UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 6

Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:01:36 EDT
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 23:43:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

A discombobulated, unfinished version of the following post just
went on UpDates, much to my surprise.  (I'm also surprised the
unfinished version made it past EBK's normally eagle eyes.) This
was the result of my accidentally hitting the "Send" rather than
the "Save" button while I was composing it.

 [Sorry David - your posts don't usually need any 'tweaking'.
  At the time I was in pre-show prep mode, trying to get mail
  out and beat back moving-boxes. My intention was 'post now,
  read later'... the boxes are winning --ebk]

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 18:41:42 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 09:21:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Kraus vs. Friedman

>From: Joe Murgia <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:53:15 EST
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate


>This last point gets to the heart of the matter. The general
>issue of alien visitation is so a prior ludicrous, on the basis
>of any sound physical reasoning, that any claim that it has
>actually happened would have to meet the strongest skepticism
>and scrutiny.

Translation: "Sound physical reasoning" means his assumptions
and understanding. He personally can't understand how it can be
done, ergo, it must be impossible. Since it is impossible, no
need to look at any evidence to the contrary.

>There are many strange things in the world, but as the

>physicist Richard Feynman used to point out, scientists only
>have a finite amount of time to work on projects. So they
>choose exciting projects, but more important they work on things
>which are likely to have some possibility of being right. The
>reason that most people, such as myself, don't spend time
>investigating each detailed claim is that the a priori
>probability that it is true is almost zero.... Thus, I cannot
>prove that the claims are false, I can just say that I expect
>that they are... and each time I see something like the
>purported hard evidence, I find it isn't.

It is quite evident that from his debate with Stanton Friedman,
Krauss has made no real effort to look at _any_ of the evidence.
The extent of Kraus' research into UFOs seems to be watching a
popularized TV special during sweeps week that purported to
offer hard evidence, but generally did a very poor job of
presenting it.  That's like dismissing genetic engineering and
paleontology because of the way they were portrayed in Jurassic

A good example of Krauss' arrogance and ignorance is the
following statement:

>The point is that any explanation, no matter how implausible,
>of the claims, is more plausible than ascribing them to alien

That's a real classic line which is the exact antithesis of what
science is really about.

>Thus, as long as there is any other explanation which remains
>equally, or more plausible, why should I, or anyone jump to
>the conclusion that aliens are involved.

So let's example the "logic" here. Krauss "knows" that alien
visitation is "impossible" (supposedly "proven" by his
"irrefutable" calculations, but actually a house-of-cards made
up of many questionable assumptions).  By simply defining such
visitation a priori as impossible, he is thus able to declare
that "any explanation, no matter how implausible" is better than
the ETH.

That's an extraordinarily fatuous and stupid statement.
Unfortunately it also seems to reflect the slippery and faulty
"logic" of many UFO debunkers.  It's a closed loop, circular
logic system admitting nothing from the outside. No matter how
incredibly implausible their explanations might be, they believe
they are to be preferred to the possibility of alien visitation.
Hand in hand with such logic is a denial that there is any
evidence at all or statements that there is no need to spend any
time looking at evidence since it is obviously a waste of time.

A true skeptical scientific statement would be that they think
alien visitation is highly improbable, but explanations for very
puzzling UFO cases must nonetheless be plausible and be a
reasonable fit to the data.  That also means paying attention to
the actual data and not inventing, distorting, or ignoring it.

'Nuff said for now.  I'll have another post in a day or two
which demonstrates how the very knowledgeable but nonetheless
fallable Prof. Krauss screwed up badly in one of his statements
on physics.  This has to do with whether it is possible to
protect occupants from the effects of high accelerations using
strong magnetic fields.  Kraus said there was absolutely no way
this could be done.  But, in fact, there is a very simple
physical principle which permits one to do just that.

Hint:  Two words -- floating frogs.

More real soon.

David Rudiak


[ 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