From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:06:16 +0100 Archived: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:13:26 -0400 Subject: The 'Multiple Uncertainty' Of Ufology Hello List, Many of us will have been impressed by the unusual breadth, honesty and frankness of the recent discussion which culminated with those Third Kingdom Experiences posts. It certainly made me re-think the 'multiple uncertainty' facing science, and ufology in particular. I.e - if your neighbour has a mystery intruder, from the circumstantial, descriptive and forensic evidence you'll probably soon narrow it down to fish or fowl, mammal or reptile. That is, although some evidence might ambiguously fit most options, much more should be restricted to maybe two alternatives, while a feather or a fish-scale, say, should be a clincher. So I'd tried to compare typical evidence of four diametrically opposed views: first the ETH nuts'n bolts craft (w/humanoid occupants) versus things of the spirit world (ghosts or demons of superstition); then an alternate axis of hidden physical beings (the 'Little People' etc) versus manifestations of paleo- mythology, like the 'Green Man'. That resulted in - respectively - http://tinyurl.com/67g3bjx http://tinyurl.com/5tzmjo9 http://tinyurl.com/6ca2vcl http://tinyurl.com/69x7cry with http://tinyurl.com/5t394qz maybe covering some overlaps. You can imagine, after all that effort, it was grieving to find that the evidence alone settled nothing - Sherlock Holmes couldn't choose a culprit. Even the UK/USA courtroom model of two adversarial arguments just doesn't work in this area. An example of that was when Richard P Feynman's impatience with the long-running 'wave versus particle' photon dispute made him plump for the 'strongest' case and he rashly wrote 'Light is definitely made of particles'. He should have said 'Light is definitely not a particle, but nor is it a wave'. Because light behaves like a particle in one case and like a wave in another, it can't be either of those things solely and precisely, but must be something more complex, obeying higher, unknown rules. Maybe that's where science is now, regarding the 'multiple uncertainty' of ufology. Cheers Ray D BTW - there is one common factor in those four 'cases': they all feature or suggest things that humans can't do, including 'living in and traveling through space' (ETH case); we now know that's fairly lethal for us in our present form, using our present technology. That is, the terms 'astronaut' and 'cosmonaut' were over-hopeful claims: we can't travel the universe or even to the stars - at the moment. 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