From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:26:36 +0000 Archived: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:13:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Article Submitted To Science Magazine '74 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:51:36 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Article Submitted To Science Magazine '74 >For the first time I am publishing an article I wrote and >submitted to Science Magazine in 1974. >The response was quick. >It was gently suggested that I send it elsewhere. Did it deserve >the boot? What do you think: >http://www.brumac.8k.com/ZirkleCase/ZirkleCase.html > Bruce: I really liked what you had to say in your article. In my opinion, a very sane approach. I include my favorite section of the paper: ----- The third choice is often used as an "ultimate resort" by those who are con terrestrial vinced that there are no unknown, macroscopic,physical phenomena left to discover. They would argue that if the phenomenon described in the report cannot be explained in terms of known phenomena, the report must be a fabrication, either intentional or unintentional, on the part of the person(s) making the report. An intentional fabrication would be a premeditated hoax (fraud); an unintentional fabrication would be a manifestation of physiological and/or psychological phenomena. Reasons for intentional fabrication could include the desire for monetary reward, the de sire for public notice, and, perhaps, "status inconsistency.43 Reasons for unintentional fabrication include mental distress, and/or hallucination (psychological), and incorrect sensory data (physiological). Since the report presented here was confirmed in part by at least one other reliable observer, it seems highly unlikely that it is an unintentional fabrication. Moreover, in view of the fact that the observers neither expected nor received either compensation or publicity, and, in fact, may have even placed their social and economic security in jeopardy, it seems extremely unlikely that the report is an intentional fabrication. The fourth choice, which is to adopt a "wait and see" attitude, is a legiti- mate choice for a scientist who is only marginally familiar with the literature on UFO phenomena. Whether this scientist eventually decides to accept an explana- tion in terms of known phenomena, or whether he decides to accept an explanation in terms of a new phenomenon would depend strongly upon his inner feelings toward "semi-scientific" subjects and upon whatever further studies he might make. The fifth choice is probably not a legitimate choice for a scientist to make based on the information contained in only a single report such as this one. --- Page 20 Discussion The analysis of the previous report has been presented in detail to illustrate the sort of reasoning and argumentation (forensic physics) which is applied to well-documented UFO reports in order to determine whether or not they are indeed "truly puzzling." A scientist who applies this sort of analysis to a report, and who is unable to provide for himself a convincing explanation in terms of known phenomena, may decide that at least one UFO report contains information on a new phenomenon of some type, although he may not know how to categorize the phenomenon. The report and analysis have also been presented in detail to give the reader a feeling for what constitutes a puzzling report. (Basically, such a report should contain sufficient detail about a particular phenomenon so that identification in terms of known phenomena would seem possible.) However, whether or not the reader believes that the report contained herein is puzzling, it should be apparent that a report such as this, when supported by a detailed analysis, could convince a scientist to look further into the UFO situation and even to investigate UFO reports. Apparently, quite a few scientists over the last twenty-five years and parti- cularly over the last ten years have independently concluded that UFO reports are worthy of study (thus, the "invisible college"). However, very few agree on the underlying nature of the phenomena. Typical UFO theories which have been advanced are so bizarre as to be rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Un- fortunately, the nearly universal rejection of the theories has some times led to unwarranted rejections of reports of these phenomena and often to severe criticism, ' even vilification, of those who have argued that the phenomena deserve public scientific recognition. --- Page 21 Although some scientists have become convinced that UFO pheonomena should be investigated, most take the attitude that there is little or nothing new to be learned from such studies (it is not expected "that science will be advanced thereby”)3 However, this attitude should not be allowed to either restrict those scientists who are interested in conducting investigations of UFO phenomena or prevent publications of the results of such investigations in well known scien- tific journals (subject, of course, to standard review procedures). It is unlikely that the formal publication of papers related to UFO phenomena will "harm," or, in the words of astronomer Carl Sagan45 (used in another context), "shred the fabric of" science.46 ----- KK Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ 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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp