UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24

Re: ETH &c

From: "Serge Salvaille" <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:27:53 +0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:37:41 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH &c

>From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux]
>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:51:39 -0500 (EST)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: ETH &c

Dear Paul,

You wrote,

>I think the problems in your reply here, and the prevailing ones
>I have seen on this strand, are two unquestioned assumptions:
>a)Ufology is a subject, and (b)it involves ET craft and the ETH.

>This really points up what I have been saying elsewhere on this
>list, that the ETH is so overweaning, is such a dominant paradigm,
>that it has become an automatic reflex - an *invisible assumption*.

>In truth, ufology is not a subject as such (it is a loose bag of
>bits - a little good, much indifferent, more bad) and mainstream
>science could not possibly deal with it as if it were. Secondly,
>most of what is written in ufology isn't up to the standards of
>mainstream scientific scholarship in any case, and would get
>rejected on those grounds alone. You cannot blame science for
>keeping most of ufology at bargepole length, quite honestly.  The
>third point is that there is plenty of material out there in the
>scientific literature on aspects of ufology if one is not
>assuming that UFO=ET.

I have a formation in Biology, Environmental Sciences and
Computers.  I hate to be told I am un-scientific in my
assumptions. I find very amusing what could be termed the
"appropriation syndrome".  Much as you see a child playing in
sand grabbing his toys when someone threatens to even touch them,
SOME "scientists" do the same with Science.

This reaction to insecurity doesn't change the reality though:
nobody owns Science.

Science is an attitude.  A scientist should be someone who
pratices science.  Don't mistake this with a fellowship or a
title or a job.  Science starts with the study of facts.  Not the
rebutal of them.

The expression "Scientific fact" is a pleonasm.  A fact is a
fact. Sorry for  "mainstream science" (allow me a giggle here)
which is always pleased to throw the later like a glove at the
face of a yokel.  This attitude mimics the Victorian times: none
dared to talk about sex.  Did it mean nobody got horny ?

As a spokesman for "mainstream science" you can surely answer the
following questions: when was the last study on the views of
"mainstream science" towards UFOs and the extraterrestrial
hypothesis? Who did it? What were the questions? What were the
results?

Serge Salvaille



Search for other documents from or mentioning: sergesa | devereuxp

[ 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