Question for dB

[mike]

No we are talking about whether or not science is the best tool we have for finding the answers to any given question.

 

[Rick Deckard]

No we are talking about whether or not science is the best tool we have for finding the answers to any given question.

Well, you appear to be taking a derisory tone with me for no reason that I can see. Unless it's your intention to undermine my responses. Is that your intention?

 

[Rick Deckard]

its this sort of work

http://ufodna.com/articles/articles/hill.htm

that will take us from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge.
its the process in the above that will give us a framework of reality that we can work with.

From the link you posted:

"Four years after his retirement from NASA in 1970, he began a meticulous final engineering analysis of the UFO. This was only published posthumously in 1995."

He did some analysis AFTER he left NASA and it wasn't even published for over 20 years. He theorised how a craft could be built that would exhibit the characteristics of some of the UFO sightings. Have these theories been tested? Is further research being done today? Has his worked been scrutinised and peer-reviewed? These are the sort of procedures that the established sciences demand.

 

[mike]

aside from scientists who work directly on the problem, there are many who dont.
but the body of knowledge they generate may well one day spill over into the UFO research.

the man who invented the microscope was not a microbiologist. one field such as optics, may provide the key in another field of study.

its this entire body of knowledge that will provide the elusive "eureka" moment when it happens

which reminds me, my bath is running

 

[Koji K.]

Science is not always the best tool for answering any given question.

The scientific method depends on a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning (primarily deductive), and both of these have their flaws. With inductive reasoning, you infer a general rule from specific instances. For example, if you see only white swans, you may at some point come to assume that "all swans are white." Of course, you'd be wrong, and you'd realize this the first day you saw a black swan.

With deductive reasoning you do the opposite- you start with a general theory or concept and infer specific conclusions. An example I took from wikipedia's article on deductive reasoning would be how "Adams and LeVerrier applied Newton's theory (general principle) to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune (specific conclusions) from perturbations in the observed orbit of Uranus (specific data)." In other words, they took Newton's theory and applied it to draw a specific conclusion.

Here again we have obvious problems because as powerful a tool deduction may seem it still is based on assumptions, the assumption that our "general principle" (in the example above, Newtonian physics) is correct; the sum total of the evidence needed to make an accurate deduction. And until we gain omniscience, this will never be the case.

Now, in the case of UFO's and things paranormal, the most we can hope for is to be able to update our scientific "paradigm" into one best able to cope with, predict, and incorporate paranormal occurrences and phenomena. A system where we can get the most reliable outcome from whatever data we feed into it.

This is useful, undoubtedly. It is even (for now) 100% essential to furthering our understanding of the paranormal. But just how far it will "close the gap" between our understanding and the paranormal depends on if we are even, from the outset, *capable* of such understanding. Assuming some intelligence on the part of the phenomena that currently elude us, the scientific method is little more than a dead giveaway of our intellectual "state of the art," or to put it differently, our inability to grasp what we're dealing with. However much we tinker with our scientific "prediction box," the forces that be might be equally capable of staying just so many steps ahead. (Or maybe they're so far ahead that they control the "box" itself. Take that as you will :/ )

(In this sense it might be the raw instinct of hunter versus prey and prey eluding hunter which carries us forwards. Things buried deep inside our primitive brain rather than our neocortical pretensions. Or perhaps just, as some ufologists have argued, science is a less useful tool than the "softer" disciplines- things like intelligence analysis- in assessing the situation. Science, after all, assumes a "dumb" subject when what we may be dealing with is something very much aware of our attempts to study it.)

In any event, other methods are, IMHO, necessary to answer some questions. What these are in the case of "ufological" understanding I don't know, but they will entail change- changes in our reasoning that go beyond induction and deduction, changes in our species even, who knows. Perhaps the bigger the anomaly, the more severe the change to the society which would successfully confront it.

This is to say nothing, of course, of the difference between "knowledge" and "wisdom." The questions I'd most like answered science is next to useless in answering. "Why are we here?" "What is good?" "What should I do?" etc, etc.

