UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 2

Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:46:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:49:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate


>Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 15:13:35 -0800 (PST)
>From: Scott LeGrand <varelse@best.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>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...


Perhaps some have and have come to that conclusion, just as
others (such as Hynek, McDonald, Hill, and others) have come to
the conclusion that the evidence suggests a phenomenon which
should be of interest to science. Still, I have never seen
material which indicates that OEH (Objective Existence
Hypothesis) opponents have ever taken the degree of interest in
the full body of evidence that would be required to come to a
completely objective conclusion. Indeed, that would require
years of study.

The problem is that for most scientists, the data they are
seeing isn't the best data - in fact, most scientists base their
judgements on the UFO phenomenon from the events in the popular
media, which bear little or no resemblance to the actual facts
of the matter. Very few scientists, for instance, have ever
visited a physical trace event or are aware of catalogs of such
events. The same is true for EM effects, medical effects, etc.
Indeed, very few scientists have probably ever done even one
field investigation, never mind the tens of such which would be
needed to truly have a knowledge of the raw data. Without an
awareness of how pervasive, consistent or founded the data is,
the scientist thus takes the problem out of its context and
simply says "how absurd". That position is made easier for him
by the various nutball characters who populate the field with
unjustifiable pronouncements of knowledge which they could not
have developed scientifically (Hoagland, CSETI, etc.).

An additional problem is that there is a sort of vicious circle
here - the scientist states that the data is not good enough,
but does nothing to improve it, and since non-scientists can
only go so far in improving it with spare time and no funding,
the idea that the UFO data will _never_ be good becomes a
self-fufilling prophecy.

Personally, I think that the only ability we have to change
mainstream scientific opinion is to do the best quality amateur
scientific work we can and hope that the amassing of a body of
such work will be attractive to scientists and will gradually
reduce the presence of the kooks and cranks.

Don't get me wrong. I don't _blame_ scientists for their
opinions. From their viewpoint, they are well-founded. The
challenge is to change that opinion. It won't be done by debate
or adversarial events, however. It will be done when the mass of
good solid historical and physical / social science work in the
field outweighs the stuff from fairyland.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo.htm
------


[ 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