UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

[Proust]

Historically, on any major breakthrough mankind has had, it's been off the backs of those willing to study the subject, not the people studying the subject. And those breakthroughs weren't had from staying saddled in the "I'm open for anything" position. Instead it was through following trains of data, thought, to push through the other side. (In some ways we say the same thing here).

I would say that kind of logic has lead to a lot of silly-in-hindsight beliefs: Orgone accumulators, faith healing, Scientology... to name a few.

That's not to say that nothing has been accomplished by true believers, or that valuable conclusions aren't harvested simply by observing vast libraries of data (just look at how well Darwin did doing essentially that, though he at least had the natural world to check his work against) just that beginning with a conclusion is risky. Especially beginning with the conclusion that a light in the sky is a piece of technology from another planet, it requires one take a whole series of maybes as matters of fact.

 

[Proust]

...and more importantly, how many people have actually seen a nuclear submarine, or a stealth fighter? They exist but plenty people haven't seen them.

At about 3:00 or so the point of the video becomes clear, along with the problem with that sort of logic.

 

[DaveM]

Hello Paracast, long time listener first time caller. I thought I'd weigh in on this one though.

Your logic seems very flawed to me. Comparing angel sightings at gas stations and Sherlock Holmes to UFOs doesn't jive. Those people who might see a UFO can't produce a craft just so you can verify it like sitting before someone's television set.

You may want to make better comparisons in the future.


Reports of an experience, even a large volume of reports, don't on their own make it reasonable to believe the experience is real or even plausible, it's actually a logical fallacy, and in the context of any paranormal phenomenon a very elementary logical fallacy. For instance, I could apply that same value to the notion that Angels must be real because of the sheer number of reports of them appearing at gas stations or scorched by blessed toaster ovens on to breakfast items. Or that the sheer number of survey answers that Sherlock Holmes was a real detective means that he wasn't a fictional character, or that Canadians live in igloos (do they?) because of the number of people who for whatever reason report to believe that. A paranormal phenomenon isn't in the same category of "I'm watching T.V" because --not to put too fine a point on it-- you can invite me over to verify the existence of your T.V. You can sit in front of it and demonstrate to me your watching it. I can go to my parlor and see a TV for myself (or I could if I owned one) and surmise that it's reasonable that you have a T.V. too. I can have an engineer explain to me the technology of a T.V. and then go to a factory where T.V.s are made and see it happen in real time. What you can't do is produce an alien space craft or any of the side-dishes.

 

[Burnt State]

It was interesting to listen to Stan Gordon on the most recent episode of The Paracast. His most repeated phrase during discussion around what is Bigfoot and talk about other Cryptids & UFO'S was, "I keep my mind open to all possibilities." Increasingly I hear the long term researcher make these Zetetic statements around how healthy it is to be more doubtful than believing. Of course to live life without patterns and to question all aspects of reality will ultimately make you schizophrenic. Sometimes it is very healthy to use logic and reason as a basic guide, especially while driving. But the paranormal and the UFO avails itself to more of a creative approach to thinking through a problem. Belief may even get in the way of a solution to these enduring mysteries.

I can't help my bias sometimes and there are lines of judgment I have made against ouija boards, channellers, poltergeists, hybrid alien babies and some other parts of paranormality. I accept that there are others who believe the exact opposite of me. I enjoy discussions with believers in such things sometimes, but enjoy conversations with doubtful people even more. To each their own poison.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

I would say that kind of logic has lead to a lot of silly-in-hindsight beliefs: Orgone accumulators, faith healing, Scientology... to name a few.

That's not to say that nothing has been accomplished by true believers, or that valuable conclusions aren't harvested simply by observing vast libraries of data (just look at how well Darwin did doing essentially that, though he at least had the natural world to check his work against) just that beginning with a conclusion is risky. Especially beginning with the conclusion that a light in the sky is a piece of technology from another planet, it requires one take a whole series of maybes as matters of fact.

Very easy to discount what I've said by opening the subject wide open, which is not what I'm saying. Belief, in and of itself, is harmless. Actions taken are what's debatable. Back in the 40's and 50's when the U.S gov was actively taking reports, which included people in positions qualified to observe and report, we retained clear data on what could be called at least vaguely similar type craft zipping along our skies. Through reasonable deduction we ruled out other countries as having that capability. That particular time era was ripe for study simply for that reason. A comparison to other countries found similar sightings. The reports we're both single witnesses to mass witnesses. The descriptions follow along as disk, cigar shape, orbs, etc. (note, they were not multiple dragons, floating t.v's or large Ford trucks). Instead of setting up mass observation points, camera/video stations, more detailed questions to witnesses, etc, there instead was a collective burial (over time) of the data and then a typical human response of degrading the witness by filling the blanks with doubt. So....the damage? Enormous. Still resonates to this day as one of the strongest elements of the subject. I contend that this "doubt" was most displayed, not by the witness but by the audience to the witness.
Having a belief based on data is not the same as following a cult leader to suicide oneself. The comparison is lazy at best. One of the common themes regarding science is that these pure, untainted men and women get to work each day and let science lead the way in their work. Bull. They choose their projects on "most likely" and follow the science. And that choice is vetted before boards/committee's that sign their paychecks (so it's not likely they'll spend millions chasing loose threads unless those threads seem "likely" to produce results). A study using science is not conducted by purists. These are human beings who have a belief their on the right trail. Apply that to UFO's and it starts with the data. A belief that this data shows......what? I don't proclaim to know if these objects are from another planet or from here. I proclaim they are not us. It's a reasonable conclusion. We did not have that tech, we could not survive those maneuvers in any known craft. But again, this is the point I made before, we can't even agree to this basic question.

 

[technomage]

The red pill blue pill wasn't a reference to whether or not you agree or disagree with me, but to the deceptive complexity of the issue. I'm actually confident that given some time to reflect further, as I noticed you did in your follow-up post, that you would soon realize that the concept of beauty is more than skin deep.

How we know what we know certainly ties into the issue as well.

Why? And let's not forget that this was in response to the suggestion that, "Truth is always rational". I maintain that it is true that something can be beautiful for no rational reason.

Logic requires that we can articulate the reasons. On the other hand, sometimes, as with beauty, there aren't any reasons other than that it is what it is, a pure experience. Overthink it and you lose it.

I'd certainly agree that without our minds we wouldn't experience beauty, but that isn't the crux of the issue. The truth is that we experience beauty even when there are no rational reasons for it, I would go so far as to say especially when there are no rational reasons for it.

This story maybe relevant in some way to what we're discussing:
Richard Feynman relayed a story where someone told him that it was better to not explain certain things through science because the beauty of those things would be lost. Feynman thought that this was kind of nutty because he believed that understanding how something works adds to the beauty of the phenomenon, not detracts from it. So one can marvel at the beauty of snow and your appreciation of the beauty is enhanced by understanding the crystalline structure of snow, the chemical bonds, etc. and the science that explains the phenomenon.

Just because something is a pure experience, doesn't mean there is no "rational reason" for it. There are fundamental physical laws involved so there is always a reason for why we perceive the way we do, regardless if we know the details of them at the time or not. To me, that is rational, because we're perceiving according to our nature (as opposed to doing something unnatural and contrary to our nature like attempting to eat through our noses for example). We may be talking about different things using different definitions though, leading to a semantic disagreement, primarily.

 

[Randall]

This story maybe relevant in some way to what we're discussing:
Richard Feynman relayed a story where someone told him that it was better to not explain certain things through science because the beauty of those things would be lost. Feynman thought that this was kind of nutty because he believed that understanding how something works adds to the beauty of the phenomenon, not detracts from it. So one can marvel at the beauty of snow and your appreciation of the beauty is enhanced by understanding the crystalline structure of snow, the chemical bonds, etc. and the science that explains the phenomenon.

