Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Randall]

Continued from here: If There Are No Real UFOs — Why? | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

Generally speaking, when speaking of the observable universe, it is assumed that the vantage point of the observer is Earth. However it could just as easily be another location half ways to the edge of the observable universe as seen from Earth. So lets suppose that both the Earth and this latter possibility are two instances. What we end up with is a volume of space common to both observers where the laws of physics appear to be the same for both observers. Now what reason would we have to suppose that outside that volume the laws of physics suddenly change? None. Not only does the volume of space that is common to both observers appear to obey the same physical laws to both observers, so does the all the immense volume of space that is closer to us and beyond the range of our distant observer. Therefore we know that if we were on their end looking back in our direction, the physical laws would remain the same beyond their range of observation. Therefore although we may not know whether or not the rules suddenly change as soon as some distant traveller crosses the boundaries beyond the range of our observable universe, logic suggests that there is no reason to assume that it does.

One study that lends support to this idea involves a distant quasar, labeled B0218+367. According to Michael Murphy, Swinburne astrophysicist and lead author of the study, “We have been able to show that the laws of physics are the same in this galaxy half way across the visible Universe as they are here on Earth,” ( Article here )

The second issue is the usage of the phrase "unknown universe". There are different contexts that the word "universe" applies to. Once we step outside the astronomical context, we can get into cosmological, philosophical, and theological contexts ( brief explanation here ). In any of these other contexts the physical laws that govern the workings of the universe could conceivably be somewhat different, but they're not likely to be radically different, otherwise such universes simply could not exist at all. The universe we live in exists precisely because of the precision balance created by the rules as they exist throughout our observable universe. However it is possible that there is a loophole that would facilitate what seem to be violations of the laws as we understand them. For example, if our spacetime continuum is a generated construct run by some vastly powerful information processing system, the local rules for any particular set of coordinates could conceivably be altered, either temporarily or permanently depending on what the system is instructed to do.

But what does this have to do with UAPs? First off, UAPs may or may not be a reference to UFOs ( alien craft ). The term UAP covers a broader range of possibilities and NARCAP ( the term's creator ) has indicated that they prefer to avoid discussions about the possibility of alien visitation. However because the opening post alluded specifically to the possibility of civilizations elsewhere in the universe, and not something as vague as UAPs, we're going to continue from this point forward using the word UFO. It is the established word used in the English language to convey the idea of an alien craft, and contrary to what @Christopher O'Brien says, the word itself is not toxic. Any toxicity is owned by those who misuse it, particularly for the purpose of ridicule, or by those who unwittingly assisting in perpetuating the idea that word is toxic by publicly proclaiming it to be.

But setting that issue aside for another discussion, is it possible for UFOs to come from one of the distant locations we've touched on here so far? Yes. Is it also possible that where they originate, the laws that govern their region of space are substantially different than they are here? For reasons we have already touched on briefly, that doesn't seem likely. If they were, they couldn't exist here long enough to be observed in the first place. Whatever they are made of, photons can reflect off them like normal light, they are detectable by radar like any other aircraft, they emit light that we can see with our senses and cameras, they interact with our environment, and trace evidence suggests that they have weight, which implies mass and substance. All these factors have too much in common with the physics of our local space to suppose that the physics from wherever they originate is substantially different.

 

[Randall]

Unexplained Stroke Symptoms During Full Moon: Some medical researchers hypothesized that strokes might be influenced by the lunar cycle. The study found hospital admissions for strokes were evenly spread throughout the lunar phases, but strangely, that there was a significant increase in unexplained stroke symptoms during and near the full Moon. The reasons for this observed variation remains elusive; with no data to support a convincing biological or psychosocial aetiology ...

A link between lunar phase and medically unexplained stroke symptoms: an unearthly influence? - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Randall]

Dr Dean Radin, who has developed the most robust data on consciousness under strict laboratory conditions, suggests ...

I suspect that the claim of "most" as in "most robust" is rather subjective. The sheer amount of neuroscience that "suggests" that the brain gives rise to consciousness is massive; plus it's based on a huge amount of accepted scientific study. So just what is the word "most" being compared to here? A lot of Radin's "data" comes from statistical studies. How is that more "robust" than real-time brain scans? I just watched a video ( below at 9:00 ) where he says "Everything in science is just an assumption". That is an extremely sweeping and misleading description of science. Science is based primarily on observation and measurement, preferably under controlled and repeatable conditions, which brings us to the notion of "strict laboratory conditions". According to the Wikipedia article:

"... the review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data."​

In the video ( below at 7:45) he also criticizes other scientists in a misleading way. For example he cites ( without reference ) that neuroscientists are skeptical of his work because it doesn't agree with what they know about physics, and then points out that neuroscientists aren't physicists, and then he does the same thing in reverse, criticizing physicists for not having knowledge about neuroscience and bilology. What he should be doing is citing why neuroscientists are skeptical based on what neuroscience has to say. Would you not agree? Meanwhile what are his credentials? He's got a MS in electrical engineering and a PhD in psychology. He's neither a physicist nor a neuroscientist, nor a biologist! His main work is done at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which is listed on Quackwatch as a questionable institution, and it does appear to have the hallmarks of pseudoscience, most importantly that it's being promoted as science while at the same time falling under criticism by the scientific community.

Anyway, who knows? Maybe his work will lead to some kind of breakthrough anyway. He seems sincere about it. Then again I would suppose that he would have to appear sincere in order to keep his position as Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) seem legit.

​

 

[Randall]

When Quantum Goes Woo - Audio Interview

 

[Jeff Davis]

There is currently such a tremendous mass communications based battle raging between the dogmatic "skeptical" science front, and all the many legitimate fringe scientific research strategists, that is ALL primarily fueled by the BIG business of commercial science, and furthered by the groupie serving, self aggrandizing, celebrity egos of those like like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, that one is best off considering the evidence apart from alignments on either side of the fence.

What is undeniable, is in fact undeniable, yet how many ways can the "skeptical" celebrities and groupies spin the black and white evidential support for what are legitimate fringe scientific studies that have in fact turned most of the "scientific commercial factions" back on their ears? The real woo are those that cannot accept change, even when numerically proved, and in fact invest billions of dollars in suppressing truths via extremely powerful commercial institutions that use everything from the mass media to those blood sucking crooks we call politicians, to maintain their financial power basin.

The real problem seems to be commercial interests that use the front, or the "appearance" of the falsely perceived progressive scientific community to maintain a high level of public influence via a feigned sense of illusory legitimacy. It keeps us all stuck in the deep dark age pockets of those whose only really interest in progress is it's magician's force of specified conclusion. Much like a common crook can skate provided they have enough money to influentially purchase their innocence.

Accepted scientific definitions are just that. Merely definitions whose legitimacy is marked and justified via the act of perceptual based acceptance. Down slams the mass media carrier of the pseudo skeptical judge's gavel and the crook walks again and again like some worn out sitcom stuck in infinite rerun mode. That's not science, that's just a capitalist kangaroo, or maybe better put, an seemingly endless kanga-Woo court dramatization to garner influence.

 

[Randall]

... The real problem seems to be commercial interests that use the front, or the "appearance" of the falsely perceived progressive scientific community to maintain a high level of public influence via a feigned sense of illusory legitimacy ...

Quite a rant, but you really hit the nail on the head there with the line I quoted above, and that type of thing is also not exclusive to one side of the debate or the other. Would you not agree? In fact, it seems that it's exactly what the video is getting at, but seen from their side of the fence, which IMO seems, at least for the most part, to be quite legitimate.

 

[Randall]

CauseHealth is a 27 member team made up of physiotherapists, health scientists, and
philosophers, who have been awarded £1million to explore how philosophy can be used to find the
causes of unexplained medical symptoms ...
| SOURCE |​

 

[Randall]

Cows Always Face North Or South While Eating​

Most people don’t give much thought to grazing cows, but when a team of scientists went
through thousands of Google Earth’ssatellite images of cows, they stumbled upon a detail
that we have missed for millennia: Cows will stand along the Earth’s magnetic poles—facing
north and south—whenever they’re grazing or resting. The pattern remained consistent
regardless of wind or other factors, and nobody’s quite sure why.
| SOURCE |​

 

[Randall]

A Brief Video on The Scale of Things

 

[Jeff Davis]

CauseHealth is a 27 member team made up of physiotherapists, health scientists, and
philosophers, who have been awarded £1million to explore how philosophy can be used to find the
causes of unexplained medical symptoms ...
| SOURCE |​

Shit mang, small plane pilots have known this for DECADES with respect to navigating back fields. Truth! The place I work at is just down from one of this area's first airports. Pilots used to joke about being "down cow" all the time.

 

[Randall]

Shit mang, small plane pilots have known this for DECADES with respect to navigating back fields. Truth! The place I work at is just down from one of this area's first airports. Pilots used to joke about being "down cow" all the time.

That's interesting . I posted on the site that maybe it's not magnetic alignment, but sunlight alignment. If they graze East or West their food will either be in their shadow or the Sun will be in their eyes, either of which would be less preferable for foraging, and that maybe soaking up the Sun's heat might also be a factor with more surface area exposed to the rays, especially in winter. But who really knows? I thought it was a fun fact .

 

[Randall]

Article of Interest:

Evidence in Medicine - Correlation and Causation

There are two general approaches to subverting science-based medicine (SBM): anti-science and pseudoscience. Anti-scientific approaches are any that seek to undermine science as the determinant of the standard of care, often overtly advocating for spiritual or subjectively-based standards. Some attack the validity of science itself, usually with post-modernist philosophy.

Pseudoscientific proponents, on the other hand, praise science, they just do it wrong. In reality there is a continuum along a spectrum from complete pseudoscience to pristine science, and no clear demarcation in the middle ...
​

Full Article Here: Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation « Science-Based Medicine

 

[Randall]

The Illusion of Reality

 

[Randall]

Consciousness - Separating Composition From Concept

There are two contexts in which people discuss consciousness and in order to keep things coherent, they need to remain separate. Conflating the two causes no end of confusion. So for the purpose of this post, the question about composition is about what consciousness is composed of on a physical level, if anything at all. The conceptual question is about what consciousness is on a subjective level, what it's like to experience this or that. How these two contexts can coexist with respect to consciousness has given rise to numerous discussions, but in principle, it's no more complex than other things that are viewed in a dual conceptual/compositional context.

One of the common arguments about consciousness that conflates contexts is that it isn't physical because it cannot be reduced to the physical aspects of the brain. To expose the fallacy of logic in this claim, consider a silver dollar coin. On one hand it is composed of the element silver, but conceptually it is a unit of currency. We never assume that one or the other isn't true because currency can't be reduced to element 47 on the periodic table. When we speak of the composition of consciousness, the issue we're discussing is whether or not the composition of consciousness is something physical ( like silver ) which is entirely separate from its conceptual context ( as subjective experience ).

As you can see, it makes no sense to try to reduce a conceptual context to a physical context because that is logically impossible. Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness forces us to realize this. It also goes on to press us for an explanation as to why this is the case with consciousness. Why does whatever consciousness is composed of have this extra currency of experience attached to it? How can we can reliably associate the two? What physical composition and configuration, if any will result in consciousness? Is the composition of consciousness even something physical in the first place?

Is Consciousness Composed of Something Physical?

In this context, the word "physical" includes matter all the way down to the subatomic level along with any forces acting on it. We're not talking about something subjective and conceptual like the experience of seeing the color red. That being out of the way, the defining property of all things physical is the possibility of interaction. It's also interaction that facilitates detection. If no interaction of any kind can take place, then logically no detection can take place, and therefore even if some non-physical things exist, we would never be able to know about them. Logically that would also include consciousness.

Hypothetically we might still experience things, but those experiences could never motivate us to do anything physical or be remembered. However memory and experience are powerful motivators for physical action. So consciousness must be composed of something physical. But what? Is it some sort of subatomic particle? Or is it some sort of force like magnetism? Or is it some sort of dual particle/wave phenomenon like light? Whatever it is, because it's physical it must have a physical source. Although there is some debate about the source, the prime candidate is the brain, and the primary structures responsible correlate to the Thalamocortical Loop.

Given the experiential nature of consciousness, the material structures of the brain do not seem to be the likely sources in and of themselves. Additionally, if it was only material that was involved, it would seem that whether or not the brain was functional would make little difference. Provided that the structures were intact, we would expect consciousness to continue after brain function ceases. However there are no cases where consciousness has unambiguously been shown to exist when brain function is lost. Therefore, if the brain is responsible for instantiating consciousness, then something about brain function must be responsible, and not simply a particular configuration of brain cells. What could that be?

PART 2 CONTINUED BELOW ↓

 

[Randall]

CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ABOVE ↑

The Physical is Not Always Material

Physical activity that is not present when the brain is non-functional includes the generation of electromagnetic fields, and Professor Johnjoe McFadden from the School of Biomedical and Life Sciences at the University of Surrey in the UK suggests that our conscious mind could be an electromagnetic field. A common objection to the EMF theory of consciousness is that it doesn't solve Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness ( HPC ). However that objection is irrelevant because not solving the HPC doesn't prevent EM fields from being the physical component of consciousness. Why charged coils of wire around a core should give rise to magnetism isn't fully explained either. It just does.

EM fields are curious things that we tend to take entirely for granted these days. They are invisible and yet they carry all the audiovisual signals we see and hear on our wireless devices. Like consciousness, we can look as closely as we want at the transmitters and processors that are the materials of our wireless devices, and we will never see or hear the sounds and images that are being produced by them. Yet it is quite plain that the EM fields, although not of the same material, are a physical phenomena, and a key component, without which these devices simply would not function.

These analogies don't necessarily mean that EM fields are the definitive answer to the physical component of consciousness. However because we have logically established that consciousness must be a physical phenomena that is separate from the material we normally think of as brain matter, and EM fields are so-far the only other physical phenomena directly correlated to consciousness, it seems to be a safe bet that something about EM fields is either the physical component of consciousness, or EM fields are at least more closely associated with what physical phenomena consciousness is composed of. Either way, it seems that a functioning brain is required.

Implications For The Paranormal

Because consciousness must be a physical phenomenon, and because all unambiguous evidence suggests that the brain is responsible, the concept of continuity of consciousness after the death of the brain makes as much sense as a broken light bulb continuing to emit light. It's just not a reasonable suggestion. It's true that like a light beam, the EM fields transmitted before a transmitter is shut off continue away from the source until absorbed by something, but those signals are no longer a live stream. At best, if consciousness is composed of EM fields, or is analogous to EM fields, there is no continuity of consciousness, and consequently no afterlife in the sense it is often portrayed.

This also means that even if cases of reincarnation represent real reception of the physical component of consciousness from a formerly living person, the person claiming to be the deceased person is no such thing. He or she is only receiving signals interpreted as memories, and in no way can signals be considered equivalent to being the sender of the signals. Therefore nobody has been reincarnated. Furthermore it's not possible for anyone to be reincarnated and actually be the person who has died. Even if the reincarnated person is a faithful replica all the way down to the subatomic level, this person would at best, only count as a copy of the original, with a few memories thrown in.

 

[victimized]

CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ABOVE ↑

The Physical is Not Always Material

Physical activity that is not present when the brain is non-functional includes the generation of electromagnetic fields, and Professor Johnjoe McFadden from the School of Biomedical and Life Sciences at the University of Surrey in the UK suggests that our conscious mind could be an electromagnetic field. A common objection to the EMF theory of consciousness is that it doesn't solve Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness ( HPC ). However that objection is irrelevant because not solving the HPC doesn't prevent EM fields from being the physical component of consciousness. Why charged coils of wire around a core should give rise to magnetism isn't fully explained either. It just does.

EM fields are curious things that we tend to take entirely for granted these days. They are invisible and yet they carry all the audiovisual signals we see and hear on our wireless devices. Like consciousness, we can look as closely as we want at the transmitters and processors that are the materials of our wireless devices, and we will never see or hear the sounds and images that are being produced by them. Yet it is quite plain that the EM fields, although not of the same material, are a physical phenomena, and a key component, without which these devices simply would not function.

These analogies don't necessarily mean that EM fields are the definitive answer to the physical component of consciousness. However because we have logically established that consciousness must be a physical phenomena that is separate from the material we normally think of as brain matter, and EM fields are so-far the only other physical phenomena directly correlated to consciousness, it seems to be a safe bet that something about EM fields is either the physical component of consciousness, or EM fields are at least more closely associated with what physical phenomena consciousness is composed of. Either way, it seems that a functioning brain is required.

Implications For The Paranormal

Because consciousness must be a physical phenomenon, and because all unambiguous evidence suggests that the brain is responsible, the concept of continuity of consciousness after the death of the brain makes as much sense as a broken light bulb continuing to emit light. It's just not a reasonable suggestion. It's true that like a light beam, the EM fields transmitted before a transmitter is shut off continue away from the source until absorbed by something, but those signals are no longer a live stream. At best, if consciousness is composed of EM fields, or is analogous to EM fields, there is no continuity of consciousness, and consequently no afterlife in the sense it is often portrayed.

This also means that even if cases of reincarnation represent real reception of the physical component of consciousness from a formerly living person, the person claiming to be the deceased person is no such thing. He or she is only receiving signals interpreted as memories, and in no way can signals be considered equivalent to being the sender of the signals. Therefore nobody has been reincarnated. Furthermore it's not possible for anyone to be reincarnated and actually be the person who has died. Even if the reincarnated person is a faithful replica all the way down to the subatomic level, this person would at best, only count as a copy of the original, with a few memories thrown in.

Reincarnation is an indoctrinated theory to impose community reasoning for living a conscious life standard. It belongs to a human aware status that once we were all healthy, once the human life never aged beyond a healthy, lovely human perfection.....aging did not previously exist.

Scientific conversion was introduced into our natural life....the Earth's atmospheric body irradiated and so was our cell health and our natural spiritual presence lost its ownership of healthy body and healthy mind.

We therefore lost our natural life.

The atmosphere was given a large amount of fake photon fall out activity that formed fake and artificial spirits. Our natural life was communicated to this fake atmospheric presence, and it then fed back by detail of recording fake and artificial information to our minds. Therefore as we all know, only the sexual act creates our life....our life is formed due to cells forming and when irradiated we can be born with ill health, mutations and sickness. These conditions relate to the irradiation body manifested attacking our lives.....holding the past life information lived in image and sound recordings of other human beings.

When a human population is around a few million and then it becomes billions the concept of reincarnation is proven to be false.

The condition for atmospheric feed back is therefore considered to be a form of past life possession, for the new human being is not actually given the choice to be their own person with their own will.....they are in fact communicated to by a past life recording and are influenced by it.

Our brother who attacked our life therefore has constantly indoctrinated our personal beliefs to support his civilization status for personal self gain.

Human life does not exist in a sub atomic level....our organic life cell is mainly water and water and oxygen can exist separately from hydrogen as modern day scientific experiments has already demonstrated. Therefore we do not personally own hydrogen as some occult scientists imposed upon our cell state as a consideration of our spiritual cell life. We combusted in the act of self combustion, not due to hydrogen but due to irradiation and the burning of oxygen.

The fed back recordings of human life is a recorded atmospheric condition that machines use....such as recording facilities and transmitting facilities. We are not a machine as advice about your occult concepts of a dead spirit...or an evil spirit being our Creator or first cell state.

A human being exists in a total of their own presence owning a huge amount of information is 1 instance. We do not exist in the past and we do not exist in the future...for our organic life can desist at any moment. Recording is an atmospheric condition and a transmitted image believe it or not is not a spirit....it is a recording.

 

[victimized]

Continued from here: If There Are No Real UFOs — Why? | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

Generally speaking, when speaking of the observable universe, it is assumed that the vantage point of the observer is Earth. However it could just as easily be another location half ways to the edge of the observable universe as seen from Earth. So lets suppose that both the Earth and this latter possibility are two instances. What we end up with is a volume of space common to both observers where the laws of physics appear to be the same for both observers. Now what reason would we have to suppose that outside that volume the laws of physics suddenly change? None. Not only does the volume of space that is common to both observers appear to obey the same physical laws to both observers, so does the all the immense volume of space that is closer to us and beyond the range of our distant observer. Therefore we know that if we were on their end looking back in our direction, the physical laws would remain the same beyond their range of observation. Therefore although we may not know whether or not the rules suddenly change as soon as some distant traveller crosses the boundaries beyond the range of our observable universe, logic suggests that there is no reason to assume that it does.

One study that lends support to this idea involves a distant quasar, labeled B0218+367. According to Michael Murphy, Swinburne astrophysicist and lead author of the study, “We have been able to show that the laws of physics are the same in this galaxy half way across the visible Universe as they are here on Earth,” ( Article here )

The second issue is the usage of the phrase "unknown universe". There are different contexts that the word "universe" applies to. Once we step outside the astronomical context, we can get into cosmological, philosophical, and theological contexts ( brief explanation here ). In any of these other contexts the physical laws that govern the workings of the universe could conceivably be somewhat different, but they're not likely to be radically different, otherwise such universes simply could not exist at all. The universe we live in exists precisely because of the precision balance created by the rules as they exist throughout our observable universe. However it is possible that there is a loophole that would facilitate what seem to be violations of the laws as we understand them. For example, if our spacetime continuum is a generated construct run by some vastly powerful information processing system, the local rules for any particular set of coordinates could conceivably be altered, either temporarily or permanently depending on what the system is instructed to do.

But what does this have to do with UAPs? First off, UAPs may or may not be a reference to UFOs ( alien craft ). The term UAP covers a broader range of possibilities and NARCAP ( the term's creator ) has indicated that they prefer to avoid discussions about the possibility of alien visitation. However because the opening post alluded specifically to the possibility of civilizations elsewhere in the universe, and not something as vague as UAPs, we're going to continue from this point forward using the word UFO. It is the established word used in the English language to convey the idea of an alien craft, and contrary to what @Christopher O'Brien says, the word itself is not toxic. Any toxicity is owned by those who misuse it, particularly for the purpose of ridicule, or by those who unwittingly assisting in perpetuating the idea that word is toxic by publicly proclaiming it to be.

But setting that issue aside for another discussion, is it possible for UFOs to come from one of the distant locations we've touched on here so far? Yes. Is it also possible that where they originate, the laws that govern their region of space are substantially different than they are here? For reasons we have already touched on briefly, that doesn't seem likely. If they were, they couldn't exist here long enough to be observed in the first place. Whatever they are made of, photons can reflect off them like normal light, they are detectable by radar like any other aircraft, they emit light that we can see with our senses and cameras, they interact with our environment, and trace evidence suggests that they have weight, which implies mass and substance. All these factors have too much in common with the physics of our local space to suppose that the physics from wherever they originate is substantially different.

Science....unnatural to natural life on Planet Earth...and an artificial act and an artificial condition....fake.

A product exists called nuclear, the nuclear condition is altered in artificial states.....the scientist gained new artificial products from a product. Only a product can produce another product in the state of conversion.......called artificial.

To gain the artificial state is to change the natural state.

Earth had a naturally formed cooling gaseous body surrounding its planet. The scientist formed a signal in the atmosphere to change the atmospheric gaseous body so that it would cause a signal to activate the conversion of the nuclear product. The nuclear product was previously supported in a fixed and cooling state as natural evolution.

To gain a fake condition, an atmospheric gaseous attack upon the nuclear it was therefore invented. This caused the manifestation of the UFO body as the condition of gases burning to form new atmospheric signals to use in the nuclear power plants for conversion applications.

Meanwhile the Sun that had ejected heated plasma bursts that had cooled in trajectories to Earth began to heat, only due to Earth's atmospheric body changing. This caused another UFO effect of the higher radio active particle from the sun metal.....forming the metallic UFO body.

2 UFO conditions are caused by unnatural conversion of the nuclear fusion....a naturally evolving Earth condition changed by human scientists.

 

[Randall]

Seven Theories For Consciousness

 

[Randall]

The Problem Of Agnosticism In Ufology

Have you ever heard someone say, "I'm agnostic when it comes to UFOs." and say it in such a way that they imply that it is the most reasonable objective viewpoint? At first this does seem reasonable, and I used to buy into it, but lately I've been forced to reevaluate that position. First of all it has religious overtones, and religion is sometimes used to poke fun at ufology by inferring that it's a religion ( which it's not ). The analogy might be useful to illustrate a point about people with certain beliefs, but they are only facets of a much larger picture that can be viewed as objectively as anything else, and reinforcing the misnomer that ufology as a religion ultimately IMO does more harm than good.

The next problem with agnosticism in ufology is that it assumes there is no single correct answer, or that a complete understanding of it cannot be attained. Ironically the first assumption rests on the belief that it is the single correct answer, and since when do we ever have a "complete understanding" of anything? Not having a complete understanding does not equate to having no understanding, or an insignificant understanding, or a non-meaningful understanding. It's a pointless observation. It's also possible for specific questions to have single correct answers. It all depends on the question and its context.

For ufology, the question goes like this: Have objectively real craft from beyond the boundaries and constructs of civilization as we know it been observed by humans? That question has a single correct answer. Either they have or they haven't. Opinions might vary on the answer to that question, but whatever the position is, the independent truth of the question still exists in the form of a single correct answer. That logic is inescapable. Those who believe they have the correct answer often find themselves challenged by those with opposing views. Who is right and who is wrong?

The question of who is right and who is wrong leads to the next problem, aptly illustrated by a question I was asked by a self-professed agnostic on UFOs: "What about the possibility that it all adds up to nothing?" The weakness there is that the analysis of evidence, regardless of subject matter, inevitably results in some sort of idea about it, and ufology is no exception. Therefore the position that it all adds up to nothing amounts to either pure stupidity or sheer denial, neither of which are reasonable. The whole point of gathering evidence is to figure out what it adds up to, or at the very least see which way it tips the scales with respect to the question you're seeking an answer to.

To sum this up, adherence to an ideology of agnosticism in ufology prevents the agnostic from formulating any specific and meaningful viewpoint, because if they do, then by definition they're no longer agnostic. The logical consequence is that agnosticism in ufology is a commitment to an ideology of meaningless trivia. This can make an agnostic in ufology seem very knowledgeable and reasonable in their approach, but beneath the hood it's just a collection of unassembled parts. Ufology needs parts, good parts, but it also needs keen minded people who can figure out how to put them together to form an accurate, or at least reasonably accurate picture.

One last comment on the positive side: Agnosticism in media reporting, where the job of the reporter is to simply cover the story, is perfectly reasonable. It's much better to have someone who hasn't got a background in serious ufology simply report a story than for them to start in with their own wacky interpretations, or insert some fringe element into the mix for entertainment purposes. To assemble an accurate picture, ufologists do need parts, and they need them to be clean and free from bias contamination. That's where people like our friend @Paul Kimball can be proud of his agnosticism and a credit to his field.

 

[William Strathmann]

Here's a gedanken question that may help focus the issue:

"On the exo-planet Kepler 442 b, are traffic lights red, yellow and green? There is only one single correct answer. Either yes or no. The logic is inescapable."​

Here everyone recognizes the flaw. The question is absurd because currently there's not enough data to postulate whether or not life exists on Kepler 442 b, much less if there are motorists on motorways with traffic signals.

IMHO the following question likewise exhibits the same lack-of-data kind of assumptions:

"Have objectively real craft from beyond the boundaries and constructs of civilization as we know it been observed by humans?"​

Strange things are certainly being reported. But, actually, there simply is not enough conclusive empirical data to prove what the objects are. Especially so if by "craft" the idea intended is of vehicular spacecraft with crew. Not to mention the possibility of some kind of perceptual influence on observers.

Here's Paul Kimball's Top Ten list of "Best Evidence" after surveying leading ufologists.

10. 1561 Nuremburg engraving, which may possibly show UFOs

9. Sept 20, 1973 Skylab, observed a large red object

8. Dec 11, 1996, Klondike -- Yukon Territory, massive unidentified object

7. March, 1967, Malmstrom nuclear missile shutdown, Salas

6. Oct 4, 1967 Shag Harbor

5. Dec. 16, 1953, Kelly Johnson, black flying wing

4. May 11, 1950, McMinnville, Trent photos

3. Dec 26-28, 1980, Rendlesham Forest

2. Sept 19, 1976, Teheran UFO encounter

1. July 17, 1957, RB-47

Do any of these prove with objective certainty that UFOs are craft, as in spacecraft and crew? There do seem to be objects. There does seems to be sentience involved in a few. Beyond that? Objective evidence of interstellar craft? At best, it's limited to maybe.

It seems the coy UFO phenomenon, whatever it is, simply is not letting humans investigate its origins at will, only offering tantalizing tidbits that don't yield verifiable conclusions. The following pic shows that what might appear from a distance to be a formidable tank is actually only a fake rubber decoy.

Likewise, without more data, it remains impossible to determine if UFOs are, for example, mere show props (as in "The UFO Show" in order to shape the human zeitgeist, or cultural climate) or are actual vehicular craft. But maybe that will change someday.