From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:29:48 -0400 Archived: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:05:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:06:38 -0700 >Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:57:22 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved >>>From: Herb Taylor <herbufo.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:08:30 -0400 (EDT) >>>Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved >>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>>>To: <post.nul> >>>>Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:38:45 -0300 >>>>Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved <snip> >Printy never went to college, as far as I know never took a >college science or engineering courses, never got got any sort >of science degree. Instead he joined the Navy after high school >and became a nuclear submarine tech. Nothing wrong with that. >But he is unschooled in real scientific analysis and it shows in >his repeated bungled attempts at such analysis while he preaches >how scientific he is and unscientific the UFO true believers >are. >Printy, like many debunkers, is a wannabee scientist. Because he >was a nuclear tech and is now an avid amateur astronomer, he >thinks this alone is enough to make him a trained scientist. >Instead he is a vacuum cleaner sucking up data with no proper >filter on how to analyze it properly, hence endless >pseudoscientific nonsense on his website. He is the perfect >example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. <snip> >No doubt, like a broken clock, Printy is occasionally correct, >but the much safer bet is that Printy is wrong about practically >everything. (Many more examples) I'm sure if your sub's nuclear >reactor needs fixin' or if you want him to point out the North >Star, he is a good man to call. However, anybody who holds Tim >Printy up as some sort of "scientific" authority on all things >UFO never to be questioned is probably as clueless as Printy >usually is. >David (fed up with pseudo-skeptics) Rudiak Hello David and All, With all due respect, I am a bit surprised by the assumption that one has to be annointed by some scientist degree to have a credible opinion about UFOs. This is a treaturous path as it lends to believe that we should bow to Bill Nye's opinion on the subject. The attitude of so-called _science_ towards UFOs is all but scientific. and Ufology has been in a ghetto precisely because a bunch of academics maintain it there. The guys with the degrees mostly refuse to even look at the evidence, by fear not only that it would change their opinion, but that the said opinion would have them rejected by their _scientific_ peers. Skepticism is half part peer pressure, half part ignorance and half part "you have been trained to shutt up". I guess you can add another half of volutary blindness. If the halves dont add add up, it is all the same: there is no science in that by people who are allegedly trained to think scientific. I understand that it is only fair game to kick in the nuts people who wave the scientific flag to back up non-scientific claims. You can play this game when a guy does not have the academic chops, but what if poor Printy had the academics to back him? In a sense, he has, you know: the silence by science on the subject of UFOs is deafening. Vincent Boudreau 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