UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 11

Re: Is Ufology 'Anti-Science'?

From: Claude Mauge <claudemauge.nul>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:26:12 +0200 (CEST)
Archived: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:08:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Is Ufology 'Anti-Science'?


>From: Eleanor White <eleanor.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:26:57 -0400
>Subject: Re: Is Ufology 'Anti-Science'?

>Sounds reasonable. That means that those areas of UFO research
>which are carried out using the same methods as in cosmology are
>indeed every bit as genuine "science" as cosmology is.

Eleanor, Listmembers

There is some bit of truth in Eleanor's statement, but I don't
think it is globally true. For it is basically an analogy, which
can have a brainstorming value but which is not a logical proof.
After all, artificial diamonds are 'analogous' to natural ones
by many features (atomic arrangement, optical features,
hardness) but as far as I know they have not exactly the same
price.

Despite its highly speculative nature, cosmology is closely
related to astronomy, which is probably a science for anybody
(or, more precisely, a "suprascience" covering many sciences).
Can the same be said for ufology?

Let us use cryptozoology and parapsychology as a comparison.
Many zoologists (or biologists) are probably not very at ease
with it, but if a carcass of some cryptozoological monster is
discovered, that animal will be automatically integrated within
the domain of zoology. Whatever we can think about the
scientific status of cryptozoology, it is thus a kind of
entrance into zoology, or perhaps better a purgatory for several
species before they can reach the "heavens". And if many
zoologists are not prone to accept Nessie or living dinosaurs,
they are probably not as reluctant with more little animals: at
least for these "little" beasts, cryptozoology is not a threat
for the basic tenets of biology.

The proportion of psychologists having reservations about
parapsychology is certainly higher, because it shakes the
foundations of psychology and physiology but also of physics
(particularly, but not only, with psychokinesis). However, if
some day parapsychological phenomena are definitively accepted
by Science, psychologists and physiologists will probably claim
them as belonging to their own sciences.

But what with UFOs? If they don't exist, they belong to
psychology and sociology. If they are a "soft" phenomenon, they
might well belong basically to earth sciences (and of course
physics and physiology for their effects). And if they are a
"hard" phenomenon, their science will be a totally new one.
Perhaps ufology as it is understood today, parhaps something
rather different.

As for myself, I have already explained on this List why I have
a strong feeling for the non-existence hypothesis, and ufology
cannot be a science by itself. But I have had no Revelation, and
I am not a psychic able to foresee what will the future status
of ufology...

On a different level, there is surely something interesting in
Rick Nielsen's link with forensics.


Claude


[ 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