11894Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle
- Mar 2, 2002--- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
> Hi Joe,was
> > It is my contention that the scientific approach should not be to
> > prove that UFO's are spaceships from another planet, but to
> > attempt to identify what UFO's are.
> Yes, but:
> (1) Mainstream science has ignored the subject of UFOs. The subject
> supposed to have been solved in Condon report etc. (A fewscientists like
> Hynek disagreed.)to reach
> That left the field open to independent researchers- amateurs, lone
> scientists etc., and all those people have now had a very long time
> their own conclusions to the answer. These people think that theanswer is
> now obvious.everyone
> From that perspective the solution is just a matter of convincing
> There is too much History of their investigations, to be able to
> start afresh. And to start afresh, ignoring their work, is showingno
> respect to them, for many of them have applied the scientificmethod.
>Those that have applied the scientific method should then submit
papers for peer (scientific) review. If no scientists can pick holes
in their work, then it will stand.
Aside from those using strict scientific disciplines, many ufologists
have as you say done an excellent job, and their work could be used
as a basis for further scientific work.
Unfortunately, the majority of ufo researchers have not documented
all aspects of their work, starting with the source of their data,
the rationale used to come to certain conclusions, etc, rendering
their work worthless to anyone trying to follow it up.
> (2) There are many other 'buts'. .......It should
> Which probably add up to being that its too late to do as you say.
> have been done that way in the first instance, but now we havethings like
> Roswell: where we know that something was defintely covered up,whether it
> was weather balloon, aliens or something else. From thatperspective, 'we'
> merely want the authorities to tell the truth and convince us. Thescientifc
> method does not seem able to cope with the scenario that has beenNo, I disagree. The difficulty would be establishing what data can be
> concluded. Starting again, merely seems another cover up.
used scientifically. Much of it is dated, and relies heavily on
witness testimony. Some of those witnesses will now be dead, others
will have the added difficulty of remembering events from a long time
ago without adding to or detracting from those memories.
Radar tapes have been destroyed, or decomposed, so have film
negatives. Contemporary records have been lost or destroyed.
It is never too late to start applying the scientific method. It may
take 50 years to build up sufficient acceptable data on which to base
testable hypotheses, but the longer the start is delayed, ultimately
the longer it will take to make any progress.
Before any of this can take place, people involved in investigation
of UFO's need to be trained (not as scientists, but how to collect
and document information in a way that will be acceptable to science).
- << Previous post in topic