Donderi on UFOs

[Wade]

even if a certain condition can be diagnosed and "treated" which drugs, in some cases the person "goes off their meds" which is not a standard case, it's usually unforeseen and is not a constant and not usually predictable therefore not really scientific.

 

[boomerang]

even though jimi was just using it as a figure of speech, I would say psychology isn't technicaliy a science at all.

I wouldn't blame anyone for taking this position. I would just caution not to underestimate the ability of this field to evaluate individuals and manipulate populations. Both government and private industry are prime consumers of psychological expertise. Whether this is a good thing or not, I don't know. But it's about much more than just treating mental illness. Even though a considerable percentage of psychology is indeed pure fluff.

 

[Burnt State]

But it's about much more than just treating mental illness. Even though a considerable percentage of psychology is indeed pure fluff.

If a lot of psychology is pure fluff then where does that leave psychiatry (thinking of all my friends and other authors working in the field of anti-psychiatry)?

Our minds are unique spaces that do contain many predictable and patterned behaviours in response to stimulus. I lend a lot of credence to the psychological discussion that the majority of abduction reports are due to specific personalities and responses to stimulus under certain conditions.

I have read some occasional abduction reports by anonymous professionals not seeking $ or notoriety though that are truly perplexing. I'm not holding my breath for psychology to explain these, but as soon as I hear about the story being retold by the next generation one has to think either adults are unconsciously infecting their kids with the same narrative or something/somebody's actually doing science on people.

 

[Randall]

even though jimi was just using it as a figure of speech, I would say psychology isn't technicaliy a science at all. the other fields at least have a situation where the results are duplicated over and over...which I guess is a defining factor in what is and isn't science...1+1 will always equal 2 , mixing acid and bases will get you kicked out of science class and whenever the moon crosses in front of the sun you will get an eclipse of some kind.

psychology (my opinion, as I'm not trained in it) for the most part is still speculation , as is any diagnosis when it comes to the human mind, especially one that is not opetating on all cylinders. a person might exhibit the classic symptoms of a certain condition and may have some predictable reactions, but is ultimately a bit of a wild card when trying to determine what the end result could be .a rational mind is usually more predictable and therefore would come closer to being an exact science.

Actually you're right. There is still ongoing debate about the status of psychology as a science. But that wasn't my point. Unfortunately Jimi glossed over it too. It's about the methods that academics use for determining when it's reasonable to believe a particular hypothesis is correct, and there is a margin of error in every so-called accurate measurement, and therefore a margin of error in every practical experiment. When those margins are compared with other types of studies, and they turn out to yield similar results, but are refused to be believed then we know some bias is at work.

 

[Randall]

I'm not sure I agree there, for instance, take Roger Leir's alien implants: If they check out to be the same minerals as certain meteorites, that's exact enough for me. What is not exact about that, in your opinion? (Of course, Leir has only proved that 'aliens' seem to make implants of raw rock. Or that hoaxers do..)

When I use the phrase margin of error, I use it generically to express the idea that in all studies, scientific or otherwise, where all the actual parameters are not known with mathematical certainty capable of producing a true or false answer, we can never be 100% certain of our predicted outcome. Chemistry is only accurate in principle, but sometimes unpredictable reactions occur. I'm not a chemist but I was reading about something not long ago where the results of a particular process can vary as much as 30 something percent, even under highly controlled conditions. Sorry, but I'm not going to dig up citations every time we discuss this. You can check all this out in principle yourself.

In the meantime, accept that geologists still drill dry holes, weathermen still don't get it right all the time, the size of the universe has been reset countless times, cars still get recalled for engineering defects, and pharmaceutical companies are still getting sued for bad medicine. Science isn't always right. In fact science gets it wrong ( or partially wrong ), a lot. Yet the evangelical scientist will claim near God like perfection while pointing out the flaws in other forms of inquiry, and the skeptic will typically hail that material evidence trumps firsthand experience every time, but that's just not true. Lier's implants are a prime example. There's no chain of evidence from the point of origin of these alleged implants. They mean nothing significant unless when they plug one in it suddenly puts them on the blower to Alpha Centauri. On the other hand the corroborated testimony of independent firsthand witnesses can produce some powerful reasons to believe an event actually occurred, and the higher the number of witnesses, the more powerful the evidence becomes until it's easy to imagine it being better than Lier's implants, or even simply no longer reasonable to deny.

It is a common misunderstanding that mathematics is an exact science, it's not a natural science to begin with.

I never claimed math was a science. I said "except in principles of pure logic" citing math as a example.

 

[Jimi H.]

.. You can check all this out in principle yourself.

You're not dealing with my points, all I hear is 'but..'. I don't need to check anything out for myself.

..
In the meantime, accept that geologists still drill dry holes, weathermen still don't get it right all the time,

Yea, and I have zero problems 'accepting' that, as it's a given, your wording ('accept') is weird.

Did you read my last reply where I speak about what meteorology is? And why it can't be an exact science?

What's your point though, what are we getting at? Scientists are stupid because they don't take speculation and psychological evaluations as reliable evidence?

 

[BlackRockLobster]

Great work, Jeff

 

[BlackRockLobster]

I'm solidly in the UFO = unidentified camp, and will fight the UFO = aliens camp. As I have been many years. Sure I enjoy the simple ETH, but there is not one phenomenon at scrutiny and thus no single answer

 

[BlackRockLobster]

That said I defend ETH as a possibility, and was an ETH believer before I matured in my thinking,

 

[Randall]

What's your point though, what are we getting at? Scientists are stupid because they don't take speculation and psychological evaluations as reliable evidence?

No. The above isn't what I'm suggesting at all. What I'm saying is that science isn't always accurate, nor does it always require material evidence in order to arrive at a reasonably certain conclusion. However I've encountered more than once, those skeptics who think that science is always right, completely precise, based entirely on material evidence, and that everything else doesn't count.

 

[Randall]

I'm solidly in the UFO = unidentified camp, and will fight the UFO = aliens camp. As I have been many years. Sure I enjoy the simple ETH, but there is not one phenomenon at scrutiny and thus no single answer

I'm in the camp that makes decisions based on evidence and critical thinking ( as I have been many years ).

That said I defend ETH as a possibility, and was an ETH believer before I matured in my thinking,

The ETH is a possibility. It doesn't need defending unless the person who is refusing to accept it as a possibility has next to zero knowledge about present day science. For example some third world tribesman who still wears animal skins and runs antelope down on foot for dinner ... no wait ... even they'd probably get it.

I'm glad your thinking has matured, but it looks like it's still got a ways to go ( as does mine and everyone else's on the planet ).

 

[BlackRockLobster]

cool. I still think changing the clear definition of UFO is stupid.

 

[Jimi H.]

No. The above isn't what I'm suggesting at all. What I'm saying is that science isn't always accurate,

Off course! Applied science deals with real world situations where you are constantly faced with challenges, with measurement errors, polluted samples etc. So, identifying and assessing errors is a big, big deal in science.
If you don't acknowledge the difference between exact science and applied science, it comes across as if you're not sincerely interested in the science.

.. nor does it always require material evidence in order to arrive at a reasonably certain conclusion.

If you think that speculations are as valid as hardcore evidence, then I shall be cautious wrt. your conclusions on the topic. That said, if there are other facts surrounding a case, witness testimony is extremely important, I'll be happy to go with that. But witness testimony by itself, without supporting hard facts, well, that's not something I can do to much with. It may be true testimony, but how can I know that?

However I've encountered more than once, those skeptics who think that science is always right, completely precise, based entirely on material evidence, and that everything else doesn't count.

A concrete example is definitly needed for me to understand how this would play out.

Here's one case where I can imagine the problem coming up: Let's take the present Paracast show where a woman claims to walk through the wall, thus breaking all boundaries of what we call reality. If you're scientifically oriented you'll intuitively know that the witness is lying, or you're onto something completely and utterly world changing. You could re-write all science books in the world, if it was true. Please understand how extremely unambiguous hard evidence would have to be, for a scientist to even consider it, and most likely waste time with it.

Is this the kind of thing you mean, where science is too conservative and rigid, and just won't listen to personal testimony?

 

[Jeff Davis]

I'm in the camp that makes decisions based on evidence and critical thinking ( as I have been many years ).

The ETH is a possibility. It doesn't need defending unless the person who is refusing to accept it as a possibility has next to zero knowledge about present day science. For example some third world tribesman who still wears animal skins and runs antelope down on foot for dinner ... no wait ... even they'd probably get it.

I'm glad your thinking has matured, but it looks like it's still got a ways to go ( as does mine and everyone else's on the planet ).

Actually Ufology, this is where cultural sciences and anthropology show you to be completely mistaken. In all those times past relating to both primitives and semi primitives who observed anomalies in the sky, or even those that had possible one on one first hand contact experiences, they were in no way perceived as "technology". That's because those people knew nothing of technology. The ONLY reason we liken current UFO sightings to ET "technology" is because we have nothing better presently to project upon the UFO identity than our own relevant technological context. Just like the primitives we are merely using our temporal relevance to define the unknown.

UFOs = UNIDENTIFIED FLYING (even this is a best guess) OBJECTS. Logically speaking, changing the acronym's definition changes nothing. In fact it only serves to confuse the matter or usher it into the nearest church where it does in fact become a mere belief system.

 

[Randall]

Actually Ufology, this is where cultural sciences and anthropology show you to be completely mistaken. In all those times past relating to both primitives and semi primitives who observed anomalies in the sky, or even those that had possible one on one first hand contact experiences, they were in no way perceived as "technology". That's because those people knew nothing of technology. The ONLY reason we liken current UFO sightings to ET "technology" is because we have nothing better presently to project upon the UFO identity than our own relevant technological context. Just like the primitives we are merely using our temporal relevance to define the unknown.

UFOs = UNIDENTIFIED FLYING (even this is a best guess) OBJECTS. Logically speaking, changing the acronym's definition changes nothing. In fact it only serves to confuse the matter or usher it into the nearest church where it does in fact become a mere belief system.

Jeff. Your point on anthropology is well made within a certain narrow context, but my wise crack was broader than that and involved the following two ideas which I think make it reasonable to say "they'd probably get it". The first is that ancient primitive people are not unaware of the stars. Although they have their own myths and legends that use their own language, when they look up into the heavens to a sky full of stars, unpolluted by modern lights, they can plainly see that the place up there is somewhere else than what's down here. So although the specific word "extraterrestrial" may not be in their vocabulary, it in no way makes it reasonable to assume they had no concept of the stars and sky as opposed to the earth beneath them; unless of course they had lived underground all their lives, which clearly an antelope hunter would not have. Add to that the ancient myths and legends and I don't even need to get into ancient astronaut theories to make a decent case that "even they'd probably get it". In fact even if the myths and legends of beings from the sky are pure fiction, it means they actually got the concept before we did.

The second point is that the expression "they'd probably get it" implies it's been discussed with them, as in "So now you get it?" Ancient or primitive peoples may lack knowledge but they're not unintelligent. A person who speaks their language in conversation with one of them around a fire pit at night would have little problem getting the idea across. Perhaps they'd even have an easier time because of the absence of the stigma attached to the concept that would otherwise prevent their minds from accepting it as logical and possible.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The bottom line is that the U stands for Unidentified, the F stands for flying, which to me is just as big a guess as calling UFOs "great silver sky birds" or "air fish" or whatever, and the last letter O stands for object which even that word in and of itself is a little sketchy because many UFO reports corroborated visually from ground and air simultaneously do not show up on radar during said simultaneous event, and at other times, clouds minus real substance do.

 

[Randall]

If you don't acknowledge the difference between exact science and applied science, it comes across as if you're not sincerely interested in the science.

I'm an armchair science fan. I was reading about particle accelerators while the other kids went to Sunday school.
My first serious book was The World of Science a deluxe Golden Book:

Science is awesome and the old book pictured above still has a lot of cool old-school science stuff in it.

If you think that speculations are as valid as hardcore evidence, then I shall be cautious wrt. your conclusions on the topic. That said, if there are other facts surrounding a case, witness testimony is extremely important, I'll be happy to go with that. But witness testimony by itself, without supporting hard facts, well, that's not something I can do to much with. It may be true testimony, but how can I know that?

Speculation is interesting and useful in the process of critical thinking, but it's usefulness as evidence is obviously lacking. Extrapolation is marginally better because it requires a logical chain or web of facts to proceed from in the first place, but it can also be too nebulous for serious consideration. Firsthand experience and the documentation obtained from such experience however, is evidence. Whether or not it constitutes sufficient evidence is dependent on a number of factors. As mentioned before, it may alone be sufficient to conclude that an event took place ( e.g. multiple matching independent firsthand accounts ). Material evidence is helpful in determining the veracity of a claim, but the quality of that evidence can vary substantially.

For example we would have less reason to believe a claim by a single person who says that a ufo dropped a strange looking ( but otherwise insignificant ) metallic object which he has in his possession, than to believe a report by an investigator who is able to obtain matching reports from several independent witness. In the second instance we can be as certain as we need to be that an event took place as described, while the first could easily be a hoax.

Here's one case where I can imagine the problem coming up: Let's take the present Paracast show where a woman claims to walk through the wall, thus breaking all boundaries of what we call reality. If you're scientifically oriented you'll intuitively know that the witness is lying, or you're onto something completely and utterly world changing. You could re-write all science books in the world, if it was true. Please understand how extremely unambiguous hard evidence would have to be, for a scientist to even consider it, and most likely waste time with it.

A single completely unsubstantiated claim for anything obviously has little weight. However if there had also been a witness to the event, then the weight is increased a notch. If a hundred independent witnesses all saw it happen, then I would think that would perk-up the ears of any scientist. Let's also note here that when scientists see it themselves, it tends to be an opinion changer. One example I can think of in relation to UFOs is Paul R. Hill.

Is this the kind of thing you mean, where science is too conservative and rigid, and just won't listen to personal testimony?

Not so much that scientists are too rigid. Scientists themselves tend to be more open minded. What I'm talking about is the way science is used by what are called "scientific skeptics" during their arguments to imply that science is infallible while at the same time pointing out every weakness in human perception and memory, and simultaneously dismissing the strengths, to the point of dismissing it as evidence altogether. It is a tactic that I've had to deal with on many occasions, and it is a rationale that is logically unsupportable for the reasons we've been discussing. I hope that helps to clarify my position.

 

[Randall]

The bottom line is that the U stands for Unidentified, the F stands for flying, which to me is just as big a guess as calling UFOs "great silver sky birds" or "air fish" or whatever, and the last letter O stands for object which even that word in and of itself is a little sketchy because many UFO reports corroborated visually from ground and air simultaneously do not show up on radar during said simultaneous event, and at other times, clouds minus real substance do.

What you are saying seems logical, and that's why there's still a lot of confusion. But the fact is that it's just not that simple. We've discussed this at length already. If you haven't read the article outlining the creation, history, and definition of the word UFO, it would help you get a more complete and accurate picture of what we're talking about. If, after you take the time to do that, you wish to make some specific points, then I'd be happy to discuss them.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What you are saying seems logical, and that's why there's still a lot of confusion. But the fact is that it's just not that simple. We've discussed this at length already. If you haven't read the article outlining the creation, history, and definition of the word UFO, it would help you get a more complete and accurate picture of what we're talking about. If, after you take the time to do that, you wish to make some specific points, then I'd be happy to discuss them.

The definition for the acronym UFO *is* Unidentified Flying Object. No context, prior discussion, or even the glorious Marquess of Queensberry can change that. Any other definition merely acts as a map to an unfairly predefined coordinate Captain. You will find me one mutinous SOB on this one. There is NO debate here. Just the facts. UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. UAC stands for Unidentified Alien Craft. There is a BIG difference there Ufology. I know that is a difference you would like to see legitimized, but at this time, it is utter fiction to BELIEVE that UFO is synonymous with UAC.

 

[Jimi H.]

.. What I'm talking about is the way science is used by what are called "scientific skeptics" during their arguments to imply that science is infallible while at the same time pointing out every weakness in human perception and memory, and simultaneously dismissing the strengths, to the point of dismissing it as evidence altogether. It is a tactic that I've had to deal with on many occasions, and it is a rationale that is logically unsupportable for the reasons we've been discussing. I hope that helps to clarify my position.

Yes it does, I see what you're getting at. The true 'debunkers' who have no interest in the particular evidence of any particular case. They only speak in general terms and lump all cases together, it can piss me off too. Denial of evidence is frustrating, regardless!