I would argue that the article author's central argument-- that UFO enthusiasts will not be moved by the denial of their belief system--is
However, as I am sure the article author is fully aware, the folklorist's argument is tangential to the fundamental question of UFO explanations. His
point is merely that regardless of how many government reports state otherwise, the community will reject them for anthropological reasons. This
assertion is correct. Yet it is equally applicable to all sides of this issue.
My question to him is, did he believe the government when they said that Iraq had missles that it could launch and hit England with in 40 some-odd
minutes? Did he believe the WMD hype?
Clearly, governments lie to the masses in order to manipulate them. This is a given. The question, then, is why the author chooses to poo-poo the
skeptic, and side with the official mouthpiece of faith-based belief in government. Could it be an intrinsic belief in the intangible?
As a professional scientist, I do not have the tendancy towards implicit trust of 'the official scientist'--the character applied in this story.
Instead, I tend to look at the implicit
trust invectives applied by the author in his
What is his believed folklore?
- A truthful government
- Scientists as implicitly overriding authority figures
Neither of these archetypes stands up to the scrutiny of reality. You are more likely to meet a leprachaun than a government that does not lie to its
people. And you are more likely to meet a Zeta Reticulan than a scientific community that doesn't perpetuate the myth of overriding authority.
The point of the folklorist remains true. Regardless of on which side of this debate you fall, true believers will believe, skeptics will mock, and
the naturally curious will not let anyone on either side get in their way.
[edit on 29-6-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]