UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, October 04, 2016

Thomas Aquinas’ De Ente et Essentia and UFOs

The September 23, 2016 Times Literary Supplement has a review by Andrew Davison [Starbridge Lecturer in Theology and Natural Sciences, Cambridge and fellow at Center of Theological Inquiry at Princeton] of Gaven Kerr's book Aquinas's Way to God [Oxford University Press] about scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas’ early work [1255], De Ente et Essentia [On Being and Essence].

How does this impact UFOs or ufology?

It helps remove, I would hope, Zoam Chomsky’s appeal to that nonsensical Null Hypothesis.

How would it do that?

Aquinas is using his argument to prove the existence of God, but one can apply the academic colloquy to prove that UFOs exist.

Like Aquinas’ God, UFOs won’t be explained, only that they have to exist: “That- which-has-being-of-itself” as Aquinas puts it.

The crux of the argument is this: “[There is a] distinction between per accidens and one ordered per se … An ‘accidental’ sequence of causes and effects gives us one thing after another; an ‘essential’  -- per se – sequence involves one thing in, or through, another.” [Page 24, TLS]

Okay, I won’t go into the full argument here – I’m dealing with it at another blog of mine.

But I will ask those of you, who’d like a counter argument to my friend Zoam’s silly “null hypothesis “ argument to remove UFOs from the lexicon of ufological discourse, to seek out the Thomistic work.

This may be too much for most of you (all of you?), but if you want to rise to the occasion, have at it.



  • Hello,

    It is imho a very bad comparison or analogy. Why?

    Nobody, including UFO-skeptics, is denying there is an UFO Phenomenon.

    Now, the phenomenon can be or is explained by the IFO corpus, aka these thousands cases first labeled "UFO" but explained after?

    Probably. Because there is a twinship between UFO and IFO corpora: nothing (parameters, characteristics) can discriminate the two corpora, excepted the statut (non explained versus explained). We call it "indiscernabilité" IFO/UFO.

    So, what the hell to think there is a difference in nature between the two corpora?

    There may and will be residual cases for tons of prosaic reasons: the lack of luck, cause bad dataes, bad investigations, the lack of experts, the lack of THE expert, a stimuli too much "saucerized" by the witness, special sighting conditions for a mundane stimulus, hoaxes, etc. There are mythical cases that becomed IFO only by luck: ie. Vallée Fort de France (1965) case, explained only in circa 2010, but one the best (#2) in Pocantico UFO meeting :) Too bad...

    There exist other corpora with non solved and solved statuts: murders, rapes, disparitions, kidnapping, domestic incidents or accidents, forest or house fires, etc.
    If they are not solved, it is then because they are different in nature (aka in the non solved cases for these corpora, fortean entities or mecanisms are at play?). No.


    It is a real possibility ^^

    Controversy solved in 2 sets :p



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, October 04, 2016  

  • I think you miss the point Gilles...

    Zoam (and a few others) take a stance that UFOs are a delusion, which they may be, but Zoam would throw away the phenomenon only because it is sobriqueted UFO.

    UFOs exist, in and of them selves, like God, not potentially because of the existence of others.

    That they are witnessed or reported has nothing to do with their existence. They just are.

    That we choose to debate UFOs, as theologians and philosophers debate God had nothing to do with "being on account of another"; that is, Being is one thing, Essence another, "distinct but never separable" as Kerr points out in his book.

    Thus UFOs have being and essence. Ufologists deal with essence, skeptics deal with being.

    Zoam deals with neither, and you are concerned with being, placing a category of IFO in place for many UFO events, avoiding the essence issue.

    UFO believers screw up the argument by (often and usually) inserting the ETH (the extraterrestrial hypothesis) which doesn't seem to be the essence of UFOs (only a possibility, and a remote one at that, as I see it).

    To keep the argument fecund, one has to demolish Zoam's reliance on the "null hypothesis" which has nothing to do with being or essence (or UFOs).

    It's a red-herring and not a good one.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 04, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home