UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 13

Grand Betrayal Of Science Principles

From: Duncan Ives Lewis <iveslewis@yahoo.com>
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.


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

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.


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

"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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com