17480Re: [UFOnet] Dr. James E. McDonald & The ETH
- Oct 1, 2004
> >I said nothing about UFOs driven by intelligentSpacecraft piloted by intelligent humans or
> humans. I said intelligent aliens.
> I know, which was why I asked.
non-humans, from outside our planet, will be alien to
> This common objection from peer review for journalsIncorrect.
> is in no means a prerequisite for a science
> You'll find that your above is nothing but apresumptuous
> scientistic opinion.I have done so and do not find this to be the case.
You are arguing from emotion. In fact, there is no
such word as "scientistic". Its a made up word usually
used by those ignorant in the ways of science.
>The sharing of claims andTrue. But, that very lack is what makes it
> evidence can be done by any means, usually
> independently in ufology and related studies, but
> the problem is that there are a lack of claims and
> replication because the field is very open.
> cryptozoology, parapsychology, etc.)Do I have to say also that these are not sciences? OK,
I will. They are not.
> Whether or not it's a science has nothing to do withAgain, true. Again, that is why it is not science.
> whether it /is/ scrutinised by other scientists, but
> whether it /can/ be. First of all the subject must
> catch some of their attention.
Thanks for amplifying my popint.
>The professionals,Hmmmm...I've published twice in the last 2 years, I
> and their belonging journals, are usually interested
> in phenomena which can be readily exploited for
> monetary, social, tactical, medical, or even
> �sthetic gain.
have yet to receive a dime for having done so. The
journals in which I published are free to the public
and do not accept advertisements. They have also not
made any money. Your point is invalidated, and
teetering on conspiracy theory.
BTW, just because you think there is a conspiracy,
doesn't make it so.
> I thought they were fought over land and othertrue. They were also fought over religion. Crusades
> property, like slaves, food, livestock, and
> integrity. What were you doing in a pew, if I may
> >Science is not a belief system, it is a proofNo. Right.
> system. Period.
>There is no such thing as scientific proof,Science, by its very definition cannot rely on
> or disproof, because it relies on empiricism and
> logical positivism. Rather, science can only found,
> whereas only philosophy can prove.
empiricism alone (nor logical positivism...whatever
you think that means).
Alright, I can see that you only want to argue. So
this will be my last. You insist on arguing from
nonsense (and non-science). So have it your way. UFOs
exist because you say they do. James McDonald was
murdered by criticism, and Phil Klass and I are both
I'm done with this list. I came here hoping to find
something of value. I have not.
Dave Ocame, N1YVV
East Shore Park Observatory
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>