From: Bruce Maccabee <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:36:30 -0400 Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:15:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude >Subject: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude >From: Mark Cashman <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:43:48 -0400 >To: email@example.com >Given that only a tiny amount of research has been done >classifying and analysing even _raw reported_ UFO and occupant >behavior, and that the resulting database contains an unknown >amount of noise, very likely increasing almost asymptotically in t>he cases whose strangeness exceed CE2 and CE3, attempts to >class reported behavior as inept or expert are doomed to >founder. <snip> >It's just not that easy. Blanket pronouncements about the >irrationality of some specific behavior evidenced by reports of >UFOs beg all of the following questions: >1) Are the accounts in question true or false? >2) If false, are they exclusive exemplars of the behavior in >question (in which case that behavior can be discounted)? >3) How would non-humans behave in a specific context? How can we >identify the context? >4) Can non-human goals be extracted from out-of-context slices >of behavior and, if so, how is that to be done reliably? >If we are going to be scientific, we have a long way to go in >answering the above questions before we start claiming higher >level knowledge about the phenomenon. >If nothing else, UFOs raise fascinating questions of >epistemology. Yes, yes, yes. Question Everything! Believe Nothing! Get Nowhere!
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp