UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, June 06, 2015

The Kevin Randle Imperative

In the June 1st New Yorker, a review in Briefly Noted of Alice Dreger’s book Galileo’s Middle Finger [dealing with science and social activism] the review concludes with this:

“In this age of disinformation, [Dreger] writes, ‘the pursuit of evidence is probably the most pressing moral imperative.’” [Page 75]

I thought the sentence relevant to UFOs and its barrage of disinformation and its so-called disinformation agents.

But there is no clear-cut definition of “moral imperative” anywhere.

Oh sure, a tilt to Kant’s “categorical imperative(s)” but nothing else anywhere.

Wikipedia gives internet searchers this:

“A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason.”

That’s it pretty much.

Therefore, searching for evidence of disinformation about or by the recent Kodachrome slides culprits, as proposed over at Kevin Randle’s blog by some discontents, seems foolhardy in the extreme.

But as French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez often suggests, “That’s ufology.”



  • An "imperative" can also be based upon what is not "rational" or "unreasoned".

    For example, the belief of a religious believer [regardless of nature of the religion] cannot be said to be rational. While the moral / ethical [what slippery words those two are] rules might appear to be based upon reason and enlighten self-interest, sometimes that is not the case.

    When one attempts to apply "moral / ethical imperative" to a subject such as "unusual phenomena" [UFOs / UAP / etc.], depending upon the individual's rational or irrational choice of world view the result is an "imperative" fits that choice.

    Back in the 70's there was a general recognition of what was then called the "eight fold path" of Quantum Mechanics [QM] as there were eight possible contenders for a "proper interpretation" of QM. In the 80's Heinz Pagels [then director of the Hayden Planetarium] wrote a book called "The Cosmic Code". In it he proposed a rather odd thought experiment called the "Reality Marketplace". In the "marketplace" each of the believers of a particular brand of QM tried to sell their OM ideas. Ultimately he gives the reader the idea that all of the possible interpretations QM are true, even the ones that contradict one another. Clinging to a single doctrine is too limiting for something so unusual as QM.

    One may ask how can that be? As Richard Feynman is quoted as saying about quantum weirdness: "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain", into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

    One's choices about what is "imperative" paint the "drain" into which they "flow". Some people insist that UFOs/UAPs must be physical and so they are. Others say that they cannot exist at all and so they don't. Others say they are immaterial and they are that too.

    Given this propensity for being so many things, one should ask are these all the same phenomena sprouting from the same thing or are they different things lumped into a convenient category simply because it is easier to handle or disregard?

    "Disinformation" is a mimetic virus. If one falls into the trap, they will spend all of their time chasing after a chimera that never existed such that they have no time for useful work.

    "Conspiracy Theories" are also a class of mimetic virus. Placing the responsibility to prove or disprove a thing on a "Big Bad" of some kind is certainly a way to abdicate one's responsibility to prove the imperative they has chosen.

    Strangely "Skepticism" as practiced on the Internet also is a class of mimetic virus. It takes a rational mind and allows it to spend time doing useless and unnecessary work that would be better spent doing other things.

    One might conclude that "Moral Imperatives" are the rationalizations with which one justifies one's unprovable belief.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Sunday, June 07, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home