UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 6

Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

From: RobIrving@aol.com
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 16:04:07 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 08:58:15 -0400
Subject: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

>Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 23:21:40 -0400
>From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>>many of the points
>>I've made to Sean do not oppose the idea that "myopic
>>conventionalism" <my words> slows down progress.

>Rob, you say you don't accept the ETH.  Fine.

Bruce, what really baffles me is how you can take everything I've
written and reduce it to that. I accept the ETH exists, and I
accept its right to exist. Sure, I'm not inclined to believe it
any more or less than any other single explanation. My interest
revolves around the way the ETH is presented and where it sits
within ufology.

Or where ufology sits within it? Whatever...

If you were to ask me if I accept the ETH has been proven, as in,
'UFOs are real (ET craft): here's the proof' I would of course
say no. As a hypothesis I'm easy with it. If ET landed on my lawn
this wouldn't make me accept the ETH as an explanation of all

>The first question
>to answer is this :  is there any case which you would accept as
>unexplainable in terms of known phenomena, said phenomena being
>generally characterized as either misidentification (of mundane
>natural or manmade phenomena or devices), mental phenomena (e.g.,
>delusions, "will to believe" overpowering rationalism,
>daydreaming, hypnopompic/gogic, "old hag," etc.) or outright

Yes, I accept my own experiences as unexplained in those terms,
inasmuch as they remain mysterious to me.  Why do you presume

>If there is no such case then I presume that you can offer an
>explanation for each sighting case that can be presented to
>you... and I don't mean a "garbage" explanation that falls apart
>upon analysis, I mean an explanation that withstands analysis in
>light of the available information on any sighting.

You're barking up the wrong tree, mate. I'm philosophically
opposed to explanations as being an ultimate justification of any
theory - I try to steer clear of them, mine especially. My
position, as I see it, is the back row of the peanut gallery. If
you had witnessed my recent talk at the National Museum of
Photography, UK, you would know that I am equally distrustful of
conventional, 'objective' explanations.