![](\"http:\/\/www.oddempire.org\/images\/2006\/cosmic.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In the world of UFOlogy it’\u00a2s 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.
\nAt 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 –\u00a0 \u00a6UFOology!<\/p>\n
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.)<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Passionate advocates are sort of the counterpoint to the so called \u201cKlassin 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.)<\/p>\n
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;<\/p>\n
(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.<\/p>\n
(PA) I believe it’s an apple!<\/p>\n
(I) How can you be so sure that it’s an apple and not a chunk of plastic shaped like an apple?<\/p>\n
(PA) I’m a world famous Jet pilot ace from the first Gulf War!<\/p>\n
(I) I don’t see how that has anything to do with the question<\/p>\n
(PA) You’re stupid!<\/p>\n
(I) What does that have to do with the identity of this round object?<\/p>\n
(PA) It has everything to do with the situation, you are an idiot!<\/p>\n
(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.<\/p>\n
(PA) It’s not an insult, it’s a statement of fact. I”m insulted by your attitude. Asshole!<\/p>\n
(I) What? I wasn’t trying to be insulting.<\/p>\n
(PA) Well I’m offended now and you have to shut up because I’m offended!<\/p>\n
(I) I don’t think I need to shut up just because you say you are offended.<\/p>\n
(PA) Now you are calling me a liar! You fraud! You stalker! You maniac!<\/p>\n
(I) I think that’s pretty rude and that doesn’t get us any closer to what that object is.<\/p>\n
(PA) I”m not talking to you any more! I’m telling all my friends about what a horrible person you are!<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cI don’t agree with that opinion because’\u009d That’s to the point, objective and constructive. How anyone can think beginning a conversation with ‘\u201cyou’re an idiot!’\u009d 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.<\/p>\n
But that’s why\u00a0 I’m the Odd Emperor and you are whoever you are!<\/p>\n
Share and enjoy!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the world of UFOlogy it’\u00a2s 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 … Continue reading