posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Thank You so much for sharing this article : very interresting summerize of the different hypothesis concerning abductions. A collector !Merci !Gilles.
By Gilles. F., at Sunday, June 12, 2011
I thought you might like this paper, Gilles, as it's intellectual and psychological.There are so few such papers in the UFO arena....RR
By RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 12, 2011
Witness tampering seems to be a big part of the equation, something Eberlein didn't consider.I've said it before and I'll say it again: If an alien wanted a stool sample, a urine sample and a semen sample from me, they could just steal my underwear.
By Frank Stalter, at Monday, June 13, 2011
After digesting this analysis of hypotheses, I have yet to see one based on a detailed empirical analysis of say, ten subjects that claim multiple and ongoing abductions. This would include a separate analysis for each subject in a control group not knowing of one another's participation prior to an investigation. These areas of analysis also infer the psuedo-scientific nature of "investigations" to date, which lack the credibility to be studied in any realistic manner. "Basics" would include:1, A complete neurological examination. 2. A biochemical psychological profile designed for this purpose to weed out several disturbances not addressed in the paper that could be a contributing or central factor.3. A monitored sleep study4. An investigative history of family relational dynamics5. A field instrumentation testing phase of the immediate environment of the subject.Once this phase is complete, a paper that could be peer reviewed could be issued. All of this is common sense, which seems to be lacking..everywhere and nowhere in particular.
By Bruce Duensing, at Monday, June 13, 2011
Not a bad read, even though the author seems not to understand the difference between 'ensure' and 'insure'. I disagree with the conclusion that metaphysical explanations are inherently untestable, however.
By Parakletos, at Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Parakletos:Care to elaborate on your "disagreement"?RR
By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, June 15, 2011
RR,I don't think the author understands what Metaphysics means, historically speaking. As I understand it, the term simply meant anything beyond the Physics of Aristotle. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=metaphysicsNuclear energy is metaphysical. Yet we can test for that.
Parakletos:Metaphysics has taken on accretions that expand its meaning.Eberlein, the author, is within his creative rights to use the term or context with that understood I think.Words, philosophies, UFOs, people, everything evolve...RR
I understand that words can change meaning over time. However, I think Eberlein is using the term to mean 'beyond the physical', and automatically assuming that, because something is metaphysical, it cannot be tested.Again, I don't think that is a proper conclusion. We have quarks, leptons, and even black holes -- all arguably metaphysical. Yet we have devised tests -- scientifically accepted tests -- for these 'particles'.
Gravity is metaphysical. We can observe it in action, but we do not know WHY it happens. Some have speculated that there may be a 'graviton' out there. Perhaps there is, perhaps not. But the point I am making is that calling something 'metaphysical' doesn't preclude it being testable. It seems to be a word that Eberlein throws into the article in order to muddy or confuse -- not unlike the 'God of the gaps'. He doesn't elaborate as to why it's inherently untestable. He simply throws out the 'metaphysical' tag, and dismisses it outright. It's bad philosophy, and bad science.
P:Eberlein makes the point, as you note, that things beyond the physical cannot be tested.He may have assumed an orthodox position, belied by quantum hypotheticals -- not tests exactly but mathematical constructs used to explain (or understand) quantum reality.One can play with things that are trans-physical but tests to "prove" those trans-physical realities have yet to be manageable.Eberlein's use of metaphysical may be a stretch but I get his meaning.RR
"Eberlein's use of metaphysical may be a stretch but I get his meaning."He assumes too much, and gives far too little space to the "Metaphysical Universal Consciousness" -- barely even a paragraph. He doesn't explain why it would be forever untestable. He's entirely too dismissive of the idea.
P:I don't wish to presume to speak for Eberlein, but I will say that one can't always cover all the bases in a paper or blog posting.RR
RR,Let's presume, for a moment, that the universal consciousness he so quickly dismisses was somehow related to zero-point energy. As spooky as that energy is, it is still energy, is it not? It's not something which exists in a universe other than our own. There is nothing about zero-point energy which would place its study completely beyond science or human query.I'm not saying that zero-point energy is the source of the universal consciousness. But that certainly seems a possibility. And such a possibility is scientifically explorable -- despite what Eberlein claims to the contrary.
P:Everything is up for grabs, scientifically; that is, everything is testable or grist for hypothesizing.Eberlein merely stops short of going further with his "explanations" -- for what reasons, I don't know.But, as your ruminations show, one can go on and on with conjecture, all of it worthwhile, but maybe outside the parameters that Eberlein was subject to: word count for instance.You present some nice counter arguments to his views, and I'm doing him an injustice by trying to defend his position(s).Zero-point energy may not be energy at all, if one understands Einstein and Stern properly.It's merely a state of existence related to the Uncertainty Principle, so one's argument can get easily flummoxed by bringing it to the table.Eberlein seems to have chosen not to do so, and I applaud him for his reticence.It allows his argument to breathe.He's skeptical about the abduction phenomenon, and I like that.But I agree, it's not the questioning stance that one wants to see.Thta's why I posted his paper: to invite discussion, which only you have chosen to pursue persistently and intelligently, along with Bruce Duensing.RR
"He's skeptical about the abduction phenomenon, and I like that."As am I. I am also skeptical about his skepticism.
Ah, Parakletos...You are a harsh task-master.RR
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile