Kuhn's-Age Changes
A UFO agnostic on the debate, certainties, BZ, etc.
KUHN’S-AGE CHANGES
by alaw
1/24/97
Of the hordes of proponents, True-Believers, skeptics, and debunkers out
there, which ones offer the least substance in the Great Internet UFO Debate?
Could be a dead heat: the T-Bs and debunkers mostly cancel out; ditto the
proponents (they have sandcastles -- nothing solid or certain) and the
skeptics (a half-century of smug nay-ing). After a mountain of data
(and decades of hoaxes, fudged claims, controversy, and inadequate study),
neither side knows stitch from Sunday for sure; and the UFO phenomenon
goes on (we think maybe).
We may never learn anything big and for certain about UFOs. You remember
that the 19th-century movement called Spiritualism had striking and frustrating
parallels with ufology. Beginning in 1848 and petering out around
WWI, it peaked in the 1890s, and was as widely infamous as UFOs now, in
England and America. There was media involvement, T-Bs and debunkers,
"scientific" studies, and acrimonious public disputes.
Spiritualism, like ufology, was bent on proving the reality of an extraterrestrial
world (the afterlife), and its adherents claimed thousands of sightings
of Spirits (=UFOs and ETs). Millions participated in table-rapping seance
trances, hosted by eager, True-Believer facilitators (=u-no-whos).
After a half-century
they had a mountain of data (and decades of hoaxes, fudged claims, etc.,
etc.), and had learned nothing at all about the afterlife or its putative
spirit inhabitants.
Meantime, the quality of the UFO debate is eroding. Not chiefly for
the obvious reasons, that it is congenitally foul-mouthed, petty, and moronic,
and therefore largely boring -- though sometimes fascinating, too.
The erosion happens because the debate cannot move off dead center in the
absence of a serious and ongoing high-tech UFO sightings research program.
Is there a chance in creation that a more intelligent, objective, and informed
Internet debate might pave the way for a meaningful international UFO study?
One perhaps sponsored by private sources such as those that now support
SETI?
If so, the question is how to enlighten the exchange of views about UFOs
in Internet newsgroups. One possibility: different approaches, a
kind of Kuhn’s-Age change in the way UFOs are discussed on the Net – based
on a dissatisfaction with the non-answers the old methods have garnered
over the years (and promise for years ahead without changes!). In
the spirit of scientific revolutions and seekers of truth, let us look
at the typical newsgroup contributions of one ET-True-Believer (of course,
chosen completely at random, more or less...)
bdzeiler@primenet.com (Brian Zeiler) wrote:
Scott A. Munro) wrote:
>>Can you give me an example of _one_ UFO case which,
>>if it were the _only_ UFO case on record, would
>>provide proof that earth is being visited by aliens?
>No, because there is no "proof" of alien visitation.
It's just a
>hypothesis….
Yeah, no proof, right! BZ’s flaming rhetoric, however, says otherwise
-- the arrogance, impatience, rudeness, the name-calling, the quick fury,
the tone of imperious assurance. His snarling but entertaining threads
(c. 50 in alt.alien.visitors alone) carry a message of iron conviction:
"It is a metaphysical certitude that UFOs are ETs!" (BZ’s
too modest to tell us that he don’t need no stinking ‘proof!’) And
with his considerable gifts you better watch it, poor babies, for BZ knows
UFOs and he’ll mug you in debate!
But just the same he is an ET-True-Believer, and since he often speaks
of possibilities and probabilities as if they were certainties, there are
problems.
>>Frankly, though, your answer shocks and astounds me,
>>though the fact that you attack a scarcely relevant
>>point of semantics does not.
>It's not a point of semantics. It reflects your poor understanding
of
>the scientific method and of careful research. The ETH is
invoked to
>propose an answer for cases which feature intelligent control,
>physical substance, and propulsion technology beyond human knowledge
>-- in other words, cases which COMPEL the hypothesis of
>extraterrestrial origin because of these conditions being observed.
Speaking of semantics, the scientific method, and careful research: "observed"
is the wrong word here, for one cannot know from even the best cases that
any of the above three conditions (together or separately) were in fact
"observed" by a witness; you know only that they were reported,
alleged, inferred, etc. That is, this is anecdotal evidence, and
so MAYBE these details were actually witnessed, but they also may have
been misinterpreted, fantasized, hallucinated, hoaxed, or whatever.
No certainties, just probabilities, or mere possibilities. Even with
radar support, anecdotal evidence is always less than certain. You
may have a hell of a strong case, but it is at best a probable case.
BZ’s use of "compel" implies that he knows of sighting cases
which go beyond probability and force us to conclude that UFOs are alien
spacecraft. If they really truly do compel us logically, by definition
they must constitute proof! BZ shouldn’t go and keep proof of UFO/ET
reality all to himself like a Contactee! If there are lots and lots
of hot cases, compel-ers every one, he should reference them all on his
web page so that UFO skeptics (the ones who can read, at least, as he reminds
us), and agnostics like me, can learn something certain at long last about
this awful big puzzle.
Of course anyone who like BZ is a college whiz in logic and analogies should
already know that it’s a long way from logical certainties (the only things
that can force us to invoke the ETH here) to mere possibilities (what UFO
reports now give us). So BZ’s best radar-visual case may not necessarily
compel a Sagan or a Momma Teresa to believe (even if he shouts COMPEL!).
>>...I repeat the question, now aimed at proponents
>>of the idea that earth is being visited by aliens.
>And I've repeatedly said that your question is dishonest, deceptive
>baiting, because no matter which case I would mention, somebody
will
>dredge up a specious debunkery which dismisses all observations
that
>contradict the simple explanation -- that is, altering the data
to
>conform to the hypothesis, which is the core strategy of skeptics
who
>rape Occam's Razor to suit their twisted Machiavellian objectives.
>Nevertheless... from early days, however, I would consider the best
>radar-visual cases to be the ones that McDonald analyzed, especially
>the ones in "Science in Default" on my web page.
I can't really pick
>a favorite, since they all have their own charm -- RB-47 had ECM
while
>Lakenheath had tons of redundant ground and air echoes.
(If things were reversed, here’s a likely spot for BZ to erupt in a fit
of name-calling: "Idiot! Wasting our time with irrelevant words
like "favorite" and "charm." The subject is UFO
sightings, pinhead, not pizza or costume jewelry! Is your IQ higher
than a coat of floor wax?" But we won’t do that.)
BZ has blasted critics for not actively exposing themselves to five-decades-old
radar-visual cases, implying they could thus quickly develop into True-Believers,
perhaps even become as ETH-positive as he is. Yet one individual
who is familiar with James McDonald’s best radar-visuals and who still
disagrees with BZ’s evident certainties about ETs is: James McDonald.
In his comments on Lakenheath from the essay BZ mentioned, it is clear
JM is an ETH advocate, though only "in terms of my present information."
And he adds, significantly, "Present evidence surely does not amount
to incontrovertible proof of the extraterrestrial hypothesis."
Both McDonald and BZ agree there is no proof, but McDonald meant it, while
evidently BZ has attained certitude in the absence of proof.
Yet a major thesis of "Science In Default" (1969) is that UFO
sighting reports were inconclusive after 22 years precisely because they
had not been sufficiently studied; and that is still true. Even allowing
for supposed suppressed evidence and Big-Top-Secret Studies, which I doubt
ever existed, fifty years of monolithically stupid responses to reports
demonstrate beyond question that the U.S. military never learned anything
meaningful about UFOs. Can anyone formulate a single substantive
and verifiable generalization about UFOs conceivably learned from military
study? Or anything that changed military or space policy in a major
way? The 1950s litany, "UFOs are not a threat to national security,"
won’t qualify; not verifiable. Point: not enough is known about UFOs
or reports at this time to compel us to adopt the ETH.
>The logic of invoking the ETH when such conditions are present cannot
>be argued by any skeptic.
Well, except that lest we beg the question we have to make certain that
the three conditions (or any others deemed crucial to a particular hypothesis)
are indeed present (i.e., they have actually been found to exist beyond
question by a competent witness, or other means). And how do
we do that when we must deal with anecdotal evidence, fallible witnesses,
and a thus-far elusive phenomenon? We cannot determine "when
such conditions are present" by dogmatic pronouncements; and anecdotal
and other non-physical evidence will always be less than certain.
Conclusion: the UFO skeptic may indeed question and debate such issues,
and then conclude as he/she will.
>Rather, the skeptic must argue the degree to which such conditions
are
>certain to be present.
Okay. The certainty about the actuality of such ETH-compelling conditions
as these in any known UFO case is: zero. Degrees of possibility/probability:
1 to 99%. Real helpful. But your statement seems awkwardly
phrased: do you mean to say that skeptics must argue the degree to which
certain certain conditions are present? (Sorry, that’s awkwardly
phrased.)
///
I apologize to BZ for any excesses in the above. A thousand other
"random" contributors to the flaming threads of the Internet
UFO spitfest, pro and con, might have subbed; but BZ is one of the most
intriguing.
I recently asked a well-known ET proponent friend whether he thought
he’d ever find out what UFOs really are. He replied that he was not
trying to find out what UFOs are, but attempting to show that some UFOs
are ET craft. Presumably he is not interested in the phenomenon if
it is not ET-related. My pal is studying UFOs with a preconceived
notion. That is not science, of course, but he is apparently thriving,
like many in ET-True-Believerdom.
If T-Bs and proponents have attitudes, so do skeptics and debunkers, whose
sins are 50 years in the making, too! Ignorant and biased justifications
of official denials by professional debunkers helped cost us a half-century
of needless secrecy, most likely designed to cover up the U.S. military’s
total ignorance and ongoing ineptitude about UFOs. (What a rogues
gallery: Menzel; Condon; Klass; name your poisoner!)
The UFO debate will go nowhere in the long run without the support of a
serious, high-tech program of research into sighting reports, which is
yet to be implemented. But I think we can introduce a more reasonable
Internet-level discussion strategy through a partial paradigm-shift away
from advocacy of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Specific proposals follow,
each unfortunately guaranteed to alienate somebody. If you don’t
like these ideas, stop reading, put them down, and back slowly away:
1 -- Treat UFOs and CE3s as separate and unrelated phenomena.
2 -- Stop debating the unprovable ET hypothesis, and/or ET
presence.
3 -- Declare that UFOs seem to be a real anomaly and deserve
serious study in their own right; not necessarily related to ETs
or the ETH.
4 -- Actively explore mundane and other non-physical CE3 hypotheses.
5 -- Determine viable ways to secure funding for serious investigations
of the UFO phenomenon.
Discussion
1
There is a surprising absence of significant correlations between alleged
CE3 experiences and reports of typical UFO sighting events. The situation
leads me to believe that the two are connected only incidentally.
I wish to demonstrate their separateness in part because I am convinced
that current CE3 "research" is going nowhere, and in fact may
be impeding potential study of the entire UFO phenomenon.
Fundamental distinctions between UFO sighting data and CE3
events are easily demonstrated. The best UFO reports suggest the
presence of an anomalous something that may be physically real; but the
best abduction cases imply a non-physical, psychological set of events,
and many parallels with shamanic visions.
Again, in sightings there is a fair amount of good radar and
anecdotal evidence that something like a UFO occasionally whisks across
the skies; but there is no unambiguous evidence for the physical reality
of abduction cases. And UFO vehicles dominate sightings reports, while
they tend to be incidental in CE3s, since most occur while subjects are
asleep or in other situations wherein the abduction fantasy is paramount,
not the vehicle.
If the Roper poll mythology were not complete nonsense, millions
of Americans would be pre- or post-abductees, and their graphic (and X-rated)
CE3s would be on America’s Favorite Videos every week. But that doesn’t
happen, because CE3s don’t seem to unfold in the same way as UFO sightings,
which occasionally involve large groups of people in broad daylight.
And multiple-witness UFO sightings are relatively common, whereas dual
or multiple CE3s are extremely rare; the few that
have been validated show that witnesses experience events separately rather
than together as a couple or group. (See Betty/Barney Hill (2w);
Judy Kendall (3w). I am aware of Allagash, but forget it.).
UFOs and CE3s are often debated at cross purposes. True-Believers
sometimes look at the real though elusive evidence for UFOs and then argue
for the reality of CE3s (and, implicitly, ETs), which is illogical and
won’t work. An effective, informed Internet discussion could focus
on the two phenomena separately: on specific UFO cases (in ways that are
rare currently) to define the nature and extent of their possibly anomalous
character; and on specific CE3 cases to explore the
psycho-social significance and ufological relevance of the alleged witnesses’
abduction experiences. (And why not publish all known CE3 regression
transcripts on the Net? A needed boon for relevant researchers.
Can you hear me Budd & Dave?)
2
Let’s stop wrangling over visiting aliens and the ETH until we have an
actual LGG (little grey guy) in hand, at which time the issues will be
moot. Since ETs don’t cooperate and we do not have all the data, the issues
are incapable of resolution by debate; and further Internet bickering is
a waste of time.
For example, there has never been an authenticated CE3 in
which two or more persons watch while a UFO lands, occupants get out and
abduct someone, then the UFO takes off. THINK: THIS PRIMAL CE3 SCENE,
SUPPOSEDLY THE INITIATING AND DEFINITIVE EVENT OF COUNTLESS TYPICAL UFO
ABDUCTIONS, HAS NEVER -- I MEAN NEVER!! -- BEEN AUTHENTICALLY WITNESSED,
AND PROBABLY HAS NEVER OCCURRED. But can I use this situation as
an effective argument to prove that ETs and the ETH are less likely than
the possibility that I will be visited tonight by Pamela Anderson?
No. That exact CE3 could happen tomorrow, and wipe my argument out!
(But it won’t. Thank you, Pam.)
So we can let T-Bs believe what they will, and let skeptics
dismiss; but we must focus the remaining discussion on issues of
physical reality and anomalies (which presumably can be analyzed), not
ETs (which can’t).
