Sunday, September 27, 2015

Dr. Tyler Kokjohn on David Jacobs

Dr. Tyler Kokjohn, Ph.D, deconstructs the work of David Jacobs in a guest blog (The Unrecognized Revolutions)  at Jeremy Vaeni's blog: David Jacobs Wants Scientists To Take His Work Seriously. A Scientist Does Just That. | JayVay

Nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence -- what I do is collect narratives, my own included. They are valuable and worthy and not to be marginalized. (But of course I recognize they are considered fringe and coarse examples of silliness by both popular culture -- even while used as entertainment -- and by science and academia.)  But then, I don't' present myself as a scientist or the kind of researcher that insists my work hypnotizing UFO witnesses is proof of alien abductions as literal events, and that such work is solid and irrefutable, as Jacobs does.

As Kokjohn notes, there is much wrong with the approaches used by Jacobs. If David Jacobs is to be taken seriously by main stream science, his lack of record keeping concerning methodology is sloppy, at best.

Also, Jacobs strange criteria for weeding out "confabulators." Such as:

"His criteria to detect confabulation involved recognizing and rejecting evidence such as abductee drawings that depicted spacecraft interiors with square door frames, entities with improperly proportioned heads and aliens wearing dark clothing or body armor." (Kokjohn)
Jacobs, as I wrote in a recent blog post, has jumped the track long ago. We have little idea -- really, if any -- of what's going on. If we accept, as I do, aliens exist, that's about all we can say. What their agenda is, what they are, where they're from, why they do what they do; well, it's all speculation. Nothing wrong with speculation, and if it weren't for speculation we'd be stuck in the non-productive muck of nowheres-ville. But speculation is not proof, let alone evidence. Jacobs allows his assumptions, as  the above quote illustrates, to pass for the truth of the thing.

Kokjohn addesses the use of forensics and technology in UFO research, something Jacobs has not done. Not that Jacobs should have done, but I think the point here is that Jacobs wants to be considered legitimate by the scientific institution. If one wants that, then it seems you have to play the game. Use the tools. Jacobs has not done that. What I find personally disturbing are the assumptions Jacobs makes concerning the alien presence, as well as his insistence that he has the truth. He arrogant use of self-appointed criteria, such as deciding what is "real" and what isn't, not to mention his surreal scenarios of aliens, emails, alien-spy vs. alien spy adventures, as well as insisting female witnesses (Emma Woods) wear a chastity belt and send him her underwear -- anyone on either side of UFO Land should know this is not any kind of research to be taken seriously.

No comments: