UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 14

Re: Defending The Indefensible - Good

From: Mike Good <boneheadart.nul>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:21:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Defending The Indefensible - Good


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:52:21 -0000
>Subject: Re: UFO Photos The Future

>>When a scientist submits a proof to a scientific journal, it is
>>taken for granted that the scientist has done his homework and
>>actually performed all of the experiments he says he has. Well
>>we just accept that it is so. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't.
>>So the empirical evidence, most often, is subjective too.

>The situation you describe would be an anarchic one, a
>structureless free-for-all, possibly one that some members of
>the internet generations - happy with the sheer "fun" of
>believing in ET - might thoughtlessly cheer for, but one
>guaranteed to be, in the long run, a destructive recipe for
>misery and calamity. But your charge that science is no
>different from beliefs in religions or the tooth fairy is,
>fortunately for all of us, not only a bit silly but also
>factually in error.

Thanks Martin, of course, you are correct! I am engaging in a
little exageration to make a poi

>Then there are the blind experiments that I have read about
>which suggest that the experiment itself is influenced by the
>prejudicesof the scientist! This kind of outcome is also suggested
>by the well known (and documented) placebo effect. This is
>where an ill subject is given an inert substance while being told
>that he is taking actual medicine. The subject is magically cured,
>despite the fact that he has not taken any real medicine. This
>suggests that it is his thoughts that have affected the outcome.

>The question here is: are all scientific proofs subject to these
>clearly compromising vagaries? If so, then what is scientific
>proof?

So, my point is this: with the knowledge of subjectivity of much
scientific evidence and if we factor in the implications of
quantum mechanics, we must come to the conclusion that our
science (as we understand it) while not erroneous, certainly has
some aspects open to question. I think we take too literal a
view of our material universe and forget that our observations
of that universe are subject to our conscious interpretations
and prejudices. If (as quantum thinking suggests) our thinking
influences material outcomes, then there is an implicit
fuzziness to scientific theory that we have failed to
acknowledge.

This, to my mind, means that we must factor consciousness into
our scientific theories to develop a better understanding of the
universe, as opposed to a model which comes from a strictly
materialist point of view. So, I agree, science is not to be
thrown out as the baby in the bathwater. But I do think that
belief in a strictly materialist paradigm is a bit myopic. The
universe is much greater than our materialist prejudices would
have us believe.

And belief itself is the fly in the ointment here! Belief in a
strictly materialist model of the universe wilts under the light
of quantum understanding. The universe is not strictly
mechanistic, but kind of spacey and wierd. It is an integrated,
malleable (within certain parameters) fabric that is subject to
influence by application of consciousness.

How cool for us. And, how interesting for science.


Mike Good




[ 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