Is Ufology too tolerant or too judgmental?

[Ron Collins]

It is a simply question really. Do we, the participants of Ufology, tolerate the foolish and absurd too gladly or are we the most cynical and divisive sub culture around? Are we too lax in our justifications and evidences or too dismissive of pieces that do not fit neatly into our comfort zone?

 

[dyingsun]

I see myself as an avid observer, being or becoming a cynic comes somewhat naturally after a while, even after personally witnessing something,

 

[Ezechiel]

An unscientific field desperately needing scientific structure

 

[Ron Collins]

Gee, I dunno Ron ... how about you tell us? It's been my experience that hypocrisy, blaming the victim and supporting the buddy buddies club is a recurring theme both inside and outside ufology. I think you know I don't tolerate the "foolish and absurd too gladly". Does that make me cynical and divisive? I don't think so ... well maybe a little cynical ...

Neither do I. I suggest that we drop the B.S. here. Clearly we have rubbed each other raw in the past. We have similar interests, and I often find myself agreeing with you in principle. But, I do not care for your cyber personality nor your methods of expressing some opinions. That doesn't mean I can't or won't support you when I think you are right or are engaged in something that I feel furthers the field.

For me, our scenario is part and parcel to the topic. Can the members of the Ufology community put aside past grievances and move the field ahead or will it remain mired in personality conflict? This doesn't mean that we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya by a campfire. But it does mean we should grow the hell up and move past being petty. Is that to much to ask?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

There is a lot of childishness in the field sometimes.

 

[Randall]

An unscientific field desperately needing scientific structure

Well ... I would almost agree. I think you are on the right track. I don't think a scientific "structure" or what you might call "scientific ufology" is the answer. However I do think that valid scientific evidence is something we could use a lot more of, and by verifiable, I don't mean by ufologists, but by independent scientists. The more we can keep the science independent, the more valid it will be perceived. Meanwhile ufology can continue to do what it does best, and that is to lay the groundwork, do the field work, and provide historical documentation and reporting.

 

[Jimi H.]

4 major problems that I see:

- A lack of a basic understanding of the physics of our environment. This means a lot of time wasted with mondane stuff that people can't evaluate for themselves. I'm sometimes quite worried about the low level of natural scientific knowledge that many people seem to have gotten from school. E.g. acting on global climate change has been totally stalled because peoples' natural scientific insight is so low that they'll walk around their whole life entertaining the notion that Jesus takes care of the planet or some similar fanciful idea.
Related problem: Often ufologists caught up in some topic will say that it is dealt with 'scientifically'. But often they don't know how to evaluate the science, or apply basic natural scientific knowledge, and lo and behold, when a science-type tells them off, the UFO-type goes something like: 'Oh you are just a prejudiced scientist, you don't know anything'. That situation is common, but obviously hypocritical. Either acknowledge what science has to say about the physics of matter, or resist from employing scientific arguments to support your own case. You can't have the cake and eat it.

- In general, I think the field is waaay too lax with hoaxsters and embellishers. Imo., when someone performs a hoax, or is caught deliberatly embellishing stories, they will never again be credible, ever, unless they immediatly allow that it was a joke/happening or that they got carried away speculating. Because it's about attitude. Either you're looking for 'the truth' or you're not. There is NO middle ground. Thus, in the case of Blake Cousins, even if he got 'trained', I'd never trust him, and his worth for the field will always be zero, or rather, a minus.

- 'Spiritual'/new age aspirations have nothing to do with UFOs. Nothing. Ok, I agree that looking at signs of aliens in ancient scripture is a worthy and fascinating study. But I'm so tired of plastic spirituality and 'new age enlightenment' (yikes..), and of the people flaunting it and the various ludicrous ideas that follow in the wake of it. Why waste time on religious fantasies? Certainly, it's interesting to look in the books from another time, to look for references to what we know as UFOs, or aliens, or whatever. But the regious fantasies themselves will never be relevant to ufology, and I would never find the views of, for instance, a Scientology guy interesting in any way, except to study the effects of brain washing. Because the fantasies are so clearly a product of a culture, of human culture.
To put it short, it is not the job of ufology to cater to them or their search for meaning in their lives. They don't give anything in return, and have nothing constructive to offer to the field, instead they muddy it up, and give people like Steven Greer their money and time. At best, we can tell them that they are surely looking for meaning in the wrong place. There's enough chaos already.

- It is a huge problem that scientists are still generally afraid to take part in the fray. But look at the problems I mentioned above, and understand that what is irritating noise to some is a complete deal-breaker to others. I don't blame the silent scientists when their would-be peers are people like Dr. Stephen Greer or Dr. Roger Leir. I don't blame people for not wanting to be associated with them, whatsoever, as professionals. Even the supposed credible physicist Stanton Friedman is in global warming denial, overall it's not too pretty a picture.
Michiu Kaku is there of course, he's important. The reason he can bridge the gap is that he never forgets his science, while never forgetting that we don't know or understand everything about our universe(s) and that it's hard to say what lives out there in deep space or what technology might be.

 

[Randall]

When we ask whether or not Ufology is too tolerant or too judgmental? What exactly do we mean by "Ufology". I think it's safe to say that the reference is to the ufology community in general and not to any individual. That being the case I don't think we should make such blanket statements. Some members of the community are more tolerant than others, and some are more judgmental than others. As I've mentioned before, the only criteria I think that really matters is whether or not we have a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon. Everything else tends to sort itself out through those filters.

On a more specific level, I don't believe that there should be much tolerance for those who are judgemental, unconstructive, disingenuous, or abusive. I believe that those with a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon have a responsibility to uphold those values. Beyond that, anyone can be wrong or make mistakes. The important thing is to be able to accept our mistakes and learn from them rather than remaining stuck in our own beliefs, no matter how much we have invested in them. Ultimately it is the evidence and the process of critical thinking that should prevail.

 

[Jimi H.]

Yea, privately I agree that one needs to be quite open to the unexpected. So, I may sound very conservative in these matters here, but privately, I am willing to give anything a chance.

The thing is just that many minds, like too many chefs, may ruin the final outcome.

Thus, if we're looking at UFOs I can't see what, for instance, personal UFO-religiousity, New Age-fantasy, or hallucinogenic experiences have of relevance to everyone else. We really have to get rid of the religiousity, the search for answers from E.T. and such. Probably because of its religious history, especially the U.S.'s UFO 'scene' is filled with types looking for meaning, talking about angels and demons and saviors from space etc. We virtually never hear about stuff like that in the much more secular Europe, and so, for me it's easy to write it off as cultural: Religious people going off the deep end, what's new..?

So, I admit I sometimes get mean and testy with religious/'spiritual' people, I just can't deal with them wasting my time when I'm actually trying to find something out. It is judgemental, but religious people rarely have trouble being judgemental, so I don't lose sleep over it. (See, there I did it again, lol.)

Also, some people seem to throw everything in one basket (paranormal), be it about angels, demons, bigfoot, UFOs or whatever, and thus get nowhere (imo). While it makes sense to some (they probably think it is all from one source, perhaps God/Satan?), it makes little sense to me, and brings no method or clarity to the subject. The scientific method is a framework, and I think we desperatly need a framework.

That said, there is an entertainment aspect to all the 'good stories' about bigfoot, devils etc, so I still enjoy hearing about that stuff. I just don't think it'll get us anywhere.

 

[Randall]

Yea, privately I agree that one needs to be quite open to the unexpected. So, I may sound very conservative in these matters here, but privately, I am willing to give anything a chance. The thing is just that many minds, like too many chefs, may ruin the final outcome.

Thus, if we're looking at UFOs I can't see what, for instance, personal UFO-religiousity, New Age-fantasy, or hallucinogenic experiences have of relevance to everyone else. We really have to get rid of the religiousity, the search for answers from E.T. and such. Probably because of its religious history, especially the U.S.'s UFO 'scene' is filled with 'spiritual' types looking for meaning, talking about angels and demons and saviors from space etc. We virtually never hear about shit like that in the much more secular Europe. That is also why it's so easy to write it off as cultural: Religious people going off the deep end, what's new..?

So, I admit I sometimes get mean and testy with religious/'spiritual' people, I just can't deal with them wasting my time when I'm actually trying to find something out. It is judgemental, but religious people rarely have trouble being judgemental, so I don't lose sleep over it. (See, there I did it again, lol.)

Also, some people seem to throw everything in one basket (paranormal), be it about angels, demons, bigfoot, UFOs or whatever, and thus get nowhere (imo). While it makes sense to some (they probably think it is all from one source, perhaps God/Satan?), it makes little sense to me, and brings no method or clarity to the subject. The scientific method is a framework, and I think we desperatly need a framework.

That said, there is an entertainment aspect to all the 'good stories' about bigfoot, devils etc, so I still enjoy hearing about that stuff. I just don't think it'll get us anywhere.

UFO religions and other fringe elements are a part of the overall subject matter collectively known as ufology. Thankfully, we don't have to agree with or participate in it all in order to catalog it for historical reference. Your observation about those who throw everything in one basket is also quite true, but largely that's because they haven't taken a more disciplined approach to the subject matter. Although ufology intersects with certain elements of the so-called paranormal, UFOs aren't a paranormal phenomenon. In other words, there's nothing about the idea of alien visitation that falls outside the possibility of scientific explanation.

As for the religious/spiritual types; I'm much more tolerant than most people. Although I may not hold the same beliefs as they do, I often find them to be kind-hearted people who are trying to live what they believe to be good lives, and I don't support the idea of being mean to anyone, not even my enemies. But don't get me wrong here either, I don't consider physically defending one's self or even hunting down perpetrators of violence against innocent people as being "mean". I see it as a dispassionate social consequence that is perfectly justifiable.

Setting the radicals aside, many religious/spiritual people are simply at a particular stage along their path to discovery, and I have respect for that journey. As I've travelled my own path to understanding the nature of existence, over the years I've had several viewpoints on God and religion, and In my view, those who are taking the time to do the same are at least making an effort, unlike those who would rather couch-surf with a 12 pack and yell at the TV.

 

[Burnt State]

The polarity in the field as outlined by this thread is another problem to add to Jimi H.'s list along with the general personality conflicts and historical conflicts. Where is the room for the excluded middle as Mr. Bishop likes to highlight? Some of the big conflictsi .e. the Emma Woods debate that chased Kimball off the Paracast forum, who now refers to this place as poisonous, is a classic example of how personality conflicts are often responsible for dragging the field down into hell. Because it is such an abstract arena open to the religious, the tinfoil hat brigade, hoaxers and myth spinners you can have any number of realities being sold to the public. It is a very perplexing conundrum that is very open to interpretation. And the longer you stay in the field claiming you have answers the more bizarre the story is you have to invent. The same goes for the cult leader.

While today I wish there was some extended thinking from Hynek, MacDonald, Vallee and Clark, whose critical thinking gained a small patch of ground, I only see a lot of corruption, guesswork and profiteering. Good ufological thinking rooted in critical thought responds directly to the evidence at hand. It can be very imaginative and surreal, but I will accept that weirdness if what's being proposed has a reasonable line pointing at the evidence. I think that given the youth of our species any 'advanced' race would probably blow our minds with a way of thinking and experiencing reality just completely beyond our ken.

So I would prefer for the Third Phase of Fluff to dissolve and go away, and I need abduction hypnosis investiation to take a back shelf to more actual scientific investigation and the pursuit of better high resolution results.

 

[Randall]

The polarity in the field as outlined by this thread is another problem to add to Jimi H.'s list along with the general personality conflicts and historical conflicts. Where is the room for the excluded middle as Mr. Bishop likes to highlight?

There's lots of room, especially on the Paracast. This is one of the most tolerant forums around.

Some of the big conflictsi .e. the Emma Woods debate that chased Kimball off the Paracast forum, who now refers to this place as poisonous, is a classic example of how personality conflicts are often responsible for dragging the field down into hell. Because it is such an abstract arena open to the religious, the tinfoil hat brigade, hoaxers and myth spinners you can have any number of realities being sold to the public.

Chances are that if someone calls this place poisonous, then they're the one with the real problem.

It is a very perplexing conundrum that is very open to interpretation. And the longer you stay in the field claiming you have answers the more bizarre the story is you have to invent. The same goes for the cult leader.

Then again, the longer one studies something, the more likely it is that they know more about it than the next guy. Maybe it's bizarre. Maybe it's also true.

While today I wish there was some extended thinking from Hynek, MacDonald, Vallee and Clark, whose critical thinking gained a small patch of ground, I only see a lot of corruption, guesswork and profiteering. Good ufological thinking rooted in critical thought responds directly to the evidence at hand. It can be very imaginative and surreal, but I will accept that weirdness if what's being proposed has a reasonable line pointing at the evidence. I think that given the youth of our species any 'advanced' race would probably blow our minds with a way of thinking and experiencing reality just completely beyond our ken.

That's all pretty reasonable. If we had the ability to immerse ourselves in pretty much anyone else's worldview, it would probably blow our mind, let alone if it were something entirely alien.

So I would prefer for the Third Phase of Fluff to dissolve and go away, and I need abduction hypnosis investiation to take a back shelf to more actual scientific investigation and the pursuit of better high resolution results.

We can keep on hoping, but basically we're left to make the most of the hand we've been given. It's not like we can simply manifest UFOs for the scientific community to study. My original intent with USI was to create a sort of grass roots civilian movement outside the bureaucratic bounds of government or groups like MUFON that could make an effort to engage the phenomenon on a wide scale, and although I generally find most people agreeable to the idea, few members are actively involved in investigation or research. It's easy to sit back and be critical. If you want to make a difference then get more involved. Do something constructive.

 

[Burnt State]

There's lots of room, especially on the Paracast. This is one of the most tolerant forums around.

I think that the general populace is fairly diverse as far as paranormal perspectives go. I still think that sexism is a frequency that appears too frequent and the Emma Woods case is an example of this. Kimball is too moral a guy to have his view discounted so swiftly. His opinion is not about the populace on the forums.

We can keep on hoping, but basically we're left to make the most of the hand we've been given. It's not like we can simply manifest UFOs for the scientific community to study. My original intent with USI was to create a sort of grass roots civilian movement outside the bureaucratic bounds of government or groups like MUFON that could make an effort to engage the phenomenon on a wide scale, and although I generally find most people agreeable to the idea, few members are actively involved in investigation or research. It's easy to sit back and be critical. If you want to make a difference then get more involved. Do something constructive.

And with that I can only confess that yes, I am guilty of being the couch critic as opposed to a field worker. In this way I can only acknowledge that the work that field workers do and have done, be ye Steve Bassett, Chris O'Brien, Clark, Vallee or yourself, is actual work, while the rest of us do participate from more of an entertainment and critical thinking perspective. We are outside personal experiences and historical alliances. We are the critics, skeptics and believers. We don't have the time or the commitment to be much more than speculators, but we are steeped in opinion. I wonder if any good will come of it?

 

[Randall]

And with that I can only confess that yes, I am guilty of being the couch critic as opposed to a field worker. In this way I can only acknowledge that the work that field workers do and have done, be ye Steve Bassett, Chris O'Brien, Clark, Vallee or yourself, is actual work, while the rest of us do participate from more of an entertainment and critical thinking perspective. We are outside personal experiences and historical alliances. We are the critics, skeptics and believers. We don't have the time or the commitment to be much more than speculators, but we are steeped in opinion. I wonder if any good will come of it?

The only thing that differentiates ufologists from "couch critics" is that ufologists do it as more than a pastime. UFO investigators are the guys who do the real field work, and I have a lot of respect for them. I'd do more of it myself if had the time and resources. I'm more of an analyst, applying critical thinking to put the information we have on record into perspective. I have well over a thousand books, and a pile of videos all the way back to VHS, but I also value the insight and opinions of everyone who takes time to engage the topic, which is why I come here. So to address your question, "Will any good come of it?" Absolutely. There's a lot of good exchanges going on here and IMO the fact that you take the time to participate in a genuine and constructive manner kicks you up a notch from the crowd.