Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11894Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - McGonagle

Expand Messages
  • major_crisis
    Mar 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
      > Hi Joe,
      >
      > > 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
      was
      > supposed to have been solved in Condon report etc. (A few
      scientists like
      > Hynek disagreed.)
      >
      > That left the field open to independent researchers- amateurs, lone
      > scientists etc., and all those people have now had a very long time
      to reach
      > their own conclusions to the answer. These people think that the
      answer is
      > now obvious.
      >
      > From that perspective the solution is just a matter of convincing
      everyone
      > else.
      >
      > There is too much History of their investigations, to be able to
      easily
      > start afresh. And to start afresh, ignoring their work, is showing
      no
      > respect to them, for many of them have applied the scientific
      method.
      >

      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'. .......
      >
      >
      > Which probably add up to being that its too late to do as you say.
      It should
      > have been done that way in the first instance, but now we have
      things like
      > Roswell: where we know that something was defintely covered up,
      whether it
      > was weather balloon, aliens or something else. From that
      perspective, 'we'
      > merely want the authorities to tell the truth and convince us. The
      scientifc
      > method does not seem able to cope with the scenario that has been
      > concluded. Starting again, merely seems another cover up.
      >
      >

      No, I disagree. The difficulty would be establishing what data can be
      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).

      Cheers, Joe
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic