From: bruce maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:05:18 -0400 Fwd Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:02:26 -0400 Subject: Re: A Divided Community Can Never Get Anwsers >From: Ori Jackson <Kaosquasar@aol.com> >Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:33:38 EDT >To: email@example.com >Subject: The Role Of The Researcher In Modern Ufology >> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Roy Hale <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> Subject: A Divided Community Can Never Get Anwsers >> To: email@example.com >As a recent initiate, conscientious observer say, of the field >of ufology I have been taking notice of many of the postings on >Updates but I have begun to question the role of the ufologist >who seems to spend more time engaged in verbal battles of >sarcasm and inuendo than in actually completing any research. I >am in complete agreement with Roy Hale's recent posting> >A divided community can never get answers >To become drawn into purial paroxysms serves only to discredit >the work of the ufologist who is then seen to care more for his >reputation and standing amoungst others than for the validity of >his/her research. Is this a conspiricy to draw public attention >away from the offerings of theoretical answers? >Obviously the nature of the field dictates differing opinions as >shown currently through the Burns v Clarke controversy but I f>eel it is important to focus only on the research and not on t>he personal lives of those involved. This would certainly be desirable. Unfortunately, one person's gold is another's pyrite ("fool's gold") and one ends up not believeing in th results of someone else's investigation. Unlike conventional science, it is impossible to recreate a UFO event such that investigator B can independently check on the results reported by investigator A. If B does not believe A did a good job investigating, then B may reject A's results and A will get angry and call B an SOB and then B will get in a huff and say A is a jerk, doesn' t know his rear oriface from a hole in the ground.... and then things get really nasty. Ad homninem attacks take over (friends of A attack friends of B) and pretty soon NO ONE KNOWS what is the real status of the UFO report that started it all off. In ufology the best one can do for replication is (1) carry out your own interviews of the witnesses, while realizing that if the witnesses have alreay been interviewed their statements to you might be modified by the fact that they have already told their stories (that is, mere investigation can, in principle although not always in actuality, modify the "data" - - the "experimenter effect" analogous to the problem in quantum mechanics of "uncertainty") or (2) gather all the pertinent information from the people who have already done the investigation and (3) do your own analysis and arrive at your own conclusion. NOTE: the analysis of most UFO sightings requires a rather broad spectrum of knowledge in order to understand the interplay or relationship between the sighting details (or characteristics of the reported phenomenon)and the Candidate Explanatory Phenomena. An investigator may have to know about astronomy, satellites, aircraft (what do you know about various types of heavier and lighter than air craft?), physiology of the eye (how people see things), radar, optics, photography, soil analysis, interviewing techniques, trigonometry,map reading, history, atmospheric phenomena including the way the atmosphere modifies the appearance of things (especially distant lights at night). Anyone who wishes to carry out an independent investigation of a previously investigated case had better be certain s/he can do at least as well as the original investigator. (I have had problems in the past with people who have questionsed my results of investigation and have tried to carry out their own, but they just don't understand the various technical issues involved, so they arrive at what I consider to be the "wrong answer.") Another problem is that an "outside" person who is not totally familiar with the sighting information or who cannot independently evaluate it is left with a decision of which "expert," A or B, to believe. Often the choice will be made on which investigator seems more credible in the face of attacks from the other side. >Proof undeniable may well be the researchers ultimate goal, for f>ame and fortune and being the first has always in any genre >been the ambition and intention but the ufologist's >responsibility should be not only the search for and the >uncovering of the secrets of the UFO prodigy it should also be t>o provide the general public with information beyond proof. >This rather than self gratification should be the goal. Yes >As the general consensus seems to be that E.B.E's (if they do in >fact exist) have hostile intentions where are the ufologists who >are offering the public concrete strategies for dealing with the >prevention of alien intervention? Will send you FRIGHT NIGHT by private email since it doesn't fit the publication format here.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp