UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 1

Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 07:54:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:06:37 -0400
Subject: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'


>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'
>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:29:58 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>> From: RobIrving@aol.com
>> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:34:47 EDT
>> To: updates@globalserve.net
>> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

>> Apart from this being built, layer upon layer, of non sequiters
>> - Mark Cashman's comparitive categorizations of events/shapes,
>> etc., for example

>To exactly what are you referring Rob?>

>I have never created a comparative categorization of events /
>shapes of UFOs. I have created a catalog of UFO reports which
>show some similarities of appearance. This level of
>systematization, arising directly from an examination of the
>data, is, of course, far from a non-sequiter (a phrase not
>readily comprehensible in this context, in any event).>

>I have also created a behavioral classification system for UFO
>reports. Again, this system represents only a basic level of
>classification of UFO reports based on common features which are
>frequently reported. Being based on the data, this system also
>easily escapes being "layer upon layer of non-sequiters".>

>If you can show me that either of these systems are not
>consistent with the underlying data, then I will thank you for
>helping me improve them.>

>Please note that neither of these classification systems even
>require OEH - they are simply classifications based on reports.>>

As nearly as I can tell, it is Irving's comment which is a
"non-sequitur." The compliation of data and the sorting of said
data in similarity classes, etc. is common in science.

>> While Mark Cashman may argue that multiple witness reports
>> amount to some kind of repeatability, in scientific terms it
>> doesn't. In fact, this form of inductive reasoning is
>> demonstrably false, and often borders on the disingenuous.

>Since I have never argued this, I suspect it is your logic which
>is at fault.

>I have, however, suggested, that multiple independent
>observations, especially via separate systems (i.e. radars at
>different frequencies, eyes and radars, eyes and photographs)
>represent a higher standard of validity than single witness
>observations, and a challenge to the analyst.>

There is a sense of repeatability in multiple witness reports. A
single event (appearance of a UFO) reported by several people is
like an observation experiment being done several times at the
same time, since each person's observation is his own. Of
course, there may be some cross-contamination after the event as
nearby witnesses compare notes. But in those case (and I know of
some) where distant witnesses uinknown to one another witness an
event, and there is no subserquent "cross-fertilization" then
the sighting is like a "repeated" observation. Instead of
showing the event to witness A and then repeating the event to
show it to witness B, you let witnesses A and B see it at the
same time. Of course, the main importance of this sort of
occurrence is that the presence of multiple witnesses reduces
the liklihood that any one of them was delusional or hoaxing. As
Mark says, multiple witness events are a "challenge to the
analyst." Especially daylight, multiple witness events when the
UFO is seen well enough for the witnesses to determine its shape
and dynamic characteristics.