It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skepticism: A Call to Arms

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Office 4256
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Of course science discards. Science is an entirely "material" method/philosophy. When there is no evidence(evidence may mean something different to the non-scientist) that can be tested and verified, it is discarded. I think there is some quite good evidence that UFOs MAY be some kind of intelligently controlled craft. Most of what is spouted as "evidence" on these sites boils down to unsupported claims. Then we have people who are supposedly big names in the UFO world giving talks about Grays vs. Reptilians... I can't really blame Bob Sheaffer, Joe Nickell, et al for thinking we are all wing-nuts.


I think you could benefit from reading, "UFOs: Lets cut the crap already." There are many instances where scientists have divided and discarded and ended up losing valuable data in the process.

That era needs to end.

100 year gaps between what science thinks it knows and what the average person expresses through personal experience / annecdotal story is unacceptable. The fact that we have an example of a phenomenon that was documented in the late 1800's that was only recently recognized as an actual occurrence goes to show how science, as it currently exists, has divided and discarded in a way that was not only a disservice to itself, but the people it attempts to explain things to.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

Seriously, I think that is more a problem of the way things are presented to the scientists.

I have noticed that some people on ATS, sometimes, send e-mails to scientists or other people in "important" places, and the way they present their "side" of things is obviously going go to get a negative answer.

I am sure that if someone presented some good cases to some scientists (obviously they must be selected first), along with something showing how the study of those cases could be connected to something already recognised by science, things could be very different.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I've had very favorable conversations with Dr. Seth Shostak and, no doubt, presentation is a large part of the problem. However there have been very respectable people (the Rockefeller's, Dr. Sturrock, Dr. McDonald, ad infinitum) and organizations (French GEIPAN - COMETA report, RAND, AIAA, et. al.) that have attempted to compile the better cases to present to people in positions of power and nothing has come of it.

At a certain point you need to open your eyes and recognize all the good cases have been rehashed over and over again to death.

It's just being ignored.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme


It's just being ignored.


I agree with many points you have been raising, but how is this a shortcoming of science?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
reply to post by Xtraeme


It's just being ignored.


I agree with many points you have been raising, but how is this a shortcoming of science?


Is it not the role of science to explain the unexplained in a manner that doesn't require superstitious belief?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Is it not the role of science to explain the unexplained in a manner that doesn't require superstitious belief?


Oh I couldn't agree more.

But we have to be realistic here: exactly what kind of evidence is there, at least in the public domain, that explains anything regarding to the UFO phenomena? None.

There's plenty of evidence to support the idea that there is indeed something anomalous going on. We have some scientific evidence to support that: trace evidence, radar returns, photographic and video evidence.

However, none of these are helpful in explaining anything, or even conclusive enough to point to the nature of the phenomena.

Having said that, I think the evidence that we do have, clearly show that the phenomena demands to be investigated seriously. But we haven't breached that barrier yet, and I suspect, much because of someone's desires to not have it discussed or investigated seriously. I think this detail cannot be overlooked when analyzing the efforts to make it so.


[edit on 15-8-2009 by converge]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme


Of course science discards. Science is an entirely "material" method/philosophy. When there is no evidence(evidence may mean something different to the non-scientist) that can be tested and verified, it is discarded. I think there is some quite good evidence that UFOs MAY be some kind of intelligently controlled craft. Most of what is spouted as "evidence" on these sites boils down to unsupported claims. Then we have people who are supposedly big names in the UFO world giving talks about Grays vs. Reptilians... I can't really blame Bob Sheaffer, Joe Nickell, et al for thinking we are all wing-nuts.

That era needs to end.


This happens in almost all disciplines unfortunately. History, mathematics, medicine, physics, etc. Thing are dismissed by people who don't understand them fully or see their potential. Call it bad filing systems.

Understandable with something as decentralized and disorganized as UFO studies. It's pretty much a filing cabinet with thousands of items filed under "miscellaneous."

I've seen attempts to reorganize and create new databases - but there's the inherent problem of not really knowing the quality or reliability of so many reports. With information storage and cross referring being so much easier and cheaper, there should be a correctable open source resource for everyone.

Were it up to me I'd like to see a whole new field with a new name started.
More professional more rigorous, The amateurism has been bad.

And now there's a competing mass market industry with big budget spectacles like the Disclosure Project. The whole thing has gone Hollywood. Soon they'll be handing out awards.

Let them have the name UFOlogy or Alien Studies or whatever they want.

Time for a new scientific discipline to emerge.


Mike



[edit on 15-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Is it not the role of science to explain the unexplained in a manner that doesn't require superstitious belief?


Oh I couldn't agree more.

But we have to be realistic here: exactly what kind of evidence is there, at least in the public domain, that explains anything regarding to the UFO phenomena? None.


What kind of evidence is there to explain PI? What kind of evidence is there to explain the cosmological constant?

The fact that they exist and are useful to our understanding of the universe is all that matters.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Time for a new scientific discipline to emerge.


This study that you call for will be the balance between the quantitative & the qualitative; and it's been lacking since time immemorial.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


More to the point the subject is being ignored due largely to dogma.

Just because things can happen one way doesn't mean that was the way it occurred.

All too often people in respectable positions, with tools to make a go at studying these things, are ignoring reports outright because they think they're justified in simply hand-waving away the account as either a "hoax or a misidentification;" but they do this without applying any sort of scientific method to back-up their assertion. Thus they use their stature as a scientist to provide a biased and unscientific conclusion. Confusing people to think there's nothing scientifically useful about the observations.

Why, you might ask? Because the scientist receiving the report often assumes if there was something, surely they'd know about it before the public.

I think in many instances the core sciences could take a page from the archaeologists field book. You don't ridicule and assume the person reporting something bizarre is lying (like for instance the 9 year old boy who just discovered a 6000 year old Newnan spearhead). Rather you take the report, look at all available data, and then make an assessment for that particular case.

What you learn doesn't have to explain everything perfectly. You simply take the observation and see how it sits along with everything else you know and glean what you will from the hard data and leave the uncorroborated information in a pile that needs to be further backed up.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

I subscribe to everything you wrote.

None of the points you eloquently raise however are good reasons to not want the study of UFOs to be a scientific field.

Perhaps you're not arguing that it shouldn't be but simply that science and especially scientists' attitude could be improved, and in that case I'm with you on that too.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
What kind of evidence is there to explain PI? What kind of evidence is there to explain the cosmological constant?

The fact that they exist and are useful to our understanding of the universe is all that matters.
That is why I mentioned that the cases should be presented in a way that connects them with already known scientific facts and that can be connected to other things.

You mentioned PI, and that is a good example. The evidence for PI is that all circumferences are PI times larger than their radius, so if we could show that there was something that happens in all UFO cases, that would be a starting point, the scientists would see that there was something common to all cases and they could find if that constant was related to something else.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
i think everone should have a little skepticism, but its the bashers who, try and rule everything out and bash what people report as being fake, or this or that. AND some "scientists"...as they call them selves who say "theres no way there is life out there, because the "technology" doesnt exist to travel the univers"...ok for us it doesnt....but thats doesnt mean that IF there is life, that we are the "intelligent" ones. Like last night i saw a show, about ways "Doomsday" could take place, and this one "scientist" said that if an alien race came, they would just "throw rocks" at us from their ships....that for one shows how simple minded some of the "know it all" scientists can be, not bashing ALL scientists or skeptics, because like it has been agreed in this thread, everone should remain a little skeptical. i myself do believe in the fact that there is some kind of cover-up going on, but you cant run around saying every UFO you see is a alien space craft, or a plane or something like that, because it is what it is..."unidentified flying object"...UFO. and its the ones who want to run out and try and say, "oh that WAS a plane"...because THEY say so.....were they flying what ever it was? NO! so its UNIDENTIFIED....could be something not of this world, could be a plane, exsperimental aircraft....or....weather balloon lmao! but yea i think every one should be half skeptic and half believer, but always have 2nd guesses and look into it more, because there is something to it all of this, rather its just advanced aircraft the government and millitary are flying, alien craft,....or a combo of both. maybe the government could be in contact with aliens, maybe not. but it should be the "unknown" part about it that makes people want to research it and find out and search for the truth...not just jump out and say ALIENS ARE NOT REAL, or ALIENS ARE LIVING NEXTDOOR AND TOOK OVER MY FRIENDS BODY type of stuff just keep an open mind to both sides, but lean to what side you take a little more and keep researching.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
One more thing I think plagues the ufology community is the entertainment value of cases. Meaning that the more attractive titles (ie;ATS threads) or more attractive promises (ie; Greer, Goodchild, etc) get MUCH MORE attention than the real cases, because a lot of times those aren't as "fun", because REAL science was used and we simply do not know. I mean it is much easier to claim that everything is due to a 17 solar system diameter wide GFL mothership in the Orion Nebula, which is fighting the Reptoids on the 5th, 6th, and 11th dimensional plane of existence then it is to ANALYZE the FACTS of cases. A lot of times those facts leave us with inconclusive evidence, no pictures, and no answers. It is sad because THAT is REAL UFOLOGY, the other is a soap opera IMHO. But it is what it is, and it is up to all of US to make the change and make ufology what it can and should be.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
One more thing I think plagues the ufology community is the entertainment value of cases. Meaning that the more attractive titles (ie;ATS threads) or more attractive promises (ie; Greer, Goodchild, etc) get MUCH MORE attention than the real cases, because a lot of times those aren't as "fun", because REAL science was used and we simply do not know. I mean it is much easier to claim that everything is due to a 17 solar system diameter wide GFL mothership in the Orion Nebula, which is fighting the Reptoids on the 5th, 6th, and 11th dimensional plane of existence then it is to ANALYZE the FACTS of cases. A lot of times those facts leave us with inconclusive evidence, no pictures, and no answers. It is sad because THAT is REAL UFOLOGY, the other is a soap opera IMHO. But it is what it is, and it is up to all of US to make the change and make ufology what it can and should be.