 

[Rick Deckard]

its this entire body of knowledge that will provide the elusive "eureka" moment when it happens

I hope science can give us the answers. But we won't know until mainstream science takes an 'honest' look at the phenomena which is why I'm not prepared to state that it is 'a certainty'.

I wish we lived in a world where science was used primarily for the good of the human race as a whole and not hi-jacked by warmongering capitalists determined to dominate the rest of us with the advantages gained from 'black' projects.

It really is a perverse world where the majority work hard and pay taxes in order to fund the 'follies' of the very few who are determined to keep us 'out of the loop' and under their control.

 

[Rick Deckard]

With deductive reasoning you do the opposite- you start with a general theory or concept and infer specific conclusions. An example I took from wikipedia's article on deductive reasoning would be how "Adams and LeVerrier applied Newton's theory (general principle) to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune (specific conclusions) from perturbations in the observed orbit of Uranus (specific data)." In other words, they took Newton's theory and applied it to draw a specific conclusion.

Absolutely - the outer arms of galaxies are not rotating at the speed predicted by Newtons laws of gravity (how DARE they disobey the man-made laws of physics?) - this has lead to the theory of 'dark matter'.

Mainstream scientists now believe that about 90% of the matter in the universe is 'missing'. Their conclusion? It IS there but it must be made of something that is (currently) undetectable. They've been running an experiment for 18 years now and haven't detected a single particle of this 'dark matter'.

Notice that they didn't decide to take another look at Newton's theories on gravity...


(BTW, very good post Koji K. )

 

[mike]

lets assume for a moment that ezekiels wheel
http://ufo.whipnet.org/creation/ufo.bible/ezekiel.html

and

paul hill
http://ufodna.com/uf18/uf6/186840.htm

saw the same thing, a ufo

which observers description closes the gap best for you ?


if you are after a "Eureka" moment, it will be a scientific one

science isnt absolute, but it remains for me a better framework with which to juggle the data and draw conclusions

 

[Rick Deckard]

which observers description closes the gap best for you ?

Define the 'gap' - you're assuming that the gap is closing in on an explanation that is wholly scientific. I'm saying that I don't know that science will ever get to that explanation and therefore, for me, the 'gap' is undefined. Therefore, at this moment in time, neither of the descriptions closes the gap for me.

With retrospect, if science does go on to fully explain all UFO phenomena then I would be able to say with certainty that the second description closes 'the gap'.

 

[mike]

another example

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3079867

from the last page

Mayor predicted that NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder and the European Space Agency's Darwin satellite would make increasingly significant contributions in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

He said these institutions will be able to directly look for "signatures of life" on other planets, similar to the high presence of oxygen in our atmosphere, within 15 to 20 years

closing the gap.............

 

[Rick Deckard]

He said these institutions will be able to directly look for "signatures of life" on other planets, similar to the high presence of oxygen in our atmosphere, within 15 to 20 years

closing the gap.............

But still not looking at the UFO phenomena which might have nothing to do with ETIs...

...so it's not necessarily closing the gap (whatever 'the gap' is).

 

[mike]

The gap is the difference between complete ignorance and total understanding, if you only understand 80 percent of the problem then the gap is the 20 percent you dont.
the science of pathology has nothing to do with ufo's either unless you are doing an autopsy on the occupants.
pathology wasnt designed to answer the ufo problem, but it could be used to add to the body of knowledge in regards to the occupants

im absolutely sure that the more technically savy we become, the better we will be able to interpret the data and ascribe to its components, labels that better describe the reality

a medicine man with a bone rattle might use the label of "evil spirits" bad humours etc, but a doctor will use labels like acute myocardial infarction.

one of these better describes the reality

 

[Rick Deckard]

The gap is the difference between complete ignorance and total understanding, if you only understand 80 percent of the problem then the gap is the 20 percent you dont.

But how do you measure that? If I'm running the 100 meters I know that when I'm half-way I've got 50 meters to run - I can see the finish line. But with the UFO phenomena we don't know what the finishing line looks like, so how can you say that we're closing the gap when we don't even know if we're running in the right 'direction'?

