significance that many encounters are freighted with suggests that about 90% of the observable phenomenon are being generated out of our minds, as a kind of coping mechnanism for being exposed to external data that we are unable to process”
There are so many things wrong with that argument, that it is difficult to know where to start, so I will start from the beginning:
1) Credibility is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact, and
2) That credible witnesses are completely unable to lie or be deceived by an illusion, delusion, or hallucination.
In order for your argument to work, you have to pretend that
1) UFOs exist,
2) that we live in a virtual reality,
3) that this virtual reality is so primitive it cannot run all by itself but is so advanced that we cannot tell we are living in one,
That’s a lot of “what ifs” and no “what is”. Furthermore, when does the pretending end and reality begin with an argument like that?
Finally, you assert that
1) something that is personally significant is the same thing as objective observation, and
2) that fear is a coping mechanism.
Neither assertion is based on fact.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Sage, it’s a big world out there. Good luck — here’s a clue from Science this week:
“Munduruku adults and children spontaneously placed numbers on a line in a compressed, logarithmic function, such that smaller numbers appeared at greater spatial intervals. The study suggests that a propensity to relate numbers to space is universal, but that the mapping of successive integers and constant spatial intervals, as on a ruler, is culturally variable and linked in part to education.”
May 31st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Sage, the methods to qualify and quantify those so-called “affectionate systems”—I reckon using the “L” word is not so popular in perr-reviewed papers—are nevertheless flawed because they either depend on the subjective opinion of the test subjects interviewed—and we all know how much weight you give to subjectivity—or the subjective interpretaion of the researcher when comparing an MRI scan of the test subject’s brain. Bottom line there are things where scientific reasoning is irrelevant. Is that the case with UFOs I honestly don’t know. Maybe in some parts of it.
Furthermore, in your comments you always seem to give a monolithic perspective of Science, which i think its deeply flawed, for there is no Science per se. There are scientists who work by using such tools as the scientific method, but to try to perceive Science as an infallible entiy is just replacing one God for another.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:37 am
“The methods to qualify and quantify those so-called ‘affectionate systems’…are nevertheless flawed because they either depend on the subjective opinion of the test subjects interviewed”
Just because you say so? That is a bunch of pure, make believe BS. You have not and did not read the peer reviewed literature on this, nor did you read the University textbook I recommended. For example, list one of the methods used during a famous and widely known experiment with affectional systems. You do not know so how can you be in a position to judge any of it?
“And we all know how much weight you give to subjectivity—or the subjective interpretaion of the researcher when comparing an MRI scan of the test subject’s brain”
You have absolutely no clue how much weight I give subjectivity. I just simply know when subjectivity is appropriate to use it or not and that is confusing you.
“I reckon using the ‘L’ word is not so popular in perr-reviewed papers”
You are just pulling all of this nonsense out of thin air. Science is about being precise, not about being popular.
See what I mean? You do not know any of these things for a fact, you just “reckon” it to be that way. You somehow do not need to read any of the research or conduct any of the reproducible experiments, you can just judge the whole thing sight unseen.
“Bottom line there are things where scientific reasoning is irrelevant”
Your bottom line is clearly a self-delusion. You absolutely cannot *factually*, with reasoned *logic*, cite anything that is *real* and is irrelevant to science.
“Furthermore, in your comments you always seem to give a monolithic perspective of Science, which i think its deeply flawed, for there is no Science per se”
Again, just because you say so? You do not know what science is or how it is practiced, so why do you talk about things you know nothing about? The only kind of “thinking” you seem to be doing here is magical thinking; as if pronouncing things without rhyme or reason as being “deeply flawed” or “irrelevant” is somehow magically going to make them “deeply flawed” or “irrelevant”. That is not going to fly Red Pill.
“There are scientists who work by using such tools as the scientific method, but to try to perceive Science as an infallible entiy is just replacing one God for another”
I would rather try to perceive things as they are instead of what you wish they were.
Like I said, science is not perfect but you nor anyone else have an alternative that also has a history of working as science does. For being so “deeply flawed” and “irrelevant”, science, in direct contradiction to your blind faith assertions, has been deeply successful beyond humanity’s wildest dreams. Until you come up with something even remotely better, your logical fallacy of ad hominem is going to remain ineffective at dissuading thinking people.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
“Sage, it’s a big world out there. Good luck”
I will take that as an admission that you cannot find anything that works better than science. I told you so.
So my question is, are you that desperate to believe in whatever it is that you believe in, that it would cause you to cling so tightly to whatever flawed and worthless alternative method you currently subscribe to?
“Here’s a clue from Science this week: ‘Munduruku adults and children spontaneously placed numbers on a line in a compressed, logarithmic function, such that smaller numbers appeared at greater spatial intervals. The study suggests that a propensity to relate numbers to space is universal, but that the mapping of successive integers and constant spatial intervals, as on a ruler, is culturally variable and linked in part to education’”
The only one that needs to get a clue here is you. I honestly do not know why I have to repeat this to you, but SCIENCE IS NOT FOUNDED OR DEPENDENT ON MATH. Science is founded and based on objective observation and experiment. If math went away, science would still remain. Math is just an extremely useful tool that science uses to help DESCRIBE relationships of phenomenon. That is also why your argument is so severely flawed, but you just keep on blindly hanging on to your flawed “argument” anyway, so unfortunately your blind faith is of such strength that it has made you unreachable and unteachable.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Sage — hello? I’ve mentioned my blogbook on this subject several times already on this website. mothershiplanding.blogspot.com
So that’s a feature length discussion on UFOs, math, science, mind control, anthrpology, etc.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hello Drew. I have seen your blogbook and I am just not interested in patronizing your site. That is because I still hold firmly to my claim that you cannot and will not ever come up with a method that works better than science does. No matter how much you condemn science with all your psuedoscientific pontificating in your blogbook, science will always come through in the end and contradict your every claim because science has a history of working very, very well and none of things you discuss can make that same claim.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Thanks, The Sage. You raise some great points. Let me focus on one: “Furthermore, when does the pretending end and reality begin with an argument like that?” This is the fatal problem with the “virtual reality” hypothesis. It has almost *too much* explanatory power and cries out to be labeled as tautological BS, which you have done perfectly.
Plus: 1) I do not assert that something that is personally significant is the same thing as objective observation. What I meant is that we should not expect encounters with UFOs to have so much personal significance. The fact the UFO reports are burdened with large quantities of it indicate that the subjects are lying, or a second possibility: 2) Most of the content of UFO/alien encounters comes from our own subconscious, which is constantly weaving all incoming sensory input into a personal narrative, but *something* external to the mind is triggering the memory. I think what happens is that the mind is being exposed to something it cannot process. This isn’t just “fear” — I think it is cognitive coping mechanism more than an emotional coping mechanism.
And please, I am not asserting anything at all. These are all guesses, my friend.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
“Again, just because you say so? You do not know what science is or how it is practiced, so why do you talk about things you know nothing about?”
Wow, guess you didn’t have such a good weekend after all
And thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, since you already concluded that I know nothing about science and the scientific method, “just because you say so”. I’ve tried to have civil discussions with you over the past months but now the one giving “ad hominem” attacks is you. I do not try to undermine the general validity of Science (something you almost perceive like a personal attack) just question its pertinence regarding many big scopes of the entire human experience; just as I tried to point out with the quote of Mr. William D. Phillips—a quote I thought you’d care to read and reflect upon it since it was written by a very well respected scientist; in other words, a “thinking” people by your rather arbitrary standards.
So chill out man. After all, if you don’t like the tone of the arguments presented, or you perchance believe the level of the respondents is beneath you, you can always stop participating. Because if you really think your incessant repetition of the same old arguments is just going to “make us see the light” and repent from our errors, I think you may be gravely mistaken.
Furthermore, I find it fascinating how in some of our earlier discussions you had clearly stated that you considered the 1942 LA sighting as a genuine UFO case deserving of serious investigation; and yet in your later posts you have recanted and claimed ALL UFO cases are mere hoaxes or delusions. So which one is it? Is the 1942 case meritory of scrutiny as a bonafide Unidentified Flying Object or not?
