Donderi on UFOs

[Randall]

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.

Willful ignorance of the evidence and logic is of course your prerogative.

 

[Randall]

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!

Thanks Jimi. Glad we got that one worked out.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Willful ignorance of the evidence and logic is of course your prerogative.

The subjective and arbitrary exercise of considering anything paranormal is NEVER bound by definitive logic or evidential filings. If it were, the matters would not be of a paranormal nature to begin with. The constitution of willful ignorance mandates an absolute in terms of a definition. You have none, although I do respect your beliefs.

Please do not make the claim Ufology that you know something definitively absolute about UFOs. You know nothing other than that which is based on perception. Perception is fallible so we certainly, apart from a sincere level of interest in the content of each report, no matter how qualified that reporting may seem, we may not consider as much to be "evidence". Why, you might ask. It's because there is NO initial evidence to consider from which we could further corroborate our expert's testimony in an effort to reach an accurate overall judgement. Without as much, all we can do is speculate.

Those things called UFOs (for good reason I might add) MUST reach a level of true evidential support in order for willful ignorance to come into play. At that point one could be accused of willfully ignoring what is an established fact concerning UFOs. Just ignoring the reasoning for your hypothetical argument constituting UFOs as ET spaceships is called one's prerogative. That's because, again, we are NOT dealing in absolutes but rather solely a speculative consideration upon which MANY hypothetical arguments may relate and apply to. That is until one argument, or none of them, are found to be factual based on the successful discovery of what UFOs actually are. Then, and ONLY then, will UFOs no longer be Unidentified or referred to as "UFOs". At that point UFOs will be referred to for what they actually are. Possibly they are spaceships, possibly time machines, or possibly that which we have never even conceived of yet.

For something to be of a paranormal nature, that thing or observation must resonate as existing well outside, or as the defined prefix para suggests, "beyond" the norm in terms of reason or familiarity. We have no absolute definition of that which is beyond the norm Ufology. That's why it's called the paranormal. Fascinating stuff though isn't it!?

 

[Randall]

@Christopher O'Brien

The subjective and arbitrary exercise of considering anything paranormal is NEVER bound by definitive logic or evidential filings. If it were, the matters would not be of a paranormal nature to begin with. The constitution of willful ignorance mandates an absolute in terms of a definition. You have none, although I do respect your beliefs.

It's been my experience that one should avoid the use of absolutist statements like the word "never", especially yelled out in all caps, because it tempts forces beyond our control to prove us wrong or out of touch. If I were to temp fate and make an axiom of this principle, I would say that the louder we claim to be absolutely certain, the more embarrassing it will be when we're proven wrong. Alluding to Chris' work, this axiom certainly fits the Trickster, and if I were to offer a second axiom, it would be "Don't tempt the Trickster!".

Returning to topic, it seems that our difference of opinion is based on differing contexts with respect to the subject matter. If you would allow yourself the freedom to look at this issue the way I'm trying to get it across, then you would see that it's not that you aren't making sense within the context you're delivering your argument, but that the argument you are making isn't applicable to the issue in my previous post.

Please do not make the claim Ufology that you know something definitively absolute about UFOs. You know nothing other than that which is based on perception. Perception is fallible so we certainly, apart from a sincere level of interest in the content of each report, no matter how qualified that reporting may seem, we may not consider as much to be "evidence". Why, you might ask. It's because there is NO initial evidence to consider from which we could further corroborate our expert's testimony in an effort to reach an accurate overall judgement. Without as much, all we can do is speculate.

Until we get the first part sorted out, we can't make any progress. Once we do that, then we can move on to issues of perception.

Those things called UFOs (for good reason I might add) MUST reach a level of true evidential support in order for willful ignorance to come into play. At that point one could be accused of willfully ignoring what is an established fact concerning UFOs. Just ignoring the reasoning for your hypothetical argument constituting UFOs as ET spaceships is called one's prerogative. That's because, again, we are NOT dealing in absolutes but rather solely a speculative consideration upon which MANY hypothetical arguments may relate and apply to. That is until one argument, or none of them, are found to be factual based on the successful discovery of what UFOs actually are. Then, and ONLY then, will UFOs no longer be Unidentified or referred to as "UFOs". At that point UFOs will be referred to for what they actually are. Possibly they are spaceships, possibly time machines, or possibly that which we have never even conceived of yet.

The issues you raised above are not applicable to the context in which the three points I mentioned in my previous post were made.

For something to be of a paranormal nature, that thing or observation must resonate as existing well outside, or as the defined prefix para suggests, "beyond" the norm in terms of reason or familiarity. We have no absolute definition of that which is beyond the norm Ufology. That's why it's called the paranormal. Fascinating stuff though isn't it!?

You have obviously put some thought into the subject matter and seem to care about it. That is why I think that you could really benefit from what I'm trying to get across. We're not so far apart as you might think. I've mulled over all the issues you're talking about many times before. So it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from. Specifically you seem to think I've drawn much more specific conclusions about the UFO phenomena than I have.

Where I'm coming from is an interpretive foundation that facilitates a finer filtering out of the noise. And let's face it, the less noise the better. Sometimes all it takes are a few more metaphorical pixels of lexicological clarity to bring things into focus. However your opening post was in such stringent opposition to looking at this view, that I don't know if it's even possible to discuss it further with you. But the door is open.