From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 18:43:22 +0000 Archived: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 07:58:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Essential Read From Current Encounters List >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:13:06 -0600 >Subject: Re: Essential Read From Current Encounters List >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> >>To: <post.nul>, >>Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:14:14 -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 >>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. >Expressed this way - and I'm sure it's not your meaning, Steve - >this comes across as intellectual relativism. In fact, there >_are_ quacks in this field, and I think a great many are >recognizable as soon as they open mouths or attack keyboards. >One difference between the quack and the sensible is that the >latter has an awareness of established knowledge in a broad >range of disciplines and a consequent sense of how the UFO >question fits within that knowledge. He or she does not attempt >to overthrow much or all of history and science in order to >accommodate the UFO phenomenon. He or she knows what evidential >requirements are and how to advance arguments that are not >instantly dismissible by an intellectually sophisticated >audience (which in my experience tends to be approachable and >curious if its collective intelligence and learning are not >insulted at the outset). The sensible person is a modest one >comfortable with ambiguity, nuance, and limitations. >I certainly do not argue that if one does not embrace a >particular theory or chooses to adopt another concerning the >nature of the phenomenon, one becomes a laughable nut job. It is >legitimate, however, to point out how closely or how distantly >the available evidence fits a particular interpretation. It is >legitimate to note that a belief betrays illogic or demands far >more than reasonable inference from the data can carry. And, the above is why I adore you, Jerry Clark. You can't know this, but I was told by a couple of agents and publishers that they couldn't represent/publish my book. Not because it was poorly written or illogical, but because it would not support or cater to the UFO believers. I didn't have enough literary weight to argue with them. Maybe, someday, I will self-publish the damn thing and not worry about catering to 'the crowd of believers'. I always hoped there was a crowd out there willing to listen to rational explanations supported by historical documents. Unlike Dolan, I don't hold an academic degree in history or heavy duty resume. Oh well, 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