Just because something is a pure experience, doesn't mean there is no "rational reason" for it. There are fundamental physical laws involved so there is always a reason for why we perceive the way we do, regardless if we know the details of them at the time or not. To me, that is rational, because we're perceiving according to our nature (as opposed to doing something unnatural and contrary to our nature like attempting to eat through our noses for example). We may be talking about different things using different definitions though, leading to a semantic disagreement, primarily.

I would agree with both Feynman and the person he quoted. An example for me is the internal combustion engine. They're not much to look at on their own, but when I was young I built a see-through plastic model with moving parts. Being able to see the workings in action gave me an appreciation for the beauty in the simplicity of the engineering ( rather than the aesthetics ), and there is no question that in this context, there are well defined scientific principles involved. But that type of appreciation is a different kind of beauty. It's conceptual rather than experiential. It made the engine beautiful in a different way.

Having an art and music background, maybe I can offer something of relevance. What drew me to music was the beauty in the audio experience. Simply listening took me away on an imaginary voyage full of not only sound, but imagery and emotion. It inspired me, and I wanted to be able to do that for other people. However the listening experience is distinctly different than deconstructing and learning how to play the various riffs that produce the sounds. In fact, becoming a musician involves a lot of work and pain. There's not much beauty there. Though that experience does impart a certain appreciation for technical expertise.

After some months of study and practice I was able to listen and recreate and compose, and what happened was that when a new piece came on the radio, instead of asking myself whether or not I liked it, I found myself imaging all the technical details of how it was created and put together, and for some time that gave me some satisfaction, but at the same time, I didn't realize something else was missing. It was only after I set my pursuit of music aside for a couple of years that the beauty of music began to really shine again for me. What had happened is that I had lost the fullness of my appreciation for music by getting saturated with the technical details.

It's very much a left-brain/ right-brain thing. One hemisphere deals with logic and reason, the other with shapes and sounds and so on. The more one side is engaged the less the other is involved. If you're not much into music, here's another story that almost anyone can relate to. My other half is a beautician with a lot of experience in the industry, and one day I pointed to a cover model on a fashion magazine and she said, to paraphrase, "I don't want to ruin it for you but if I show you, you'll never look a magazine cover the same way again." and she proceeded to point out the flaws in the hair color, a pin showing through in the style, a smudge in the lipstick, and areas where some hasty image editing was done. Poof! Suddenly my analytical left-brain kicked into high gear and the beauty was gone. To this day, whenever I walk past a magazine rack, It takes me practice to set aside the analysis in order to more fully appreciate the beauty.

With a little practise one can learn to switch between the two fairly quickly, which is what artists will often do. Apply some paint here and there, or do some image editing here and there, or try a harmony here or there, and then step back and take in the work on an intuitional level rather than measuring the saturation, contrast, texture, placement, volume, tone, compression etc. Lastly lets not forget that the original context was the claim that, "All truth is rational", and again, we can see that it's not. We all have an irrational side, but elements of that side can still be true.

 

[technomage]

I would agree with both Feynman and the person he quoted. An example for me is the internal combustion engine. They're not much to look at on their own, but when I was young I built a see-through plastic model with moving parts. Being able to see the workings in action gave me an appreciation for the beauty in the simplicity of the engineering ( rather than the aesthetics ), and there is no question that in this context, there are well defined scientific principles involved. But that type of appreciation is a different kind of beauty. It's conceptual rather than experiential. It made the engine beautiful in a different way.

Having an art and music background, maybe I can offer something of relevance. What drew me to music was the beauty in the audio experience. Simply listening took me away on an imaginary voyage full of not only sound, but imagery and emotion. It inspired me, and I wanted to be able to do that for other people. However the listening experience is distinctly different than deconstructing and learning how to play the various riffs that produce the sounds. In fact, becoming a musician involves a lot of work and pain. There's not much beauty there. Though that experience does impart a certain appreciation for technical expertise.

After some months of study and practice I was able to listen and recreate and compose, and what happened was that when a new piece came on the radio, instead of asking myself whether or not I liked it, I found myself imaging all the technical details of how it was created and put together, and for some time that gave me some satisfaction, but at the same time, I didn't realize something else was missing. It was only after I set my pursuit of music aside for a couple of years that the beauty of music began to really shine again for me. What had happened is that I had lost the fullness of my appreciation for music by getting saturated with the technical details.

It's very much a left-brain/ right-brain thing. One hemisphere deals with logic and reason, the other with shapes and sounds and so on. The more one is engaged the less the other is involved. If you're not much into music, here's another story that almost anyone can relate to. My other half is a beautician with a lot of experience in the industry, and one day I pointed to a cover model on a fashion magazine and she said, to paraphrase, "I don't want to ruin for you but if I show you, you'll never look a magazine cover the same way again." and she proceeded to point out the flaws in the hair color, a pin showing through in the style, a smudge in the lipstick, and areas where some hasty image editing was done. Poof! Suddenly my analytical left-brain kicked into high gear and the beauty was gone. To this day, whenever I walk past a magazine rack, It takes me practice to set aside the analysis in order to more fully appreciate the beauty.

With a little practise one can learn to switch between the two fairly quickly, which is what artists will often do. Apply some paint here and there, or do some image editing here and there, or try a harmony here or there, and then step back and take in the work on an intuitional level rather than measuring the saturation, contrast, texture, placement, volume, tone, compression etc. Lastly lets not forget that the original context was the claim that, "All truth is rational", and again, we can see that it's not. We all have an irrational side, but elements of that side can still be true.

I agree with everything you wrote about other than the fact that I don't think there is anything irrational about truth or beauty. It's not any kind of contradiction for us to appreciate symmetry or whatever other factors make us appreciate beauty. I don't think contradictions exist in nature and that's all that I mean by the truth being "rational".

 

[Randall]

I agree with everything you wrote about other than the fact that I don't think there is anything irrational about truth or beauty.

If you actually agreed then you wouldn't think that things can't be irrational and true at the same time. But that's OK. Sometimes it just takes time to integrate conflicting truths into one's worldview. In the meantime, I'll leave off by returning to Feynman's retort, and try to take one last stab at getting my point across. Feynman's experience of conceptual beauty is just as irrational as the experience of aesthetic beauty. In neither case is having the experience of beauty logical, and in neither case does some verbal description, or physical combination of neurons firing and blood pulsing provide an explanation. It amounts to the same thing as saying a work of art is beautiful because it's made of canvas and paint. It means nothing. And, beauty isn't the only example. We don't love someone because it's rational either. The object of our affections might even be distant, aloof, reciprocating, or abusive, a totally irrational choice, yet we may love them anyway. As much as you may not like the idea, things such as beauty and emotions don't have to be rational to be true.

 

[Randall]

Reports of an experience, even a large volume of reports, don't on their own make it reasonable to believe the experience is real or even plausible, it's actually a logical fallacy ...

That's a favorite position of the skeptics to take, but it's not a universal principle, which means that assuming it to always be true is also a fallacy ( the skeptics tend to leave that part out though ).

... and in the context of any paranormal phenomenon a very elementary logical fallacy.

That's largely bias. "'any paranormal phenomenon" covers a very wide range of experience, not all of which are as easily dismissed as others.

For instance, I could apply that same value to the notion that Angels must be real because of the sheer number of reports of them appearing at gas stations or scorched by blessed toaster ovens on to breakfast items. Or that the sheer number of survey answers that Sherlock Holmes was a real detective means that he wasn't a fictional character, or that Canadians live in igloos (do they?) because of the number of people who for whatever reason report to believe that.

And therein is the usual basis for the strawman fallacy. It would be fine if skeptics used those examples when evaluating angels at gas stations, or Sherlock Holmes, or Canadians, but when they say or imply that simply because those examples are true, that every other example must also be true, it is a strawman argument. In no way do surveys on what people believe about Sherlock Holmes have anything to do with reports of strange experiences. In the case of UFOs we're not even talking about something paranormal, because there's nothing unscientific about the possibility of interstellar travel. Yet we still hear skeptics chiming in with this same tired old argument.

A paranormal phenomenon isn't in the same category of "I'm watching T.V" because --not to put too fine a point on it-- you can invite me over to verify the existence of your T.V. You can sit in front of it and demonstrate to me your watching it. I can go to my parlor and see a TV for myself (or I could if I owned one) and surmise that it's reasonable that you have a T.V. too. I can have an engineer explain to me the technology of a T.V. and then go to a factory where T.V.s are made and see it happen in real time. What you can't do is produce an alien space craft or any of the side-dishes.

Not everything needs to be reproducible or non-anecdotal to be true or valuable. For example natural transient phenomena, or patient reports on the effect of medication. In fact, the more anecdotal reports that are available from patients who take a specific type of medication, the more accurate the conclusion about its efficacy is likely to be. Additionally experiences of a firsthand nature are backed by processes known to science, most notably the stimulus response, which means that when things in the environment are perceived by the senses, there is usually an external stimulus of a physical nature that is the cause. Evidence that is perceived by the senses is also empirical, and empirical evidence is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Therefore if there were several thousand serious reports of something that fit the description of an angel appearing at a gas station, it would indeed be reasonable to assume that perhaps people were seeing something, and perhaps setup some cameras and surveillance.

 

[technomage]

I agree with everything you wrote about other than the fact that I don't think there is anything irrational about truth or beauty. It's not any kind of contradiction for us to appreciate symmetry or whatever other factors make us appreciate beauty. I don't think contradictions exist in nature and that's all that I mean by the truth being "rational".

If you actually agreed then you wouldn't think that things can't be irrational and true at the same time. But that's OK. Sometimes it just takes time to integrate conflicting truths into one's worldview. In the meantime, I'll leave off by returning to Feynman's retort, and try to take one last stab at getting my point across. Feynman's experience of conceptual beauty is just as irrational as the experience of aesthetic beauty. In neither case is having the experience of beauty logical, and in neither case does some verbal description, or physical combination of neurons firing and blood pulsing provide an explanation. It amounts to the same thing as saying a work of art is beautiful because it's made of canvas and paint. It means nothing. And, beauty isn't the only example. We don't love someone because it's rational either. The object of our affections might even be distant, aloof, reciprocating, or abusive, a totally irrational choice, yet we may love them anyway. As much as you may not like the idea, things such as beauty and emotions don't have to be rational to be true.

No, I don't agree with that part, that something can be irrational and true at the same time. But I like your other stories, which show the elusive nature of beauty.

As I said, using my definition where logic is the art of identifying truth, the truth can't be irrational. Reality actually can't be rational either because that implies there is a reasoning mind to assess it. But the truth is an identification by a reasoning mind that something represents reality. If you've identified something as true, it represents reality and therefore your process was rational. If you believe something to be true, but it really isn't, then somewhere along the way, your process was irrational.

It's not a matter of me liking or not liking the fact that things can be irrational to be true. I just don't subscribe to this narrow view of rationality that excludes important areas of reality itself, such as the nature of the subject and objects of perception.

 

[Randall]

As I said, using my definition where logic is the art of identifying truth, the truth can't be irrational ...

I think I see where we're having problems. I'm not saying truth itself is irrational. On that we agree. Basically, we both see it as a correspondence to a given reality, and therefore logic is the foundation. But there's a distinction between truth itself and the truth of something. Leaving out any specific examples:

• Truth corresponds to reality.
• It is a reality that there is the rational and the irrational.
• Therefore when we experience something rational then it is true that we are having a rational experience.
• And when we experience something irrational it is true that we are having an irrational experience.
• Therefore rational and irrational experiences can both be true.
• Therefore the truth ( of an experience ) isn't always rational.

 

[technomage]

I think I see where we're having problems. I'm not saying truth itself is irrational. On that we agree. Basically, we both see it as a correspondence to a given reality, and therefore logic is the foundation. But here's the distinction, leaving out any specific examples:

• It is a reality that there is the rational and the irrational.
• Therefore when we experience something rational then it is true that we are having a rational experience.
• And when we experience something irrational it is true that we are having an irrational experience.
• Therefore rational and irrational experiences can both be true.
• Therefore the truth ( of an experience ) isn't always rational.

Based on your first premise, the rest follows logically. It is your first premise that I disagree with: To me, to be irrational is to not conform with reality, like an earlier example I used where you try to eat through your nose or to jump out of a window and expect gravity to be suspended. I don't see beauty fitting that category because it's consistent with our nature to appreciate beauty (I guess this can be derived from the positive benefits the appreciation of beauty brings to ones life as opposed to the negative impact from doing irrational things, like jumping out of windows). I know I initially said that reality was always rational, but then I corrected myself and said that reality just "is". Only when we include our own perceptions and conceptions does the term rational have any meaning. So we can most definitely do rational and irrational things. But if we define the truth as that which we've identified as real (i.e. part of reality), I don't see how that can be irrational.

As I said, I think a lot of this really has to do with how we define and use the terms, "truth", "rational" and "logical". I really don't think we disagree much on the actual concepts involved or how reality works, but I could be wrong.

 

[Constance]

Does something need to be argued and tested within the bounds of science to be proven true? For me? Yes. For others? Probably not.

Relying completely on our current scientific understanding of the universe to define all that is real in the sense of 'actually' there in our local, situated, experience is the first mistake given the limits of the data with which human science currently works. We also need to rely on what we can reason from that which we presently understand. It is not the case that we understand nothing about nature as expressed in our local world, which is part of the larger world -- universe -- in which we find ourselves.

I follow Heidi's and technomage's reasoning (if I'm following their arguments adequately) that we should use the means we have available to evaluate the physical actuality and measureable behavior (and ground effects) of ufos in the most fully investigated cases available. To that extent we need to, because we have to, rely on the scientific insight and technology we have. But our current level of scientific knowledge and insight cannot tell us what is possible in the technology of intelligent species much older and more advanced in their science than we are. Thus to conclude, as an increasing number of people do in ufo conversation these days, that we know nothing whatever and that therefore "anything is possible" --including the notion that we are trapped in a virtual reality, a 'matrix' produced and controlled by an incomprehensible intelligence whose 'property' we are -- is a leap too far to be useful in my opinion since we have less chance of even guessing what is out there without grounding our speculations in our accumulated experience of the actual local world we live in. Our local world is widely believed by scientists and the rest of us to be a natural part of a much larger natural world -- the universe whose extent we can observe up to a distant point in its past. From our point in the evolution of spacetime we have limited knowledge of the reality of the universe our planet is part of, but that limited knowledge is our best available path for comprehending what-is in its actuality.

 

[Burnt State]

 

[Burnt State]

Relying completely on our current scientific understanding of the universe to define all that is real in the sense of 'actually' there in our local, situated, experience is the first mistake given the limits of the data with which human science currently works. We also need to rely on what we can reason from that which we presently understand. It is not the case that we understand nothing about nature as expressed in our local world, which is part of the larger world -- universe -- in which we find ourselves.

I follow Heidi's and technomage's reasoning (if I'm following their arguments adequately) that we should use the means we have available to evaluate the physical actuality and measureable behavior (and ground effects) of ufos in the most fully investigated cases available. To that extent we need to, because we have to, rely on the scientific insight and technology we have. But our current level of scientific knowledge and insight cannot tell us what is possible in the technology of intelligent species much older and more advanced in their science than we are. Thus to conclude, as an increasing number of people do in ufo conversation these days, that we know nothing whatever and that therefore "anything is possible" --including the notion that we are trapped in a virtual reality, a 'matrix' produced and controlled by an incomprehensible intelligence whose 'property' we are -- is a leap too far to be useful in my opinion since we have less chance of even guessing what is out there without grounding our speculations in our accumulated experience of the actual local world we live in. Our local world is widely believed by scientists and the rest of us to be a natural part of a much larger natural world -- the universe whose extent we can observe up to a distant point in its past. From our point in the evolution of spacetime we have limited knowledge of the reality of the universe our planet is part of, but that limited knowledge is our best available path for comprehending what-is in its actuality.

I posted Papa Jaques' GEIPAN presentation because it is summative of both many ideas present in the thread, the history of scientific investigation & data collection into the UFO phenomnon and what's been amassed so far. You will note that there's no real pro-IDH vs. antiaETH in here. He merely takes the evolved position that we should not let ideology cloud our view and scientifc pursuit of the phenomnon.

He raises clear points around what is measurable, what we have measured so far and raises the critical question of what kind of methodologies should be used to study the phenomenon. It's all in keeping with his usual scientific rigor with regards to how any scientist would approach both the history of the phenomenon and how should we proceed forward. One of the most curious aspects he raises includes the question: why do we not yet have an undeniable example of photographic proof of the phenomenon? I still wonder if whether or not it is actually possible to capture clear evidence of visual representation of a UFO. Good luck Chris O'Brien is all I can say as you are still doing the right scientific thing to do.

I do not personally think it is reasonable to make any grand assumptions of the phenomenon as there is no clear body of evidence that proves UFO's are from outer space. While some may find it reasonable to conclude that because it appears to be advanced technology that defies our own scientific comprehension of physics, time and space, and because we can't find a source nearby, then reason dictates it must be from off planet, hence aliens from outer space. I think we can't draw those conclusions without real concrete evidence. Everything else is just a guess, but even a best guess is not certainty. I think they are from elsewhere, but I really don't know where that is.

This also does not mean we should assume interdimensionality or simple figments of the imagination. After all, as you said, there are specific limits to our science and comprehension of the universe, so while UFO is a part of the universe, all we can continue to do is describe it & measure it, and try to find better methods that will do both of those two things with greater accuracy and revelation.

But what is very interesting to me, as a causal historical observer of Ufology, is that it is the hardcore researcher and long time investigator who is arguing for the open minded approach: Bishop, O'Brien, Vallée, Redfern, and Gordon for example, & Steinberg, Kimball and Tonnies believe it or not are all in that same camp. I'm sure with a minor amount of dabbling this list would grow and grow, after all, which current researcher actually says that they know for a fact that the UFO is all about the ETH? If anything, even Peter Robbins and Dolan, when pressed about the future of Ufology on RM, stated that being open to all possibilities is the way to go. What they meant by this is in their explanations is that we should not be clouded by ideologyo or assumptions, and that being reasonable can only get you as far as a best guess.

When faced with an irrational phenomenon my ongoing question has always been that maybe reason is defeating us to some extent, and the methodology required might need to be more irrational than logical, or at least so originally creative so as to appear as being high strange itself.

 

[Constance]

When faced with an irrational phenomenon my ongoing question has always been that maybe reason is defeating us to some extent, and the methodology required might need to be more irrational than logical, or at least so originally creative so as to appear as being high strange itself.

Why not? It's worth a shot. But I don't know how much stranger (or more irrational) we could appear to be than we already must seem to intelligences more developed than our own.

 

[Randall]

Based on your first premise, the rest follows logically. It is your first premise that I disagree with: To me, to be irrational is to not conform with reality

That's beside the point. The rational and the irrational are both realities.

like an earlier example I used where you try to eat through your nose or to jump out of a window and expect gravity to be suspended.

Those would be examples of irrational behavior.

I don't see beauty fitting that category because it's consistent with our nature to appreciate beauty (I guess this can be derived from the positive benefits the appreciation of beauty brings to ones life as opposed to the negative impact from doing irrational things, like jumping out of windows).

Irrational behavior is different than irrational experience. Beauty is an irrational experience. There is no logical thinking or analysis involved. That happens in a different part of the brain, usually after the fact. All this talk and analysis makes it easy to think beauty is something rational, but that's just because we're not experiencing it. Talking about the beauty of something and experiencing it are two completely separate things.

I know I initially said that reality was always rational, but then I corrected myself and said that reality just "is". Only when we include our own perceptions and conceptions does the term rational have any meaning. So we can most definitely do rational and irrational things. But if we define the truth as that which we've identified as real (i.e. part of reality), I don't see how that can be irrational...

The concept of truth is very rational. We agree on that. However because it's true that there are irrational things, not everything that is true is rational.

As I said, I think a lot of this really has to do with how we define and use the terms, "truth", "rational" and "logical". I really don't think we disagree much on the actual concepts involved or how reality works, but I could be wrong

Not everything that isn't rational is bad. Consider these definitions of "rational" from Encarta:

1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
2. able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, because the mind is not impaired by physical or mental condition, violent emotion, or prejudice
3. in accordance with reason and logic: presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge and are not based on appeals to emotion or, prejudice
4. able to reason: endowed with the ability to reason, as opposed to being governed solely by instinct and appetite

Thesaurus: sensible, reasonable, logical, realistic, sound, wise, judicious​

What we see as rational is separate from the emotional, prejudicial, instinctual, and so on. Our personal tastes ( what we like or dislike ) fall in under emotions, and what we find beautiful is a personal taste. Therefore beauty falls outside the common definition and understanding of what is considered rational. Beauty doesn't have to be sensible, reasonable, logical, realistic, sound, wise or judicious. In fact it can be completely nonsensical, absurd, unscientific, contradictory and host of other synonyms for illogical or irrational. I'm confident that we could dredge up several more dictionaries that would shake it all down pretty much the same way. It's not that you're thinking is wrong or anything like that. It's a great discussion. I just think maybe you need to expand your view to include a wider interpretation than bad behavior.

 

[Randall]

... I do not personally think it is reasonable to make any grand assumptions of the phenomenon as there is no clear body of evidence that proves UFO's are from outer space.

I think we can make the "grand assumption" that alien visitation is a reality. Where exactly they're from, what they're made of, how their technology works, and all the rest are just the technical details, and I doubt we'll be figuring out any of that unless the aliens offer it up or we invent it ourselves in the not too distant future.

While some may find it reasonable to conclude that because it appears to be advanced technology that defies our own scientific comprehension of physics, time and space, and because we can't find a source nearby, then reason dictates it must be from off planet, hence aliens from outer space.

It is reasonable to conclude that the aliens associated with UFOs are probably, but not necessarily, ET, and probably, but not necessarily from another relatively close star system, as opposed to some other ET location, like another universe or "dimension". It's reasonable to draw that conclusion because of the inductive reasoning you use above.

I think we can't draw those conclusions without real concrete evidence. Everything else is just a guess, but even a best guess is not certainty. I think they are from elsewhere, but I really don't know where that is ...

We don't have to know every gory detail about the aliens in order to be certain that there are aliens. So it's not that I don't respect Vallée ( I do ), but by reducing the field to the study of some hypothetical "UAP" which could include a whole host of irrelevant phenomena, and asking for answers on all these sidecar issues, it gives us the impression that nobody really has any meaningful answers about UFOs. I think that's misleading and that we need to be more focused on the core subject matter.

I propose a bolder and more to-the-point approach that says it's time to simply accept that alien visitation is a reality and that UFOs are alien craft; and that if one isn't focused on that, then you're not studying UFOs, but some "UAP", which could be who knows what, like maybe some previously undocumented type of hallucinogenic beetle, or some sprite discharge, or something else that is equally beside the point. In he meantime, if some UFO reports turn out to be caused by something other than alien technology ( ATECH ), then great, another case can be removed from our search for damned aliens! Let's stay focused here ... eye on the doughnut and all that, and less with the UAPs, faery mounds, Tempestarii cloud ships, New Age nonsense and other peripheral or mythological issues.

 

[Randall]

I posted Papa Jaques' GEIPAN presentation because it is summative of both many ideas present in the thread ...

BTW: Here's a relevant PDF. It's basically the whole Vallée presentation in written form. Definitely worthy of having on file .

www.cnes-geipan.fr/fileadmin/documents/15_VALLEE_full.pdf