Beyond the Living Myth... UFOs then and Now

[Christopher O'Brien]

BEYOND THE LIVING MYTH…
AND FROM SERIOUS ‘OLD’ UFOLOGY TO SERIOUS ‘NEW’ UFOLOGY
by Paul Budding PAPER HERE:

[IMO, Paul Budding's paper is worthy of discussion. I like that he has an eye toward possible solutions to the "spinning the wheels" syndrome, and
his logical insight makes sense. I've extended an invitation to be on the show. **Worth the time to read, space fanz...**


"[The paper finishes by] ... quoting from Patricia Corbett’s outstanding paper titled UFOs – A Challenge to Mainstream Science. The extracted material (below) gets across the point that this is a scientific endeavour… the pursuit and discovery of new knowledge is a scientific responsibility and quest.

“Too many scientists today are demanding proof, instead of doing the hard work needed to demonstrate the reality of UFOs […] In 1956, in his last published work, Contact with Space, the pioneering scientist Wilhelm Reich wrote:

'What do they want for proof? There is no proof. There are no authorities whatever. No President, Academy, Court of Law, Congress or Senate on this earth has the knowledge or power to decide what will be the knowledge of tomorrow… only the good old rules of learning will eventually bring about understanding of what has invaded our earthly existence. Let those who are ignorant of the way of learning stand aside, while those who know what learning is, blaze the trail into the unknown.’ Where are the scientists who will lead us in our search for the knowledge of tomorrow? The tools needed are at hand; the information we need is there, waiting to be discovered. The UFO phenomenon, dismissed and derided today, may prove to be the key to the lock that will open the door to our cosmic future.'”​

 

[Michael Allen]

Chris,

I think Dolan has a good model for looking at "official truth" vs "unofficial truth" -- i.e. we don't always realize that our own understanding is not so much dependent on "proof" but on a body or consensus of (not always deserved) respected authorities within a particular milieu (for which we should always add a time index, because culture evolves)

"What would constitute proof? Many people have videotaped UFOs. Some are hoaxes, while others appear to be genuine. Is it possible to prove one is genuine? What about consistent witness testimony? Perhaps persuasive in a court of law, but provable in the court of science? What about radar/visual cases...We must ask not only what constitutes proof, but who would be authorized to deem it so? [emphasis mine]" - Richard Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941-1973 "Introduction" xxvii



Interestingly enough, some proofs put in front of our faces are as incomprehensible prima facie as any other proof:

Take the proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 from one of my favorite (and rather dense) math texts.

(1) p^2 = 2 is not satisfied by any rational
For suppose that (1) is satisfied. Then we can write p = m/n, where m and n are integers, and we can further choose m and n so that not both are even. Let us assume that this is done. Then (1) implies
(2) m^2 = 2n^2
This shows that m^2 is even. Hence m is even (if m were odd, m^2 would be odd), and so m^2 is divisible by 4. It follows that the right side of (2) is divisible by 4, so that n^2 is even, which implies that n is even.
Thus the assumption that (1) holds leads us to the conclusion that both m and n are even, contrary to our choice of m and n. Hence (1) is impossible for rational p.

[QED] Source: Principles of Mathematical Analysis Rudin, Walter

Now I must say, it took some time before I was able to understand every step of this proof back in my school days. In fact I had to prove it using a different argument (i.e. GCD() and relative primality) which was equivalent (but more descriptive).

In addition, the objects of the proof demand an understanding of mathematical principles such as "irrational," "rational," "even," "odd," and even the abstract machine logic of reductio ad absurdum.

Even so its interesting to note some of the more recent computer proofs of Fermat's Last theorem that required another computer to "verify."

 

[Randall]

BEYOND THE LIVING MYTH…
AND FROM SERIOUS ‘OLD’ UFOLOGY TO SERIOUS ‘NEW’ UFOLOGY
by Paul Budding PAPER HERE:

[IMO, Paul Budding's paper is worthy of discussion. I like that he has an eye toward possible solutions to the "spinning the wheels" syndrome, and
his logical insight makes sense. I've extended an invitation to be on the show. **Worth the time to read, space fanz...**


"[The paper finishes by] ... quoting from Patricia Corbett’s outstanding paper titled UFOs – A Challenge to Mainstream Science. The extracted material (below) gets across the point that this is a scientific endeavour… the pursuit and discovery of new knowledge is a scientific responsibility and quest.

“Too many scientists today are demanding proof ...

The paper in the link above proposes:

"Serious New Ufology accepts the fact that unknown intelligently controlled craft ARE observed. We then proceed on that basis."

I tend to agree with the quote above. The group I'm with ( USI ) has this for it's mandate:

"USI recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition and concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin."

One thing USI does not however endorse is the belief that scientific elitism should be the prevailing wisdom. This is not to say that we shouldn't use whatever science we can, only that since the science has been popularized, the concept that scientists are the only ones qualified to deal with UFOs has been a growing trend, mostly because it imparts an air of credibility. We see slogans like "The scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity". And now every author needs a Ph.D. to help boost book sales. It's gotten so bad we're seeing authors being accused of faking credentials just to get respect. But real or not it makes no difference ... it's all illusory.

UFOs seem to about as advanced from us as we are from the bronze age, maybe further. Our scientists are no better qualified to be experts on UFOs than ancient blacksmiths would be to work on a stealth jet. Then factor in that at least the ancient blacksmith would be human and dealing with human technology. So far as UFOs are concerned, our scientist's are maybe a step up from witch doctors and might as well have gotten their degrees from a Cracker Jacks box.

Because of the above, any intelligent well informed ufologist has a better idea what's going on with respect to UFOs than any mainstream scientist who stumbles into it. In fact all the institutionalized inside-the-box thinking of conventional science may even be a drawback. What ufology needs are outside-the-box renaissance thinkers who can cooperate with real scientists to formulate new ideas or advance existing ones.

ufology
USI Calgary
www.ufopages.com

 

[Michael Allen]

I find it interesting that quantum physics is not more psychologically disturbing to society than the notion of the possibility of ET presence on this planet. It is part of the reason why I am looking for a good hypothesis that explains the mass repugnance against the idea. Now there are exceptions to the rule. Some have replaced their mythological gods with the acceptance of the idea of ET visitation, just as many accepted the notion that Jesus was "not of this world" and sent by a powerful overseer.

My thinking is that human beings are naturally (i.e. genetically) disgusted with the notion of equal or higher intelligence outside their own species. You find paranormal events that signal non-human intelligence are more likely to be attacked by the few best debunkers of the academic community--note that I say "few" because the masses of debunkers do not have the intestinal fortitude to face their own fear--you'll find them working primarily on human sourced paranormal (ESP, spoon bending, telepathy....etc).

 

[Randall]

I find it interesting that quantum physics is not more psychologically disturbing to society than the notion of the possibility of ET presence on this planet ....

My thinking is that human beings are naturally (i.e. genetically) disgusted with the notion of equal or higher intelligence outside their own species. You find paranormal events that signal non-human intelligence are more likely to be attacked by the few best debunkers of the academic community ...

You might be onto something there, especially when it comes to academic elitism as outlined in my post above. No academic elitist wants to think the unwashed masses are onto something that puts what they know to shame. Deep inside they're all repressed Sagans and Kakus who feel that they deserve the acolades of society because they are the smartest and brightest on Earth and have been treated that way since they were born. Not to mention that there has been an ingrained intolerance of ufology among the academia since the 1940s. Any scientist who comes out of the cosmic closet on UFOs could find themselves ostracized from their social network. It's all too taboo to talk about unless it's in the context of being a fashionable member of CSICOP ( now CSI ).


j.r.