UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:03:51 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:51:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking
>From: Greg St. Pierre <StrmNut@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 23:01:51 EDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking
>>Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:45:17 -0700
>>From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking
>>Has anybody ever noticed how often Klass and CSICOP are attacked in
>>Jerome Clark's commentary? Are they that powerful that their
>>image needs to be tarnished continuously? Actually, they are not
>>even relevant to this or any discussion involving the state of
>>ufology because they are not responsible for ufology's woes.
>Whoa, stop tape........
>Mr Stuart, you can't possibly believe that the aforementioned
>debunkers aren't relevant to your discussion.
It is not a question of belief. It is a question of whether
ufology will ever be mature enough of a discipline to take
responsibility for its own or not. As long as the prevalent
attitude and state of mind within ufology is to find demons,
dead or alive, to blame for their present status, ufology will
never be able to grow into a mature discipline.
>You know perfectly
>well how UFO witnesses, no matter their background or
>credibility, are treated by these purveyors of
>explanations-that-defy-rationality. Might not ufology have more
>of the necessary people at it's disposal if not for the public
>floggings given on so regular a basis by those who know more
>about the sighting than the witness?
I don't really know where the basis of your critique is coming
from. On one hand Klass has been critisized for not even
speaking to witnesses and Sagan for not investigating UFO cases.
In Klass's Skeptics UFO Newsletter he seldoms address witnesses
unless they have already reached public status usually by having
written a book or having appeared and made statements in a mass
media like a TV show. Critiquers like to have it both ways at
their convenience, but it makes for faulty logic.
>Case in point: Mr. Sagan (who by now probably believes
>wholeheartedly in the Devil) loved to pontificate about the ever
>present human need to believe in the supernatural, hence UFOs
>are the modern day equivalent to goblins and leprechauns and the
>like. He referred to all UFO sightings as "nonsense", most of
>the time not even bothering to revert to the old "misidentified
>natural phenomena" line.
Your perception of Sagan is not based on fact. Sagan was
critical that aliens where sharing time and space with us and
that there was any linkage between UFOs and alien cruisers. He
did not deny that UFO reports should be investigated. He is on
the written record that
"there isn't enough data...and that an open mind
should be kept."
Carl Sagan in UFOs: A Scientific Debate, 1972
What a dastardly position to take!
>"Anecdotal stories are absolutely worthless", he would say.
Anecdotal stories are absolutely worthless in the context of
scientific proof. They are important in the right context of
supporting evidence if ufology ever is able to show linkage
between allegedly supporting data points. A paper by a colleaque
of Sagan, Phillip Morrison in Sagan's and Page's UFOs: A
SCIENTIFIC DEBATE, "The Nature of Scientific Evidence: A
Summary" addresses this issue and outlines why ufological
evidence has always fallen short of the standard of scientific
proof, but on the positive side it outlines what ufology needs
to do to strenghten their contentions - but almost thirty years
later, ufology still hasn't listened.
>Besides stretching his obvious
>distrust for his fellow man to an absurd and unreasonable level,
>he provided more than enough incentive for many people _not_ to
>join ufology who otherwise might have proved invaluable, and
>thus the field has not progressed to it's potential.
Again, your perception of Sagan is not based on fact. It is true
that he was not involved with the UFO community or involved in
investigations of actual cases, but he helped ufology in many
ways.
1) Sagan advocated declassification of relevant UFO
information from decades ago (Demon-Haunted World, pp. 89).
2) He edited, with Thornton Page, one of the most important
UFO books produced: UFOs: A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Important for
many reasons, notwithstanding the fact that it is one of the few
books available to the mass public which includes a paper by Dr.
James Macdonald, as well as other pro-ufo advocates. As a
populizer of science, this book carrying Sagan's name still
receives wide distribution.
3) The above book was a record of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science UFO debate in 1969. A debate that
Sagan was an advocate for inspite of high-level government
criticism and personal threat of criticism for advocating such a
debate before such an institution and helping to organize it to
its success. The UFO problem has never received such favorable
exposure before or since.
>Given the way the subject is treated by Phil Klass and his ilk,
>is it any wonder ufology is still struggling?
If only Phil Klass and his ilk would stop criticising, ufology
would move forward. Yup, that is taking responsibility for
ufology's woes.
>Talk about an
>uphill battle. Now, if they were to fight fairly, ufology might
>be doing a bit better, but the concocted and far fetched
>explanations used by debunkers to dispose of sightings certainly
>makes the PR job of ufologists a hell of a lot tougher, wouldn't
>you say?
Let me see. Critical analysis, discernment, logic, strict
interpretation of data, linkage and independent verification are
all weapons used by Phil Klass and his ilk. Those guys just
don't fight fairly. Be serious! Who really cares what cases Phil
Klass and his ilk "dispose of"? If a case is valid, ufologists
will still pursue the evidence and build a stronger case
regardless of Phil Klass. If the case his weak and susceptible
to debunking, and investigators can't find evidence to
strenghten the case, Phil Klass and his ilk have done ufology a
favor by removing clutter from the table top. Of course, there
is one way to defeat those dastardly villains keeping ufology
from its right place in the sun. Ufology needs to come up with
compelling evidence to support its extraordinary claims. All is
really needed is one case that stands up to critical analysis,
discernment, logic, linkage of data and independent
verification. Only ONE CASE! In the meantime let's keep blaming
a dead exobiologist and popularizer of science and a
seventy-year-old man for ufology's woes and inability to raise
itself from its self-created hole.
>Unless of course you believe the explanations, in which
>case you are as guilty of being a won't-believer as much as you
>accuse Mr. Clark of being a "believer".
People can believe anything they want and most are independent
in their belief systems. But if ufology is to be dominated by
beliefs, then it needs to reside in the domain of beliefs and
admit to itself that it is a religion, an area that science has
no jurisdiction.
>Mr. Stuart, the debunkers _are_ part of the problem.
For fifty years now, the above analysis of the situation seems
to be the prevalent analysis. Greg, I am sorry to say that I
suspect that yours is the prevalent opinion in the circles of
ufological wisdom much to the consternation for any hope that
ufology will ever mature.
Ed Stewart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
Going On! ,>'?'<, |Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) |'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
---------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com