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 Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Nov -> Here

From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 97 12:48:51 +0900
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:52:04 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH &c


>Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:29:27 -0500
>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
>Subject: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp>
>>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 16:01:13 +0900
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees

>>If a hypothesis violates what science claims to understand, and
>>it is said that this so-called understanding within science
>>applies a negating pressure to this hypothesis, it can be said
>>that an equal and opposite negating pressure is applied upon what
>>science claims to understand.  :)

>Common sense & everyday observation tells us the Sun revolves
>around the Earth. That is an hypothesis that "violates what
>science claims to understand". Are you seriously suggesting
>that it exerts any "negating" pressure on science? (I am not
>suggesting the ETH is an hypothesis of this order, btw - I'm
>just suggesting that Penrose's Law will make for hard cases
>and may be in danger of rubbing shoulders with Williams's Four
>Insupportable Axioms of Ufology.)

Penrose's Law is much like Ockham's razor, in that it cannot be
universally applied.  Hence the smiley.

>>Ockham's Razor is a bogus tool virally perpetuated by
>>self-deceived sophists.

>Nicely put :-). But it is a veritable mysterious coincidence then
>that all the bona-fide paid-up scientists of my acquaintance,
>among whom only chemists are under-represented these days, are
>self-deceived sophists, for they do wag it under my nose along
>with their fingers whenever we discuss the more outr=E9 aspects of
>my interests.

I do trust that you have declined any offers to be shaven by this
obtuse blade should such waggings be the overtures of barbering.
I am not the first to find fault in Ockham's Razor.  I think
though that you are arguing that it is among the best tools we
have for filtering our descriptions of reality.  This may be
somewhat true, but Science has not kept Mr. Ockham's blade
well-honed.

Science is not a singularity in accord with our mutual concern
for openness to possibility; Science is a balkan confederation.
In addition to its necessarily conservative elements, there are
indeed strong factions not only advocating but exercising wanton
reductionism, and even factions coercing scientific description
to adhere to a priori schematics of reality, which are induced by
complex motivations that span the fields political, sociological,
and religious.  Mr. Ockham may (or may not) "go centrifugal in
his grave" when his tool is guided by such degenerate agendas.  I
know that Science induces Charles Fort to do so in his; it has
been said that Iraqii nuclear weapons engineers have been using
his grave to enrich weapons grade plutonium.  I agree with you
that "the door is wide open", but Science has not been willing to
explore the ETH in earnest.

The door is only open to us, and not to the majority of the
Balkan Confederation.

I am not a literalist, I have not had any first hand, imagined or
otherwise, experience that would resonate my belief in the ETH.
But I do strongly believe that the ETH has not been scrutinized
by the scientific community: it has been spurned as one would
exile fetid underwear.  The idea is too incongruous, here Mr.
Ockham has hacked in dull and unfortunate strokes, to be
considered worthy of investigation.  Of course, we can implore
those who advocate the ETH to "become scientists" and improve
their discourse, but the Balkan Confederation of Science still
slanders such activity.  UFO/abduction researchers do not enjoy
wide spread acceptance at Universities, and thus economic
research support is lacking for such research.

University support would give an obvious boost to the quality of
the ETH related research as a needed bonus.

> if you want to argue that UFOs are ET, it's up to you to prove it.
> not for the doubters to disprove it.

I don't subscribe to such a view, and I don't think the Pentagon
does either, even if they are without evidence of ET themselves.
SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) is an interesting case in
point.  Of all the possible explanations for the anomalous
phenomenae in which we share a mutual interest, the ETH has the
most extreme consequences (save perhaps for the similar
Extradimensional beings hypothesis) for our world view, with
profound global impact upon our assorted cultural institutions.
If extraterrestials are indeed meddling with us, it behooves us
to find out as much as we can and quickly.  Instead The Balkan
Republic of Science has turned its back upon and humiliated
anyone who would find credence in the ETH, while simultaneously
daring them to prove the hypothesis.  A potentially global
phenomenae requires a unilaterally global response.


Christopher Penrose
penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp