UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 28

Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

From: Martin Shough <mshough.nul>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:10:49 -0000
Archived: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:13:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002


>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:39:37 EST
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

>>From: Martin Shough <mshough.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:28:40 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

>>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:33:06 EST
>>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

><snip>

>>>No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
>>>testimony be of such a kind that its falseness would be more
>>>miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

><snip>

>>This is a primitive rationalism that hasn't yet learnt that
>>experience is both personally and culturally dynamic. Nature is
>>for Hume a static truth. But a genuine argument from experience
>>is the argument from _all_ experience, which is conducted by
>>human society all along the breaking wavefront of its advance
>>into the unknown future, and which demonstrates that no cultural
>>experience is 'firm and unalterable'. All that is now 'law'
>>represents merely a temporising 'fudge factor' for an unknown
>>physics that is the miraculous waiting to become

>Fine words, but the unkown physics of which you speak is of
>course unkown to you or anybody else, at this time.

Well of course, that's exactly the point! I was rather hoping
you might conclude from this that you require a better argument
than the circular reasoning offered by Hume in order to support
your Canute-like denial that the tide of history will rise over
your head. The history of human knowledge is the history of the
physically miraculous becoming the 'physics of today'. Not every
miracle that is possible in principle becomes physically 'real'
of course, but again this is exactly the point: Those that do
become real do so because human experience is not bounded by the
sort of fatuous sophistry that defines 'possibility' as 'the
experience of the known' and then concludes that experience of
the unknown is impossible. The unknown is not merely possible
but, in some form, inevitable; and it is inevitable therefore
that what is unrecognised, yet actual, becomes an anomalous part
of our collective experience. By definition such experience will
escape the conventional categories of the socially constructed
reality.

>One has tuse _something_ to get a grip on reality. That
>something, today, is the physics of today. Of course that may
>change, but usually just in incremental advances. But, so what?
>To deny that we can try to "know" anything because we can't
>know everything is just nonsense.

I did not remotely suggest any such thing!

>Allows good philosophical discussions, but never solved an IFO.

Excuse me, but it was you who introduced the topic of the
miraculous, it was you who suggested that a non-IFO would imply
miraculously improbable physics, and it was you who invoked
Hume's incoherent philosophical argument against the miraculous
to support that view. If you have no taste for philosophy don't
rely on it. In this case you would have been wise not to rely on
it. My reply explained why. How about answering to the point?

If on the other hand you now wish to discuss physics, then bring
it on! What exactly is the 'physics of today' which you
graciously concede 'may change' (though 'usually only
incrementally'; oh really?) and which provides you with this
'grip on reality' that you speak of? Please be specific about
those theoretical principles or experimental results of today
which in your opinion are immune to reinterpretation in the
context of the physics of tomorrow? Since you concede our
universal human ignorance of the physics of tomorrow this is not
an argument that can be conducted by appeal to authority, so I
look forward with interest to your reasoning.

>Thanks for your contribution.

Thanks for your condescension


Martin Shough


[ 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