From: Serge Salvaille <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:23:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 05:11:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate >Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 15:13:35 -0800 (PST) >From: Scott LeGrand <firstname.lastname@example.org> >To: email@example.com >Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate >>From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com> >>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:53:15 EST >>To: firstname.lastname@example.org >>Subject: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate >>On Tuesday March 30th at 10:00pm EST, Sightings on the Radio and >>Jeff Rense will be hosting a debate between Stanton Friedman and >>Lawrence Krauss. Stanton needs no introduction but many of you >>may not be aware of who Krauss is. >One short comment: isn't it possible that some of these scientists >that looked at the evidence, actually did so in an objective way, >and concluded that it was lacking? Why is it the minute someone >expresses skepticism about the reality of UFOs, they're accused >of losing their objectivity? That doesn't sound very objective >to me... >Scott Hello Scott, To express skepticism towards the existence of UFOs generally implies ignorance of the data available during the last 50 years or so. All, and I mean ALL, the 'skeptical' opinions I have ever read or heard regarding the reality of UFOs presented one or all of the following flaws: 1. Ignorance of the data at hand; 2. Deliberate ignorance of the data at hand. Can an opinion based on ignorance (deliberate or not) be considered objective? No. Can it be considered scientific? No. Of course, we are not talking here about specific cases, or the Strieber show.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp