UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 29

Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:29:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:59:23 -0400
Subject: Re: 'She Blinded Me with Science'

> 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.

> 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.

> If, as Mark suggests, the traditional process of scientific
> discovery is "inappropriate" to phenomena such as UFOs, that's
> tough

I would suggest you read the papers on this subject at my
website, where I point out that standard science is appropriate
for application to UFOs, but where I also point out that UFOlogy
is not experimental science, but is more akin to astronomy and
sociology than to physics.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -
Author of SF novels available at...
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront/
------



[ 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