UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 22

Re: Why The Cover-Up?

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:06:22 +0000
Archived: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:37:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up? 


>From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:47:06 -0700
>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:00:46 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Why The Cover-Up?

<snip>

>>One is reminded of Orwell's famous crack about vacuous arguments
>>that seek to give an "appearance of solidity to pure wind." On
>>the other hand, unlike the creations of clueless ufologists'
>>fanciful imaginations, pure wind actually _exists_.

>>But if you want to believe Ed Gehrman is the Galileo of our
>>time, be my guest. And never you mind all those laughing
>>horses.

>Gosh, Jerry, don't hold back. Let us know what you really think!
>I have to say your reply, an many others recently to others or
>commenting about this or that ufological matter, have been
>rather dismissive and abrupt, not to say rather cynical in
>nature. I guess when you've been around as long as you have, you
>get kind of jaded by the relative newbies.

>But, damn it, I thought the above reply was a bit too much,
>frankly.

>I could say some things about CUFOS' various intellectual
>liabilities, such as their obvious, long-term bias against just
>about anything Vallee has had to say for nearly 20 or more
>years, as he challenges your and CUFOS bias in favor of the ETH,
>which is as questionable as a number of other theories and
>speculations in this variegated field, but I think I should
>leave my impressions of you and the CUFOS organization at that.

>I just think your comments about Ed being the ufological equal
>to Galilieo, etc., as both over the top, unnecessary, and a
>sadly unresponsive ad hominem form of argumentation and lack of
>insight.

>Just thought you ought to know how you sometimes come across,
>and ought to restrain yourself from such insulting commentary in
>future, if possible.

>I await your reply,

Steve,

What people like Jerry Clark and me are jaded about is the
apparent complete ignorance of scientific method constantly
diaplayed by numerous people on this list, chief among them the
purveyors of the ludicrous notion that all ideas or hypotheses
are equally valid and deserving of equal consideration. It is
indeed horse-laughable.

The utter necessity of peer review aside, hpothesis or theory
construction requiires building a logically coherent and
empirically grounded explanation for a body of data. not simply
pulling some wild-ass notion out of the sky.

Take a simple example. Things go wrong in my house (real!);
dishes crash to the floor and break; an electric short wipes out
an appliance. Now, I can hypothesize that invisible, green, non-
corporeal demons are sitting in the corner playing tricks on me.
Or I can find much simpler and far more likely explanations. My
cat jumped up on the counter and knocked over the dishes. The
thermostat on the appliance malfunctioned.

These are not only far more likely explanations, but also
hypotheses are not really meaningful unless they can be tested.
Cat tracks or fur on the counter, direct inspection of the
appliance mechanism, things like that. ETH can be tested in
principle, though not easily or inexpensively. So can one or two
of the very few alternative hypotheses. Some of the notions
advancedon this list are  so improbable as to not merit the
slightest bit of attention unless and until the advoicates can
advance some meaningful supporting evidence.


 - Dick




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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