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.

 

A Physicist Explains Why Scientists Won't Discuss UFOs

page: 5
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
One of the funny things about this topic that I see ALL THE TIME in these forums is the generalized lumping together of ALL SCIENCE and scientists.

Well, which science do you want to LOOK at UFOs?

Any serious study would require a multi-disciplined team. I wouldn't berate others for not bothering to identify what disciplines would be required.



Originally posted by Druscilla
It seems to me that not matter how much funding, or what branch of science looks at this phenomenon, most adherents to the near religious following of the mythology of UFOs and Aliens will NEVER accept any answer except for an answer that validates their bias.

Whatever the depth of any study, I'm sure there will be many who's 'experience', in their opinion, will be 'different' to those studied . These people will then claim that the study was influenced by the military etc. However, a scientific study's purpose isn't to convince the public of anything.




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I get the sense that some scientists are beginning to wonder about UFOs, because after so many decades the debate is still vibrant, and with so much new science to be potentially learned from UFOs, if only we could catch one.

But science needs to start with a hypothesis, and it's near impossible for everyone to agree on what the hypothesis should be. Maybe the initial hypothesis would be: are there super-advanced craft in our skies? After proving that, which may not be impossible given all the evidence, then science could move on to: are these craft occupied by alien people?

Proving that may not be so easy, because unless you can actually meet one of these alien people, have them pass the Turing test, even get to know them and join them on trips to their home-world, you could never conclude 100% that they are anything more than robots or holograms made by human people.

So maybe science would choose a more practical hypothesis like: are there alien robots in our solar system? such as Mr Oberg suggested last week. That may be something we could test by dispatching armies of small probes through the solar system bouncing radar around looking for uncharted objects. It would be expensive but could lead to some interesting conclusions, whether we find them out there or not.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe
 


Star for you, especially that last statement.

Now, with that in mind, let's look at near 70 years of 'research' already on record, some of it done by government parties, some done by 3rd parties. There's, what; Condon, COMETA, Blue Book, what else(?) plus countless books examining specific hot-topic cases or groups of cases.

There's organizations like MUFON that have how many decades of reports filling up how many boxes, and/or Gigabytes of hard drive space as well?

We've all this attention. We've all this data. We've all this investigation, examination, and interrogation of the subject over near 70 years, some of that attention actually given by "official" sources, but, time and time and time again, regardless the attention, regardless the people putting time into trying to 'solve' the riddle, regardless the results, ESPECIALLY if the results say there's nothing of any significance, we always get these calls for MORE scientific study of the phenomenon.

70 years of nothing isn't good enough?

Why would anyone want to invest any more money into something to get the same results everyone else has gotten? Certainly some new or different methodologies and technologies would need be brought to fore in giving any additional interrogation of this subject.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Maybe it would be difficult to justify public funding for a comprehensive charting of our solar system if the only objective was to satisfy the curiosity of UFO enthusiasts. But as we do more in space through the 21st century it would pay to know more about what we could potentially reach with robots and even future manned missions.

Even if we find our solar system totally devoid of alien technology, which may well be the case, nevertheless we would learn a lot more about the cosmic resources at our disposal. Maybe it's a project for privateers like Google or Mr Branson, to chart the entire solar system not looking for ET, perish the thought, but ostensibly just looking for extra resources.

