Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 06:16:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 17:31:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science and UFOs

> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Ernie Karhu <ekarhu@shore.net>

> >But in certain areas, especially in ufology, I think its real
> important to stick with what we know, (what we really know), until
> we've exhausted all that we know, before moving into stuff we aren't
> so sure about.
> I think the most compelling argument is "until we've exhausted all
> that we know..." I think we've done that...and must continue to do so
> with with all new data.
> I agree in principle, especially to rule out all that can be explained
> by what we know. However, we do have a considerable fund of data that
> cannot be explained by what we "really" know for certain.

I'm not so sure we're there yet.  I think we've done at least a
reasonable job on a case by case basis, of at least the major cases, but
there still hasn't been good analysis on the higher level of the mass of
cases.

> Therefore,
> it seems necessary to consider other well-developed and considered
> hypothetical positions to determine if these positions offer a more
> reasonable or consistent explanation.
> It seems reasonable to search through other "alternative explanations"
> as long as these "alternatives" are or have been presented in our more
> traditional scientific journals and that these positions are presented
> in accord with our traditional scientific method (or an alternative
> method) as long as the presentation is logical, consistent and
> compelling.

Nothing wrong with that as long as we stay close enough to the
scientific method to make these alternative explanations testable
hypotheses.

> A reasonable next step is to identify a list of "alternative
> positions" to consider. Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance
> would be another reasonable candidate high on my own list.

Can you briefly state that theory and how it can be tested?

--

Thanks, take care.
John.

([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])
[                             ]
[  sjpowell@access.digex.net  ]
[                             ]
([]][][][][][][][][][][][][][])