25 replies to this topic

[TheMcGuffin]

psyche101, on 08 June 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

And how far has that got us in 60 years? But if we keep smashing our heads into that brick wall, one day, it will come down?

Part of it has, so give credit where credit is due.  In the past, governments claimed to have no interest in UFOs and said it was all bogus, but now we know for a fact from their own documents that wasn't true.  I think we have learned a great deal about this subject over the last 30-40 years that was not known before.

In contrast, the best that SETI ever got was the Wow signal back in 1977, although they have had some other good candidates since then, but never any that repeated--so far as we know.

Of course, there may well have been a secret SETI program about which we know little or nothing, just like there have been secret UFO programs about which we know little or nothing.  I do think the military has been interested in SETI-like programs for a long time, and they still are today, including the public program.

http://www.redorbit....litary-funding/

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 08 June 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[Slave2Fate]

rcarp89, on 08 June 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Because scientists can only state something as fact on what they can record, reproduce and show findings on. People like to blindly follow science without ever questioning whether what we know is some small part of a bigger picture. A few hundred years ago 'scientists' believed the world was flat, doctors believed the human body contained and was balanced by 4 humors and their medical techniques reflected this. People are skeptical because they know that what science 'knows' currently is a tiny part of a much more complex and long-running endeavor to discover and explain the unknown. Absolute and total belief in science and only science is blindness, some open mindedness and objectivity is key to new discoveries and ideas.

The whole 'people believed the world was flat' thing is bunk. On top of that, the fact that science has made astonishing progress in light of new evidence points exclusively to open mindedness and objectivity. I never said science knows everything and anyone who would think so is a fool. However science still remains by far the best tool to date of gathering and examining data to form hypothesis and theories to explain phenomena. Without it we would undoubtedly still be living in caves.

[psyche101]

rcarp89, on 08 June 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Because scientists can only state something as fact on what they can record, reproduce and show findings on. People like to blindly follow science without ever questioning whether what we know is some small part of a bigger picture. A few hundred years ago 'scientists' believed the world was flat, doctors believed the human body contained and was balanced by 4 humors and their medical techniques reflected this. People are skeptical because they know that what science 'knows' currently is a tiny part of a much more complex and long-running endeavor to discover and explain the unknown. Absolute and total belief in science and only science is blindness, some open mindedness and objectivity is key to new discoveries and ideas.

Do you not find a reproducible result which you can request to watch, as well as supporting documentation and working processes less convincing than someones imagination? Really?

Science did not believe the world was flat. Pretty much every culture on earth did, and they came to that conclusion by the same way you have placed distrust in science.  The Paradigm of a spherical earth was developed by the Greek Astronomer, Pythagoras. Aristotle accepted this on empirical grounds, and that is how science works today. Peer review has taken the "faith" out of science. I think a good example is the Homo Florensis discovery. There are clear discrepancies in the wrist bones that make this species individual. Yet years and years of debate continue to rage on the subject. If one is to make a claim in science today, one can expect the rest of the scientific community to double check any claim. And any erroneous claims are put on public display.

With regards to Humorism, I think you will find that was as much the work of philosophers as it was the work of the medical community. Science ousted this ideal eventually, not a revolt against science. Modern medical research was the key here, not opposition to it.


I do believe that peer review rejects the model you have placed upon science. It just has not worked that way for a long time, and with the advent of the internet even less so. Any single person can read a patent, hypothesis or ideal and comment. One might not be able to build a spaceship, but one can contact a plethora of academic organisations and ask for orbital calculations and do them themselves. Now that the Charlatans who hide in science have nowhere to hide from peer review, the idea that science has anything to do with belief is long outdated. With all due respect I do feel that your belief is an archaic one and does not apply in todays world. If anything science is more transparent than it has ever been. Peer review has made absolute belief redundant.

[Slave2Fate]

TheMcGuffin, on 08 June 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Depends on who the scientists work for, doesn't it?  They're not all cut from the same mold, no more than any other profession.

True, I agree. Although things like peer review of scientific theory and independent verification are a good method of separating the wheat from the chaff, if you will. There is still room for those with an agenda to push their ideals into science however no system is perfect, nor do I think it ever could be.

[DONTEATUS]

Keep on Pushing then ! THe edge is a Long,Long way away !

[psyche101]

TheMcGuffin, on 08 June 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

Part of it has, so give credit where credit is due.  In the past, governments claimed to have no interest in UFOs and said it was all bogus, but now we know for a fact from their own documents that wasn't true.  I think we have learned a great deal about this subject over the last 30-40 years that was not known before.

Trace evidence, witness statements and photos have not contributed to this. That was the claim. UFO's are simply recognised for what they are now by appropriate departments i.e. Unidentified Flying Objects. Real results have come from the scientific community with regards to identifying natural phenomena. What that did was convince a few that they were on the right path, and if they were or not remains to be seen 60 years later. I feel the time frame does not lend to this hypothesis.

All the musings have done is make the papers a very lucrative business. Not one person on earth is closer to that elusive "smoking gun" than anyone was 60 years ago. I know that you believe the smoking gun exists, and I respect that, you actually know what you are talking about, but my life experience has been quite different to yours, and offered me a different path. As such, you and I are of different beliefs with regards to evidence, that does not mean I do not respect your obviously vast knowledge of the subject, but it is not as convincing as my life experience either. Of course, any concrete evidence contrary to my view are welcomed, but I do require hard evidence. I am sure you can in turn respect that view.

TheMcGuffin, on 08 June 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

In contrast, the best that SETI ever got was the Wow signal back in 1977, although they have had some other good candidates since then, but never any that repeated--so far as we know.

I think this is more important because this is an actual result from deep space space. Not a hypothesis, not a guess. If WOW! turns out to be another LGM-1 or not, we cannot know, but Radio has got us actual results from space itself. Not chasing our tails on some endless run around with a dozen possible scenarios. We do not have to create a scenario for this one, it is what it is, and it is from deep space. I honestly cannot think of another discovery that is as close to real time and comes from space itself. Not one UFO claim has ever been tracked leaving, or entering the solar system right to earth. I like radio, it's honest if not sometimes cryptic.

TheMcGuffin, on 08 June 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

Of course, there may well have been a secret SETI program about which we know little or nothing, just like there have been secret UFO programs about which we know little or nothing.  I do think the military has been interested in SETI-like programs for a long time, and they still are today, including the public program.

http://www.redorbit....litary-funding/

There may well be, there are many maybe's in life, but proof is the ultimate goal. But what I reject with Zoser is that radio is not a valuable search tool, or the best way to initiate space travel. I feel is is more valuable, and more likely, and more logical than physical travel. Our own records show radio first, then probes, then robots, which strikes me as a pretty darn logical progression of development.

Edited by psyche101, 08 June 2012 - 03:02 AM.

[psyche101]

Slave2Fate, on 08 June 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

True, I agree. Although things like peer review of scientific theory and independent verification are a good method of separating the wheat from the chaff, if you will. There is still room for those with an agenda to push their ideals into science however no system is perfect, nor do I think it ever could be.

Nothing like this is supported by the community, or will pass peer review though, which means people who call themselves scientists but are not, and those with qualifications that they use for entertainment I would not consider part of todays scientific community. These are the fringe elements that create their own peer review, which are worthless.

[psyche101]

TheMcGuffin, on 08 June 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Depends on who the scientists work for, doesn't it?  They're not all cut from the same mold, no more than any other profession.

Some certainly have an agenda, but peer review makes the mold redundant. It matters not what any one thinks despite qualifications held by that someone, it only empirical results matter. People can make any claim, but for it to be accepted as fact, more than a hypothesis or reputation is required.

[psyche101]

DONTEATUS, on 08 June 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

Keep on Pushing then ! THe edge is a Long,Long way away !

Ireland is a long way from here!!!!

[DBunker]

Slave2Fate, on 07 June 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

I wish I knew why that little fact is so hard for some people to grasp. A distrust of science maybe? Or science doesn't validate their beliefs so they move on to others that will?

Maybe because science are known for debunking peoples favorite fantasy.

Me, I think its the opposite..... If the scientific community comes out with something, chances are its very real.

The rest is mostly wishful thinking, opinions and pure fantasy.

[TheMcGuffin]

psyche101, on 08 June 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

Some certainly have an agenda, but peer review makes the mold redundant. It matters not what any one thinks despite qualifications held by that someone, it only empirical results matter. People can make any claim, but for it to be accepted as fact, more than a hypothesis or reputation is required.

Peer review can be a very "political" process as well, and so can getting hired or getting tenured and all that.  Anything and everything can be political, in business, politics, the military, academia--especially academia.