UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13

Re: Re: ETH &c

From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:26:29 PST
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:31:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: ETH &c


> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:19:07 -0500
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c

> From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King]
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:12:13 -0500 (EST)
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Re: ETH &c

> A rueful hello to all and sundry

> >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
> >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST
> >Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500
> >Subject: Re: ETH &c


> >If people have a hard time distinguishing between the
> >potentially most important case and the currently best-
> >documented case, perhaps they should examine their
> >souls, and possibly their IQs as well.

> Nice to see you refraining from using that evil old skeptics'
> trick of ad hominem attacks.  Always a pleasure to deal with a
> man of firm principles.  Even those with high IQs and pure souls
> may find it hard to see the distinction since, at the time, you
> described Roswell as the most important AND the best documented.

My word.  Relax, guy.  If that's your idea of an "ad hominem
attack," maybe you aren't reading enough of the debunking
literature or, I'm beginning to suspect, your own.

> >Over time I have changed my mind, for which my
> >critics love to attack me.  Of course, if I never changed my
> >mind, they'd accuse me of rigid dogmatism.

> No Jerry, you changing your mind is not a problem.  In fact I
> will here state that I respect anybody who changes their mind in
> the face of new evidence.  My problem with what you said to the
> Duke was how you tried to downplay the strength of your support
> for Roswell and your attack on me for having the audacity to make
> the point using your own words.

Need I repeat myself here, Jeff?  Please reread my
previous posting.

> >Again, guy, you are nowhere near the point.

> No, the point was you claimed I didn't understand the point, I
> merely showed that I did.

Yawn.

> >Hopkins and Jacobs (not to mention other abduction investigators)
> >continue to report that abductees with whom they work experience ATPs.
> >This is an  extraordinary claim for which they ought to produce
> >relevant medical evidence.

> Again, we agree on this basic point.  The difference is I think
> their failure to provide such evidence means they haven't done
> the work necessary to even raise the claim.  In other words, a
> false hypothesis.

It certainly seems that way.  Now, Jeff, since we're getting
indignant here about false hypotheses, I'd be interested in
seeing your criticisms, in this space, of false hypotheses about
abduction proposed by skeptics and debunkers.  Or do your
attacks go only one way?

> >I have already answered you on this.  See above.  Perhaps
> >now you can start doing something useful, such as collecting
> >papers written by scientists, political pundits, social critics,
> >and others over the years and documenting how they've
> >changed their minds, been wrong, or otherwise failed to be
> >dogmatically consistent over time.  You've got your work
> >cut out for you, buddy.

> As do you in finding out exactly what my reading history is.

I wasn't asking about your reading history, a subject in which I
have little if any interest, unless of course it turns out we are
interested in the same things.  What I was suggesting was a
reading project. As for taking "stands of absolute certitude," I
am as a general principle far more cautious and nuanced in my
thinking than I see any evidence you are capable of.

That's what I love about you guys.  You and your pals go
ballastic when I define myself as agnostic and defend that
position as the only defensible one at this stage of our
inquiries. Then in the next breath I'm accused of rigid
dogmatism. And then you whine about somebody else's
inconsistencies.

>As
> I said above, you changing your mind isn't the problem.  In fact,
> you might even trot out Winston Churchill's famous quote on the
> subject, especially given your fascination with age. The problem
> is you take stands of absolute certitude, and then when new
> investigation does cause you to change your mind, you backpedal
> and try to deny that you were ever so far out on the limb in the
> first place. Humility anyone?

You might try some, Jeff.  I see no evidence of it in anything
you've written to date.


Bye, bye.

Jerry Clark




Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | boroimhe

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com