a reply to: southbeach
I have heard this claimed, inducing by individuals I would consider credible - or at least not consciously duplicitous. And I have even experienced
that dynamic myself, on a limited basis; the holding of information highly specific and unique that no one should be able to know outside of having
had the same or similar experience, and then encountering someone also possessing that information which they should not have without having had said
similar or identifical experience. So I know it happens.
The problem with this however, is that such claims are unfalsifiable by anyone not already privy to said supposed facts. And since they keep that
information close to the vest, ostensibly in the interest of having a sort of quasi-control, we have no way of confirming or denying its veracity. For
that reason, even my own experiences along those lines aren't something I could ever consider objectively or scientifically valid for anyone else's
purposes. Regardless of knowing that they happened.
The issue, to me, isn't so much whether such things happen. I've had my own firsthand experiences which defy mundane explanation despite my best
efforts. The issue is the ability to prove this to others outside my own direct subjective experience, and that of others.
I like to think of it as the difference between personal gnosis versus objective knowledge. The former may be useful and valid for the individual, and
that individual may even find others with similar experiences who agree with their gnosis, but to the extent that Ufology is meant to be a collective
and scientific inquiry into specific verifiable or falsifiable phenomena, the latter - objective knowledge anyone can look at, review, and either
refute or concede - is required at some point or we may as well regard it solely as a personal experience with only personal implications, and not a
scientifically tenable pursuit.
Which is a valid position to take of course if it's what one wants to get out of all this. But I feel a rigorous and objective investigation of the
phenomenon as a whole, with a large sample and proper controls, that could be peer reviewed, would be beneficial to say the least. Because when there
are as many potential complicating factors as those mentioned in my post(s,) the more rigor the better imho. No matter how honest and well intentioned
the investigator, and no matter how persuasive the evidence may seem on that individual basis, or even on the basis of a group, the larger the sample
and the better the controls, and the more open to peer review that data, the better the chances of preventing bias, self-delusion, and outright
mistakes from clouding our picture of what may or may not be happening.
That we still can't say with any certitude, "This is what's happening and why," after all this time speaks for itself imo. Granted, it's possible
whatever is occurring is beyond our ability to ever pin down with any certainty. But we need to try in my view.
Not that I hold much hope of that ever happening.
edit on 10/28/2015 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)