So you think science is saner than ufology?
Among several repeat broadcasts were two that I’ll address here: Before the Big Bang and Is There a God?
You can find those broadcasts, I think, by going here:
The scientists noted included Lee Smolen, Michael Persinger, and, of course, Stephen Hawking, among many others,
The accent was on Quantum Mechanics.
What was offered were theories that said what existed before the Big Bang were other Universes, according to M Theory, where branes bumped into each other creating this Universe and others.
And then there was the Big Bounce Theory which posited our Universe was created when the original singularity reversed itself and during the rebound this Universe, and others, were created.
There was also the Bubble hypothesis: that a number of Universes were created, when the singularity took place, of which are one.
Then a creator (God) was hypothesized as a master mathematician, a computer programmer, or a creation of human imagination.
Michael Persinger, a favorite of Bruce Duensing, was shown placing a young lady in a closed, dark room, with a helmet on that impinged her brain with magnetic impulses, purporting to allow her a vision of God.
Although Persinger’s helmet was said to be not able to intrude the human cranium nor have his experiments been able to be replicated, he got a nice segment as if his studies were significant.
The cacophony of theories about reality, God, and the origin of the Universe were mildly reminiscent of sessions I attended at mental facilities while studying psychology; tha t is, there was an aroma of insanity about the posturings.
And while mathematics are offered as entrée to the realities of nature and is the methodology exemplar of physicists, it is, as intelligent laymen well know, a charade not very different from the methodology used by alchemists of the Middle Ages and, moreover, determining nothing about reality but hat it may be symbolically noted via mathematical equations.
Now, I grant you, ufology seems to be more bogus than today’s physics but is it really?
The only difference, it seems to me, is that the façade of science is a bit more dignified and moderate, but just as loony, when one accesses the content.
Even the scientists used in the Wormhole offerings are as sloppily dressed as those among the UFO crowd, and with as much goofy hair and beards as what passes for quirkiness in the UFO arsenal.
Philosophers always had their presentations mangled by the convoluted word usage and sentence structures that evolved over the years.
Science avoids that by using mathematics, which mask their obtuseness, as lay people have no idea what science is talking about.
Ufology is lamented because its practitioners not only look goofy, en masse, but sound goofy when offering their views about UFOs.
Ufologists don’t have a reputable argot to which they can run when queried about their views. All they have are shallow intuitions based on earlier intuitions that have been dismissed as silly from the outset of the flying saucer era.
But are ufologists crazier than the scientists used on shows like The Wormhole or who put out books, of which I have many, that are as obscurant as anything found in the ravings of madmen and madwomen?
I don’t think so.
Both science and ufology are bogus, in their own ways.
And those who pretend to be intelligent, or are, see through the charade of both.
Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.