UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 18

Re: Truth Detracting Elements of the Abduction

From: "Tim D. Brigham" <devilsad@ksinc.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:36:12 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:09:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Truth Detracting Elements of the Abduction

>Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:56:55 -0800
>From: Steve Jones <svjones@jps.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Truth Detracting Elements of the Abduction Phenomena


>The point here is the abduction scenario, regardless of what
>people would like to make out of it in defense of their
>particular world view, is something that needs very serious
>scientific inquiry.


>This is precisely what motivated John Mack
>to do what he has done, regardless of the consequences.

Assuming you feel Dr. Mack is engaged in "scientific inquiry"
and not merely promoting _his own_ "particular world view."

I'm all in agreement that the UFO and abduction phenomena should
be studied in a scientific and objective manner, but I suppose
agreeing what is "scientific and objective", and _not_ "the
promotion of one's own world view" _masked_ as science is where
the debate remains.

>Continuously over the past decade I have heard the rants of
>those who demand that proof be personally delivered to their
>doorstep and this continues to this day. To be frank, I have
>long ago grown bored of this, however nothing would give me
>greater pleasure than to take some skeptics right up to the side
>of a large craft and let them touch it themselves. Who knows,
>sometime in the future, this might happen.

Ignoring the part about anyone asking for "proof to be personally
delivered to their doorstep," because I just don't get what you mean
by this in the first place, I believe what you are getting at is the
evidence issue, and I have to assume you are speaking of the
scientific community's ignorance of the nature of the phenomenon and
not those few vocal people who are opposed to the _possibility_ that
the phenomenon may deserve more study.   So you are promoting the
scientific study of the abuduction phenomenon, yet (for reasons you
don't make clear) you feel that trying to validate the very existence
of the phenomenon and trying to study its nature, and components, and
directly studying the phenomenon itself in any other way, in the same
scientific, and of course, critical, manner should be avoided?

Often, I've heard experiencers use the line that "I've seen this
and I know it's real, I don't have to prove it to anyone," (and
of course they certainly don't, but it's not science, by
definition, until it _is_ analyzed by objective and impartial
persons in a methodical, critical, yet open minded manner) yet
the very next sentence is often, "now let's look at this
scientifically and stop defending our own personal world views."
I simply don't see this as productive, for obvious reasons, and
I think by looking at the (lack of) results these sorts of
methods have obtained, most would agree with me that _something_
is wrong here.

Tim Brigham

www.ksinc.net/~devilsad/ufo.htm The Devil's Advocate
www.ksinc.net/~devilsad/ring.htm Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."

[ 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