UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Sep > Sep 20

Re: Separating The Pseudo From Science

From: Albert Baier <albertgbaier.nul>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:23:14 -0500
Archived: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:54:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Separating The Pseudo From Science


>From: Terry W. Colvin <fortean1.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:38:24 +0700 (GMT+07:00)
>Subject: Separating The Pseudo From Science


Caution: Minority opinion follows!

Martin, Gerald, Ray, List,

>"We can sensibly build science policy only upon the
>consensus of the scientific community"

Mr. Gordin inadvertently exposes his belief in institutionalized
science here. What is 'science policy', but a bureaucratic way
of dealing with science? Since when are facts established by
consensus?

A theory is just that, someone's opinion of how something works.
It doesn't matter whether it's one persons opinion, or 100. The
fact is, most theories in science today are based on other
theories, which are based on other theories, and so on. It's a
house of cards. Institutionalized science has established, by
decree, certain theories as _fact_, and so, are sacrosanct.
Theories, are, by definition, unproven. Many are unprovable. The
origin of the universe is one example. It's fine to have
theories, but let's not base our facts on them, and let's not
deride those that contradict our own.

Most physicists believe that nothing can travel faster that
light (EM radiation). Some believe this has been proven, others
(wisely) prefer to wait and see. Perhaps hundreds of experiments
have shown this to be true, but only one is needed to disprove
it. I think the speed limit is true for light, but doesn't
necessarily apply to neutral matter.

>Nevertheless, something needs to be done. Demarcation may be an
>activity without rules, a historically fluctuating marker of the
>worries of the scientific community, but it is also absolutely
>vital. Not everything can or should be taught in science courses
>in school. Not every research proposal can or should receive
>funds. When individuals spread falsehood and misinformation,
>they must be exposed.

Goldin believes in the institutional of science in education. I
agree that falsehood and misinformation shouldn't be taught, but
this is a CSICOPian approach (AFAIK, he's not a member). I would
hope that a history professor would know how often science has
been proven wrong. It's more important to teach kids how to
think for themselves; to question everything; to research
thoroughly; to think outside to box.

Maybe these folks think we already know everything, so there's
no need for further study.

BTW - Subject: Re: Separating The Pseudo From Science


Albert



From: Albert Baier <albertgbaier.nul>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:23:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Separating The Pseudo From Science


>From: Terry W. Colvin <fortean1.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:38:24 +0700 (GMT+07:00)
>Subject: Separating The Pseudo From Science


Caution: Minority opinion follows!

Martin, Gerald, Ray, List,

>"We can sensibly build science policy only upon the
>consensus of the scientific community"

Mr. Gordin inadvertently exposes his belief in institutionalized
science here. What is 'science policy', but a bureaucratic way
of dealing with science? Since when are facts established by
consensus?

A theory is just that, someone's opinion of how something works.
It doesn't matter whether it's one persons opinion, or 100. The
fact is, most theories in science today are based on other
theories, which are based on other theories, and so on. It's a
house of cards. Institutionalized science has established, by
decree, certain theories as _fact_, and so, are sacrosanct.
Theories, are, by definition, unproven. Many are unprovable. The
origin of the universe is one example. It's fine to have
theories, but let's not base our facts on them, and let's not
deride those that contradict our own.

Most physicists believe that nothing can travel faster that
light (EM radiation). Some believe this has been proven, others
(wisely) prefer to wait and see. Perhaps hundreds of experiments
have shown this to be true, but only one is needed to disprove
it. I think the speed limit is true for light, but doesn't
necessarily apply to neutral matter.

>Nevertheless, something needs to be done. Demarcation may be an
>activity without rules, a historically fluctuating marker of the
>worries of the scientific community, but it is also absolutely
>vital. Not everything can or should be taught in science courses
>in school. Not every research proposal can or should receive
>funds. When individuals spread falsehood and misinformation,
>they must be exposed.

Goldin believes in the institutional of science in education. I
agree that falsehood and misinformation shouldn't be taught, but
this is a CSICOPian approach (AFAIK, he's not a member). I would
hope that a history professor would know how often science has
been proven wrong. It's more important to teach kids how to
think for themselves; to question everything; to research
thoroughly; to think outside to box.

Maybe these folks think we already know everything, so there's
no need for further study.

BTW - Subject: Re: Separating The Pseudo From Science


Albert




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