If we don't find any trace of alien technology after charting every pebble in the solar system, not even some fleeting radar return of an object shooting away to evade detection, not one alien nut or bolt in the whole solar system, then in my view ufology would have to pass through a great revision.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Why should a scientist discuss UFOs? The same reason we do - it is an interesting phenomena. But from a
scientific viewpoint it is a no brainer - there is nothing that scientifically can be analyzed - nothing reproducible.
In science we can reproduce phenomena over and over again and prove something is happening and that what is
happening is based upon physical, chemical, or biological factors that are reproducible time and time again. Can
you reproduce that triangular craft you saw, make it appear again, show pictures taken on at least two separate
occasions of the exact same craft? Can you reproduce anything about UFOs that is in the least bit scientific so as to show there is any type of science involved? NO, and a non-reproducible phenomena is not analyzable by science. That said, I can say that an advanced alien race exists outside of human comprehension because it is part of the agenda of these beings to stay above human comprehension - but that is a mystical opinion - not a scientific one and when human science approaches theirs [the aliens] disclosure will occur. The phenomena to date still
remains outside the boundaries of human science.
edit on 23-7-2013 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienView
Why should a scientist discuss UFOs? The same reason we do - it is an interesting phenomena. But from a
scientific viewpoint it is a no brainer - there is nothing that scientifically can be analyzed - nothing reproducible.
In science we can reproduce phenomena over and over again and prove something is happening and that what is
happening is based upon physical, chemical, or biological factors that are reproducible time and time again. Can
you reproduce that triangular craft you saw, make it appear again, show pictures taken on at least two separate
occasions of the exact same craft? Can you reproduce anything about UFOs that is in the least bit scientific so as to show there is any type of science involved? NO, and a non-reproducible phenomena is not analyzable by science. That said, I can say that an advanced alien race exists outside of human comprehension because it is part of the agenda of these beings to stay above human comprehension - but that is a mystical opinion - not a scientific one and when human science approaches theirs [the aliens] disclosure will occur. The phenomena to date still
remains outside the boundaries of human science.
edit on 23-7-2013 by AlienView because: (no reason given)


As I've pointed a number of times all over ATS, PSYCHOLOGY has had quite a bit of success in examining the space alien abduction phenomenon to the point of reliably and predictably reproducing the phenomenon in the lab.

Unfortunately, those that like UFOs and Aliens don't want to hear this.
Nope.
They absolutely refuse to hear it most of the time.

There just HAS to be another answer!!!!!
*sigh*
Perhaps as it applies to the UFO phenomenon, maybe, but, when it comes to space alien contact phenomenon, Psychology pretty much has it in the bag.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 


He was clearly saying 'hint hint wink wink, it's black projects'.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 

I would not go quite that far as to say it is all psyche phenomena of the mind - too many credible people have seen
too many things to dismiss it all as illusion and/or delusion. The famous 'computer scientist' and Ufologist Jacques Vallee who wrote books on the subject [recommended reading] did mention that his studies and observations indicate an occult mind set being involved. Last year he was on the Coast to Coast radio show and interestingly enough, and if I understood him correctly, I got the impression he was now starting to believe that there might be more validity to the phenomena than the imagination. And of course everyone has heard of the famous Harvard Psychiatrist John Mack who received much ridicule when he expressed the opinion, and wrote a book on the subject, indicating that he believed that some of the people he analyzed really were abducted by aliens - maybe he too was abducted by aliens!


PS: So even though you can't blame most scientists avoiding a subject that is difficult if not impossible to analyze by science - you can see how a few still can't resist, maybe they are 'alien scientists'?

edit on 23-7-2013 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2013 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienView
Why should a scientist discuss UFOs? The same reason we do - it is an interesting phenomena. But from a
scientific viewpoint it is a no brainer - there is nothing that scientifically can be analyzed - nothing reproducible.
In science we can reproduce phenomena over and over again and prove something is happening and that what is
happening is based upon physical, chemical, or biological factors that are reproducible time and time again. Can
you reproduce that triangular craft you saw, make it appear again, show pictures taken on at least two separate
occasions of the exact same craft?


If this is a serious question and if you have the time to study photos of UFOs you will find several type of craft that have been photo'd a number of times over the decades. There is one particular craft that has been captured on film from the beginning going way back. And most of the photos of it are of reliable sources like gun cameras ect. Have fun.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
And that STILL don't make you know everything, no offence


Point taken however a little knowledge helps in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Thus far there is not a single UFO case I know of that when researched implies extraterrestrial involvement.

If you know of a case based on authentic, empirical evidence of extraterrestrial visitation please let me know




Really, not one single UFO case, that is a very bold statement to make despite credible source's like Dr James E McDonald investigations and the conclusions he reached,there have been cases of objects displaying "flight characteristics" that show signs of intelligent control, and advanced technological abilities, military jets sent up to engage unknown objects only to be totally out maneuvered , out paced ect.

I presume that you are basing your assumptions on your claim that not ONE UFO case could be attributed to an ET source because you have first hand knowledge and scientific understanding of what constitutes or what passes as ET technology and if you have this information please share it and if that is not the case what makes you think or gives you the right to sit in judgement or justifies you as an authority on what constitutes ET technology and therefore justifies you as an authority on what ET technology should or should not be..

You rejecting any possibility that not one single UFO case could be ET in origin is in my mind unjustified based on zero evidence, a possibility remains a possibility until proven other wise, you have provided no evidence to show the ET possibility is NOT possible, that is the reality hear.

You cannot seriously think that you are in any real justifiable position to law down any boundaries as to what constitutes or what is not ET technology when in reality the best scientific minds cannot.

Not every UFO case containing high levels of "strangeness" ,(due to an objects "flight characteristic" maneuverability ect), should be filed under black ops or unexplained natural atmospheric phenomenon, because in doing so we play a very dangerous game in so much as the possible ET origin cases slip through the net.

Until science knows more then i feel that advanced ET technology has to be identified and scientifically understood first before any rebuttals of an ET origin can be justified. At present there is no known scientific understanding or concept of what ET technology is or could be but what is scientifically understood and perceived at present is that there have been hundreds of UFO cases that contain data showing high levels of "strangeness" ,(due to an objects "flight characteristic" maneuverability ect) that constitutes a real possibility that the ET origins for even one case cannot at present be ruled out completely.

There is no justifiable concept at present scientific understanding in the rebuttals of a ET source for such cases that have been deemed "exceptional" due to a UFO case containing data that is deemed "exceptional" .

We do not know all there is to know and those who claim we or science do are he ones to avoid.

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)


If you can provided evidence as to what constitutes as ET technological capabilities please do, after all one must learn to walk before one can run.

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

I would not go quite that far as to say it is all psyche phenomena of the mind - too many credible people have seen too many things to dismiss it all as illusion and/or delusion.

As fine and valid a science as Psychology is, there are two problems inherent with the Psychology approach to addressing any challenging phenomena, when employed as a first or sole step in a competitive framework of hypotheses under the scientific method:

1. Psychological testing, measurement and observations outside their native application areas, are only predictive in nature. That is, they can only serve to offer predictive tests which
a. only further promote, develop or confirm the psychology-preferred hypothesis, and
b. never offer a mode of falsification, which is the definitive test needed to complete the scientific method, and
c. can be proactively abused to dismiss observational data before it can be used in the scientific process.

So psychological avenues of explanation, cannot complete the scientific method - and end up belaboring researchers with myriad energy and testing efforts spent in Promotification fallacies and data dismissal smoke screens. This has proven out to constitute a problem for rather than a help to research.

2. Psychology will always have a handy in-discipline explanation. Although psychology is indeed a well respected science, it suffers the weakness of a religion in that it ALWAYS has a suitable set of explanations at the ready for any phenomena in question, and as such, were we to pursue it as a first priority in a falsification hierarchy, we would simply explain EVERYTHING away as a psychological artifice. This is why experimental psychologist, Michael Shermer was put in place as the figure icon of false skepticism. An easy dismissal is always at the avail.

Pschology is an elegant and respected science when applied in-discipline (emotional healing, mental illnesses, the psychology of markets, etc.). But it stands as a quasi-science when used as a trump card outside its footprint of application to over-rule any other competing theories or approaches, or serve as a diversion amidst the pursuit of falsification based science means.

It simply resides right now as a skeptics' trump card and a scientific diversion.


edit on 23-7-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I'm sure some scientists won't accept UFOs until one lands and an alien emerges and sh*ts on their lab desk

You just earned a star for administering my first laugh of the day.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I'm sure some scientists won't accept UFOs until one lands and an alien emerges and sh*ts on their lab desk

You just earned a star for administering my first laugh of the day.


Thanks, you just earned a star for appreciating quality music, Bad Religion? I say, yes



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 

I believe you are correct, however, there is definitely a level of ignorance around anything related to psychology, perception, biochemistry, neurology, etc...when discussing this phenomenon. This in itself makes this topic impossible to talk about rationally. Understanding the pitfalls and weaknesses of psychology help with understanding the phenomenon. Not understanding how things are perceived and interpreted makes for good alien stories.

edit on 23-7-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Understanding the pitfalls and weaknesses of psychology help with understanding the phenomenon. Not understanding how things are perceived and interpreted makes for good alien stories.

Absolutely valid Zeta
This is why psychology has to have a seat at the table of discourse.

The danger resides in point 1.c. - the use of psychological constructs to proactively dismiss data as it arrives from the field. This is weighed against the dangers of accepting errant data from well established human phenomena such as pareidolia.

Right now our problem resides in the former and not the latter. Constructs tend to falsify themselves through added facts, and that is why having more informational study - is a vastly superior method to one of proactive dismissal of observational data based on solely predictive psychological means.




edit on 23-7-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


Excellent post TheEthicalSkeptic. I agreed with most of it. I just disagree that psychology is a science. It has more in common with religion, in my opinion.

Psychology is a belief system - not a valid form of observational, tested science. They have set themselves up as judge and jury to what is "correct" human behavior.
I mean really, come on...

There are no verifiable tests to prove a person has a chemical imbalance. You have to take it on faith that the Psychiatrist is right. As there are no blood tests to show the proof of the imbalance.

Did you know your mentally ill if you stutter. If you fight with your brother or sister - that's a mental disorder according to the illustrious science of psychology. Did you know if you can't do math, you have a mental disorder? No? Do some research. There's a reason psychology is the red headed step child in the scientific field. Good reason. It's a safe bet, passing the UFO/abduction phenomenon over to Psychology. A safe bet, they will never get down to anything about the phenomena, except to get as far as telling you - it's all in your head!
Oh, the irony....

Head Case

Is psychology a Science

Follow the second webpages links at the bottom of the page - for further research.

I'd rather have a Physicist, than a psychologist - telling me what's up with the UFO phenomena. At least it's a legitimate science and not pseudo-science.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
just because there are scientists that will not discuss it, doesn't mean there are scientists that are not studying it. people kill each other for simply believing in a different mythical being (god), can you imagine the social upheaval of the discovery of an actual ET race. I know this was an the excuse back 60 years ago, but, human progress in this particular area is as stunted as it ever was.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I agree, Im not so into the orbs and fairies side of it but a huge freekin giant triangle next to a jet liner is another story..




What about all the folks that claim to have seen close ,"nuts and bolts" if you will, UFOs. I mean an airline pilot or air force pilot, for example but certainly not limited to, have enough understanding of the basic science involved to be considered scientific or at least viable technical observers.
edit on 21-7-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Scientists studying something more intelligent than they are? Thats why they dont study it, because it would force them to admit there is something beyond their understanding, more intelligent than they. If were being honest (and you know I always am) Most scientists I have met both online and off, are gods in their own eyes, that they would never want to admit something out there greater than themselves, let alone try and discuss it and research it.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSZOMBIE
 
The following link was a thread attributed to the psychology behind alien abduction. A lot of psychologists like to pigeonhole alien encounters as "mind tricks" as opposed to real physical or metaphysical encounters.

The great Dr. Mack was one of the few who pioneered a different thought process in identifying and categorizing alien abduction/encounters as actual real episodes, much to the chagrin of his Harvard educated colleagues.

Alien Abductions: The Real Deal?

Here's also a rare video of the incomparable Dr. Jacques Valee, Dr. John Mack, Terrence Mckenna and Bud Hopkins on the topic of the alien abduction phenomena.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join