Let's say that the remaining UFOs are ET craft - at what point will we know that for sure? I would suggest that as far as science is concerned we won't know for sure until one lands and ET walks out for us all to 'scrutinise' first-hand. At that point we won't need science to tell us anything that we can't already see with our own eyes and with retrospect you could argue that we were 'closing the gap' when we examined the possibilities of space travel and theories about life on other planets. But until that happens we just have theories that may or may not be on the brink of offering an explanation. We just don't know whether we are getting closer or further away from the 'truth' and we won't know until it literally lands in our lap.

There are numerous theories about the origin of UFOs. None, one, several or even all them may be correct. So, with that in mind, what is your current estimation of the 'gap' between complete ignorance and total understanding of the UFO phenomena?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

1000 years ago it was ".......Religion will save us and find all the answers!".
Now it's science to do the same. Science is the new religion. the new church.Science and scientists, within certain fields or without can't agree on what is going on and anyone who strays from the established protocols, methods or theories is treated like a heretic and quickly culled from the herd , banished to the pseudo-sciences.
Wake up people.

 

[Tony2013]

There are numerous theories about the origin of UFOs. None, one, several or even all them may be correct. So, with that in mind, what is your current estimation of the 'gap' between complete ignorance and total understanding of the UFO phenomena?

Can I interject?

I think both of you are making some good arguments here, and I'm in complete agreement with Deckard over the whole "landing in our lap" scenario.

Might I suggest that the gap between complete ignorance and total understanding is something that sits outside realms that are normally thought of a scientific, into what might be considered more existential arenas? What I'm suggesting is, whereas complete ignorance would be the total absence of any knowledge of UFOs whatsoever (even the fact that something like that might exist), total understanding would be a oneness, or a sense of unity with, UFOs. I'm not trying to suggest any spiritual or faith-induced knowledge that would precede or preclude any scientific data, but maybe the UFO field is somewhere that spirituality and scientific empiricism meet? What "oneness" with UFOs would be, I'm not sure, but total understanding has either got to be actually being a UFO, or this is something of which humans are not capable.

In that sense, I think, we get a better understanding of the way in which "ignorance" and "understanding" function.

 

[BrandonD]

Rick,

Thank you for your post.

I'm not aware that the "mechanics" of why a 747 can lift off are in question. Could you point me to a source on the web? I'm intrigued and would like to learn more.

Thanks in advance.

It's called Bernouli's principle and it was the agreed upon means that allowed an airplane to fly. Until it was disagreed upon. So it goes.

 

[swatcher]

Guys,

Very interesting posts. Lots of food for thought here. There is definitely less "noise" on this forum than ATS

Rick,

Thank you for the links.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Might I suggest that the gap between complete ignorance and total understanding is something that sits outside realms that are normally thought of a scientific, into what might be considered more existential arenas? What I'm suggesting is, whereas complete ignorance would be the total absence of any knowledge of UFOs whatsoever (even the fact that something like that might exist), total understanding would be a oneness, or a sense of unity with, UFOs.

Those are good points - the definition of 'gap' is even less clearly defined now.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Very interesting posts. Lots of food for thought here. There is definitely less "noise" on this forum than ATS

I feel that ATS passed the point of 'critical mass' some years ago - there are many active users occupying the polar opposites of any issue you wish to discuss and they're only too keen to jump on you the moment you post something 'controversial'. Of course, that can and does happen on here but to a much lesser degree. Thankfully.

Thank you for the links.

Your welcome - I hope they were helpful in some way. Even if you can't fathom the equations (and I haven't even tried) at least the basic info gives you the sense that actually a lot of science is not set in stone, it's just a set of agreed principles which have varying degrees of 'fluidity' and may be completely disregarded in light of new findings - although the process of 'change' does seem extraordinarily arduous.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Science is the new religion. the new church. Science and scientists, within certain fields or without can't agree on what is going on and anyone who strays from the established protocols, methods or theories is treated like a heretic and quickly culled from the herd , banished to the pseudo-sciences.

I do think some of that goes on and I think the direction of scientific research is carefully steered in the same way that religious texts are 're-interpreted' over time to accommodate 'enlightened' thinking.