Re: UFOnet: Re: "Sorry, I disagree with everything you have said."
- 1. ok
2. ok. Science has been distorted by many factors, and has not been allowed
to progress properly i.e. debunking methods have been set up because of the
UFO conspiracy. When a scientist produces results that disagree with
orthodoxy, he is now debunked. Debunkers claim that he (or she) never did
the experiment properly. This discourages other scientists from duplicating
the experiment. Before debunking became the norm. A scientist would claim
strange results from an experiment, and other scientists would check. There
would then come back feedback that others were or were not getting the same
results. A general agreement would then be reached as to what the experiment
meant. Debunkers have stopped that method.
3. The idealized scientists doing real science would do what you say. But in
general scientists are no longer doing science properly, because of
politics having corrupted their job. Political pressure has been imposed on
scientists. The politicians, paymasters etc., want a certain answer from
their scientists. They do not like to be told bad news. We live in a society
where the pressure is now to please the boss. Scientists that produce
answers that do not please the boss, are accused of doing their experiments
incorrectly, and lose funding. The scientists that give 'pleasing answers'
get the funding. Bosses want 'yes men' scientists, they don't want real
scientists. For instance in the case of genetic crops , science panels are
being set up and the scientists that say GM is bad, complain that they are
not allowed onto such panels.
4. Not quite a quibble. There are two versions of framework theory in
physics, one of them has been suppressed. The debunkers would ridicule what
is left of the alternative physics as being mere theology and not science.
The alternative science has its own set of rules, and words like 'scientific
method' have different meaning in that science. We have been subjected to an
advertising campaign, and hence now have a corruption of the true nature of
science. Theology I would think to mean such things as morals, treating
people in a humane way etc. Both these sciences (framework physics theories)
can have that type of theology applied to them. But the science that we have
been allowed demands that certain evil acts need to be performed, hence when
theology is applied to this science there is a conflict of interests.
Theology when applied to such a science is trying to restrain scientists
from doing actions which the scientists perceive as necessary evils.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Bennett <dpbennett@...>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: UFOnet: Re: "Sorry, I disagree with everything you have said."
> We are converging nicely. Point by point:
> 1) Taken.
> 2) I'm not advocating that we accept the Dogon's story as the
> of the mystery. I'm saying that the attitude that just ignores that part
> the story and concentrates on the technical aspects takes them out of
> context and distorts the story, besides exercising racial and intellectual
> snobbery. Neither do I dismiss the possibility of aliens who impressed
> ancient stone carvers to depict them as fish-men coming to Earth and
> communicating technical information. I do advocate admitting such data as
> data, because the scientific method has a way of screening the data.
> Remember the Piltdown Man. The scientific method first accepted the
> Piltdown Man, then gradually marginalized him. Finally, after almost a
> century, long after the Piltdown Man had been relegated to footnote status
> because he didn't fit in to any theory, DNA testing proved that it was a
> filed-down, dyed chimpanzee jawbone. Science rarely gives quick answers.
> 3) "scientists fit facts into their belief system" Wrong. Blowhard
> make-believe scientists with narrow minds and weak egos do that. A
> of media science reporters with contempt for the intelligence of their
> readers do that. Hacks with science degrees and cushy jobs in large
> corporations do that. Real scientists don't do that, because if they did,
> they wouldn't be doing science, they'd be doing politics.
> 4) OK. That quibble is a matter of semantics arising out of our
> different backgrounds.
> -----Original Message-----