Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by Klassified
She isn't ignorant of the field. She has done her homework.
Ah, correction: As much as I love and respect Druscilla's view on things, she has NOT done her homework on anything to do with UFOlogy. Nothing.
Ask her. She herself said she has not read any book on UFOlogy and will not read any book on UFOlogy.
How can you trust the views of someone on any topic that they have either no first hand experience or background knowledge to entertain? The
psychology of UFO abductees is one thing but one's interpretation and analysis based on personal research and experience lends more credence than the
Maybe Druscilla can respectfully provide some simple and cogent analysis of The West Lothian
While true I have not read any UFO Books
, as would seem common ad hominem in ignoring the points of anything said in favor of paying more
attention to a personality than the actual meat of the matter under discussion, those so overly eager to wave this little flag around would seem to be
willfully ignorant of information proliferation in the 21st century.
Data on most any topic is readily available online, for instance. As is applies to the UFO Phenomenon, there's a veritable wealth of sourced and
cross referenced data, as well as a wonderful depth of discussion regarding many UFO Phenomenon cases here on ATS alone.
As far as "research" is concerned, it's a common mistake repeated by the uneducated to consider review of data and the opinions of investigators
opining on said data as RESEARCH.
Such, in reality, is merely reading a story, familiarizing oneself with it, and making a personal value judgement on the results opined by those given
to opine on the data.
Research, actual research, on the other hand is a process of reviewing the data of any given subject, ignoring all previous findings or indications,
and arriving at an INDEPENDENT conclusion, whether supporting, or detracting, through sourcing personal or other references of expertise of relevant
It's how the peer review process works.
If conclusions can be independently arrived at supporting previous interrogation of a subject, then, there might very well be something to it. If
conclusions are inconsistent, and can be reliably shown to be inconsistent, then, whatever hypothesis is being tested needs amendment.
Gravity, for instance, can be independently verified. If anyone can cast doubt on that paradigm and do so with open demonstration of replicable test
procedure and data, then Gravitational Theory can be brought into question.
As far as The West Lothian Question is concerned, I'm not familiar with the case, and thus have no opinion on the matter.
I am not, however, afraid to say "I don't know". Thus, if at some time I do happen to familiarize myself with the data, and interrogate the data
to arrive at an independent conclusion, even if that conclusion is "I don't know", a finding commonly lauded by adherents to the UFO phenomenon as
validation, "I don't know" is just that, and nothing more. "I don't know", or a finding of "unknown" is not carte blanch to claim ALIENS or
anything other than unknown
Critical thinking and distinction between distinct separate classifications of subject matter in this forum is very important.
Too often the distinctions are blurred and UFOs becomes Aliens, vice versa, and many other things altogether.