UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 8

Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

From: "Greg Sandow" <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:48:30 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 17:34:36 -0400
Subject: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'


> From: RobIrving@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 16:04:00 EDT
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

> I would be alarmed if no-one were looking at whatever evidence
> exists with an eye to ET as a possible cause. In that sense, I
> see the ETH as viable, just as I see the PSH as viable. My
> recoil from the ETH stems from over-exposure to those who pay
> lip-service to the word 'hypothesis' while spouting off in terms
> that proof, or *hard* evidence is an accepted given, or even
> invoking Occam's Razor in a vain 'scientific' attempt to justify
> it.

Earlier, in the midst of another exchange, Rob made the same
charge about the use of Occam's Razor, but with my name attached.
I ignored it. What, I asked myself, is the point of arguing with
anyone who doesn't even know what you've said?

But now that he's made the same damn point again, let me briefly
reply. After all, I was the one who wrote the original Occam's
post. I never said that Occam's Razor  could be used to justify
the ETH. That would have been ridiculous. My post was about
skeptics using it to justify their beliefs, which some of them
do, and which in my view is equally ridiculous.

I'd be curious to know if there's even one other person here --
preferably someone who hasn't taken part in this debate -- who
thinks I said what Rob thinks I said. And if there is, would he
or she support that belief with a quote from something I wrote?

Greg Sandow