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

Fw: UFO UpDate: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing? - Kaeser

Expand Messages
  • Joe McGonagle
    [crosspost from UFO updates list] ... important ... but ... a ... Britain ... Backend ... Vice- ... course ... it ... that ... degree, ... in ... It ... by
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 3, 2003
      [crosspost from UFO updates list]
      ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Steven Kaeser <steve@...>
      > To: <ufoupdates@...>
      > Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:03:49 -0500
      > Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
      > >From: Joe McGonagle <joe@...>
      > >To: <ufoupdates@...>
      > >Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:37:39 -0000
      > >Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
      > I don't want to beat this issue to death, but it raises
      > issues.
      > >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@...>
      > >>To: <ufoupdates@...>
      > >>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:16:52 -0500
      > >>Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
      > >>>From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@...>
      > >>>To: <ufoupdates@...>
      > >>>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:07:36 -0000
      > >>>Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
      > ><snip>
      > >>How does one differentiate between good and bad research (or
      > >>information) on the Internet? There are many good researchers
      > >>who have placed their material on the Internet, but how does
      > >>someone new to the field know that one site is better than
      > >>another? Do we take the Art Bell approach and simply let the
      > >>audience decide for themselves?
      > >In my opinion, Ufology needs a credible National - thence
      > >International - authority, a group perhaps elected by the
      > >various local groups, which has the power to set policies and
      > >standards within ufology, and issue - or withdraw! - a
      > >"standards compliance" certificate of some kind.
      > >Of course, this would lead to accusations of "elitism" etc,
      > >so what? If it does raise standards, and becomes recognised as
      > >national focal point for the media, the public, and the
      > >authorities, who cares if the 'Alien Spotters of Great
      > >(membership 5 million worldwide, HQ address flat 3b, 14
      > >Road, Worthington, Sussex) get the hump and go off in a huff?
      > >Both of the members - sorry, I mean the President and the
      > >President Global Operations - will continue to be ignored.
      > >Ufology needs to bite the bullet and take hold of the reins,
      > >otherwise it will simply continue to move in circles. Of
      > >this will take a great deal of time and effort, but I believe
      > >is achievable.
      > I think we're talking about the establishment of a "science"
      > here, and I would agree with such an effort. Most scientific
      > disciplines have had establishment and growing pains, and if
      > ufology is to become a true scientific pursuit of knowledge it
      > will have to both define itself and establish an accepted peer
      > review system. I've advocated that in the past, but there's
      > question of who will perform that weeding process and how will
      > they gain the respect of the majority. To a very limited
      > this was done by the primary research groups in the U.S. for a
      > number of years, but they've found that their influence has
      > waned of late.
      > >>The Internet has provided a tremendous forum for networking
      > >>this genre that has never before existed, but it also has
      > >>created an anarchy that seems to have no foundation and major
      > >>UFO research organizations throughout the world have been
      > >>severely impacted.
      > >I don't believe that all of the blame can be placed on the
      > >advent of the InterNet, this has just accelerated the effect.
      > >is just that some people's minds have been so open that their
      > >brains have fallen out! The InterNet is simply a convenient
      > >platform for some people who would never be considered viable
      > >the mainstream media to air their views and gain support from
      > >gullible, or equally "open minded" people. The same effect can
      > >be found in the printed media before the internet was widely
      > >available, for example, Flying Saucer Review.
      > Certainly not all the blame can be placed on the Internet, but
      > as you note the global reach of the Internet and it's
      > levelling of the playing field (making us all equals unto the
      > masses), has resulted problems for those who would try to
      > establish credibility as a "science". As usual, it's not the
      > Internet, but the lack of peer review, IMO.
      > >>Are we in a scientific pursuit of knowledge or do we remain a
      > >>loosely knit group of people who happen to share a similar
      > >>interest and have the ability to communicate with one
      > >I think that the answer is both - we are a loosely knit
      > >community, a large part of which deeply desires and strives
      > >the recognition of Ufology by the authorities, acadaemia, and
      > >the publc as a ligitimate area of study. The rational voices
      > >the community are drowned out by the raucous squealing from
      > >sheep-diviners and high priests of the minority which have
      > >effectively taken over by virtue of the fact that they make
      > >entertaining subjects for the media.
      > I would wholeheartedly suggest that we agree more than disagree
      > on these issues.
      > Take care,
      > Steve
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.