Damage Control - Ufology in Flames

[Randall]

That would seem the logical answer given what little information we have to go on.

Indeed, although there are a couple of folks who hang out here who might disagree . I'd also say that we have more than a "little information". We have thousands of reports that together make it reasonable to conclude that some of the objects in those reports represent UFOs ( alien craft ). Combine that with an unprecedented knowledge of what is taking place on our planet, the discovery of extrasolar planets, our own advancements in science and engineering, Ockham's Razor, and the ETH comes out on top every time.

 

[Gary W. Griffey]

I agree with your stance on "agree to disagree" for the very same reason. It is simply an out people use to stop the discussion, and it doesn't achieve much else.

And you're right about the PI thing. I was often reminded that it wasn't my place to decide guilt or innocence. My job was to get the information the client asked for, or explain why that information couldn't be obtained. It did teach me to submit to a higher authority for decisions, but as you so eloquently pointed out when posting this conversation, there is no higher authority in this field. So I do rely on my evidence to tell me what I'm looking at and to indicate where I should look next. That's the philosophy I bring to my paranormal studies, of which Ufology is the primary area of study. While I do have my own beliefs on some topics in the paranormal, they aren't based on evidence. They are simply conclusions my conscious mind has reached when considering these things based on whatever information I have. One thing I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around is that concept of a "reality." Defining what that is can be very tricky, and the popular Humanist philosophy is that reality is whatever we experience in the moment. While that might be good for the philosophical types, it doesn't do much good when every one of our five senses can be tricked. And then there's that whole psychic/collective consciousness angle.

But back to the original topic of this thread. I think that Ufology will always suffer from grandstanding and divisions because that is human nature. As I once told a basic computer class I was teaching, "The vast majority of the mistakes caused by computers happen because of the humans that either input the data or wrote the software." The human element keeps this on shaky ground, and it probably always will. Things like ego, confidence, and the propensity of some people to be ring leaders no matter what group they are leading will tend to always make things rocky at times. The development of standards in Ufology is a good idea, and I can think of three or four people I would try to recruit to be on the decision-making panel for those standards, but I think the answer to your question is that all of us in the field of Ufology have to simply do our best and present our work for the consideration of others and see if we can't just work together toward that all-elusive proof.

Gary

 

[stonehart]

Indeed, although there are a couple of folks who hang out here who might disagree . I'd also say that we have more than a "little information". We have thousands of reports that together make it reasonable to conclude that some of the objects in those reports represent UFOs ( alien craft ). Combine that with an unprecedented knowledge of what is taking place on our planet, the discovery of extrasolar planets, our own advancements in science and engineering, Ockham's Razor, and the ETH comes out on top every time.

Yes yes exactly this! The number of planets in the what amounts to a pin point of the sky that humanity has actually looked thus far for other planets shows to me statistically that there must be other life bearing world in our own galaxy alone.

Given that our galaxy is around 100 billion stars and there are trillions of galaxy's in the visible universe we would be fooling ourselves to take an absolutist stance as to Earth being the only life bearing world out there.

But hey we all know this, and like you the ETH comes out on top for me also.

 

[Randall]

... That's the philosophy I bring to my paranormal studies, of which Ufology is the primary area of study. While I do have my own beliefs on some topics in the paranormal, they aren't based on evidence. They are simply conclusions my conscious mind has reached when considering these things based on whatever information I have.

You sound like a guy who's got his head screwed on straight. Do you have a website of your own or any cases you can share? Are you a freelance investigator or are you affiliated with an interest group someplace? May I ask where you're located?

One thing I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around is that concept of a "reality." Defining what that is can be very tricky, and the popular Humanist philosophy is that reality is whatever we experience in the moment. While that might be good for the philosophical types, it doesn't do much good when every one of our five senses can be tricked. And then there's that whole psychic/collective consciousness angle.

Reality can be defined simply as, "the state of existence". If it exists, then it's real. But as I pointed out previously, there are two different contexts of reality, objective and subjective, each as valid as the other within their particular models.

But back to the original topic of this thread. I think that Ufology will always suffer from grandstanding and divisions because that is human nature. As I once told a basic computer class I was teaching, "The vast majority of the mistakes caused by computers happen because of the humans that either input the data or wrote the software." The human element keeps this on shaky ground, and it probably always will. Things like ego, confidence, and the propensity of some people to be ring leaders no matter what group they are leading will tend to always make things rocky at times. The development of standards in Ufology is a good idea, and I can think of three or four people I would try to recruit to be on the decision-making panel for those standards, but I think the answer to your question is that all of us in the field of Ufology have to simply do our best and present our work for the consideration of others and see if we can't just work together toward that all-elusive proof.

Excellent points. I might however add that the human element is a double edged sword. as much as it can be the cause of a lot of discontent, it can also be a force of reason and intelligence. The trick is maximizing one while minimizing the other.

One discussion related to ufology and computers I've been involved in revolves around two different views on how UFO databases should be structured. One view favors the inclusion of virtually everything to see if some unexpected patterns emerge. The other view is that garbage in still equals garbage out and therefore whatever pattern emerges from unfiltered input will be of dubious value, and therefore pre-input filtering by humans based on a set of standards would be preferable. I tend to favor the latter and am looking for researchers and writers who can create articles for our website that can be plugged into the search feature there. However the other option also has some intriguing possibilities as well, particularly if it were setup as a massive relational database. Ultimately I think both approaches are worth pursuing.

 

[Gary W. Griffey]

I would be considered a freelance investigator. I am not part of any larger group (other than this forum and have only done things on my own. I don't have any current cases to share. An apartment fire some years ago took away all that I had. I didn't lose much. I only had three cases active back then and crazy things happen to pause my paranormal research activities. I am once again at a point in my life that my pursuit of the paranormal can take on greater amounts of my time and attention. By trade, I am a locksmith and resident safe cracker here in Tennessee.

As to your discussion regarding a Ufology database, I can see the benefits and landmines in both of those scenarios. My thought on the first scenario is that you would get tons more information to have to sift through. My idea on the second is that you run the risk of not including a report that might have been dropped due to the inability of the person making that report to put into words what they saw or otherwise experience. While the first makes for a great deal more work, I think you get the entire picture--subjective and maybe even objective--from which to parse the data and spot the repeating factors that point to something significant.

I don't have a website or any online presence at this time. I am considering a blog (i.e. Tumblr, WordPress, etc.) as my little home on the web. I do have an email address that you are welcome to use: anomaliesinvestigator at gmail dot com Feel free to contact me any time via that method if you wish. I am here both to learn and to share what I have learned with folks who have an interest in these topics.

 

[Brad]

How much of the issue do you think comes down to semantics? Ufology makes a great deal of sense the way it's defined in your link, for instance, but I think I see it used otherwise a lot more. Or even the fact that there needs specific definitions to begin discussion.

I think the only real solutions to fixing such a nebulous problem are either coining a new term with specific meaning (though that's how we got to this point in the first place, hmmm) or to get enough of the highly regarded researchers together to define a system and have basically ufological peer review for any new research.

So basically, I guess it comes down to defined standards. There'll always be overzealous detractors, but this could serve to reduce that noise. The wacky fringe will get weeded out this way, as well. As to conmen opportunists, a thorough method of filtering would help that. It's certainly not a perfect fix, but nothing is. But enough adequate fixes together can make it much better.

 

[Randall]

How much of the issue do you think comes down to semantics? Ufology makes a great deal of sense the way it's defined in your link, for instance, but I think I see it used otherwise a lot more.

You might want to also check out the links to the associated articles in my signature line, or just start with the word UFO, because the article traces the word back to its origins and follows the official and unofficial definitions and usage from then until the present, and it's that evidence combined with the need to establish a solid foundation from which to proceed, that the definition of UFO is based upon.

I think the only real solutions to fixing such a nebulous problem are either coining a new term with specific meaning (though that's how we got to this point in the first place, hmmm) or to get enough of the highly regarded researchers together to define a system and have basically ufological peer review for any new research.

I tried going the route of a new term, but after a couple of different attempts, further study, and the application of critical thinking to the nature of the problem, concluded that retaining the word UFO and establishing a clear and unambiguous definition based on the evidence and usage was the best way to go.

So basically, I guess it comes down to defined standards. There'll always be overzealous detractors, but this could serve to reduce that noise. The wacky fringe will get weeded out this way, as well. As to conmen opportunists, a thorough method of filtering would help that. It's certainly not a perfect fix, but nothing is. But enough adequate fixes together can make it much better.

Abandoning the term UFO won't get rid of the "whacky fringe element", it will simply set back responsible ufology decades in terms of establishing an accepted word for the field. As mentioned in several other posts, the giggle factor and the whacky fringe element have largely been associations made by the media and skeptics in order to marginalize the field and disrupt serious discussion. So simply changing the name will only end up with cracks like, "Oh you mean flying saucers" and so on, which is exactly what Kean ends up having to deal with when she uses the term UAP ( which actually refers to something other than UFOs ).

 

[kellyiom]

so many good points here . I like this idea of subjecting research to peer review or making it more rigorous . It's been the very lack of those aspects which have created the snigger factor. quite brutal in a Darwinian way but maybe it had to happen in order to force the issue one way or another. Quality research will always out.

Ufology seemed perhaps to have had its heyday in the 60's maybe but with a new wave approach the golden era might well be getting formed right now. I think personal (but by definition not able of substantiation ) views should be respected but we need to learn and understand why a scientist would want to criticize the field.

Might be way out here but I get the feeling most sci/physicists would generally agree life elsewhere is almost certain due to the trillions of plants, even if our Sun is in the 5% best suited to life. After that, the two branches split off, science has the faster than light restriction and is impractical to visit Sol. In an ideal world , it would be great to see science challenging it and asking 'how come that is impossible , if I could answer that , it's got to be worth a Nobel !'

In any event it's almost incumbent upon science to ponder since it's an evolutionary exigence that we adapt to our environment or face extinction , this can only be really achieved by studying the implications of deep space travel.

Thank you all for stimulating the grey matter!

 

[Randall]

so many good points here . I like this idea of subjecting research to peer review or making it more rigorous . It's been the very lack of those aspects which have created the snigger factor. quite brutal in a Darwinian way but maybe it had to happen in order to force the issue one way or another. Quality research will always out.

Ufology seemed perhaps to have had its heyday in the 60's maybe but with a new wave approach the golden era might well be getting formed right now. I think personal (but by definition not able of substantiation ) views should be respected but we need to learn and understand why a scientist would want to criticize the field.

Might be way out here but I get the feeling most sci/physicists would generally agree life elsewhere is almost certain due to the trillions of plants, even if our Sun is in the 5% best suited to life. After that, the two branches split off, science has the faster than light restriction and is impractical to visit Sol. In an ideal world , it would be great to see science challenging it and asking 'how come that is impossible , if I could answer that , it's got to be worth a Nobel !'

In any event it's almost incumbent upon science to ponder since it's an evolutionary exigence that we adapt to our environment or face extinction , this can only be really achieved by studying the implications of deep space travel.

Thank you all for stimulating the grey matter!

Thanks for your post Kelly ... and welcome to the forum ! Here's a link that identifies some of the periods in the history of ufology: Modern Era of Ufology
Right now we're in what's called the Modern Era, and are headed into the Postmodern Era around 2027. However I still resonate with your sentiment. With the advent of the Internet, more people than ever are now interested in the topic, and it seems that there is a new social organizational structure evolving around it that is more like a hive mind, an awareness of millions of individuals loosely connected by invisible lines of communication rather than tightly knit groups of a few thousand sitting in chairs in auditoriums.

 

[kellyiom]

cheers, I never knew there was such a history , makes a lot of sense though. I suppose we're all guilty a bit of this but I have been looking for the big disclosure event when really , any massive breakthrough is ultimately incremental.
Just from a human level, whichever hypothesis you favour , intuitively you sense there must be something going on. If people see or believe in fairies it doesn't tend to attract anything like the passion whenever ufos are mentioned . The debunkers too have this amazing zeal to spread the anti-message .

Anyway , even if you could prove without doubt that Earth is the only planet to have intelligent life, that would be pretty mind blowing!

 

[dyingsun]

Tell someone 20-30 years ago about the concept of parallel universes with some kind of felt fire behind it, they'd probably declare you insane if you'd shout that out onto any street. Everyone on here knows there's something to the 'phenomena', whatever it maybe, some are looking outwards.

 

[Gary W. Griffey]

I have been looking for the big disclosure event when really , any massive breakthrough is ultimately incremental.

Hi Kelly! Welcome to the forum.

I agree with this ultimate conclusion. All of science has been incremental. While we may have an individual moment where we know something is real, the mass moment where the people understand something to be real can take a lifetime.