There’s a blog posting which is making quite a stir in the realms Fortian (this kind of clues me in on just how little is going with the UFO biz this week.) It was written by George Dvorsky of Toronto. George’s blog is called Sentient Developments, ‘“Transhumanist and technoprogressive perspectives on science, philosophy, ethics, and the future of intelligent life’.
OK, no ho-ha there. Transhumanist feel that human issues will be solved in one way or another by human ingenuity. That humanity will someday transcend its flesh and blood existence in favor of a kind of merge with technology or even a transformation of the human experience into technology allowing (according to some) the persona of an individual to exist long after the physical body has perished. (that’s oversimplifying it to be sure.)
I kind of like these people.
That aside, he recently wrote a piece condemning UFOlogy entitled :Unidentified flying idiots.” Here, George rants about the admittedly religious branch of UFOlogy, I refer to the outspoken prejudicial minority, the believers who defend their “turf” against anyone who intrudes with a rational explanation. (you know the type–perhaps you are the type!)
George writes.
Closer to home, I’ve known for some time that UFO aficionados frequent my blog. I often get nasty letters from them complaining about my UFO denial and my fixation with such empirical anomalies as the Fermi Paradox. At the same time however, I have to assume that UFOlogists read my blog and integrate my reports on science and philosophy with their own beliefs in extraterrestrial visitations.
Tha’s a interesting take, to think many UFOlogest read this kind of stuff simply to validate their pet belief systems such as they are. The “nasty letters” (of which I have a growing file cabinet of ,) are “just punishment” according to them, for not towing their narrow little line. I mean, how dare someone who does not have an overriding interest in validating the current ETH meme criticize the holy defenders of the faith! The nerve! Destroy them NOW!
Back to George;
And I also know that Mac Tonnies over at Posthuman Blues links to my articles from time-to-time. Posthuman Blues often deals with transhumanist and other future issues, but TonniesÃ’s legitimate content is offset by his misguided focus on UFOlogy. As a result, the transhumanist movement may have a harder time gaining public acceptance and support with this kind of negative association.
Weeeell Im not fond of the wording here. Mac is certainly welcome to whatever focus trips his fancy. He’s got a far different take than most mainstream UFOlogest, one that I find refreshing. (although I’m not in 100% agreement with it.) Saying that, I think calling his focus misguided is pretty far off the mark and a bit unfair.
George sez..
Part of the problem here, aside from wishful thinking, is the rampant scientific illiteracy that now pervades much of Western society, particularly in parts of the United States. Many people these days are unable to determine which claims have scientific credence and which do not. Popular culture does little to remedy this, with shows like the X-Files and Coast to Coast perpetuating the idea that it’s okay to discuss UFOs and other pseudoscientific claims in the context of legitimate science.
I actually think it is OK to discuss such things in the context of legitimate science; simply that science cannot verify or falsify most of the claims of UFOlogy therefore that data is by definition unscientific and should be declared (loudly) as such.
I see nothing wrong with that.
And that is very painful to the jingoistic mouth-breathers out there. Those believing everything they hear on entertainment gigs like Coast to Coast. To them them, its science which is the problem not the lack of science in education. (Brr, some of them are educators too, how in the heck can you teach something if you don’t understand it?) Answer, perhaps that’s what is wrong with science education in the US!
George goes on..
Let’s take my blog entry on the search for artificial objects in space. Many UFOlogists, I’¢m sure, took that article as further proof that there are aliens in our midst. Wrong! It’s actually telling us the opposite. The work that Luc Arnold is doing is important from the perspective that we have devised yet another way of detecting signs of ETIs. Given the sheer simplicity and elegance of Arnold’s theorized calling-card technique, the cosmos should be screaming with signs of ETIs. I fully suspect that work by astronomers over the next several decades will reveal none of these calling cards. The search for artificial objects, like SETI’s impossible search for radio signals, will provide further proof that there’s nobody out there zipping around in spaceships.
I’m somewhat at odds with this. Although SETI reminds me of the drunk looking for his glasses under the lamppost (did he lose his glasses under the lamppost? No but, that’s where the light is.) SETI is laudable only in that it’s an attempt to pull intelligent signals out of the mishmash of crap out there. We need to do something like that, at least until we know better. I suspect that, if we do find something that’s undeniably artificial it will either be (a) nothing but some automated junk (like a radar beam,) or (b) completely unintelligible.
If you took an Amazonian hunter-gatherer set him or her down in front of a TV displaying reruns of All in the Family, what could you expect the hunter-gatherer to comprehend more than the bare minimum? And that culture is (believe it or not) almost identical to our own compared to ANY culture we might come across in space.
But we should at least look Damn it!, the folks defending this idea that “of course our space brothers are here, are really messing up an otherwise interesting field. When one approaches anything unscientifically one automatically limits oneself to belief and faith. If that’s your game, fine! Hope it works out for you. Remember those tribal folk from the Amazon? Worked great for them! Just bang the rocks together guys!
I can see why this fellow is pissing them off so much. He’s articulate and he tells the painful truth without sugar-coating. It’s not nice, it’s often not pretty and I don’¢t always agree.
But, I like your blog George–just saying!
perhaps a little blunt but not overly insulting (unless the truth is insulting, your experiences may vary.) 
