From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:44:48 -0500
Archived: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:16:25 -0500
Subject: Re: It's Just Not Science


>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:40:46 -0400
>Subject: Re: It's Just Not Science

>>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:49:39 -0400
>>Subject: Re: It's Just Not Science

>>>From: Jason Gamnmon <BoyintheMachine.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:03:06 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: It's Just Not Science

>>>You should know that my use of the word "real" is regarding the
>>>physical Universe, not part of the supernatural.

>>I was not referring to the supernatural. I understand there was
>>a time when reality was that the earth was both flat and the
>>center of the universe. Consensus reality is a model in our
>>minds that changes.

>Yes, there was a time when the earth was considered flat.
>Our observations indicate the earth is flat. It took Science to
>prove otherwise. It had nothing to do with "consensus reality".

Consensus reality is the description of reality that most of us
agree with. Science can change that description as you say, so
the last sentence above is nonsense.

>>>Exactly what evidence allows one to conclude that Subconscious
>>>Projections are a possible explanation for the UFO phenomena?
>>>Because Science works from drawing conclusions from the
>>>evidence, not making something up and then seeing if there's any
>>>evidence to support it.

>>I don't think I agree with that. People have been inspired by a
>>new idea, then found evidence to support it. There's the story
>>about the scientist who came up with the idea of the benzene
>>ring from a dream about a snake eating it's tail.

>Yes, but Stradonitz had already been pondering the arrangement
>of the molecule prior to his dream.

So what's your point? The idea of the arrangement came before
the proof that it was correct. You were arguing that the
conclusion always follows the data.

>>>You have to prove Subconscious Projections exist and explain how
>>>they operate before you could make the claim that they could
>>>appear on radar. We know that solid craft exist and can appear
>>>on radar. We don't know that Subconscious Projections exist,
>>>therefore we can't claim they can appear on radar. We do not
>>>have the luxury of claiming it is true because it is possible in
>>>our imaginations.

>>I'm not making the claim that Subconscious Projections exist. I do
>>propose the idea as one worth considering given the described
>>interactions between some ufos and their observers. Then it's an
>>empirical question whether or not they reflect radar. Maybe they
>>don't, since we have reports of visual sightings that do not appear
>>on radar.

>You are assuming subconscious projections exist per your
>question of how do we know they don't appear on radar. That's
>very close to claiming they exist.

I'm saying let's determine if subconscious projections exist. If
they do, then lets see if they reflect radar. I merely suggested
that we may already have an indication about the latter. Sorry
about getting ahead of myself.

>>>Yes, in a way the realm of Quantum Mechanics is like fantasy
>>>land. Strange things happen there. But guess what? The realm we
>>>live in, governed by physics doesn't behave in such manner.

>>The atomic bomb seems like a good example of a macro effect
>>resulting from interactions at the quantum level.

>When is the last time you walked through a wall? When is the
>last time you were in two places simultaneously? When is the
>last time you were in two different states, like being alive and
>dead, at the same time?

If I were to give you specific times, you would just say I was
imagining it. That's your standard reaction to reports of "high
strangeness", isn't it?

>>>There is no other tool. It's either Science or Magic.
>>>I for one would rather not return to the Dark Ages.

>>An alternative to the scientific method is the acquisition of
>>knowledge by direct experience. For example, practiced
>>meditators experience things that give them deep insight into a
>>different reality. You and I might not understand because we did
>>not have the same experience. You would probably write it off as
>>someone's fantasy strictly on the basis that the particular
>>experience is not observable by someone else. I, on the other
>>hand, might have the urge to learn to meditate so that I could
>>have a similar experience and 'know' this reality for myself.

>>A more mundane example is the phenomenon of one-trial learning.
>>When a child puts his hand on a red hot stove, he acquires
>>knowledge without repeated testing and verification of an
>>hypothesis. So knowledge can be gained without resorting to the
>>scientific method. And yet, no one would say this was magic.

>>All of us could acquire the same knowledge by touching the stove
>>or by learning to meditate ourselves, and we could build up a
>>revised consensus reality without knowing anything about the
>>scientific method.

>William you are arguing for magic again. You would take us right
>back to the Dark Ages.

Like most living organisms, you are susceptible to one-trial
learning. Shocking, isn't it, to discover that you participate
in this magical process?




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

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.