Skeptics tend to cringe at ETs and they rank the ETH about
the same as an STD. Like True-Believers, many skeptics have been
tainted by the ETH so that they associate UFOs not with anomalies but only
with visiting ETs and wild abduction yarns. With an alien-less agenda,
skeptics may be open to serious consideration of UFOs as anomalies. For
them, UFOs sans ETs may be enigma enough.
Even if they stop arguing, T-Bs won’t stop believing, come
heigh-ho or Helms. (They are half right, because if intelligent aliens
do exist, eventually they’ll be right cheer, believe it! I just don’t
think they’re here now.) But unless aliens show up, say, tomorrow,
the ETH debate can reasonably be deferred.
3
Former ETH proponents could adopt a downsized maxim: "The 1% or so
of IFOs that become UFOs seem to be a physically real and continuing anomaly,
and demand further study." (BZ has made this point in his usual high-fi,
to his everlasting credit.)
But BZ and other ET-True-Believers seek too much: they want
the 50-year UFO mystery and ETs, too! But it should be miracle enough
for us to maybe establish the physical reality of UFOs, the greatest ongoing
mystery of the Millennium, and go on and up from there.
That may not be enough for ET-T-Bs like BZ. Or like
UFO writer and Truest ET Believer Jerry Clark, who once said that those
who try to solve the mystery by invoking non-ET solutions "trivialize"
the subject. Although many may agree, most scientists would not:
truth, when you find it, and whatever it turns out to be, is always non-trivial.
4
Let’s open the CE3 debate more aggressively to mundane psychological and
other non-physical abduction hypotheses. With more than a thousand
regressed "victims" in the last two decades, the abduction industry
(Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack, Fowler, Inc.) has been busy. Ten or more
books. UFO Conferences. TV. Radio. PR strokes.
Applause. Survived the MIT Conference inquisition. After 17 years
there’s another mountain of data, but data isn’t intelligible information.
What do the "findings" tell us about CE3s? About UFOs?
Hundreds of abductees, with eager-beaver facilitators. Looks like mind-games.
But who’s playing with whose?
Boys and girls, have you heard of the word, psychology?
Or psychological explanations for odd behavior? No? My, my.
You know, I don’t think Budd and Dave or their psychologist friend John
have, either! Isn't that funny, boys and girls? Isn't that
also a crock!
Serious abduction research has been on hold -- on Total Ground
Zero -- since the early 1980’s. Without a Kuhn’s-age shift it’s likely
to stay that way.
5
Funding. We often hear that there is no money, but of course there
is plenty of money. It’s just that so much of it in the past two
or three decades has been eased into so few private hands, where it’s tough
to get back. We are a fabulously rich country, and the top 20 percent
of Americans is very rich; the top 5 percent is obscenely so (while 40%
of U.S. children are poor). There is wealth there to do all the things
that desperately need doing, and beyond that, for those that are worth
doing -- many times over. The UFO community will have to find ruthlessly
clever, cunning, and stealthy ways to get access to a proper share.
The people who connected with moneybags types for SETI did
a good job. UFO proponents will have to do as well, and make UFOs
look as inviting as SETI seemed. Time for a Kuhn’s-Age miracle:
ET phones Project UFO Anomaly?
///
Pity, good ideas often go to waste. Some very interesting UFO newsgroup
headers never develop an audience. In fact, the BZ thread quoted
above started with an interesting question, and unfortunately BZ’s was
apparently the only response.
Maybe no one wants to help a Kuhn’s Age along?
Yeah, duh, It’s more fun to surf the Net.
Like alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.shave?!
Yessss!
But wait, this alaw idiot’s a closet debunker! What
if I don’t like his crazy ideas!
That’s just to get us started. Use your own crazy ideas.
But make them revolutionary, or Kuhn won’t come.
I don’t think we’re ready for a Kuhn’s-Age change in the UFO
debate.
Great, because I do! Now we have our first issue we
can put before ourselves for us to consider!
Good idea!
There may soon be one ubb-BILLION -- thnx, Carl -- bright,
literate, creative, energetic human beings online worldwide, an unprecedented
audience. But we might find that the same ubb-billion’s threads imply
they are stupid, biased, illiterate, lazy, and carry bombs in their pockets.
It’s not numbers but intelligent commitment. Our newsgroups are packed
with ideas now, but ranting rhetoric and egomania tend to destroy everyone’s
focus, and good things and precious time are lost. (Grrr...!
I’m gonna pay back that %!&!# with this 25-stanza limerick...!)
We need only a few imaginative voices and a regular influx
of new ideas, more or less around the corners of status-quo chat.
Some geeks will doubtless flame or ignore the ideas, or spread spamanarchy.
But ideas have always mattered more than geeks, except to geeks.
alaw
UFO Skeptic page
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page