UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Jan > Jan 13

Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:34:43 -0600
Archived: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:42:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study


>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:21:43 +0000
>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:34:03 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study

>>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:07:26 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study

<snip>

>I can sort of understand where you are coming from based on your
>analogy, but I still think you, Jerry and Ray have jumped the
>gun and made assumptions about the study which are unfounded.

<snip>

>I can think of all sorts of potentially useful output from such
>a study. How widespread is the interest? Is it gender and/or age
>sensitive? How much is the interest driven by
>media/religion/superstition/technological advances et c.? Why
>are a large proportion of society totally disinterested in it?

I think you mean "uninterested", Joe. The list of things that
"a large proportion of society [is] totally uninterested in" is
immense. Why not study them? Such broader uninterest also
characterizes just about everything that happens to interest me,
quite aside from anomalistics (oh, excuse me, "the paranormal").

>If the study is repeated periodically, it may help to identify
>things like why interest levels fluctuate - is that due to
>bad/good press, differences in education standards, new
>discoveries, space technology activity, rise or decline of
>religious participation, un/availability of official records,
>political dis/trust, military tension, economic climate and so
>on.

My original point - about the use of the ideologically loaded
word "belief" to characterize all sympathetic views of UFOs (and
by implication other anomalies) - remains. In fact, the
paragraph above, which never mentions "evidence" but focuses on
irrational and nonrational factors, neatly underscores my point.

>What I struggle to see is what damage this can do to Ufology,
>which is why I don't understand the apparent revulsion and/or
>suspicion expressed by the three of you.

Curious. I on the other hand have no trouble whatever
understanding why you would favor a study focusing not on
reading of evidence but on embracing of "belief."

I hadn't planned to participate in this discussion beyond a
couple of short initial postings, but the appearance of my name
here draws me in, I hope for the last time. This subject seems
to have beaten itself to death. Since everybody has expressed
his or her opinion (excuse me, "belief"), maybe now it's time to
move on.


Jerry Clark




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

At:

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

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ 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