The existence of UFOs demonstrates that there is something we are “missing” from our conception of what constitutes “reality”. UFOs seem to represent something beyond the limits of what we commonly take to be the boundaries of the natural world. They give us a clue to the fact that we have not yet discovered all the manifestations of what we have conceptualised as the “laws of nature”. Only through scientific research might we uncover just what it IS that we are “missing”.
To date, you (as well as UFOlogists, UFObuffs, etc.) failed to provide a single reliable shred of evidence that within UFO lore there’s something “beyond the limits of what we commonly take to be the boundaries of the natural world” (whatever that means). A collection of unconfirmed anecdotes can not back such a bold statement.
Also UFOs represent MUCH more than a “popular” cultural phenomenon. As you, of all people should be aware, their existence crosses both cultural and historic boundaries.
Evidence?
How can you back this? Can you present the criteria, methods, etc. used? To date, all I am aware of are certain people interpreting myths and anecdotes with little if any well-established criteria.
When something has no mundane explanation… it is by definition “alien”. However, that does not mean that UFOs are “unnatural”. They may represent a part of the “natural world (or universe) that we simply have not discovered yet. The studies you refer to as “failures” (Battelle, Condon… even the recent university PhDs – that is PEER-reviewed research) have all invariably shown us that there is MUCH more to UFOs than mere “lore”.
You know that a PhD is not equal to a MsC, right? At least anyone with a minimum amount of information regarding science should… I could also point out a another problem at the above paragraph, but others already did. I’ll just write that you must tell us exactly where, for starters, Condon report shows ‘us that there is MUCH more to UFOs than mere “lore”’. I hope its not just another cherry-picking or over interpretation…
I stated:
” You seem to get bogged down in the details here (“exact facts”). What is important is the occurrence itself and the way in which it was reported. A UFO coupled with radiation like injuries – in 1886! But the report itself is NOT a “UFO” report. The reporter believes he has an explanation (an electrical/meteorological phenomenon) of the type being discussed in Scientific American. He merely outlines the case for the consideration of what he considers to be more learned minds than his own. It is a matter of fact report that we simply have no reason to doubt the veracity of.”
You have not actually managed to overcome the first issue- (i) you can not check the original data, thus you can not verify its accuracy.
If this were ALL we had (if this were the ONLY report of its kind), then I might agree with you, but it is NOT all we have. We have many reports extending throughout history and across cultural boundaries. While you might be able to dismiss individual reports with the “wave of a hand”, I find it not so easy (or indeed prudent) to dismiss a whole body of evidence in such a manner.
That’s merely a statement; just one ore among the many you have made so far and failed do back.
We have absolutely NO reason to suspect that the report is not a reasonably accurate representation of the facts on the ground. You are merely resorting to your belief system here – “It is impossible, therefore it cannot be so”.
Then show me why I should not suspect its accuracy even without the original documents and/or a more detailed report. A scientist would want to be sure of the facts, right? Once again,
(i) You can not check the original data, thus you can not verify its accuracy.
(ii) You do not have any reasonable assurance that description of the injuries and the sighting of the lights were exact (you can't even pin down the location).
(iii) You can't actually link the alleged sighting of the light with the alleged injuries.
(iv) You can't actually link it all with any degree of certainty with radiation and/or UFO phenomena.
I am concerned about the facts, reliable facts. You must also back your claim that I am ‘merely resorting to my
belief system here – “It is impossible, therefore it cannot be so”’. Note that this sort of claim can not hide the absence of reliable evidence.
Now this is IRONIC (that you cite correlation NE causation). Much of science works on the basis of reasonable causal inference and we have no reason to suspect that the causal inference in this case is erroneous.
Once again you show how poor is your grasp on the methods of critical thinking. What are the reasons you have to suppose the lights, the sound and the symptoms were linked? Ever heard about Martians and churches? Or about sunrises and cocks?
This is actually a restatement of your point iii above.
The fact that you consider iii and iv the same thing is yet another evidence of how poor are your critical thinking skills. You have an urge to burn steps which quite often leads towards failure. Read them again- as well as a book on scientific methodology.
Perhaps unfortunately, history shows that verified instances of such injuries are invariably linked to ionising radiation poisoning. There is no reason - that is we have no
scientific evidence - to suspect that such injuries are caused by anything other than ionising radiation. But wait… this is 1886 we are talking about here! What possible cause can we find? Oh yeah, there is the small matter of
”a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house… It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not accompanied by a sensation of heat … the remarkable part of the occurrence is that the hose was uninjured …”
(
http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
See (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above. You are burning lots of steps and jumping conclusions- first make sure the description is faithful and detailed, second check if radiation is actually the only possible answer, third well, you should be able to get the picture by now. You failed to pass the first step and jumped to a conclusion involving aliens from outside the limits of what we call nature (whatever that means). Whatever may be the methods you are using to gather facts and reach conclusions from them, all I can say is that it is not science.
BTW… There were no radiation sources available back in 1886? Sure radiation is the only possible cause? Are you sure such injuries, if caused by radiation related to a single fast event would not be accompanied by heat? I could go on. Some questions and answers would be quickly recognized by people not blinded and biased by UFO belief.
UFO debunkers contend that sincere eyewitnesses in UFO reports are invariably mistaken (100% wrong) in what they perceive. That is, to a UFO debunker, the eyewitnesses have invariably misperceived a mundane object. That is the eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time. If that is “twisting the skeptic’s position” then perhaps you can explain to us HOW it has done so?
The fallacious nature of your argument above been exposed for you more than once and for more than a poster. Too bad you fail to see the reason, for a real scientist would. However, the inescapable facts are: (i) your evidence fundamentally relies on the eyewitnesses’ reports (or investigators’ / journalists’ versions) being faithful descriptions of the events and (ii) in the cases presented so far you (as well as UFOlogists) failed to properly back the previous item.
No amount of diversions and evasive maneuvers can hide this huge methodological flaw.
Serious (sincere) UFO proponents are just as skeptical as UFO debunkers. If we had but a single report to contend with, then we could dismiss it, but when the same things keep reappearing in case after case, then it is not so easy. We are then required to explain it – and this is where UFO debunkers and proponents go their separate ways. UFO debunkers contend the eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time, while UFO proponents are not so sure the evidence can so easily be dismissed.
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=?
I stated:
” Again I repeat, a specimen is NOT proof of a species.”
Perhaps you should ask a biologist.
OK, that’s an easy one. I happen to be married with a biologist and to have worked with her a couple of times.
“Hey honey, a specimen is proof of a species, right”?
“What a silly question. Of course it is. Are these internet debates with believers damaging your brain? ”
Now, go ahead and challenge me to ask a geologist if a mineral specimen is not proof of the existence of a mineral type.
I was asking for precision in the definition of terms – something the UFO debunkers seem strangely unable to do. For example when I ask a UFO debunker for their definition of UFO – they cannot even do THAT! They invariably reply with “A UFO is a UFO”. But THAT is NOT a definition (one cannot define something by mere reference to itself). In this particular instance I was pointing to the fact that if you explored the definitions of “type” and “proof” (and “a specimen” and “species”), you might actually find a way of overcoming my objections to your formulation: “A specimen is proof of a species”.
UFO’s “U” stands for unidentified. You (as well as many an UFOlogist) demonstrate heavy bias when linking “unidentified” with “alien” and “beyond the boundaries of what we consider to be the natural world (whatever that means). And this speaks volumes for your methods.
As for the “precision” research itself I merely point you in the direction of all the peer-reviewed research that has been conducted on UFOs to date. Here for example is a pointer to such a
recent research study (
http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5319), here is another (
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)...
You don’t really check the stuff you link to, do you?
They are about social sciences… Thanks for demonstrating my position that UFO lore belongs to the social sciences field.
Rramjet, if within UFO lore there were things as exciting as you claim, there would be papers about UFOs at Nature…
First, your misreading (misconception) of my contention is noteworthy. I have stated MANY times now that UFOs represent a phenomenon (or are representative of a phenomena) that seems to exist beyond the limits of what we commonly take to be the boundaries of the natural world (or words to that effect).
You have stated, but to date you failed to back that statement (as well as others) with reliable evidence.
There are a few key terms in that phrase. The one you MISS is the “what we commonly take to be” part. This means that UFOs MAY be part of the natural world, just that we have not yet discovered HOW they might fit into the natural world. There is also NO mention of “aliens”.
See above. Besides being a very loose (to say the best) sentence, there’s not a shred of reliable evidence pointing towards UFO lore not being explainable “within the limits of what we commonly take to be the boundaries of the natural world”. Unless you accept substandard, unreliable evidence.
You also state there’s no mention to aliens… Heck, are you sure you never made such connection?
There is NO picture in the WORLD that cannot be “suspected of a hoax”. Technology has brought us to a point where pictures CAN be effectively hoaxed – so pictures ALONE cannot be admitted as evidence. However, when pictures are supported by testimony, the case is strengthened. Where pictures are independently taken of the same object and supported by independent testimony, the case is strengthened again. Of course the ideal would be to have two people taking photos of the same object and a third taking a photo of the two – but that would require a well funded research program to set up (with any reasonable expectation of success) – and to date the funds just aren't forthcoming.
First of all, the statement 'There is NO picture in the WORLD that cannot be “suspected of a hoax”' is debatable and misleading. The keywords are background, context and provenance. If they are good, then there's no reason to suspect of hoaxes. Got clear pictures of alleged UFOs with good provenance?
Once again, if UFO lore is correct, then there is no need for funding a special research program to capture UFO imagery (not to mention it would not be that expensive and well within reach of UFO enthusiasts). It is nothing but another excuse UFOlogists present in futile attempts to cover UFOlogy’s flaws. It’s been already shown to you that transient aerial phenomena such as bolides are frequently imaged. There are networks of satellite observers, amateur astronomers and meteorologists, airplane enthusiasts, radar networks scanning the sky as well as objects in orbit, etc. Where are the UFO evidences which should come from these sources if UFO lore were real?
Rramjet, are you willing to accept without questioning evidence coming from people involved with hoaxes and is not taken seriously within the very UFOlogy circles?
How unscientific. I would even consider unethical.
BTW, do you consider that clear, not blurry?
(that is why scientists offer conservative conclusions – because people checking back over their work will be startled to realise that the truth is an even stronger conclusion than stated might be warranted)
