Off the theoretical wall

[bluecat]

I wonder if there are other theoretical models that can be applied to the study of ufos.
Most people put on the glasses of physics. They measure, analyze and try to take the phenomena apart. They ask questions that physicists ask. But the problem is, as J. Allen Hyneck pointed out, “We don’t study ufos. We study ufo REPORTS.” There is nothing to haul to into a lab and do science on and what we have, the reports, are made by people and subject to usual sorts of problems eye witnesses have.
(I know, there’s lots of trace evidence, but it doesn’t shed very much light on anything.)
Are there different lenses we can look through? Jaques Vallee hints at looking at ufos as control systems, but I’m not clear as to what he means by that. There’s also Systems Theory, Chaos Theory and Information Theory, all alternate ways to think about reality. Could any of these theories lead us to ask more productive questions?
Is there someone like Paul Davies or someone else who specializes in popularizing science who could talk about this.
bluecat

 

[Xylo]

You have got a point, and an interesting one at that. I think the rub is that the UFO phenomena is not predictable, or if it is predictable, there has not been enough money dedicated to studying certain "hot spots" to deduce the predictability.

 

[threed]

How would you propose that a new modality would help clarify the situation?

This is a lot like debating a religion. In the end, I think we need to (honestly) ask ourselves why we believe.

In the first century, people had: (1) emotional need to believe; (2) common unconscious store of motifs; (3) a developing infrastructure of belief-merchants; (4) witnesses of paranormal phenomenon... Eventually, their own sort of Stanley Friedman came along -- in the form of Paul -- and assembled it into a coherent structure.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I would actually say that currently, it is a matter of real investigative journalism where experts are called in to analyze any real hard evidence found to be legit. Because so much of it is based on witness accounts and much of the "hard evidence" is proven to be hoaxes or explainable as something else, an investigative journalistic approach can first separate the real data from the frauds, otherwise explainable and/or simply too vague before pulling the various sciences in to analyze it. Now, when it comes to applying science, I think because obviously the phenomenon is outside our current understanding, we need to incorporate as many sciences as possible and not work from one specific model... just go where the data takes us. I think a bit of a firmly grounded mystical approach should also be entertained as I suspect some of the answers may well end up coming from that direction as well. That being said, I stress that it should be firmly grounded and minus any dogma or flighty mindsets...

Hm, I almost think I should just hit "Cancel" rather than "Submit Reply" on this as I'm not so sure how valuable my thoughts are here. Oh well...

 

[threed]

I would actually say that currently, it is a matter of real investigative journalism where experts are called in to analyze any real hard evidence found to be legit. Because so much of it is based on witness accounts and much of the "hard evidence" is proven to be hoaxes or explainable as something else, an investigative journalistic approach can first separate the real data from the frauds, otherwise explainable and/or simply too vague before pulling the various sciences in to analyze it. Now, when it comes to applying science, I think because obviously the phenomenon is outside our current understanding, we need to incorporate as many sciences as possible and not work from one specific model... just go where the data takes us. I think a bit of a firmly grounded mystical approach should also be entertained as I suspect some of the answers may well end up coming from that direction as well. That being said, I stress that it should be firmly grounded and minus any dogma or flighty mindsets...

Hm, I almost think I should just hit "Cancel" rather than "Submit Reply" on this as I'm not so sure how valuable my thoughts are here. Oh well...

No, I think you're right. This HAS got to be studied. But first, rule out the mundane, then move on to the exotic.

But I get the sense that people all too readily skip over the more likely, less sexy explanations. And this seems to suggest underlying emotional needs to believe one way versus another -- which is another fascinating story in itself.

Let me state this, for the record: On an emotional level, my preference is to believe in the magical explanations. But I've experienced my Philip K. Dick "reality shifts" enough to conclude that I would rather face the facts -- even if they are not what I prefer to believe.

Walking around in circles at a roadside mirage may feel good, but it gets you no closer to the real facts (whatever they are).

 

[bluecat]

I'm not talking about better ways to pursue the old paradign (I hate that word), but an entirely new way of framing everything. A new way to think that leads to new and fresh questions. That's the key: brand new questions, because the old ones are getting us no where.

For instance, look at chaos theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
(Remember the Jeff Goldblume character in Jurasic Park? He was a chaos theorist.)

Coming at ufos from that perspective you might view ufos and us as a dynamic, interrelated system. You might ask how the system evolves with time. You might ask questions about attractors and strange attractors or what happens when the system is out of equalibrium.

If Chaos Theory doesn't work, if it doesn't lead to new and interesting questions, if it's not productive, throw it away and try Information Theory. If that doesn't work, try Systems Theory and if that doesn't work try something else.

This is like looking at light as a wave versus a particle. Think of it as a wave and you ask one set of questions. Think of it as a particle and you ask a whole different set. Not that one view is right and the other is wrong, they are just different ways of looking at the same thing.

We need a new pair of glasses to look at this thing through.

bluecat

 

[themacx]

For instance, look at chaos theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
(Remember the Jeff Goldblume character in Jurasic Park? He was a chaos theorist.)

wow jeff goldblum might be the key to the multiverse...

For instance, look at string theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
(Remember the Jeff Goldblum character in Powder? He was a string theorist.)

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I'm not talking about better ways to pursue the old paradign (I hate that word), but an entirely new way of framing everything. A new way to think that leads to new and fresh questions. That's the key: brand new questions, because the old ones are getting us no where...

We need a new pair of glasses to look at this thing through.

bluecat

Well, I think that's true and can also be said for a lot of areas... some of the sciences, archaeology, history etc... I honestly think all these things need to be adjusted (dropping some of the unquestionable myths, readdressing old theories, opening the mind a little...) in order to help bring some answers to a number of things including the UFO phenomenon. I think the only danger there is that you then leave the door open to any nutcase with some crystals, a few physics analogies and a channeled message from some alien deity. It's sad, true, and unfortunately a stumbling block in taking us somewhere nearer to the truth.