This same Hollywoodization of UFOlogy has happened to archeology and ancient history. Science Fiction and Fantasy have become integrated. The media picks up on it casually - because there's attention grabbing sensationalism they don't have to embrace - just report on.

If there really ever will be a serious study of UFOs tough measures will be called for. Outing the media whores like Greer & co is a good place to start. Some huigh profile figure with credibility would be good to have. Someone to say the field divorces itself from the junk pseudoscience and opportunism.

Maybe separate conventions and organization where the clowns aren't ask to attend.

Won't happen of course because the serious folks are hobbyists and enthusiasts - not businessmen and hustlers. If you take away the ignorant and gullible, the unbalanced, the schizophrenics - where's your audience?

Maybe some academic institution would take it on as a serious discipline. Start with a purge of the bulk and reconstruct from scratch. Extreme measures needed. Begin with showing once and for all there was no Roswell incident maybe. Deconstruct the whole folklore that has developed and begin from scratch.

Biblical history has gone through that recently. Throwing out the religious baggage.

I think some reading this will catch my drift.

Mike



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by M0bstar
but yea i think every one should be half skeptic and half believer, but always have 2nd guesses and look into it more, because there is something to it all of this, rather its just advanced aircraft the government and millitary are flying, alien craft,....or a combo of both.
If we are half sceptic and half believer, in what are we suppose to believe?

That's the problem with "believing", believing must be applied directly to something, and some beliefs make it impossible to believe in other things, while being sceptic gives you the opportunity of seeing all possibilities under the same light.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
what i meant was keep an open mind to both sides, its the hard core skeptics and believers who like to bash on people because they for some reason seem to KNOW everything about everything that goes on. i meant just keep an open mind to both sides, see both sides of the story, dont just be simple minded to one side, and say YOU KNOW what something is, when you dont KNOW crap, all you know is what you believe you know, people have no hard core proof to back it up, witch all the hardcore skeptics, seem to KNOW that everything some one sees is a planet, plane or something like that, and all the hardcore believers seem to say it was an alien spacecraft.....witch will provoke the hardcore skeptics to start bashing on them, and it never ends, its called keep an open mind to both sides, dont just jump to one side of a story and sit there and bash people on the other side because you think what you KNOW is right.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by M0bstar
 


The problem with that is that you are not talking about real sceptics, because the real sceptic keeps an open mind to all sides.

In the case of UFOs, for example, it keeps an open mind to "Chinese lantern" side, to the "Aliens" side, to the "plasma critters" side, to the "lost soul" side, to whatever side appears (and to the possibility that any other can appear), because he does never considers one side as the all truthful explanation, and when he/she speaks about what he/she considers the explanation it must say that it is only is/her opinion and to back it up with the data available.

Those that are presenting in your post as sceptics are believers, they just believe in a different thing.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
yea thats pretty much what i was trying to say, if some one has no hard core proof of what they believe something to be, its an opinion, witch is something iv said in a few of my other posts, just opinions, until some one can actually show us a upclose alien craft, then we will never know for sure what the actual truth is, but yea, i agree on what your saying about a skeptic keeping an open mind to EVERYTHING, thats what i was getting at. and those "bashers" who call themselves "skeptics" are actually just hardcore nonbelivers, that believe they have a REAL explination for everything, when in fact its just another opinion because they them selves have no HARDCORE proof of what they claim is the truth.....if that makes sence, i get what your saying though and agree with you and what your getting at here...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join