Thursday, February 23, 2006

Dickus Pratus Strikes Again
Have a quick read of this drivel from a couple of recent postings to UFO UpDates:
This is the end of a posting from Jeff Olson followed by Dick Hall's reply.

"The last thing we should do when faced with the inexplicable is to abandon logic and to seek solace in incoherent mysticism. On the contrary, that's the time to gear up our reasoning abilities - to apply even more logical rigor to the mysteries at hand. These same people who cry "paranormal" when faced with unusual technology today would no doubt, if living in an earlier age, pronounce a Ford Mustang to be a "chariot from heaven" (actually, some modern-day fans say something similar, but that's another story:-)."
"Jeff,
Very well said yourself. Absolutely dead on. The trouble is, at least I have come to believe this, that the New Agers don't even realize they are doing it. They really think they have an epistemology that is superior to scientific method. However, they often do betray an underlying current of anti-science which pops up here and there in their rhetoric, and that tends to show that they are spiritual questors looking for something superior to bad ol' science. They confuse bad uses and bad products of science (atomic weapons, poisonous chemicals unleashed in the environment) with the method. Indeed the approach does get badly misused all too ofetn, but that is a huiman failing, not a fault of the method. -
Dick"
Okedoky. Tell you what Dick; lets get rid of all those dodgy photos, testimony from witnesses who are too stupid to even remember what their names are, iffy videos and so on. Show me a UFO Dick. Go on, show us one. What's that you say? You can't? Oh, that's a bit of a let down - why ever not? Cos nobody's got one or if they have, they ain't showing it to you? Well that's not very good, is it? You mean to say that after 60 years you've got sweet FA to show for all your efforts? I'd have given up pal if I were you. Funny that though, isn't it. Millions have seen them in the skies, waved at them, photographed them, filmed them, but always, always, they are just out of reach. Like stretching for something on top of a ledge that's just at the end of your fingertips. Um. Wonder why that might be.
But OK then, lets do what you would like us all to do. Ring, ring, Oh gee, there's the doorbell. Let's go and answer it. "Why good evening Mr. Science, do come in. We've been waiting for you. We'd like you to look at something for us. You see, there's this phenomenon that we know is real because we can see it with our own eyes and yet we can't prove it exists. We think that inside those flying saucers there might be some little folk from another planet. Can you help us prove it? Oh, that's not very nice, is it. Piss off? Is that all you can say?"
Wonder why they're always out of reach Dick. Can't figure it. Advanced technology you say? Beyond our ken and understanding? Then I'm afraid it must be magic. It's paranormal. It may well be a physical reality but in terms of our current understanding and comprehension and development, it is not real for or to us. When it does become a reality, then it will shift from the ethereal to the here and now. But for the moment, it ain't real. And neither are you Dick.

5 Comments:

Blogger Alfred Lehmberg said...

Over at UFO UpDates, I responded:

I think science is fine for "spin", "rate", "charge", and "angular momentum", but I suspect it may err in setting itself up as the default arbiter of that which it has itself discounted, shall not credit, and otherwise complacently ignores.

Moreover,with regard to the ufological et al, science may be trying to look down the wrong end of the telescope.

Consider. Science presupposes entropy and heat death for all of creation, ignoring the accelerating tendency towards complexity and novelty of everything it is otherwise trying to measure or qualify... and blithely attempts to obviate the UFO, the UFO seeming to regularly, and so effectively, point up science's shortcomings.

I add that I am not alone in these thoughts... my thinking seems to parallel J. Vallee and the late Terence McKenna.

alienview@adelphia.net
www.AlienView.net
AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/

Sunday, 26 February, 2006  
Blogger My mother says said...

We are not alone http://www.bestufopictures.com/

Tuesday, 28 February, 2006  
Blogger Podder said...

It's hard to argue with this,

"I think science is fine for "spin", "rate", "charge", and "angular momentum", but I suspect it may err in setting itself up as the default arbiter of that which it has itself discounted, shall not credit, and otherwise complacently ignores."

or from the original posting, this,

"You see, there's this phenomenon that we know is real because we can see it with our own eyes and yet we can't prove it exists. We think that inside those flying saucers there might be some little folk from another planet. Can you help us prove it? Oh, that's not very nice, is it. Piss off?"

Science can't be divorced from those who'd practice it. It never has been. It's simply an attempt to be as objective as possible. In the case of UFO sightings or abduction, it's doing a miserable job, (when the job is attempted at all), of examining that which is "just at the end of their fingertips."

Doesn't Stan The Man say scientific discoveries are made by doing things differently? And _that_ is all about personality and much less about scientific method.

Saturday, 04 March, 2006  
Blogger Stuart said...

Alfred,

Your first paragraph says it all, quite frankly. Succinctly put.

Monday, 06 March, 2006  
Blogger Stuart said...

Hello Podder,

I think you get it right with your last paragraph. Scientists need to look outside the box to tackle a subject like this and few are prepared to do so or are able to do so.

Whats needed is anothere NIDS and a Mr. Bigelow but this time bigger still and more open and accessible. If only we could persuade Paul Allen that he is wasting his time with SETI and would achieve better results looking at the evidence that we've got then we might get somewhere.

When you consider some of the crack pot schemes that some philathropists have donated their funds towards, then it is a surprise that no one has stepped forward for Ufology. Perhaps its not crack pot enough!

Monday, 06 March, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home