UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > May > May 13

Pulling Some UFO UpDates 'Threads' Together

From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 01:43:19 +0100
Archived: Mon, 13 May 2013 06:07:53 -0400
Subject: Pulling Some UFO UpDates 'Threads' Together


Hello List,

A while ago got to reading past posts on this List (eats up
time - good stuff pulls you in).

Long-running debates keep cropping up. Maybe we could divide them
into :

1) the ETH ('ET' or _empty_ nuts 'n' bolts craft?) versus non-
corporeal ('trickster' or myth 'n' legend? [A.J.'s query])

2) 'high strangeness' (exotic radiation or mind control) versus
'observer effect' (UFO 'attractors' or pre/post mental
damage/psychiatry).

Today found a must-read memo for 'The Metaphysics of Science -
An Account of Modern Science in Terms of Principles, Laws and
Theories' by Craig Dilworth; (here's the Springer description:

http://tinyurl.com/caezhwo).

Looking at other pro+con reviews found why it's a must-read. (in
the 'Metapsychology' review:

http://tinyurl.com/d2cju2o).

a) "The core principles of causation is given a non-
supernaturalist but not necessarily physicalist interpretation
at one point (p. 57) but it is unclear what non-physicalist
interpretations Dilworth think the principles imply, as I
discuss below.

In his comparison of Western science with parapsychology, magic,
Chinese science, and spiritual claims of Western religions, he
states that Western science has adopted an exclusively physical
understanding of uniformity of nature, substance, and causation.
Dilworth seems open to non-physical interpretations of the core
principles from studies of these alternatives".

- which seems to have a bearing on our first debate.

b) "Dilworth omits consideration of psychology or psychiatry as
sciences. It would be useful to clarify the ways his account
distinguishes accounts of mind he presumably accepts as
scientific from those he thinks non-scientific".

- which appealed to me personally (see Buckle on 'psychology' at
www.perceptions.couk.com/buckle1.html) and certainly seems to
apply to our second debate.

BTW - reading between the lines, Dilworth seems almost equally
sceptical of the scientific standing of some other 'social
sciences' - like economics. I'll go with that.


Cheers

Ray D




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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com