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Sage — it’s nice to see your “inner demon” coming worth. Science works “very, very well” for whom? There’s a huge imbalance on the planet today — whether it’s quality of life issues, lack of water, genocidal wars, population explosion, epidemics — these are all products of civilized science.
Now you’ve repeatedly claimed I offer no alternative. First of all this assumes a dualistic logic — a binary thinking — which is still the PROBLEM. So what I offer is neither the alternative you hope to attack nor any other “solution” that is “final.” Instead the answer is to LISTEN by relying on natural resonance overtones, a system which is not closed, yet based on logical inference and consciousness that can not be measured.
By the way this is the prominent feature of my blogbook which demonstrates that you’ve never actually taken a look at the blogbook, as you have implied. It is not to be “patronized” as I’m not selling anything.
Nonwestern music is based on creating trance healing — orgasmic euphoria that exorcises the body-mind of the “inner demons.” It’s been used since 100,000 by humans and continues to be used, despite the destruction of harmony on earth by science.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“Science works ‘very, very well’ for whom?”
Obviously for everyone. Science is neither prejudiced nor biased.
“There’s a huge imbalance on the planet today — whether it’s quality of life issues, lack of water, genocidal wars, population explosion, epidemics — these are all products of civilized science”
No they aren’t, you are confusing technology and politics for science. Science is only the pursuit of knowledge — what you do with that knowledge is your problem.
“Now you’ve repeatedly claimed I offer no alternative”
And you still haven’t done so.
For example, you followed up this comment with more of your make believe “problems with science”, but you did not follow up with a “the advantages of an alternative method”.
“Nonwestern music is based on creating trance healing — orgasmic euphoria that exorcises the body-mind of the ‘inner demons.’ It’s been used since 100,000 by humans and continues to be used, despite the destruction of harmony on earth by science”
And what has non-western music done for humanity as a whole? Has it been responsible for producing anything like electric light and power, radio, television, atomics, the entire science of organic chemistry ranging from dyes to synthetic drugs, automobiles, airplanes — practically an entirely new civilization — as science has done? Or has it done absolutely nothing other than make one or two hypochondriac individuals feel superior to everyone else?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
PS — “Patronizing” is not an economiic term only.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Red Pill,
The reason I can say you know nothing about science and the scientific method is because you have DEMONSTRATED a complete lack of knowledge of science and the scientific method. It is not ad hominem because I am not using your ignorance of science and the scientific method as a basis for any of my arguments. I am just stating a fact and hoping that you will either be honest enough to admit you are just making this up as you go along or that you will be prodded into researching into the science and the scientific method. As of yet, you have done neither. If you like, I can post quotes from my university textbook on scientific thinking, if you are really interested in knowing what science is actually all about.
Other people’s opinions do not sway me, no matter how respected the person giving the opinion is. I am only swayed by facts, even if they come from a despicable person. Just because a person is respected scientist does not mean that cannot make mistakes or be wrong.
“Furthermore, I find it fascinating how in some of our earlier discussions you had clearly stated that you considered the 1942 LA sighting as a genuine UFO case deserving of serious investigation; and yet in your later posts you have recanted and claimed ALL UFO cases are mere hoaxes or delusions. So which one is it? Is the 1942 case meritory of scrutiny as a bonafide Unidentified Flying Object or not?”
I never “clearly stated” it was a UFO, I said it was worth investigating further because it was one of the extremely few compelling UFO storytales out there.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
OuterJoin:
You are exactly right.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
” If you like, I can post quotes from my university textbook on scientific thinking, if you are really interested in knowing what science is actually all about.”
Do I have to kneel down and have a calculator in the right hand while I read, or is it kosher to read it on your beed and in the buff? (LOL)
Chill dude, chill. Maybe it would surprise you that I read other things apart of UFO Mystic; in fact I’m quite fond of popular science magazines, that’s why I happen to agree with you when you state that “Science is only the pursuit of knowledge — what you do with that knowledge is your problem.” Of course then we would have to differentiate what kind of knowledge Science is qualified to pursuit, since a scientific claim has to be falsifiable and all that, right?
And at leats now you acknowledge that there are some—extremely few, you say—compelling UFO storytales out there worthy of further investigation. Now at least we’re reaching common ground here (phew!)
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 am
I can’t help but wonder what the almighty scientific sage is doing spending so much time and effort reading ufological blogs and debating with people who like to think there might be more out there than science has so far accounted for when he could be jerking off into a textbook…
Feel welcome to reply, sage, and indulge your sense of righteousness a little more.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
Sage — what you are practicing is what I call MALL SCIENCE. The basic methodology is the crying boy at the mall whose mom can never satisfy his consumer needs. So “science” for you is all about sticking your hands in your pocket, having a “gee whiz” attitude about technology which has been turned into consumer products, and then ignoring cutting edge science, like for example, “quantum chaos.”
So as the fussy little consumer (and by the way I’m not SELLING anything!) you insist that I show you a better product — but forget about you actually thinking on your own! No, no, no, no! I say with a huge joint swaying between my long dreads.
Ah Sage — what you practice is a long way from anything remotely called “science.”
And as a fussy consumer you ask — what has nonwestern music done for humanity as a whole? Sage this question shows that you are a “utilitarian” — sort of a Jeremy Bentham type — or JS Mills.
Why is humanity about “doing” anything? Let’s turn the question around — what has “humanity” as a whole done? And now you submit your gleaming list of shiny boy toys:
“electric light and power, radio, television, atomics, the entire science of organic chemistry ranging from dyes to synthetic drugs, automobiles, airplanes — practically an entirely new civilization — as science has done?”
Wow I practically cream my pants reading that phallic list of messing with Mother Nature fun! Oodles of goodness it is, if, again, you ignore, my list:
Genocide; epidemics; mass starvation; mass collapse of ecological health causing a water crisis, air crisis, soil crisis, food crisis; toxic destruction of Mother Nature; mass media creating a dumbing down of humanity so that life is sure mechanical druggery.
Sage — I’m not trying to undue history — nor am I even a moralist, although I do submit that logic is based on truth and false axiomatic reasoning. This “proof by contradiction” reasoning is also dependent on materialist measurements.
In contrast, nonwestern music relies on logical inference where the truth is an OPEN experience of pure consciousness. Science has “discovered” this truth of consciousness, beyond space and beyond time — in quantum physics. Of course this is ignored by most scientists but it continues to be researched by others. The fact is that pure consciousness can only by “pointed to” as something which can not be mechanically reproduced using dualistic “proof by contradiction.”
So nonwestern music — based on logical inference, whereby the natural overtones as complementary opposite harmonics, are LISTENED TO, as the source of sound — is a system, a practice, which is both beyond current science and before current science. Logical inference is a system that contains science as a whole and also contains humanity as a whole.
So you ask what has it DONE for humanity — but, again, you can’t DO anything with consciousness because we exist WITHIN it and we can’t SEE it. When we listen to it, as the source of the I-thought, resonating as natural overtones, this, indeed, harmonizes the energy of ecology and our bodies and our minds — but it’s not humans DOING anything, nor is it anything being DONE to humans.
A good example of this practice of nonwestern music is what the Chinese currently call qigong or “energy work.” My research discovered that in Taoism the concepts of yin and yang are the same as the complementary opposite natural overtones of the perfect fourth and perfect fifth music intervals. So these harmonics are listened to as sacred geometry resonating nodes along the body — with a practice called the “small universe.” This practice, featured in the book “Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality,” trans. by Charles Luk, is the same as practicing the 12 note music scale, but the tuning is one of natural overtones (not symmetric-based measurements) and the notes of the scale are points along the outside of the body-mind. Further practice then leads to the full-lotus body position which is based on the tetrahedron, as composed of 2-3-4 triangles (four of them) each resonating as yang, 2:3, and yin, 3:4, natural overtone harmonics.
This resonance of natural overtones covers the whole energy spectrum, with the basis of energy intensity as frequency — but again the harmonics are not symmetric measurements — as, conversely, is the case for all of science. So the basic math which combines symmetric measurements and the technology you refer to is essentially “mass squared inversely proportional to energy frequency distance,” as detailed in physic professor Gordon Kane’s book, “Supersymmetry.”
