From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:14:14 -0500 Archived: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:44:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Essential Read From Current Encounters List >From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:35:55 -0000 >Subject: Re: Essential Read From Current Encounters List <snip> >And then we come to ufology, where the most intransigent set of >perplexing, contradictory phenomena confronts us. Should we be >surprised to find that this field is beset with the most >appalling array of simplistic quackery? Should we be surprised >that so little comparative weight is given to the work of those >(to instantiate a few: Vallee, Dolan, yourself even) who make an >intelligent and intellectually honest attempt to engage the data >and make sense of it? >In context, I would suggest that it should come as no surprise >at all. I think the problem is that one person's "quackery" is another person's "truth" and I think you'll find little agreement among many researchers on how they are defined. I remember a meeting where known ufologists were attempting to come up with a Hall Of Fame for UFO researchers, as a means to show the strengths of the field. But, it quickly got bogged down on specific individuals and whether or not they really belonged in that grouping. It seems that one issue was that being a prolific writer in the field doesn't necessarily translate into being an historic researcher that has had an impact on the field, and technology has now made the entire issue more cloudy. Steve 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