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