In the world of UFOlogy it’¢s obvious that there are many different ways of investigation and analysis. UFOlogy, as it is cannot be relegated into any formal scientific inquiry (or at least ,only on rare occasions.) Without phisical evedence, UFOs remain an observational phenomena, a field that is more like deep space astronomy or perhaps, quantum physics.
At least in astronomy we have reproducible evidence, same with quantum physics. What would they be like if all they had to go on was inconstant testimony from eyewitnesses? I think they would be something like.umm – ¦UFOology!
Since UFOlogy has no formal standing in the sciences it attracts (more or less inevitably) a mass of amateur investigators and passionate advocates, also a motley of entrepreneurs who try to make money from the whole mess. Not to mention a whole zoo of complete nutcases. (OK–we won’t mention those.)
The entrepreneurs seem to make the most successful group, consisting of writers, filmmakers, convention and lecture promoters, many of them make their living off of the others. At least they make a living, some of them anyway.
The passionate advocates are largest and most vocal group. It’s rather difficult for me to be objective about this bunch, I’e been under assault by several members of the nutcase-contingent for my opinions and their actions truly color my opinions.
Passionate advocates are sort of the counterpoint to the so called “Klassin skeptibunkies ” or whatever bigoted derogatory term they happen to be using this week. Passionate advocates (PAs) tend to be fairly intelligent and some of them are relatively articulate. What sets them apart is the backwards method of approaching most problems and particularly the UFO issue.
Most of the time, new phenomena are analyzed in a fairly systematic manner. Evidence is gathered, hypothesis formulated based on the evidence, then tested and re-analyzed into further hypothesis and so it goes. Eventually a conclusion can be reached based on this process. Look at how atmospheric sprites were discovered.
Not so in UFOlogy. Many armchair UFologests see something strange, form a belief about what it could be and then defend their belief against all dissenters. This is a really poor way to investigate a phenomena, doomed to failure as demonstrated by 60 odd years of absolutely no progress whatsoever.
For example. I have before me a shiny red object, shaped like an irregular ball about the size of my fist. It seems to have a short stem poking out of the top with a tiny green leaf attached. It looks very much like an apple however without touching it I cannot discern more of its nature than it’s outward appearance. (It could be a plastic apple in which case it’s not really an apple at all.)
A Passionate advocate might look at the same object and say It is an apple (a skeptic) might point out that we really cannot tell the nature of this this thing without examining it. A conversation between us might go thus;
(I) It looks like an apple but it might not be. At this point I don’t think it’s a good idea to jump to any conclusions.
(PA) I believe it’s an apple!
(I) How can you be so sure that it’s an apple and not a chunk of plastic shaped like an apple?
(PA) I’m a world famous Jet pilot ace from the first Gulf War!
(I) I don’t see how that has anything to do with the question
(PA) You’re stupid!
(I) What does that have to do with the identity of this round object?
(PA) It has everything to do with the situation, you are an idiot!
(I) I suspect that you really don’t know if that’s an apple or not. Furthermore, saying that I’m an idiot is a logical fallacy and it’s insulting.
(PA) It’s not an insult, it’s a statement of fact. I”m insulted by your attitude. Asshole!
(I) What? I wasn’t trying to be insulting.
(PA) Well I’m offended now and you have to shut up because I’m offended!
(I) I don’t think I need to shut up just because you say you are offended.
(PA) Now you are calling me a liar! You fraud! You stalker! You maniac!
(I) I think that’s pretty rude and that doesn’t get us any closer to what that object is.
(PA) I”m not talking to you any more! I’m telling all my friends about what a horrible person you are!
Of course this is somewhat oversimplified and describes the extreme case, but a true one nevertheless. PAs can be told by a predilection towards insulting people with an marked inability to take even an offhanded slight. It’s pretty unfair but I’ve found many of these people to be unfair and unapproachable. If you don’t agree with their agenda (and for some of the extreme ones, their agenda is nothing more than self promotion.) than you inhabit the lowest reaches of their imagination, it’s OK (in their minds) to do anything legal or illegal to get you to be quiet and allow them to yammer. Smear campaigns are not below these types. They lie without a single qualm, as a matter of fact, I’ve found that the closer one gets to the truth the more frantic an insulting they get.
Happily, most PAs don”t feel it’s necessary to defend their territory in this manner. I’ve had many conversations with people who are very passionate regarding the fringes UFOlogy. We never devolved into name calling and the like. Respectful discourse can be experienced by both sides of a controversy so long as each party keeps a certain amount of respect for each other. Of course that’s not the intent of an extreme PA. They are more interested in ensuring that no story save their own gets out. See, they believe by repeating something loudly and often they can change reality to better suite themselves. If they repeat that all skeptics are stupid (a forgone conclusion for some of them,) all skeptics are indeed stupid unless the skeptics loudly proclaim that the PA is stupid etc. This is where the conversation breaks down because, it’s not up to another person to pre-judge anothers intelligence based on their opinion. They may have a stupid opinion in which case it might be OK to say in effect “I don’t agree with that opinion because’ That’s to the point, objective and constructive. How anyone can think beginning a conversation with ‘“you’re an idiot!’ is somehow going to change someone’s mind is beyond me. But many extreme Passionate Advocates believe that simply trashing their opinion is trashing them in a very personal way. I really don’t understand that either.
But that’s why I’m the Odd Emperor and you are whoever you are!
Share and enjoy!
The apple analogy is an excellent one, and pretty fairly describes the uncritical viewpoint of certain of the “passionate advocates.”
Of course those same passionate advocates, unable to connect with the analogy, might respond with something like: “Apples don’t perform ultra-high velocity right angle turns” or “apples don’t exceed the speed of sound without breaking the sound barrier” (as if these seeming violations of physical laws give more credence to the fact that an actual, physical, nuts and bolts spacecraft was observed). This of course, is analagous to not only assuming that the apple before us is an apple, but is also assuming various properties of the apple, ergo: not only is that an apple, but it is the sweetest apple that has ever been; it is a golden apple of the sun, it has healing properties, but only if you are pure of heart; that apple is a special, sentient hybrid apple, etc. ad nauseum… Some may come along and state: “I have estimated the diameter of the apple, and it’s height, from crown to base, and I have ascertained that it is within 3 standard deviations of normal apple proportions, which strongly suggest it is a real apple…”
Well, I could go on, but there’s no point.
Best,
RDB
Heh!;
I selected that example on purpose because Occam’s razor would suggest that the object is indeed a real apple. It’s also highly probable the object is a real apple, we know those are common objects and my proposal that it’s a plastic apple is actually more complex. So the person claiming that they know its an apple is probably correct. I was hoping someone would call me on it that.
So in essence I’m playing the role of someone suggesting that UFO’s might be alien aircraft against a skeptic claiming they “know™ that a witness saw a sundog, a kite, a figment of their imagination etc. It™s far more probable that any one of those things are truly what the witness saw, saying that it’s irresponsible for a skeptic to make blanket declarations of any kind until the data is in.
And the data on UFOs is most assuredly NOT in.
I selected that example on purpose because Occam’s razor would suggest that the object is indeed a real apple.
“Suggest” is the keyword, here.
It’s also highly probable the object is a real apple, we know those are common objects and my proposal that it’s a plastic apple is actually more complex.
Just barely more complex, and I live in an apple producing state, and actually own three apple trees myself, and harvest many boxes from them each year. Yet, it has been my experience that bowls of artifical fruit are relatively common – common enough that nearly everyone has encountered an artificial apple at least once, and probably many more times than that. Additionally, fake food and fake flowers have become art forms unto themselves, so that many such examples are indistinguishable from the real thing. Many, in fact, are scented, now.
http://www.silkytyme.com/wax.html
http://www.silkytyme.com/wax.html
http://www.amazingfakes.com/
http://www.cherrycreekcottage.com/category/293/0/Fake_Food.html
Given this, in a real world example, the hypothesis that the apple is artificial is perfectly allowable, and is as testable as the hypothesis that it’s a real piece of fruit.
The bottom line is that until an experiment is conducted to demonstrate that it is a real apple – until someone takes a bite – the question cannot be definitively answered.
The apple is before us, on the table. No one knows how it got there. How much money are you willing to bet that it’s real?
It’s far more probable that any one of those things are truly what the witness saw, saying that it’s irresponsible for a skeptic to make blanket declarations of any kind until the data is in.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=data
Which data?
And the data on UFOs is most assuredly NOT in.
Which data? What about when the data is hearsay, and isn’t really data at all?
Something occurred to me recently. Video cam surveillance of all kinds is becoming extremely common. Most grocery stores, shopping malls, etc., survey their lots with cams. Many businesses, as a matter of fact – not just the large ones. Right down to the level of espresso stands. Add to this various webcams, traffic cams (they even have them on the mountain passes in this state), weather cams, sky cams, etc – that’s a lot of coverage. I know for a fact that a large bolide which passed over here a couple of years ago and produced a sonic boom was actually caught on a surveillance cam in a private lot, and was also caught by a sky cam to the north of here, in Canada. Such coverage is only bound to increase. It seems that at some point, somewhere, a UFO should be captured on a cam somewhere. So, say, ten years down the road, or twenty. Possibly millions of surveillance cams nationwide. If there is a bonafide anomalous phenomenon at work, it seems that it will only be a matter of time…
At the same time, there is buttload of satellite imagery of the earth’s surface with very good resolution available to the public now (yes, I’m aware of the Google Maps “UFO” that was making the rounds). Such earth surveillance is ongoing, and it’s not all done by the government, either. Again, it only seems a matter of time before something should be captured on such surveillance. I studied remote sensing at University – satellite imagery analysis – and this was in the days of 386 computers, and unix mainframes. I could find a green car in a green field back then, just by analyzing the reflectance of the pixels.
As far as data goes – many UFOs are reported to be highly luminous. Think about what having ONE spectrogram of a UFO might mean.
And the data on UFOs is most assuredly NOT ‘really data at all?
Eh? Even data that’s hearsay is still data. An out and out lie is data. How could it not be so? There is a question of quality information certainly, someone with a history of wild speculation couched as fact reports a sighting, that is still data. It may be data about the person and not UFOs at all but it still could be useful.
This touches on the issue of studying the UFO witness more than the event itself for indeed, the witness is something of a physical evidence. Of what we cannot be sure but I believe if UFology wants to actually make progress it needs to start doing this with a vengeance and cease defending pet theories.
Did you hear of the folks who attempted to film an abduction via webcam? They didn’t get anything to my recollection and the witness still claimed they were abducted.
Did you hear of the folks who attempted to film an abduction via webcam? They didn’t get anything to my recollection and the witness still claimed they were abducted.
Yeah – I did – I believe there’s been more than one instance of that, since. I don’t recall where I saw the following, but in response to one of these failed “guest appearances,” someone put a scanned polaroid of an empty room up on their website, as proof that gray aliens can become invisible. I’m pretty sure it was intended as a joke – if it wasn’t, well…slap my ass and call me Sally.
Along other lines, I am snowbound, today. There is two feet of snow on the ground, and drifts up to four feet, and I have to go out and start shoveling that stuff in a while, in subzero windchills. I also came down with a cold during the night, and am extremely cranky. This cup of coffee is like the exlir of life.
I’m truly sorry to hear that! We grew up in a place that had four months of winter and six months of bad weather! Today in the Odd Empire however it was a balmy 75 degrees, might get to the low 60s tonight.
Be good!
Speaking of “data” (of other than robust scientific pedigree) yours truly is sitting on quite a lot, if only because processing it and putting it up on the web is terribly time consuming, and ultimately thankless. I honestly believe that if I went “turncoat” on the “invisible college” of which I was a member (I was always in favor of putting all the material up on the web; my partner and several others were not) the result would be as thankless as everything else I undertook in ufology. and the material would be as abused and distorted by the fringe, just as they abuse and distort everything they get their paws on.
RDB
Speaking of data (of other than robust scientific pedigree) yours truly is sitting on quite a lot, if only because processing it and putting it up on the web is terribly time consuming, and ultimately thankless.
Wow; sounds like fun, need any help?