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.

 

The Key Hypotheses in Ufology

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Hello, I would like to share an interesting perspective from a blog and I hope to see it turn into a good discussion. I am not very good at making threads that people want to post in and so I would be pleasantly surprised if that happened. Maybe I smell funny or my thread titles aren't catchy enough...


Parasociology


This blog is dedicated to the conceptual and empirical development of parasociology, a sub-discipline of sociology studying how societies and paranormal or “psi” phenomena interact.

Sunday, August 15, 2010
The key hypotheses in ufology

This post proposes a discussion on the various hypotheses in ufology, to clarify where parasociology stands on the issue. It is motivated by the writings of some people on the web who wrote some time ago that parasociology is a bizarre approach to UFOs. Well, I think these statements are made from a position of ignorance. Such ignorance, in turn, is probably enabled by the fact that most comprehensive overviews of what is going on in the field of UFO research are so misleading than one is likely to remain ignorant. For me, a key contributor to such a lack of clarity is the very unsatisfactory nature of typologies about ufological hypotheses. Most of the existing typologies do not go to the bottom of those ufological hypotheses, and they exclude a number of them. Ultimately, they depict a very warped and incomplete portrait of what is going on in ufology. The typology proposed under the label “Ufology” in Wikipedia is a prominent example of this.


I favor the Parapsychological Hypothesis (PPH) as a UFO witness and as a parapsychology enthusiast. I think that the PPH is perhaps underestimated because so many people lack a familiarity with parapsychological literature. Plus, Hollywood crams the ETH down our throat.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Student X]
 
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/8/2010 by ArMaP]




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 


Parasociology is an insult to sociology just as parapsychology is an insult to psychology. The 'paras' take relevant and important scientific/societal studies and muddy the waters with unfounded pseudoscience.

Of course, nobody would really be interested in that, so what are they to do? I know...throw in the subject of aliens and UFO's and, Robert's your mothers brother, people start listening.

I think we could do without it all.

[edit on 18/8/10 by LiveForever8]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Er, so you would favor the Psycho-social Hypothesis (PSH) then?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Ok just to clear things up, this thread is supposed to be about hypotheses in Ufology. If you feel offended by this thread, or by the subject matter, or by the para- fields, that may be a little off-topic. But I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't make this thread to offend people. I make it to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of various ufology hypotheses. Does anyone want to talk about that?

Eh, whatever. Apparently my threads suck so just knock yourselves out...the only responder, who fails to address the point of the OP, gets the only stars...what a wacky forum...


[edit on 18-8-2010 by Student X]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 


First off; I don't see how I was off-topic (even a little) by giving you my opinions on the subjects you raised.

If you wanted a discussion a rebuttal of some sort would have been helpful. Tell me why you agree/disagree with me. Provide me with some evidence to prove your point. That way I am more likely to reply in kind.


Originally posted by Student X
But I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't make this thread to offend people. I make it to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of various ufology hypotheses. Does anyone want to talk about that?


I wasn't offended, I merely offered my opinion. And yes, I was quite happy to talk about it but looking at the following comment...


Originally posted by Student X
Eh, whatever. Apparently my threads suck so just knock yourselves out...the only responder, who fails to address the point of the OP, gets the only stars...what a wacky forum...



...it seems you aren't.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Student X
 


First off; I don't see how I was off-topic (even a little) by giving you my opinions on the subjects you raised.


Well, which hypotheses do you favor and why? If you answer that, then the thread will go in a direction that I had in mind when I made this thread. It might help if you follow the link and read the full post.

If you want to discuss how you feel about the para- fields, I would be happy to do so. Make a separate thread about how insulting the para-fields are to you and send me a link to it.

I'm off to work now.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Student X]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Student X
 


Parasociology is an insult to sociology just as parapsychology is an insult to psychology. The 'paras' take relevant and important scientific/societal studies and muddy the waters with unfounded pseudoscience.

Of course, nobody would really be interested in that, so what are they to do? I know...throw in the subject of aliens and UFO's and, Robert's your mothers brother, people start listening.

I think we could do without it all.

[edit on 18/8/10 by LiveForever8]


I don't have much time before an appointment nor for your type of reply either. Obviously, your first position on this thread is that you don't accept any legitimacy for the UFO/ET phenomena and like conventional, dogmatic physical scientists, you deny the possibility of it out of hand.

How very sad that you think you know what you don't know anything about.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Obviously, your first position on this thread is that you don't accept any legitimacy for the UFO/ET phenomena ... you deny the possibility of it out of hand.


Please show me where I denied the possibility of the UFO/ET phenomena?

I denied the legitimacy of the 'para-' genres that, in my opinion, only serve to undermine the respected fields of psychology and sociology.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The only reason we are forced to use "para" terminology is that this is hidden and kept under wraps by the intelligence community so its outside the normal experiences for many, but its really metaphysics/quantum physics, and the reality of the cosmos.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join