The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Monday, December 30, 2013

So you think science is saner than ufology?

Watching the Science Channels’ Through the Wormhole, hosted by Morgan Freeman, Sunday night was edifying, but in the wrong way perhaps.

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.

RR

11 Comments:

  • There were only ever two pieces of 'evidence' taht indicated there may have been a Big Bang - doppler shift and the Hubble constant. The interpretations of both these pieces of evidence have been called into question and, indeed, discredited by proponents of the electric univers e theory and others. Astronomer/astrophysicist Halton Arp in particular demonstrated that the red shift of galaxies and quasars can be due to other factors entirely aside from recession. Thus there is no evidence that the universe is exoanding from any primordial point.
    As you sa, mathematics may be pretty but that doesn't mean we live in the world it describes.
    Similarly, there are so many sources of saucers that no individual explaqnation can be definitive.
    Please see Infinite Cosmos of Light and Life for a new paradigm @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/infinite-cosmos-of-light-and-life-dark.html

    By Blogger new illuminati, at Monday, December 30, 2013  

  • The only conclusion I have come to is our species imagines it is conscious and that as Arthur C Clarke said, information alone does not lead to knowledge or wisdom. The postulates of science are always being rewritten even though they are presented as laws. It was Clarke who said the more esteemed and venerated scientist says that such and such is impossible, the more likely it is to be true. As the oceans die off and the weather becomes extreme, the more evident it is that we are not conscious. Watch television for fifteen minutes.
    On the political side I think of PD Ouspensky who said because everyone is responsible, nobody is..Ah, the paradoxes of feigned rationality and of course none of this prevents opinions poised as conclusive arguments.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, December 31, 2013  

  • RR -

    ...I have concluded, after years of media research, that 'Barney Hill' becomes 'Darth Vader'.... that 'Jacques Vallee' becomes 'Francois Truffaut'...and finally, the 'Amazing Randi' has morphed into the 'Blogging Randle....

    (...and a happy new year wish for you)

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, December 31, 2013  

  • Thank you KP...

    Have a Happy, nutty New Year, and I know you will.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 31, 2013  

  • From my modest standpoint, mathematics generally is based on a set of principles, theorems, that have been proven to be consistent with outcomes over time.

    What can be said of the guiding principles and theorems of the UFO phenomena?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, December 31, 2013  

  • Ufology is devoid of real theorems and principles, Tim. We all know that.

    But today's science is hardly better: a cacophony of bizarre hypotheses, underbounded by mathematics, which simulate nature's reality, but actually proves nothing substantial about reality.

    Mathematics are symbolic of what is, but isn't really what is.

    Math for science is what speaking in tongues is for evangelical Christians.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 31, 2013  

  • > science ... actually proves nothing substantial about reality

    A little hyperbolic, maybe?

    When discussing the origins of the universe and branes and strings, yes, science sounds plain nutty. Even if some cosmological speculations are correct, the scientists certainly can't prove it (and maybe never will).

    However, when it comes to aspects of reality with which we interact, science does a pretty good job. In recent centuries we've learned about germs, electricity, blood components, neurons. And though there have been mistakes and misapplications (and occasional malice), that knowledge has allowed us to have healthier and safer lives.

    And that's where science and ufology part company:

    Have mountains of UFO evidence, decades of investigations, and forests of publications given us ONE bit of new scientific knowledge?

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, January 01, 2014  

  • Terry:

    Hyperbolic, in a way.

    But if there is a reality that differs from the reality we surmise is our reality, then science has proven nothing substantial, has it?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 01, 2014  

  • > science has proven nothing substantial, has it?

    Hand soap, safe sex, aspirin ... just a few simple but real scientific achievements that have made my life healthier and safer.

    Perhaps you are defining "reality" to include metaphysics?

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, January 01, 2014  

  • I'm talking about "science" in the context of the Through the Wormhole shows cited.

    The science you bring to the discussion, confuses the issue and is not pertinent to my point.

    That's one of the problems of ufology; we all spread debate beyond the bounds of the topic under discussion.

    Richard Hall was exquisitely peeved by the lack of logical discourse among UFO folks.

    I'm with him about that.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 01, 2014  

  • Perhaps it is this need to know about unknowable grand abstractions that cause people to turn away from everyday reality and seduce them into exploring mythic "realities" such as mysticism and UFOs.

    I'm not against creativity and speculation about reality. But I should point out that when Plato started writing about mathematics, it all went sideways. Questions gave way to long speeches; moral debates were replaced by speculations on the realm of forms and the transit of souls.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, January 01, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home