From: Duncan Ives Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:44:06 -0400 Subject: Grand Betrayal Of Science Principles Originally posted to 'Whispers' by Ives Lewis Tuesday, 11 June 2002, at 5:02 p.m. http://www.junjun.com/cgi-bin/boards/whispers/config.pl?read=3D32786 Blinded by "Science" Have you ever participated in a discussion and realized that there was a fundamental flaw in another=92s position, but could not quite put your finger on it? Recent discussions with debunkers have me thinking about their positions on UFOs =96 particularly one post, not written by a debunker, that included the following statement: "There are two avenues of scientific research, and both are necessary to gain any level of advancement in science. They are empirical and speculative. And, for some reason, the skeptics, as well as many believers, leave out the speculative end of research." It was an excellent point. Moreover, I realized something. Most of us here in the 'believer' category (I hate the label) have accepted and even valued much of the work of the debunkers, recognizing the contribution made by weeding out the weaker cases. On one level, it would appear that we all have the same goal of finding truth. Not to pick on Oberg, but in thinking back on his posts, I=92ve yet to see him acknowledge any factors in any cases that would support the ETH. Where is the willingness to speculate based on the available evidence? One example of this curious absence is his response to the 1967 Malmstrom incident. I cannot quote him from memory. But to me, the substance of his response was rather impatient: =91yes yes, an unexplained case that deserves to be investigated,=92 and so on and so forth. No acknowledgement whatsoever of the behavioral aspects of the case which pointed away from some kind of random prosaic event. No willingness to speculate on the basis of evidence that literally jumps from the case. Why? The best debaters concede points to their opponents when the point is won. The refusal on the part of Oberg and others to ever concede behavioral or observational characteristics that suggest anything other than a prosaic explanation is suspicious. Dictionary.com gives the following definition to the "scientific method": "The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis." I see that the phrase "observation of phenomena" is included. The debunker viewpoint seems to put blinders on for the most obvious, intriguing behavioral aspects of incidents such as Malmstrom. It appears to be a deliberate effort not just to give such factors negligible importance, but to disregard them entirely. Instead, time is spent promoting unidentified prosaic explanations that offer nothing to the debate except dead weight. This is then masqueraded as a scientific approach, and those of us who question this are treated condescendingly. If we contrast those actual practices to the ideals of the scientific method as defined, we find they are inconsistent in the most fundamental ways possible. The debunker method does not only involve observation of phenomena; it also involves disregarding factors inconsistent with a preconceived final position. It does not involve the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena; it instead involves the promotion of unidentified prosaic explanations consistent with the preconceived final position. And while the debunkers have shouted shrilly their criticism that experimentation is not possible to test the ETH hypothesis, their failure to even name their proposed prosaic explanations, exemplified by Oberg's failure to do so in Malmstrom, marks the ultimate hypocrisy. How can an unidentified theory be tested? This can only be defined as a grand betrayal of the fundamental guiding principles of science.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp