Kuhn's-Age Changes

A UFO agnostic on the debate, certainties, BZ, etc.

from a USENET post by Alvin Lawson




KUHN’S-AGE CHANGES

by alaw

1/24/97


Of the hordes of proponents, True-Believers, skeptics, and debunkers out there, which ones offer the least substance in the Great Internet UFO Debate? Could be a dead heat: the T-Bs and debunkers mostly cancel out; ditto the proponents (they have sandcastles -- nothing solid or certain) and the skeptics (a half-century of smug nay-ing). After a mountain of data (and decades of hoaxes, fudged claims, controversy, and inadequate study), neither side knows stitch from Sunday for sure; and the UFO phenomenon goes on (we think maybe).

We may never learn anything big and for certain about UFOs. You remember that the 19th-century movement called Spiritualism had striking and frustrating parallels with ufology. Beginning in 1848 and petering out around WWI, it peaked in the 1890s, and was as widely infamous as UFOs now, in England and America. There was media involvement, T-Bs and debunkers, "scientific" studies, and acrimonious public disputes. Spiritualism, like ufology, was bent on proving the reality of an extraterrestrial world (the afterlife), and its adherents claimed thousands of sightings of Spirits (=UFOs and ETs). Millions participated in table-rapping seance trances, hosted by eager, True-Believer facilitators (=u-no-whos). After a half-century they had a mountain of data (and decades of hoaxes, fudged claims, etc., etc.), and had learned nothing at all about the afterlife or its putative spirit inhabitants.

Meantime, the quality of the UFO debate is eroding. Not chiefly for the obvious reasons, that it is congenitally foul-mouthed, petty, and moronic, and therefore largely boring -- though sometimes fascinating, too. The erosion happens because the debate cannot move off dead center in the absence of a serious and ongoing high-tech UFO sightings research program. Is there a chance in creation that a more intelligent, objective, and informed Internet debate might pave the way for a meaningful international UFO study? One perhaps sponsored by private sources such as those that now support SETI?

If so, the question is how to enlighten the exchange of views about UFOs in Internet newsgroups. One possibility: different approaches, a kind of Kuhn’s-Age change in the way UFOs are discussed on the Net – based on a dissatisfaction with the non-answers the old methods have garnered over the years (and promise for years ahead without changes!). In the spirit of scientific revolutions and seekers of truth, let us look at the typical newsgroup contributions of one ET-True-Believer (of course, chosen completely at random, more or less...)

bdzeiler@primenet.com (Brian Zeiler) wrote:

Scott A. Munro) wrote:
>>Can you give me an example of _one_ UFO case which,
>>if it were the _only_ UFO case on record, would
>>provide proof that earth is being visited by aliens?

>No, because there is no "proof" of alien visitation. It's just a
>hypothesis….

Yeah, no proof, right! BZ’s flaming rhetoric, however, says otherwise -- the arrogance, impatience, rudeness, the name-calling, the quick fury, the tone of imperious assurance. His snarling but entertaining threads (c. 50 in alt.alien.visitors alone) carry a message of iron conviction: "It is a metaphysical certitude that UFOs are ETs!" (BZ’s too modest to tell us that he don’t need no stinking ‘proof!’) And with his considerable gifts you better watch it, poor babies, for BZ knows UFOs and he’ll mug you in debate!

But just the same he is an ET-True-Believer, and since he often speaks of possibilities and probabilities as if they were certainties, there are problems.

>>Frankly, though, your answer shocks and astounds me,
>>though the fact that you attack a scarcely relevant
>>point of semantics does not.

>It's not a point of semantics. It reflects your poor understanding of
>the scientific method and of careful research. The ETH is invoked to
>propose an answer for cases which feature intelligent control,
>physical substance, and propulsion technology beyond human knowledge
>-- in other words, cases which COMPEL the hypothesis of
>extraterrestrial origin because of these conditions being observed.

Speaking of semantics, the scientific method, and careful research: "observed" is the wrong word here, for one cannot know from even the best cases that any of the above three conditions (together or separately) were in fact "observed" by a witness; you know only that they were reported, alleged, inferred, etc. That is, this is anecdotal evidence, and so MAYBE these details were actually witnessed, but they also may have been misinterpreted, fantasized, hallucinated, hoaxed, or whatever. No certainties, just probabilities, or mere possibilities. Even with radar support, anecdotal evidence is always less than certain. You may have a hell of a strong case, but it is at best a probable case.

BZ’s use of "compel" implies that he knows of sighting cases which go beyond probability and force us to conclude that UFOs are alien spacecraft. If they really truly do compel us logically, by definition they must constitute proof! BZ shouldn’t go and keep proof of UFO/ET reality all to himself like a Contactee! If there are lots and lots of hot cases, compel-ers every one, he should reference them all on his web page so that UFO skeptics (the ones who can read, at least, as he reminds us), and agnostics like me, can learn something certain at long last about this awful big puzzle.

Of course anyone who like BZ is a college whiz in logic and analogies should already know that it’s a long way from logical certainties (the only things that can force us to invoke the ETH here) to mere possibilities (what UFO reports now give us). So BZ’s best radar-visual case may not necessarily compel a Sagan or a Momma Teresa to believe (even if he shouts COMPEL!).

>>...I repeat the question, now aimed at proponents
>>of the idea that earth is being visited by aliens.

>And I've repeatedly said that your question is dishonest, deceptive
>baiting, because no matter which case I would mention, somebody will
>dredge up a specious debunkery which dismisses all observations that
>contradict the simple explanation -- that is, altering the data to
>conform to the hypothesis, which is the core strategy of skeptics who
>rape Occam's Razor to suit their twisted Machiavellian objectives.

>Nevertheless... from early days, however, I would consider the best
>radar-visual cases to be the ones that McDonald analyzed, especially
>the ones in "Science in Default" on my web page. I can't really pick
>a favorite, since they all have their own charm -- RB-47 had ECM while
>Lakenheath had tons of redundant ground and air echoes.

(If things were reversed, here’s a likely spot for BZ to erupt in a fit of name-calling: "Idiot! Wasting our time with irrelevant words like "favorite" and "charm." The subject is UFO sightings, pinhead, not pizza or costume jewelry! Is your IQ higher than a coat of floor wax?" But we won’t do that.)

BZ has blasted critics for not actively exposing themselves to five-decades-old radar-visual cases, implying they could thus quickly develop into True-Believers, perhaps even become as ETH-positive as he is. Yet one individual who is familiar with James McDonald’s best radar-visuals and who still disagrees with BZ’s evident certainties about ETs is: James McDonald. In his comments on Lakenheath from the essay BZ mentioned, it is clear JM is an ETH advocate, though only "in terms of my present information." And he adds, significantly, "Present evidence surely does not amount to incontrovertible proof of the extraterrestrial hypothesis." Both McDonald and BZ agree there is no proof, but McDonald meant it, while evidently BZ has attained certitude in the absence of proof.

Yet a major thesis of "Science In Default" (1969) is that UFO sighting reports were inconclusive after 22 years precisely because they had not been sufficiently studied; and that is still true. Even allowing for supposed suppressed evidence and Big-Top-Secret Studies, which I doubt ever existed, fifty years of monolithically stupid responses to reports demonstrate beyond question that the U.S. military never learned anything meaningful about UFOs. Can anyone formulate a single substantive and verifiable generalization about UFOs conceivably learned from military study? Or anything that changed military or space policy in a major way? The 1950s litany, "UFOs are not a threat to national security," won’t qualify; not verifiable. Point: not enough is known about UFOs or reports at this time to compel us to adopt the ETH.

>The logic of invoking the ETH when such conditions are present cannot
>be argued by any skeptic.

Well, except that lest we beg the question we have to make certain that the three conditions (or any others deemed crucial to a particular hypothesis) are indeed present (i.e., they have actually been found to exist beyond question by a competent witness, or other means). And how do we do that when we must deal with anecdotal evidence, fallible witnesses, and a thus-far elusive phenomenon? We cannot determine "when such conditions are present" by dogmatic pronouncements; and anecdotal and other non-physical evidence will always be less than certain. Conclusion: the UFO skeptic may indeed question and debate such issues, and then conclude as he/she will.

>Rather, the skeptic must argue the degree to which such conditions are
>certain to be present.

Okay. The certainty about the actuality of such ETH-compelling conditions as these in any known UFO case is: zero. Degrees of possibility/probability: 1 to 99%. Real helpful. But your statement seems awkwardly phrased: do you mean to say that skeptics must argue the degree to which certain certain conditions are present? (Sorry, that’s awkwardly phrased.)

///

I apologize to BZ for any excesses in the above. A thousand other "random" contributors to the flaming threads of the Internet UFO spitfest, pro and con, might have subbed; but BZ is one of the most intriguing.

I recently asked a well-known ET proponent friend whether he thought he’d ever find out what UFOs really are. He replied that he was not trying to find out what UFOs are, but attempting to show that some UFOs are ET craft. Presumably he is not interested in the phenomenon if it is not ET-related. My pal is studying UFOs with a preconceived notion. That is not science, of course, but he is apparently thriving, like many in ET-True-Believerdom.

If T-Bs and proponents have attitudes, so do skeptics and debunkers, whose sins are 50 years in the making, too! Ignorant and biased justifications of official denials by professional debunkers helped cost us a half-century of needless secrecy, most likely designed to cover up the U.S. military’s total ignorance and ongoing ineptitude about UFOs. (What a rogues gallery: Menzel; Condon; Klass; name your poisoner!)

The UFO debate will go nowhere in the long run without the support of a serious, high-tech program of research into sighting reports, which is yet to be implemented. But I think we can introduce a more reasonable Internet-level discussion strategy through a partial paradigm-shift away from advocacy of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Specific proposals follow, each unfortunately guaranteed to alienate somebody. If you don’t like these ideas, stop reading, put them down, and back slowly away:

1 -- Treat UFOs and CE3s as separate and unrelated phenomena.
2 -- Stop debating the unprovable ET hypothesis, and/or ET presence.
3 -- Declare that UFOs seem to be a real anomaly and deserve serious study in their own right; not necessarily related to ETs or the ETH.
4 -- Actively explore mundane and other non-physical CE3 hypotheses.
5 -- Determine viable ways to secure funding for serious investigations of the UFO phenomenon.

Discussion

1

There is a surprising absence of significant correlations between alleged CE3 experiences and reports of typical UFO sighting events. The situation leads me to believe that the two are connected only incidentally. I wish to demonstrate their separateness in part because I am convinced that current CE3 "research" is going nowhere, and in fact may be impeding potential study of the entire UFO phenomenon.

Fundamental distinctions between UFO sighting data and CE3 events are easily demonstrated. The best UFO reports suggest the presence of an anomalous something that may be physically real; but the best abduction cases imply a non-physical, psychological set of events, and many parallels with shamanic visions.

Again, in sightings there is a fair amount of good radar and anecdotal evidence that something like a UFO occasionally whisks across the skies; but there is no unambiguous evidence for the physical reality of abduction cases. And UFO vehicles dominate sightings reports, while they tend to be incidental in CE3s, since most occur while subjects are asleep or in other situations wherein the abduction fantasy is paramount, not the vehicle.

If the Roper poll mythology were not complete nonsense, millions of Americans would be pre- or post-abductees, and their graphic (and X-rated) CE3s would be on America’s Favorite Videos every week. But that doesn’t happen, because CE3s don’t seem to unfold in the same way as UFO sightings, which occasionally involve large groups of people in broad daylight. And multiple-witness UFO sightings are relatively common, whereas dual or multiple CE3s are extremely rare; the few that have been validated show that witnesses experience events separately rather than together as a couple or group. (See Betty/Barney Hill (2w); Judy Kendall (3w). I am aware of Allagash, but forget it.).

UFOs and CE3s are often debated at cross purposes. True-Believers sometimes look at the real though elusive evidence for UFOs and then argue for the reality of CE3s (and, implicitly, ETs), which is illogical and won’t work. An effective, informed Internet discussion could focus on the two phenomena separately: on specific UFO cases (in ways that are rare currently) to define the nature and extent of their possibly anomalous character; and on specific CE3 cases to explore the psycho-social significance and ufological relevance of the alleged witnesses’ abduction experiences. (And why not publish all known CE3 regression transcripts on the Net? A needed boon for relevant researchers. Can you hear me Budd & Dave?)

2

Let’s stop wrangling over visiting aliens and the ETH until we have an actual LGG (little grey guy) in hand, at which time the issues will be moot. Since ETs don’t cooperate and we do not have all the data, the issues are incapable of resolution by debate; and further Internet bickering is a waste of time.

For example, there has never been an authenticated CE3 in which two or more persons watch while a UFO lands, occupants get out and abduct someone, then the UFO takes off. THINK: THIS PRIMAL CE3 SCENE, SUPPOSEDLY THE INITIATING AND DEFINITIVE EVENT OF COUNTLESS TYPICAL UFO ABDUCTIONS, HAS NEVER -- I MEAN NEVER!! -- BEEN AUTHENTICALLY WITNESSED, AND PROBABLY HAS NEVER OCCURRED. But can I use this situation as an effective argument to prove that ETs and the ETH are less likely than the possibility that I will be visited tonight by Pamela Anderson? No. That exact CE3 could happen tomorrow, and wipe my argument out! (But it won’t. Thank you, Pam.)

So we can let T-Bs believe what they will, and let skeptics dismiss; but we must focus the remaining discussion on issues of physical reality and anomalies (which presumably can be analyzed), not ETs (which can’t).

Skeptics tend to cringe at ETs and they rank the ETH about the same as an STD. Like True-Believers, many skeptics have been tainted by the ETH so that they associate UFOs not with anomalies but only with visiting ETs and wild abduction yarns. With an alien-less agenda, skeptics may be open to serious consideration of UFOs as anomalies. For them, UFOs sans ETs may be enigma enough.

Even if they stop arguing, T-Bs won’t stop believing, come heigh-ho or Helms. (They are half right, because if intelligent aliens do exist, eventually they’ll be right cheer, believe it! I just don’t think they’re here now.) But unless aliens show up, say, tomorrow, the ETH debate can reasonably be deferred.

3

Former ETH proponents could adopt a downsized maxim: "The 1% or so of IFOs that become UFOs seem to be a physically real and continuing anomaly, and demand further study." (BZ has made this point in his usual high-fi, to his everlasting credit.)

But BZ and other ET-True-Believers seek too much: they want the 50-year UFO mystery and ETs, too! But it should be miracle enough for us to maybe establish the physical reality of UFOs, the greatest ongoing mystery of the Millennium, and go on and up from there.

That may not be enough for ET-T-Bs like BZ. Or like UFO writer and Truest ET Believer Jerry Clark, who once said that those who try to solve the mystery by invoking non-ET solutions "trivialize" the subject. Although many may agree, most scientists would not: truth, when you find it, and whatever it turns out to be, is always non-trivial.

4

Let’s open the CE3 debate more aggressively to mundane psychological and other non-physical abduction hypotheses. With more than a thousand regressed "victims" in the last two decades, the abduction industry (Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack, Fowler, Inc.) has been busy. Ten or more books. UFO Conferences. TV. Radio. PR strokes. Applause. Survived the MIT Conference inquisition. After 17 years there’s another mountain of data, but data isn’t intelligible information. What do the "findings" tell us about CE3s? About UFOs? Hundreds of abductees, with eager-beaver facilitators. Looks like mind-games.
But who’s playing with whose?

Boys and girls, have you heard of the word, psychology? Or psychological explanations for odd behavior? No? My, my. You know, I don’t think Budd and Dave or their psychologist friend John have, either! Isn't that funny, boys and girls? Isn't that also a crock!

Serious abduction research has been on hold -- on Total Ground Zero -- since the early 1980’s. Without a Kuhn’s-age shift it’s likely to stay that way.

5

Funding. We often hear that there is no money, but of course there is plenty of money. It’s just that so much of it in the past two or three decades has been eased into so few private hands, where it’s tough to get back. We are a fabulously rich country, and the top 20 percent of Americans is very rich; the top 5 percent is obscenely so (while 40% of U.S. children are poor). There is wealth there to do all the things that desperately need doing, and beyond that, for those that are worth doing -- many times over. The UFO community will have to find ruthlessly clever, cunning, and stealthy ways to get access to a proper share.

The people who connected with moneybags types for SETI did a good job. UFO proponents will have to do as well, and make UFOs look as inviting as SETI seemed. Time for a Kuhn’s-Age miracle: ET phones Project UFO Anomaly?

///

Pity, good ideas often go to waste. Some very interesting UFO newsgroup headers never develop an audience. In fact, the BZ thread quoted above started with an interesting question, and unfortunately BZ’s was apparently the only response.

Maybe no one wants to help a Kuhn’s Age along?

Yeah, duh, It’s more fun to surf the Net.

Like alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.shave?!

Yessss!

But wait, this alaw idiot’s a closet debunker! What if I don’t like his crazy ideas!

That’s just to get us started. Use your own crazy ideas. But make them revolutionary, or Kuhn won’t come.

I don’t think we’re ready for a Kuhn’s-Age change in the UFO debate.

Great, because I do! Now we have our first issue we can put before ourselves for us to consider!

Good idea!

There may soon be one ubb-BILLION -- thnx, Carl -- bright, literate, creative, energetic human beings online worldwide, an unprecedented audience. But we might find that the same ubb-billion’s threads imply they are stupid, biased, illiterate, lazy, and carry bombs in their pockets. It’s not numbers but intelligent commitment. Our newsgroups are packed with ideas now, but ranting rhetoric and egomania tend to destroy everyone’s focus, and good things and precious time are lost. (Grrr...! I’m gonna pay back that %!&!# with this 25-stanza limerick...!)

We need only a few imaginative voices and a regular influx of new ideas, more or less around the corners of status-quo chat. Some geeks will doubtless flame or ignore the ideas, or spread spamanarchy. But ideas have always mattered more than geeks, except to geeks.

alaw



UFO Skeptic page

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page