Saturday, December 8, 2012

Mini MUFON Facebook Rant

Just feeling very grumpy tonight: "Some MUFON folks are such stick in the muds. So fucking SERIOUS. "Science based this..." and "hard evidence that" and... look, kids, UFOs are crazy wild things with no sense and witness accounts vary like mad. So either help the witness and be true to the data or shut the hell up and take that stick out of your bum."


Alfred Lehmberg said...

"The ostensibly 'serious' and 'respected' learned of our torrid and anxious community decries the 'carnival atmosphere' of studies 'paranormal' in general and UFOs in particular. These persons aforementioned—self-assured that they are at the cutting edge of reasonable entelechy—bemoan the tolerated huckster. They lament the lack of qualified peer review. They weep regarding the 'provoked disinterest of mainstream science.' Finally, they rather toothlessly bewail the incorrigibly inconsistent and even damaging protocols employed by suspicious 'amateurs' in the field. How dare they?"

Agreed, they act like none of the stuff described here even happens:

They don't find it odd that given all the existential fractal echoes and reflections in the corporeal around them, that a _very_ flawed humankind would be the sole thing having no fractal reflection itself... ...when fractal reflections of sentience abound right here on this planet! Several species of hominid just to start before we move on to Cetacea commonly known as whales, dolphins, and porpoises... then there are evolved dinosaurs: birds; and lets not forget that relative of the lowly _clam_ also known as the octopus. Sentience must abound cosmically and seven categories of evidence suggest that that is so. See the above URL for a discussion of those categories.

Science Shmyance, eh? It's a coward's cover for self-consolation where it otherwise falls short with regard to its propensity to set itself up as the arbiter of all things, even those things which it, in all steadfastness, refuses to investigate at all? Such may be so.

Terry the Censor said...

Two things:

Ms. Lee, if you're ranting against a particular something that's online, please share! I'd enjoy being pointed to the offenders and checking it myself, then coming back here and chatting about it. (But if this is a generalised rant, no worries.)

Mr. Lehmberg, if I understand you correctly, let me suggest this: science tries to establish facts, to explain phenomena, in such a way that all us may have knowledge of and sometimes access to them regardless of our belief system. The problem with much of fringe science is it is embedded in a religious type of privileged knowledge: since the hard evidence is scant or merely suggestive, you can only know or access the knowledge and phenomena through faith. If you don't assent to the truth of the claim, it's somehow your own fault and not a consequence of the quality of evidence. That is, truth is arbitrary, determined by the whims of the individual; when this happens, discussion between individuals ends and knowledge does not progress.

(I should note: I have been banned from many believer blogs and youtube channels for the crime of checking their own facts and sources and finding they don't actually support the claim. I have never been banned by a skeptic for challenging their statements. Clearly, believers are more fun to study!)

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Mr. Censor... I offer that you only tender the "ostensible" from science's press-kit but not the actuality, so demonstrating that certain lack of humility ironically characteristic of the philosophy, eh? See, I submit There is only the "fringe" at all because science fails so miserably in explanation of that which it refuses to investigate in the first place and so creating that vacuum which will be filled regardless...

Alfred Lehmberg said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alfred Lehmberg said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.