This is a tempest in a teapot.
I've given you my take on it. Take it or leave it; it's no skin off my nose. I don't have a dog in this fight but it appears that you do. Perhaps you are taking this personally.
I'm beginning to wonder if your chosen nickname might have more to do with your reticence to consider other viewpoints. Please believe and accept that my comments on the name 'ufology' as it applies the study of unidentified aerial objects was never intended as any kind of slight to your chosen username.
But if you somehow took it that way, consciously or unconsciously, rest assured that was never my intent: it never even entered the picture and only occurred to me while reading your latest reply.
So, I apologize if I ruffled your feathers but I will nevertheless stand firm on my opinions.
Now let me address your six points.
- Simply renaming ufology isn't going to fool the establishment into thinking we're not talking about UFOs.
- The word ufology is now an established part of the English language and has been in use for over half a century. Therefore if becoming established is desirable, then it makes no sense to start over with something that is not established.
- People are familiar with the word UFO and therefore changing the name of its associated field ( ufology ) only invites more confusion. This has already been proven by Kean's experience in having to explain the acronym UAP wherever she goes.
- Tens of thousands of historical records use the words UFO and ufology. Consequently searches for information under the FOIA, NARA and elsewhere ( e.g. UFO interest groups ) are going to require that we use those words. Therefore switching terms only complicates research rather than helping it.
- Other approaches have been tried and have failed, which demonstrates the difficulty in fostering acceptance for new terminology. Therefore it's not a wise use of resources to spend such a great amount of time and effort convincing people to use a different name just so they can carry on doing the same thing they were already doing beforehand.
- The ridicule and so-called giggle factor is not caused by the name itself, it's caused by a history of marginalization and mockery. Therefore changing the name will not cure the problem. However changing attitudes will.
1. The idea isn't to fool anybody. It's so that scientists can address the issue publicly and before their peers, without being
automatically, unconsciously, laughed off the stage.
2. This is the point I am making, but not only that it's established, but is established with half a century of
association with ridicule and giggle factor. Take the word 'critter'. Likely it's derived from the word 'creature'. Yet unless one wants to use slang deliberately, one doesn't see it in common written texts. Think of the connotations, 'critter', unschooled, maybe frontier land lingo, pioneers with little or no education. Most of us don't break this down, it's automatic, it's associated with mountain men, Daniel Boone and his B'ar talk, no slur on Mr. Boone nor mountain men intended. The connotations are
unconscious.
3. Kean uses this term because narcap prefers it and it has little negative association. It's true that it's a lesser known identifier. But since its use by Kean, it's more recognized than before.
4. Agreed. Continue to use the common terms for searches. However, I doubt if these acronyms will be found where the incontrovertible data is stored, most likely in black-budget corporations, and they're more likely to use initials we'd never guess, just to obfuscate matters and provide for plausible deniability. Consider the word 'fastwalkers'. Would any of us associate it with UFOs? I wouldn't have if I hadn't read it in a blog somewhere.
5. Language is a living thing; it's always changing, words are added or dropped, definitions change or evolve, spellings become simplified, nouns become verbs (google it!), acronyms become words (ufology), and so on. Language evolves. By your logic we should still be using the words astrology as the study of the stars, and alchemy for the study of elements.
6. Yes, changing attitudes will cure the problem. But why add in having to fight off the 60 year negative, constantly reinforced, now socially integrated negative associations (now mostly unconscious for most people and so much harder to reach and undo, if it were possible)? I submit
it's not a wise use of resources to spend such a great amount of time and effort to try to undo the damage done. It's best to start with a clean slate.
I hope I have clarified my opinions without offending you.
Bulk