This means that science DOES rely on symmetric-based math, whereas nonwestern music uses asymmetric, or complementary opposites.
Thanks for asking Sage and good luck with your “science” shopping at the Mall!
Oh by the way, close to the MegaMall, is a qigong master with whom I’ve taken classes and his name is Chunyi Lin. Qigong master Chunyi Lin has taught nonwestern harmonics to tens of thousands of people, has his own healing center, and has successfully healed people of severe illnesses like late-term cancer, paralysis, M.S., H.I.V. positive, deafness. He’s been so successfully with cancer that he’s taught qigong at the Mayo Clinic, the top medical hospital in the world (and again in the same state as the MegaMall). Qigong master Chunyi Lin recently coauthored a chapter on qigong for the Mayo Clinic’s textbook on complementary medicine. The coauthor was Mayo Clinic oncologist Dr. Nina Mishek. Other Mayo Clinic doctors have recommended qigong master Chunyi Lin precisely because of his high rate of success in healing serious illnesses. Meanwhile qigong master Chunyi Lin is now certifying his current students to also teach his qigong practice, which relies on the “small universe” that I detailed above. Qigong master Chunyi Lin is also working with research scientists and recently completed an N.I.H. study on pain relief.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“Do I have to kneel down and have a calculator in the right hand while I read, or is it kosher to read it on your beed and in the buff? (LOL)”
Whatever turns you on :^)
“I happen to agree with you when you state that ‘Science is only the pursuit of knowledge — what you do with that knowledge is your problem.’ Of course then we would have to differentiate what kind of knowledge Science is qualified to pursuit, since a scientific claim has to be falsifiable and all that, right?”
No. Any pursuable knowledge is within the realm of science.
“And at leats now you acknowledge that there are some—extremely few, you say—compelling UFO storytales out there worthy of further investigation. Now at least we’re reaching common ground here (phew!)”
Just don’t be surprised if nothing ever becomes of those few worthy storytales or if there is nothing more left to investigate with them.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
“Sage — what you are practicing is what I call MALL SCIENCE”
And why should we care what YOU call it? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
“You insist that I show you a better product”
I insist that you give us a better argument then the lame one you have given here.
“Why is humanity about ‘doing’ anything? Let’s turn the question around…”
Let’s not, thereby keeping you from changing or twisting the subject around. I have said it before and I will say it again — pay attention this time — SCIENCE is about results. I did not say “humanity is about results”, I said science.
Science gives results and there is no other method or belief or philosophy that YOU can offer or has ever been offered that can give results too. I want to see RESULTS, not more New Age sales pitches.
“Oodles of goodness it is, if, again, you ignore, my list…”
I have said it before and I will say it again — pay attention this time — science can only show you the door, but it cannot make you open it. Since your list was given in the complete absence of reason or evidence, the only logically proper thing to do is to ignore it. Nothing in your list was or can ever be linked to science as the cause. Try greed or politics or religion or ignorance as the cause instead.
“Nonwestern music relies on logical inference where the truth is an OPEN experience of pure consciousness”
Haha! I always love to hear people like you trying to pretend that your blind faith beliefs are somehow rooted in the very thing you hate: science! You claim here that there was some kind of “logical inference” to prove your assertion but you “forgot” to include what that logical inference was and what it was based on. I am sure the inference was neither logical nor based on actual facts.
More importantly, there is no such thing as “pure consciousness”. I am experiencing consciousness right now and there is nothing “impure” about it. Either a being is conscious or it is not. Pure consciousness implies the existence of impure consciousness but that term would contradict the meaning of the word conscious.
“Science has ‘discovered’ this truth of consciousness, beyond space and beyond time — in quantum physics.”
No it has not. Of course, you can always prove me wrong by citing a few peer reviewed scientific journals that make the same claim you do but since that does claims do not exist, you won’t.
“This resonance of natural overtones covers the whole energy spectrum”
No it doesn’t, it only covers the narrow band of energy of the sound spectrum and it resides only where there is no vacuum. On the other hand, the electromagnetic spectrum resides everywhere, even in a vacuum, and it covers an infinite number of frequencies.
“This means that science DOES rely on symmetric-based math”
I have said it before and I will say it again — pay attention this time — SCIENCE is based on methodology, not math. In science, math is a language, not a method. Please try to show us where the science of psychology or biology completely relies on symmetric-based math and would fail without it. In fact, show me any branch of science that would completely fail without it. It can’t be done.
By the way, there is no such thing as “symmetric-based math”, there is only the symmetry of objects in the field of mathematics.
“Oh by the way, close to the MegaMall, is a qigong master with whom I’ve taken classes and his name is Chunyi Lin…and has successfully healed people of severe illnesses like late-term cancer, paralysis, M.S., H.I.V. positive, deafness”
Placebos have a history of healing people too. Seeing as cancer and other diseases can go into spontaneous remission, doing nothing has a history of healing people too. The only thing that would make Chunyi Lin’s method different from any other alternative method to proper medicine, is if his failure rate is documented to be better than a placebo or doing nothing. Care to show us where the records of his failures are, or are they missing or were never recorded to begin with? How convenient for him and you that they are.
If qigong exists, it was qigong that healed those people, not Chunyi Lin. Is he trying to take the credit for something he didn’t do?
There is no proof that qigong exists or that it has ever healed anyone. If you want, I can call a local TV station and have them randomly get a person with cancer and present it to your guys to demonstrate (or not) how to heal cancer.
“…[and] recently coauthored a chapter on qigong for the Mayo Clinic’s textbook on complementary medicine”
Just goes to show you can’t believe everything you read. Mayo Clinic is not a science organization but if it were, even respectful scientific organizations, especially medical ones, make mistakes too. Remember blood letting or the Salem Witch Trials?
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Listen, as I told you, it’s a big world out there. You’re approach of willful ignorance is a bit behind the times to say the least. Any academic database will give you plenty of solid science studies proving that qigong is very effective. There’s Harvard doctors specializing in qigong and studies are published in neuroscience journals.
Qigong master Chunyi Lin says his healing rate for cancer is better than 90% — hardly comparable to a placebo. As I stated qigong is just one example of healing using the principles of nonwestern music, whereby frequency as energy intensity resonates through complementary opposites, not symmetric-based math.
It’s pretty clear-cut. The results are that sound turns into ultrasound which ionizes the electrochemicals to create blissful heat, so that the serotonin normally stored in the stomach, then bypasses the blood-brain barrier, via the vagus nerve. After this occurs further ionization creates electromagnetic fields and finally light is produced by the pineal gland. When the energy is stored in the body and strong enough then the pineal gland will create a holographic laser which is transmitted via a signal as “pure” consciousness.
Why did I specify “pure” — because as I stated it can not be repeated using machines and symmetric-based science.
Just to bring this back to the UFO issue — I just finished FATE’s UFO SPECIAL book and there’s an article about top-secret “asymmetric” capacitors. So you get electromagnetic propulsion with lift as thrust. This is EXACTLY how qigong works — with the pineal gland as the smaller capacitor in contrast to the stomach where the electrochemical energy is stored and ionized. The fact that UFO technology remains a mystery is because the mathematics used is modeled by quantum chaos — it’s inherently unpredictable. Technology itself is out of control — only consciousness itself is in charge.
So, again, you focus on who is doing the healing — the qigong master or the person through a placebo. In fact it’s neither — the healing occurs because of the resonance between the capacitors, which, again, is enabled by “pure” consciousness. The same occurs with UFOs.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“Any academic database will give you plenty of solid science studies proving that qigong is very effective. There’s Harvard doctors specializing in qigong and studies are published in neuroscience journals”
Then name one academic database or Harvard doctor from a neuroscience journal that supports qigong in the sense that you have been doing. Your complete inability to do that will tell us all we need to know about the validity of your alleged references.
“Qigong master Chunyi Lin says his healing rate for cancer is better than 90%”
So he says but talk is cheap.
“As I stated qigong is just one example of healing using the principles of nonwestern music”
As I stated, there is no evidence that qigong or Chunyi Li works any better than a placebo or doing nothing at all.
“It’s pretty clear-cut. The results are that sound turns into ultrasound which ionizes the electrochemicals to create blissful heat, so that the serotonin normally stored in the stomach, then bypasses the blood-brain barrier, via the vagus nerve. After this occurs further ionization creates electromagnetic fields and finally light is produced by the pineal gland. When the energy is stored in the body and strong enough then the pineal gland will create a holographic laser which is transmitted via a signal as ‘pure’ consciousness”
Yeah, that is a pretty clear cut case of pseudoscientific New Age sales pitch that has nothing to do with showing us a method or belief or philosophy that YOU can offer or has ever been offered that can give results like science has. Nothing you’ve said has anything to do with logic, reason, or reality. In fact, it is quite the opposite…
1) Ultrasound and sound are already the same thing…or are you saying that Chunyi Li teaches you that sound turns into sound?
There is no such thing as a “holographic laser”. A hologram is a recording of the interference of two ordinary lasers on a single object
2) The body has no electrochemicals except for those which are in the nerves and any direct heating of the nerves is painful, not blissful
3) Serotonin is only created in the brain on an as needed basis, so it is never stored nor is there any need to store it
4) The stomach has no capability to store anything but food
5) The only place to bypass the blood-brain barrier is at the barrier where the blood and the brain meet, and seeing as the vagus nerve does not even enter the brain, it cannot be used to bypass the blood-brain barrier
6) The loudest possible sine wave sound in the world (190dBA) is not enough to ionize anything
7) The pineal gland has never been observed to emit any light, much less laser light
9) There is no such thing as “pure consciousness”
Maybe what you meant to say was that your car cannot do 60MPH with a doghouse that has wings because bananas have no bones? That makes just as much sense as what you just said and it is just as factual.
“Why did I specify ‘pure’ — because as I stated it can not be repeated using machines and symmetric-based science”
One can say that about any type of real life consciousness so what’s the difference between your make believe version and real life again?
“Just to bring this back to the UFO issue — I just finished FATE’s UFO SPECIAL book and there’s an article about top-secret ‘asymmetric’ capacitors”
If it is so secret, how come we know about it?
“So you get electromagnetic propulsion with lift as thrust. This is EXACTLY how qigong works”
Lift and thrust are not the same thing. Lift is a pull and thrust is a push…or are you saying that Chunyi Li teaches you that a pull is a push? Does Chunyi Li also teach you that black is white and white is black…and you believe him?
You cannot prove one make believe thing using another make believe thing. The contents of FATE are not an example of a peer reviewed scientific journal. Like most grocery store tabloids, it probably was mostly written for entertainment purposes only.
There is no such thing as “asymmetric capacitors” or “flux capacitors”, so that really is an example of EXACTLY how QiGong, Chunyi Lin, and UFOs don’t work.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
OK so here’s your response:
1) I refuse to search “qigong” in an academic database (available at any library) because I support science. A blatant contradiction I understand, but please bear with my special psychological needs here.
2) I have not read the FATE UFO Special book and therefore will contradict what you have stated it contains. I also refuse to read said book because I’m very glib about my ignorance. Nor will I just openly ask you for further details which could be quoted from the book, because that might suggest that I’m willing to learn.
3) The difference between sound and ultrasound, electrochemicals and electromagnetic fields is something called TRANSDUCTION and is based on resonance. That I don’t understand this difference shows that I don’t grasp basic concepts of science.
That about sums up your position Sage — a complete buffoon!!
I censored your 4th point since it was too dirty.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Here’s a Harvard qigong study showing effective treatment of cancer.
Author(s): Yan X (Yan, Xin), Shen H (Shen, Hua), Jiang HJ (Jiang, Hongjian), Zhang CS (Zhang, Chengsheng), Hu D (Hu, Dan), Wang J (Wang, Jun), Wu XQ (Wu, Xinqi)
Source: MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY Volume: 310 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 227-234 Published: MAR 2008
Times Cited: 0 References: 52
Abstract: Long-term clinical observations and ongoing studies have shown antitumor effects of external Qi of Yan Xin Qigong (YXQG-EQ) that originated from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). In order to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the antitumor effects of YXQG-EQ, we investigate the effects of YXQG-EQ on growth and apoptosis in androgen-independent prostate cancer PC3 cells. We found that exposure to YXQG-EQ led to G2/M arrest associated with reduced cyclin B1 expression and apoptosis in PC3 cells. YXQG-EQ treatment inhibited constitutive and epidermal growth factor-induced Akt phosphorylation, basal and TNF-alpha-induced NF-kappa B activation, and downregulated anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL expression. In contrast, exposure to YXQG-EQ increased phosphorylation of Akt and Erk1/2 in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC), and had no cytotoxic effect on either HUVEC or peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). These results indicate that YXQG-EQ has profound effects on growth and apoptosis of prostate cancer cells by targeting survival pathways including the Akt and NF-kappa B pathways.
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Author Keywords: Akt; NF-kappa B; prostate cancer; G2; M arrest; apoptosis; external Qi of Yan Xin Qigong
KeyWords Plus: SIGNALING PATHWAY; CARCINOMA-CELLS; 3-KINASE/AKT PATHWAY; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; CASPASE ACTIVATION; GROWTH ARREST; PC3 CELLS; BCL-XL; KINASE; SURVIVAL
Addresses: Wu, XQ (reprint author), Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Boston, MA 02115 USA
Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Boston, MA 02115 USA
Inst Chongqing Tradit Chinese Med, Chongqing, Peoples R China
New Med Sci Res Inst, New York, NY USA
McMaster Univ, Hamilton, ON Canada
Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
June 5th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“OK so here’s your response: 1) I refuse to search “qigong” in an academic database (available at any library)”
That’s a blatant and obvious lie. What I clearly and actually said was NAME one academic database that takes that supports Qi Gong in the sense that you have been doing. I know there is no such thing and your inability to contradict my claim by NAMING just one only proves my point all the more.
“2) I have not read the FATE UFO Special book and therefore will contradict what you have stated it contains”
I would read FATE if it was a peer reviewed science journal, but it isn’t. It is entertainment for the gullible and not the scientific pursuit of truth.
And it isn’t I that contradicts your blind faith assertions, but facts. All one has to do is read Wikipedia on ANY topic you’ve mentioned to know what you’ve claimed has all been pseudoscientific nonsense. For example, look up “stomach” and see if serotonin appears anywhere in there. Look up pineal gland and see if “laser” shows up there anywhere. Look up hologram and see if “holographic laser” appears there anywhere. The only place ANY of the nonsense concepts/terms you used in your last post appear, is in your blogs.
“3) The difference between sound and ultrasound, electrochemicals and electromagnetic fields is something called TRANSDUCTION and is based on resonance”
Not even close. You are claiming there is a DIFFERENCE between the three but instead of describing the difference between them, you proceed to describe what you think is in COMMON with those three things — once again using terms that are completely out-of-place and inappropriate for the definitions that are given to them in the dictionary.
BTW, humans are incapable of perceiving electromagnetic fields and transduction is a BIOLOGICAL process that is based on chemistry, not “vibrations”. Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of the words you choose.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“Here’s a Harvard qigong study showing effective treatment of cancer”
The word “treatment” does not appear in that article. Those are your words, not theirs. The article is exactly about what I have described to you before: the EFFECTS of believing something works (placebo) on the remission of cancer, but it cannot actually cure anything and it is random in its effect because the number of cancer patients who also practice Qi Gong AND have their cancer go into remission are very rare. Furthermore, what they have done is conduct a study, not an experiment, therefore their results are theoretical and not demonstration.
If you want a treatment that is proven to work and has a higher success rate, Qi Gong obviously would not be the way to go.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Reducing to bumbling semantics. Very nice.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“Reducing to bumbling semantics. Very nice.”
You should know, since that is all you have done so far.
Still waiting (and probably will wait forever) for you to describe ANY method or belief or philosophy that you believe in that can offer or has ever been offered that can give results like science has…
June 15th, 2008 at 7:48 am
“ANY…belief…that you believe in….”
TAUTOLOGY. Love this stuff. More please.