Skeptics...a philosophical discussion

[red_pill_junkie]

Oh course the song idea was inspired by their first trip into psychedelio-land.

Funny how society is not too concerned with artists and musicians tapping into a higher level of consciousness through chemical hacking of their wetware.

But when it comes to some prominent scientists owing their biggest discoveries to an LSD trip or a dream, that's Woo Woo land restricted area

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Funny how society is not too concerned with artists and musicians tapping into a higher level of consciousness through chemical hacking of their wetware.

But when it comes to some prominent scientists owing their biggest discoveries to an LSD trip or a dream, that's Woo Woo land restricted area

I don't think anyone really said that his woo woo ideas had anything to do with his use of LSD. It's just that he's brilliant in one field and crazy when it comes to other aspects of science.

 

[tyder001]

call them saucer nazis. when ever someone questions their little world beliefs they are shouted down.





Zurück aus den Menschen. Ich bin ein Wissenschaftler.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Zurück aus den Menschen. Ich bin ein Wissenschaftler.

Das Wenige, was der Neuling weiß über unsere Nazi-Untertassen

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I don't think anyone really said that his woo woo ideas had anything to do with his use of LSD. It's just that he's brilliant in one field and crazy when it comes to other aspects of science.

Ah... madness. Such a diffuse condition to prognosticate. Based on so many blurry parameters.

Here's something I found a while ago: 5 Famous scientists dismissed as morons in their time.

Back in 1847, Semmelweis found himself in charge of two maternity clinics. The first clinic was a teaching school, with medical students learning birthing, autopsying and everything in between. The second clinic was intended for women who couldn't afford health care and was serviced by midwives, not actual doctors or students.

Yet it was the second clinic that women of all social statuses begged to get into. Why? Because if they went to the first clinic they'd have a 10 percent chance of dying of puerperal fever, a six percent greater rate of death than in the midwife-run hospital. Women literally had a better chance of surviving a birth on the street than in the first clinic. After an exhaustive study, Semmelweis figured out that medical students were smothered in disease cooties from cadavers, and that maybe, just maybe, they should wash their hands in between the autopsy room and the birthing rooms.

He insisted students perform a simple chlorine wash after handling dead guys and immediately got the death rate down to one to two percent. With numbers like that, you'd think the whole continent of Europe, much less the medical community, would have crowned him "king of live babies" or something.

His Genius Was Rewarded By ...
First dementia, then a beatdown at an insane asylum, then death, by virtually the same disease he had eradicated in his own hospital.
​

​

​

​

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Like i said, he's brilliant in his field. No one is saying that he is doing bad work in what he is good at. It's that he's nutty when it comes to other things. If his idea prove to be correct, then I will have no trounle admitting I was wrong. As it stands though, he's a bit of a kook.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Like i said, he's brilliant in his field. No one is saying that he is doing bad work in what he is good at. It's that he's nutty when it comes to other things. If his idea prove to be correct, then I will have no trounle admitting I was wrong. As it stands though, he's a bit of a kook.

Guilty until proven otherwise, eh?

Just kidding. I admit one should always approach a radical idea with caution. But one shouldn't also be too hasty when it comes to judging who's sane and who's a kook.

PS: Just another thing to link up to further the discussion: Redefining "Mental Illness"

Defining “mental illness” has vexed researchers for more than a century. Are mentally ill people just different from others in the larger group? If so, I’d be classified as mentally ill when compared to my immediate family because I like long-distance running and don’t play a musical instrument, and my son would be mentally ill because he doesn’t like math and science.
Clearly there must be more to it than that. The American Psychiatric Association, in its bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM, for short), devotes hundreds of pages to describing and cataloging mental disorders. This is the guide psychiatrists and clinical psychologists use to help diagnose disorders, but it has been subject to constant revision, and its definition of mental disorders has changed over the years as well. Early versions even considered homosexuality to be a “disorder.”

And now if you'll excuse me, nurse Nancy says it's time I get outside to take my walk in the garden

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Like i said, he's brilliant in his field. No one is saying that he is doing bad work in what he is good at. It's that he's nutty when it comes to other things. If his idea prove to be correct, then I will have no trounle admitting I was wrong. As it stands though, he's a bit of a kook.

Who exactly are you talking about? I must have missed something here (?)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Kary Mullis - he was discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[plumbbob12]

SandanFire: good points, but let’s get our terms straight. Skepticism in the western definition relates to someone who must be shown empirical proof in the form of physical data such as changes in mass, charge, velocity, etc, that would support their hypothesis. The idea of “Belief” has nothing to do with science. The major issue that science takes with the UFO phenomena is the idea that we have never collected any hard data such as metal, biological tissue that is reproducible in a labatory setting, and can be shown to be of alien origin. With that said, the flaw lays in sciences corner. With the 400 year old western rationalist world view, we would never be able to verify modern chemistry as it exist today because it involves pi bonds which are entangled and therefore share there energies, which makes there bond strength less, and is the basics of most modern materials. Of course we cannot “see” the entangled pi bonds, and this transcends western skeptical knowledge. We would deny dreams because we could never prove them in a double blind test and heaven help art in general. No definition would exist, and therefore art would not exit, not to mention human conscienconess.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

 

[Facius_Cardan]

SandanFire: good points, but let’s get our terms straight. Skepticism in the western definition relates to someone who must be shown empirical proof in the form of physical data such as changes in mass, charge, velocity, etc, that would support their hypothesis. The idea of “Belief” has nothing to do with science. The major issue that science takes with the UFO phenomena is the idea that we have never collected any hard data such as metal, biological tissue that is reproducible in a labatory setting, and can be shown to be of alien origin. With that said, the flaw lays in sciences corner. With the 400 year old western rationalist world view, we would never be able to verify modern chemistry as it exist today because it involves pi bonds which are entangled and therefore share there energies, which makes there bond strength less, and is the basics of most modern materials. Of course we cannot “see” the entangled pi bonds, and this transcends western skeptical knowledge. We would deny dreams because we could never prove them in a double blind test and heaven help art in general. No definition would exist, and therefore art would not exit, not to mention human conscienconess.

Good post. We will only reach some conclusions about the UFO phenomenon when the various disciplines of science are finally brought to the field. I think that such step would immediately originate some problems that would have to be solved, particularly regarding the articulation of the social sciences with the exact sciences and also the methodology itself (the current instruments and methods of science would probably suffer some changes in order to efficiently approach the UFO enigma).

 

[bbridges]

So, does thinking require a thinker or not? If not, do you merely not exist or do you think that you do or do not exist? OR are you a thought mistaken for a thinker? What is the field that empiricism or a priori knowledge has meaning in, and to whom and for what? On what basis do [you] decide what to embrace? What is love? Cause, effect, delusion?

 

[Jonah]

SandanFire: good points, but let’s get our terms straight. Skepticism in the western definition relates to someone who must be shown empirical proof in the form of physical data such as changes in mass, charge, velocity, etc, that would support their hypothesis. The idea of “Belief” has nothing to do with science. The major issue that science takes with the UFO phenomena is the idea that we have never collected any hard data such as metal, biological tissue that is reproducible in a labatory setting, and can be shown to be of alien origin.

An interesting perspective on this was given by David Grinspoon in his book 'Lonely Planets - The Natural Philosophy of Alien Life'. Excerpted by Astrobiology Magazine back in 2003 - "There's a Hole in My Philosophy":

Science says, "Without objectively verifiable evidence, assume that it doesn't exist." But it is more accurate to say, "Without such evidence, we can't say whether it exists." We must be careful not to become lazy and let our skeptical mind-set become a closed one.

We have a certain view of how aliens will and will not behave and manifest their presence here. We get huffy when these imagined rules of interplanetary etiquette (of necessity based on projections of ourselves) are not followed. Skeptics complain that the aliens reported by UFO enthusiasts don't act like real aliens. Real aliens would not spend that kind of money on space fuel (energy is money). They'd stay home and improve things in their own systems. Real aliens wouldn't be interested in kidnapping humans and examining us or stealing sperm and eggs. We can't think of a good reason for them to behave like that. Real aliens would surely leave some spare parts or space trash or footprints behind for us to study. Don't you know anything about aliens?

Yet, science faces some special challenges in applying itself to the question of intelligent aliens. Our methodology and philosophy assume that nature doesn't care about and isn't aware of our experiments. (Some ufologists assume the opposite). We don't really know how to study something that knows it is being studied or might not want to be studied, or that might even be studying us. All our standards of evidence and proof - repeatability, multiple witnesses, material evidence, and so on - might fail with something that is actively messing with our minds, aware of us, and being careful not to be of interest to mainstream science.

Imagine for a moment that aliens were aware of our scientific method and were careful not to reveal themselves, perhaps out of compassion. You could envision their rules for avoiding our scrutiny:

Memo to All Space Brothers: Remember that human contact is to be avoided whenever possible. They are stuck in the "science" phase we went through eons before we went intergalactic. We can use this to predict their reactions and avoid suspicion. Under no circumstances leave any physical evidence that could be used to scientifically deduce our existence and extraterrestrial origin. It's inevitable that humans will occasionally detect our activities, and this is acceptable as long as they don't have what they consider to be a "scientific" case. So if you are detected, make absolutely sure that the observation is not replicable, and keep your spectral scramblers on. Such occasional cases are puzzling to them and help maintain our secrecy by sowing doubt about all sightings.

Science has given us criteria for distinguishing the physical from the metaphysical. But if a conscious entity is studying us, which box does it go in? If advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, the boundary between the physical and the metaphysical vanishes again, as if science never happened. ~ D. Grinspoon

David Grinspoon, Principal Investigator for NASA's Exobiology Research Program and author "Venus Revealed" and "Lonely Planets"

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Imagine for a moment that aliens were aware of our scientific method and were careful not to reveal themselves, perhaps out of compassion. You could envision their rules for avoiding our scrutiny:

The following is a modified excerpt from Jeffrey Kipal's Authors of the Impossible, from the chapter devoted to Jacques Vallee, a recent guest at the Paracast:

[...]Vallee sees meaning in the absurdity of the narratives, a meaning he will call the meta-logic of the encounter stories. Such a meta-logic, which appears as absurdity from the outside, more or less guarantees that the encounters will be rejected by the elite members of the target society (that is, by professional academics and scientists), even as the symbols conveyed through the encounters are absorbed at a very deep and much more lasting unconscious level [emphasis mine]. The absurdity of the extraterrestrial explanation, in other words, is a kind of intentional ruse or cloaking technique that allows the phenomenon to accomplish its real work, which is symbolic and mythological.

"Everything works, in my opinion, as if the phenomenon were the product of a technology that followed well-defined rules and patterns, though fantastic by ordinary human standards. The phenomenon has so far posed no apparent threat to national defense and seems to be indifferent to the welfare of individual witnesses... But its impact in shaping man's long-term creativity and unconscious impulses is probably enormous. The fact that we have no methodology to deal with such an impact is only an indication of how little we know about our own psychic world. (IC 30) " (Vallee)

So, viewed in this manner, the UFO seeks to deliberately be rejected and bypassed by the Status Quo (politics, science, religion) while at the same time slowly but surely molding the belief systems of societies, from the bottom up. Kind of like a back-door trojan, in hacker terms.
​

 

[trainedobserver]

We will only reach some conclusions about the UFO phenomenon when the various disciplines of science are finally brought to the field.

Well, I think various disciplines have been brought to bear on the field. The Alien Abduction Enigma by Randle, Estes, and Cone, seems to be one such effort. Vallees Anatomy of a Phenomenon is another.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

So, viewed in this manner, the UFO seeks to deliberately be rejected and bypassed by the Status Quo (politics, science, religion) while at the same time slowly but surely molding the belief systems of societies, from the bottom up. Kind of like a back-door trojan, in hacker terms.

I'm a great fan of Vallée's work and, to me, he's the number one author on the subject. This doesn't mean that I always agree with his conclusions and ideas. The fact that the Establishment, that huge "entity" that encompasses the government, scientific institutions and religious denominations, doesn't look at the UFO problem in a serious, straightforward manner tells us more about the aforementioned groups than about the phenomenon itself. Those three pillars all share a common concern: keeping a specific order of things. Any attempt to change that status quo has always been interpreted as a heresy (to use religious terminology). If you defy the order of the government you'll be punished by their justice. That's how they make people work and concentrate efforts towards collective goals (whatever they may be). Science has always showed resistance to change. Every great revolution in the field has faced terrible difficulties, often resulting in the ruin of the creative minds behind those changes. Religion needs to maintain a stationary state of things, so that their message can be sold without any impediments (many died when attempting to alter something). Even in the realm of personal lives, most people need stability and anything that dwelves beyond that "bubble" of constance is undesired.
The UFO phenomena is a stone in the shoe for the Establishment (along with many other themes, some of them well outside the paranormal). We certainly don't need the phenomenon to consciously adapt to society because in essence, human societal structures crave for stability and immutability. That's how humans work.

 

[trainedobserver]

OR are you a thought mistaken for a thinker?

I think so. A POV with a false sense of separation from what is viewed.

What is the field that empiricism or a priori knowledge has meaning in, and to whom and for what? On what basis do [you] decide what to embrace?

Could the answer be in something like risk assessment?

What is love? Cause, effect, delusion?

Both cause and effect. Perhaps a biochemical expression of the unity of all things interpreted by consciousness as attraction and devotion and the basis for a sad song or two.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

Well, I think various disciplines have been brought to bear on the field. The Alien Abduction Enigma by Randle, Estes, and Cone, seems to be one such effort. Vallees Anatomy of a Phenomenon is another.

Two meritable efforts indeed. But my idea would be something on a larger scale, both in number of people involved and time spent on the study.

 

[trainedobserver]

Two meritable efforts indeed. But my idea would be something on a larger scale, both in number of people involved and time spent on the study.

I think there is some indication that large scale studies are occurring. The problem is these things fall under national security and proprietary categories. Not only are any results or data going to be kept private but the means as well. Those project heads will not be presenting at the next UFO conference, see what I'm saying? It also seems to me that non-sanctioned efforts are derailed as in the Bennewitz affair or the LMH briefing and led down the "Its Aliens!" path.

 

[Ron Collins]

I'm a great fan of Vallée's work and, to me, he's the number one author on the subject. This doesn't mean that I always agree with his conclusions and ideas. The fact that the Establishment, that huge "entity" that encompasses the government, scientific institutions and religious denominations, doesn't look at the UFO problem in a serious, straightforward manner tells us more about the aforementioned groups than about the phenomenon itself. Those three pillars all share a common concern: keeping a specific order of things. Any attempt to change that status quo has always been interpreted as a heresy (to use religious terminology). If you defy the order of the government you'll be punished by their justice. That's how they make people work and concentrate efforts towards collective goals (whatever they may be). Science has always showed resistance to change. Every great revolution in the field has faced terrible difficulties, often resulting in the ruin of the creative minds behind those changes. Religion needs to maintain a stationary state of things, so that their message can be sold without any impediments (many died when attempting to alter something). Even in the realm of personal lives, most people need stability and anything that dwelves beyond that "bubble" of constance is undesired.
The UFO phenomena is a stone in the shoe for the Establishment (along with many other themes, some of them well outside the paranormal). We certainly don't need the phenomenon to consciously adapt to society because in essence, human societal structures crave for stability and immutability. That's how humans work.

Well stated and I agree completely. Vallee is a conundrum. He is way smarter than me and has had occasion to research more in depth than I will probably ever be equipped to do. Yet, I can't help but question a good portion of his conclusions. I am accustomed to seeing good and solid researchers fold after several decades of research. Most begin to accept some very strange concepts and ascribe to very odd schools of thought in the later years.

I still remember when Clifford Stone wasn't bat shit crazy, Steven Greer looked like he was trying to help, Stan Friedman had updated material, and when Richard Dolan wasn't a complete sell out. For Dolan it wasn't all that long ago. Eventually though even the best of the researchers have to feed their families and if you attend enough crazy conferences you might be lulled into accepting things you found too crazy beforehand.

I have had the good luck to know a small few researchers who have remained dedicated to the research and not the publicity or speaking engagements they could be paid to attend.

I have never looked at Vallee in that light but he has shown some small characteristics of a man having been involved with this a little too long to stay objective. That is my opinion of course and it is true that I don't know him so I am ill qualified to really dissect his nature. That said, when other researchers have begun to embrace the odder aspects of the phenomenon and start to endorse odd explanations it is usually a sign that they are treading down the path of the lunatic fringe. To me embracing the odd later in a career can be a sign of one struggling to come to a conclusion before death. Or it can just be enlightenment. Who knows.