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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp