UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 30

Re: Questions for Abductees

From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 16:01:13 +0900
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:02:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees

>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:02:58 -0500
>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
>Subject: Questions for Abductees
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.

>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees
>>Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:43:42 -0500

>>Somebody else
>>could just as reasonably -- or, really, just as unreasonably --
>>assume that alien visits are extremely likely, and therefore
>>invoke Occam's Razor to suggest that UFO sightings are caused by
>>aliens. The reasoning is equally silly on both sides, and equally

>This is crackers and confused, but it's possible that a lack of
>clarity on my part, in the first place, has contributed to that.
>Occam's razor is to do with the number of assumptions,
>hypotheses, entities, what you will, required to explain a given
>phenomenon. Whether *or not* ET is out there, you multiply
>hypotheses inevitably and inexorably if you want to argue that
>even one of all the teeming millions of genuinely UFOs reported
>is ET. The likelihood of there being any ETs at all is a separate
>discussion, but it is, of course, an arm of a pincer movement.
>This doesn't crack or annihilate the ETH, but it puts it under
>enormous pressure - pressure it does not even remotely receive
>from the average UFO buff or even some top-of-the-heap UFO buffs
>whom we all know and love.

Ockham's Razor is a bogus tool virally perpetuated by
self-deceived sophists.  Sure we can count the assumptions that
surround the ETH (Extra-terrestrial hypothesis), discarding them
with some sort of voodoo probabilistic weighting, "this one has
got to go!", but such activity is thoroughly unscientific.
(However, such behavior is the epitome of "scientism").  If
science acts as a rigid, self-preserving edifice, which is not
conscious of its own dogmas and potential inadequacies, then
science is lost.  Somebody turn a light on; stop sitting in the
dark slashing your wrists with Ockham's razor.

"Likelihood" cannot be adequately measured.  Anyone couching
their argument in terms of the "likelihood" of the ETH is
delusional.  The ETH is not so much experiencing scientific
pressure as it is revealing a huge vacuum in science.  Mr.
Hubble, orbitting above us, has caused many a scientist to
redefine their perceived bounds of the universe; this was the
simple result of catching light before it was mediated by Earth's
atmosphere.  Should we speculate upon other mediational forces
that alter our understanding of the universe?  We only have so
much information describing our universe(s), and it should be
obvious that the information regarding its nature and bounds is
enormously incomplete and tainted by partially known and perhaps
even unknown mediating phenomenae.  To use this infinitesmal pool
of information, which is quite questionable itself, to concoct a
scientistic, "quantitative" probability that intelligent
extraterrestial civilizations exist, is insanely speculative.  I
recommend that individuals so inclined to scientism read (or
reread as you obviously missed the point) Charles Fort.  There is
little "pressure" upon the ETH here beyond the ego-maintenance
concern of status-quo scientists.  We simply do not know what the
truth is regarding this phenomenae.

Let's play with this so called pressure on the ETH a little bit

If a hypothesis violates what science claims to understand, and
it is said that this so-called understanding within science
applies a negtaing pressure to this hypothesis, it can be said
that an equal and opposite negating pressure is applied upon what
science claims to understand.  :)

Peter gives a synopsis of Davies:

> All this means is that a scientist can work only with the materials
> to hand.

And such a state of affairs is a grave limitation at scientific
method that we all must endure. (I use 'at' as Peter stole my
preposition :). Our blindness does not miraculously invalidate

>a wormhole, at least, doesn't violate what we understand to be
>the laws of nature, but are (for now) prohibitively expensive to
>create from scratch.

Prohibitive for us, but not necessarily prohibitive for some
other hypothetical alien intelligence.  You seem to be blind
yourself to the "blindingly obvious" -- being that we don't truly
know what is possible or not.  Our science has been principally
developed from Terran observations.  Many of us share the belief
that the universe is a just a little bit bigger, and hence less
understood, than our own playground.

Most of us agree that the ETH is not truth.  It is hypothesis.
But it is the act of a closed-minded tunnel-reality fetishist to
slam the door on the theory when there isn't incontrovertible
evidence against it, given the infancy of our science, and a
floodgate of folklore suggesting it.  The folklore may suggest
other explanations.  What may be interesting is to actually
explore some of these alternatives (earth lights for UFOs, lucid
dreaming for abduction et al) extensively, rather than
perpetually jabbing at ETH with trivial sophistry.  The lack of a
cogent presence of such alternate hypotheses helps resonate (for
better or worse) ETH even more.

Christopher Penrose

Search for other documents from or mentioning: penrose | 101653.2205 | gsandow

[ 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