posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
As far as I can tell from a quick reading of the article, much of this has already been done. Sturrock and Teodarani have authored the kind of studies recommended by them. *Some* associates of CUFOS, Project 1947 and the IUR seem to represent the 'new ufology.' We shouldn't overlook the Journal of Scientific Exploration either. There are even the 'hidden colleges' of academics trying to squeeze some sense and signal from all the accumulating data. No disrespect is intended to the authors; it just seems to me that we've thrown damn near everything at the UFO enigma since the 1940s. Since the late 60s, 'new' ideas are more like rebrandings and new spins. I wish them well and it's likely just weariness doing the typing.
By Kandinsky, at Thursday, July 07, 2011
Kandinsky:Everything old is new again.But that there are several groups and persons calling for a "new" ufology shows that the old-guard hasn't produced anything worthwhile or substantive when it comes to UFOs.Not that they haven't tried.They've just failed...RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 07, 2011
Another foil trial balloon as the moniker of New Ufology makes me gag.This is an op-ed essay, not a paper or the author does not know the obvious difference between the two. The words to the effect we know this is a "controlled craft" while opining about the fact that none of us know what the obvious is is shall we say, a mixed message? More rhetorical flourishes in the face of politics. Yawn.
By Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, July 07, 2011
Bruce:Patrick Huyghe (Anomalist) was taken with all the uses of the words serious or seriously in the text.He surmises, I think, that the word-use was or is intended to give cachet to the proposal.I see the thrust as one, like our own, created by the frustations inherent in the attempts to explain the UFO phenomenon.RR
I do not presume to speak for all of 'Science' and offer the perspective of a single person regarding the call for a serious new ufology. For several reasons, I doubt this call will be acclaimed by my peers."...any serious minded, open-minded, intelligent-minded, healthy-minded individual can see that something is going on concerning UFOs... and that unknown intelligently controlled craft are observed in the skies." It would help if the basic premise was not (among other things) inimical to fundamental principles of objective scientific investigation. Personally, I am not buying into any myth, old or new. "If leading physicists and technologists would only immerse themselves in a serious study of the UFO Phenomenon then a UFO paradigm would be established. The reason for this is because the data or material is readily available having been accumulated over a 65 year period." Scientists are disinterested, but what incentive do I have to commit time and effort to UFO study? Telling me the data are there if I just would look is about as effective as imploring an atheist to read the Good Book and be saved. If the data are in hand, to motivate busy scientists to drop current work and dive into this mystery, show us the data, marshal the facts and make the case. And while you are at it, please explain why some extraordinarily bright and motivated scientists - Jacques Valle, Peter Sturrock. Bernard Haish, Richard Haines - to name just a few - haven't been able to do that already.Am I simply afraid of ridicule, social chaos or alien superiority? Please give me (and my colleagues) credit for some level of mature thought. I doubt many scientists believe that denying something will make it go away. Instead scientists respect facts and data as the ultimate indicators of truth and use them to challenege hypotheses. Sometimes cherished ideas perish under such scrutiny. Scientists wisely let them die when the facts call for it. Thinking Science will be swayed by inflammatory charges and trite rationales to drop their projects in favor of UFO investigations is unrealistic. I predict that this paper (if it is read at all) will be viewed as an antagonistic attack on Science to rationalize the obvious lack of progress on the long-standing UFO issue.I'm no expert in aeronautics, but I can tell you this just ain't gonna fly.Tyler Kokjohn
By calliebuddy, at Friday, July 08, 2011
Tyler:I agree with your views.The paper is, as I see it, a plea for help, with a phenomenon that is not only intrinsically baffling but irritating in its obfuscating behavior.Science, your bailiwick, has better things to contend with.Those who wish for a new ufology have to work with a new sobriquet, to get from under the screwy vicissitudes that the term "ufology" brings to the table.And they have to set up a viable, new set of principles with which to work on the mysterious things that we call UFOs.As you can see from comments here, in this posting and others, persons have hypotheses and pet paradigms to account for UFOs but no one has established a set of scientific-like structures to get at the core of the mystery.It's all play/games, while scientists are going after fecund mysteries with some kind of profound or practical payoff.We like the paper because it outlines the problem (somewhat) but just doesn't take us beyond that.RR
By RRRGroup, at Friday, July 08, 2011
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile