ET visitation? Nonsense!!

Ufology anecdotes and inconclusive photos have been part of our culture for over 50 years. In all that time there has been no hard evidence. No alien DNA or other off world biochemicals recovered; No exotic alloys or plastics recovered; Nothing analyzed and reported by a reputable laboratory.

It seems illogical that an alien civilization would expend the resources to visit from hundreds or thousands of light years away and not make contact other than with nonentities rather than with scientists or political leaders.

It is argued that they have not made contact because they do not want us to know about them. They have the technology to build a starship and cannot come up with stealth or other anti-detection methodology? Our military have equipment capable of observing from spy planes almost 20 miles above the earth. We can observe from orbiting satellites. The star travelers have to fly in close enough to be sighted visually? They need lights for us to see when they fly at night? Are the believers serious or are they making jokes?

Roswell and Kecksburg involve alleged crashes. A star traveling technology that cannot prevent crashes? No fail safe mechanisms or recovery contingencies? Not even an auto destruct mechanism if they do not want us to know about them?

How about explanations based on faulty observations and/or erroneous interpretation of normal phenomena? How about explanations based on hallucinations and a normal propensity for making up stories? How about attributing a lot of the reports to those who want to make money selling books and articles?

I enjoy and read about Ufology for the same reasons that I enjoy and read SciFi. The Ufology literature provides poorer plots and less literary expertise, but more amusement at the thought of how gullible some people are. I am amused by some of my otherwise intelligent friends who seem to view Speilberg’s TV series Taken as a documentary.

If 100 million people believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your points, while interesting and worthy of discussion, still reflect assumptions and conclusions every bit as problematic as the doe-eyed believer who sees a starship behind every light in the sky.

Ufology anecdotes and inconclusive photos have been part of our culture for over 50 years. In all that time there has been no hard evidence. No alien DNA or other off world biochemicals recovered; No exotic alloys or plastics recovered; Nothing analyzed and reported by a reputable laboratory.

You've set what you believe to be appropriate parameters for acceptable evidence, and assume that the UFO question will be answered by science, and science alone.

The evidence exists as it presents itself, without concern for our expectations or anthropomorphizing. Much of the evidence is far more substantial than just a few "inconclusive photos". There is an entire history of how our national security apparatus and media have responded to this issue, and we are entitled to analyize this evidence and make reasonable inferences.

Having said that, I would agree that the evidence supporting the contention that UFOs represent extra-terrestrial intelligence is problematic. Suggesting that the core identity of the UFO phenomenon is extra terrestrial is either pure speculation or is an inference justified by the surrounding evidence and circumstances. If one reaches a point where the behavior of some UFOs can appear to be the result of intelligence, and is not the result of human technology, certainly the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) can at least be proposed as an inference among several others.

The rest of your arguments appear to be standard debunker arguments that require as much speculation as do the UFO proponents. Your list of "how abouts" do not address specific incidents and are of neglible value.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is an entire history of how our national security apparatus and media have responded to this issue, and we are entitled to analyize this evidence and make reasonable inferences.

Perhaps, but aliens are not a reasonable inference.

As well, how can the response of national security and the media offer anything substantial in regards to these inferences?

Suggesting that the core identity of the UFO phenomenon is extra terrestrial is either pure speculation or is an inference justified by the surrounding evidence and circumstances.

The former would be correct, but certainly not the latter.

If one reaches a point where the behavior of some UFOs can appear to be the result of intelligence, and is not the result of human technology, certainly the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) can at least be proposed as an inference among several others.

Here is the biggest flaw in your argument. Who can determine what appears to be the result of intelligence? That determination itself is pure speculation.

How does one conclude that something is not the result of human technology? Again, it is pure speculation.

Does mankind have an absolute clear understanding of every single terrestrial phenomenon on Earth, intelligent or otherwise?

ETH appears to be one of the least likely variables to consider amongst all other possibilities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah Q. I might have known. Let's get right to it:

Perhaps, but aliens are not a reasonable inference. Says you. . . . but seriously, I'm not entirely sure I disagree. I go back and forth on this. And my answer would relate to your second statement:

As well, how can the response of national security and the media offer anything substantial in regards to these inferences?

That is the entire point of studying history, not just to memorize a facts in a rote manner, but to have some understanding of the genuine dynamics of events, and how they relate to or influence the events around them.

Certainly I am not in charge of giving you a complete education on the reactive history of our government's security apparatus to the UFO. It is all out there for you, in surprisingly sober and academic form. I will say that what that history teaches us is that, as usual, the "official" truth fed to us by our government often has little to do with the facts as they are. Our military and security organizations have a long history of telling us there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, when in fact they were quite concerned and interested in it. Most, if not all of the government sponsored "studies" of the UFO, designed to debunk it, ended up with dissention in the ranks and in some incidents walkouts, as researchers began to believe in the validity of the ETH. The Condon Committee in particular suffered from these kinds of problems. A review of some of the incidents that led to these attitudes reveals why; it appeared that "machines" were moving through the atmosphere exhibiting behaviors (right angle turns, reacting to aircraft, and more) that suggested directed control, i.e. intelligence.

Now I agree that forming reasonable inferences based on these events is a compromised exercise. But while you claim this area is the biggest flaw in my argument (which I grant you may be true) I submit it may also be the biggest flaw in yours. I owe you a "thank you", in a way, since some of your earlier challenges caused me to spend some time considering what is a reasonable inference and what is not. While I believe I understand your point, and appreciate it, I'm beginning to think it is a more of an exercise in semantics that doesn't hold up well when applied to fact patterns.

You seem to be arguing in the general sense that the "unidentified" nature of the UFO prevents an inference of intelligence. However, you also argue that UFO sightings all have prosaic explanations. But you also have made the argument that the phenomenon is not worth studying at all, frankly your least-worthy assertion.

If the UFO is an earthy, prosaic event, then certainly we can analyze it from our frame of reference, and such analysis may give us insights into physics, perception, or something else.

However, your statements that we cannot infer intelligence is an unsupported statement that you seem to feel is axiomatic. Reading more credible accounts of UFO incidents, one cannot help but be struck by what is at least the appearance of intelligence. The undeniable fact is that there are multiple incidents of observers, including military pilots, who have seen unknown objects exhibit behaviors that appear directed. Examples would be right angle turns, flying against the wind, flying in formation, and reactions to the presence of aircraft. Our human tools of analysis are what we have to analyize such events. Your point seems to be that behavior itself cannot be inferred to be evidence of intelligence without already knowing the core identity of the unknown. I don't agree with that. Perhaps it should be the other way around; the behavior is the first data we have to begin to search for that core identity. You have also failed to articulate why something out of the human frame of reference is off-limits for analysis. That's precisely how we would bring it in to that frame of reference.

So for argument, assume that a pilot and his or her crew, at high altitude spot a UFO paralleling their course. It also appears on their radar. It executes a right angle turn and proceeds from their right to left directly in front of them. They view the object which appears to be large disk-shaped object with no visible means of propulsion. It proceeds at a constant speed, against the wind, until it is out of sight.

Given that there are no visible means of propulsion, what inferences can be gleaned from this fact pattern? I have my own thoughts, but am interested in yours.

By the way:Does mankind have an absolute clear understanding of every single terrestrial phenomenon on Earth, intelligent or otherwise?

Perhaps we don't, and that's a question every person interested in UFOs should ponder.

 

dino

It seems illogical that an alien civilization would expend the resources to visit from hundreds or thousands of light years away and not make contact other than with nonentities rather than with scientists or political leaders.

*Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments. (daniel drasin)

It is argued that they have not made contact because they do not want us to know about them. They have the technology to build a starship and cannot come up with stealth or other anti-detection methodology? Our military have equipment capable of observing from spy planes almost 20 miles above the earth. We can observe from orbiting satellites. The star travelers have to fly in close enough to be sighted visually? They need lights for us to see when they fly at night? Are the believers serious or are they making jokes?

Roswell and Kecksburg involve alleged crashes. A star traveling technology that cannot prevent crashes? No fail safe mechanisms or recovery contingencies? Not even an auto destruct mechanism if they do not want us to know about them?

you assume way too much. do you really think at a particular point in a civ, accidents and faulty science will be magically done away with? that is an example of crackpot reasoning. why do you ascribe the quality of perfection? simply becuase they are alien? perhaps you wish them to save humanity with this "perfection" eh? heh, perhaps a temple where we can worship these bastards?.

witness the current space debacle in which the americans are accusing the russians of unsafe conditions aboard the iss. however, according to russian standards, everything is hunky dory. i could also reason in the same manner that after 30+ years, we would be at a point where a piece of foam wouldn't cripple our spacefaring endeavours. the problem was identified pre accident and was ignored. simple politics. you seem to endow these aliens with super powers......they are assumed to have transcended petty politics. such wild fantasies. perhaps you outta lay off your scifi novels for a bit and come down to earth

secondly, questioning and debunking the veracity of "assumed intentions" does nothing towards debunking the actual sighting. the storyline can be proven to be illogical and based on false and uneccessary assumptions but the observed ufo remains. i think it is fear that motivates the spin. humans need to be reassured that alien pychologies are close to ours.

....if they do not want us to know about them?

ahh the gullibility! "how on earth" did you come by little factoid? did the aliens themselves tell you this? or are you merely parroting idle and bogus speculation? how can anyone assert this when the ufos are purported to be in one's backyard or flying willy nilly all over our airspace?? a more reasonable speculation would be that they do not give a damn about being sighted by humanity. once again, pseudo skeptics show their affinity to ufo nuts by playing in their ballpark!

How about explanations based on faulty observations and/or erroneous interpretation of normal phenomena? How about explanations based on hallucinations and a normal propensity for making up stories? How about attributing a lot of the reports to those who want to make money selling books and articles?

and you think this hasnt been done? the majority of the cases do have a rather mundane explanation. ufology is littered with fraud. are you however willing to discuss the cases that defy a simplistic explanation?. i thought not. infact all you pseudo skeptics excel at fatuous and illogical soundbites. you appear to lack the ability of discernment. this is evident in the way you lump every know case of ufos in the same category. total intellectual laziness and dishonesty tho i'd hardly expect anything else from pseudo skeptics

*Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth. (daniel drasin)

Enjoy and read about Ufology for the same reasons that I enjoy and read SciFi. The Ufology literature provides poorer plots and less literary expertise, but more amusement at the thought of how gullible some people are.

garbage. you liken an actual "real life" experience or a technical report of an ufo to a fictional novel? this has to be a new low even for skeptics

*Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case." (daniel drasin)

I am amused by some of my otherwise intelligent friends who seem to view Speilbergís TV series Taken as a documentary.

a grey will topple you with his death ray off that pedestal to which you have elevated yourself

100 million people believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea..

what cliched words of wisdom. grandpappy passed this on yes?

humans are beginning to take on a foul odor. beam me the fuck outta here scotty

 

my dear ives

why thank you ives. it has been a while since anyone expressed an interest in my opinion. thanks again.

So for argument, assume that a pilot and his or her crew, at high altitude spot a UFO paralleling their course.

have they been tested for visual acuity? perhaps their own shadow reflected off a cloud?

It also appears on their radar.

break out the frikkin maintenence records for the radar equipment! you dare deny false readings? dont we all know that radar is notoriously unreliable? nevermind that modern warfare has an almost complete reliance on this technology. never mind that millions are hauled into court for traffic violations based on this tech. ufos prove radar a failed tech. dump the shit!

It executes a right angle turn and proceeds from their right to left directly in front of them.

uh remember the pilots that got caught for flying while drunk? well it appears these guys are dosing on lsd!

They view the object which appears to be large disk-shaped object with no visible means of propulsion. It proceeds at a constant speed, against the wind, until it is out of sight.

they will never fly again! this i vow. strap on the straitjackets and throw em into the brig

*feel free to request my two cents again

 

*In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties. Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with hammers. (daniel drasin)

 

The Ufology issue really comes down to the matter of lack of valid evidence. All the other remarks I made are merely rhetoric, which I consider quite equivalent to some of the nonsense arguments put forth by the believers in ET visitation.

The above is an outrageous statement. Some of the previously quoted comments from Daniel Drasin seemed reasonable, but the above makes me lose all respect for who ever he is.

Astronomers have large amounts of evidence which can be verified by other astronomers and physicists.

• Spectroscopy (spectral analysis) can be used to determine the composition of stars. Spectral analysis is verified by using the same technique on elements in the laboratory.
• We have done fission and fusion of nuclei here on earth, determining the energy output from such processes. We can determine the mass of the sun via gravitational analysis and show that the energy output is consistent with nuclear fission. One of the mysteries of the 19th century was the energy output of the sun. The most energetic chemical reaction known would result in the sun becoming a lifeless cinder in thousands of years, yet geological and fossil evidence (at that time) indicated that it had been producing energy at about the same level for at least millions of years.
• Our knowledge of the sun and nuclear reactions has allowed us to determine the characteristics and life cycles of stars more and less massive than our sun. The results are highly consistent with observation.

The above lists only some of the very valid hard evidence supporting astronomy. I am sure that experts could come up with a longer list. It is ridiculous to imply that astronomy/astrophysics is based on evidence no better than Ufology.

Can any of the ET visitation believers provide anything better than stories from those alleged to have witnessed some UFO incident?

The credentials of those who tell the stories mean little without evidence. Some very reputable astronomer/physicist types wrote a book called The Jupiter Effect. The theme of this book (published about 1978-1981) was that in 1984 all the major planets would be aligned on one side of the sun, unbalancing the solar system. This was supposed to result in catastrophes: Earth quakes, fierce weather anomalies, what ever. The religious types seized on the book as scientific support for the end times predicted by the Book of Revelations. That book was utter nonsense: The authors had traded their scientific reputations for a quick buck. I was sorry to learn that at least one has been allowed to publish serious (and pretty good) books on quantum theory.

As far as I am concerned, show me some plausible evidence and forget about all the stories and speculation. The observations that cannot be explained as some ordinary phenomenon can certainly be explained as hallucination, misinterpretation of observations, or as deliberate lies. These explanations are far more plausible than the government coverup & ET visitation explantions.

BTW: The following is an interesting statement from a believer in ET visitations

At least I can tell the difference between SciFi and science and have a lot of knowledge of both. It is the Ufology believers who do not seem able to distinguish between SciFi and reality.

 

Hi Dino,

The Ufology issue really comes down to the matter of lack of valid evidence.

Let's step back for a moment and consider this statement. You phrase this with a certain finality. Is it a statement of belief, or knowledge? Is it a statement of fact, or a conclusion? You might say these are silly questions. But to have faith in the integrity of one's conclusion, one must have faith in every step of the process that led to that conclusion. That leads to Epistemological exercises that eventually lead to Kant and his famous proposition.

What I am proposing to you is that your opening line reveals a bias more than it discusses fact. I present this argument not to be disrespectful, but to question whether you can really conclude there is a lack of evidence. For what, exactly? That UFOs are piloted by alien creatures? We're agreed on that one. That UFOs are extraterrestrial? Might just have to agree to that too.

But if you were to ask if there was a lack of evidence for an unknown phenomenon that appears in the atmosphere, is of an unknown nature and appears to exhibit intelligence, I would have to disagree.

 

What counts as 'evidence' though? Eye witness testimony? This is a slippery slope, and it's credibility gets stretched enormously in this field. While we may accept the reports of brights lights making strange movements in the sky, we are rather less likely to believe people who report being serial abductees and having probes shoved up their behinds. But it's still personal testimony. All we are doing here, is allowing our bias to flter out what we believe to be absurd, and we all have a different level of acceptance.

Photographic evidence leaves a lot to be desired, badly framed blurry shots in tight zoom. Single images mostly, hardly ever a series to support the alleged movements, and when it's moving footage, the zoom is always to tight to include reference point to validate the alleged movements. The only footage I've seen which included landscape as reference points, hasn't contained any movement sufficiently different from normal aircraft.

I am a skeptic, but I am willing to look at the 'evidence' presented, and so far, none of it is compelling me to beleive these events are triggered by 'intelligence'.

So I'd be interested to know what evidence you've seen that would be convincing, with links, if possible.

 

phlogistician,

Your post identifies a fundamental problem in the analysis of UFOs, and that is the nature of "evidence". Often, I see analysis unfavorable to the UFO presented as you have, as a few blurry photos, and some eyewitness testimony. However, rarely does viewing bits of evidence outside of its context reveal much valuable information.

For example, consider a college student being given an assignment to do a paper on the Battle of Britain from World War II. A few distant photographs of a dogfight, and the remarks of a few citizens viewing planes in the distance would not reveal much.

However, the student would also study Germany at the end of WWI, it's crushed pride, its industrial potential and the ripe conditions for the rise of facism. Further, the student would study England under Churchill, the country's industrial capacity, the emotional hold Churchill had, and the tenacious, quick learners that were piloting their Spitfires. A more complete picture begins to emerge, in which the actions of invididuals in power, or institutions, makes greater sense.

Gaining any insight at all in to an unidentified such as UFOs means examining the context as well. No one can deny that any airborne object over our airspace would be a national security concern. That concern would raise considerably should that airspace be restricted, sensitive airspace. Now, regardless of what one believes the core nature of UFOs to be, such incidents have happened. Perhaps they are some kind of really unusual atmospheric phenomena. But would a responsible national security agency really be able to make that assumption? The reactions of that national security apparatus gives us more information, and context in which to analyize the UFO problem.

I don't argue that this context establishes the core nature of the UFO. What it does provide is undeniable evidence that our national security apparatus has been aware of the UFO issue and taken it seriously for over 50 years. Their publicly known "studies" were often ill-conceived affairs really designed to debunk the phenomenon, and all, or nearly all had staffers that concluded not only that UFOs were under intelligent control, but that they were "interplanetary" ships. The Condon Report, for example, read in context, tells us more about how far the government was willing to go to put the UFO to rest than it tells us about the UFO itself.

So yes, I would agree that a few UFO webpages showing grainy photographs, and a few hicks describing a flying saucer accomplish little. But my definition of "evidence" is broader than that, and includes the actions and reactions of individuals and insitutions in power and responsibility.

And that evidence is pretty compelling that something is going on that alarms those institutions quite a bit.

 

I am a skeptic, but I am willing to look at the 'evidence' presented, and so far, none of it is compelling me to beleive these events are triggered by 'intelligence'.

I would be helpful if you disclosed what evidence has been "presented" to you. To state that none of it is compelling me to beleive these events are triggered by 'intelligence' suggests a lack of awareness of a great deal of evidence by any definition. A great many credible incidents are extremely suggestive of intelligence. Most debunkers, presented with such incidents, fall back on a proposition that there is some set of circumstances that caused the witness to perceive intelligence where there was none. And admittedly, the human brain is designed to detect patterns, and occasionally detects them then they aren't there.

But general protests of "surely there must be some explantion" don't hold up well when applied to specific fact patterns from credible incidents.

 

dino

The authors had traded their scientific reputations for a quick buck. I was sorry to learn that at least one has been allowed to publish serious (and pretty good) books on quantum theory.

i need clarification.
my understanding of this is you appear to want this guy on a "blacklist". you disregard any further contributions he could provide for humanity. you want the scientific community to ostracize and strip him of his credentials. perhaps burn his books.

am i right or wrong?

*inferences derived from "I was sorry to learn that at least one has been allowed to "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Spookz asks a good question Dino, especially in light of your contention that some of the books were actually "pretty good".

phlogistician, I re-read your post and saw that you requested links. I'm frankly unaware of any single site that truly fits my fancy. I really dislike flashy sites with alien heads and saucers - these are designed to appeal to unthinking who are enamored with the idea and romance, if you will, of aliens. While I've enjoyed the web for discussion, the best information seems to come from books. Of course, as with the web, you have to be careful. People who know of my interest have little ability to distinguish between UFO books, and I sometimes get really, really awful stuff. I have one at home where the author, who I think somehow uses the words Dr. before his names, talks of his remote viewing skills, and executing "deep mind probes" on aliens, and garbage like that. I can actually find myself embarassed even leafing through it with no one else around.

Two fairly recent books impressed me with their academic feel and lack of sensationalism; one was "The Missing Times,", by Seattle area journalist Terry Hansen. This book is an educational experience, and not really just about UFOs. In fact, the focus of the book is not on the UFOs themselves, but on the relationship our media has with the government, and is complicit with the government in censoring information deemed to be of national security importance. I wrote a review of that book on Amazon, entitled "journalism for critical thinkers".

The other I would recommend is historian Richard Dolan's impressive work "UFOs and the National Security State." There is little doubt that this is the most solidly researched and readable history of the UFO phenomenon in this country, from I believe 1947 to 1973. I believe a Volume II is coming out soon, that brings things up to the present.

 

One link I would recommend is UFOSkeptic.org.

www.UFOskeptic.org

 

Spookz The following is close to my attitude toward the authors of The Jupiter Effect.

I do not believe in burning books, even books which I would not publish if I owned Barns & Noble or some similar company. I consider it a bad precedent to burn even a silly or obscene book which advocates utter nonsense. I have a forlorn hope that some day lousy books cannot be sold and will therefore not be published.

A charlatan who bamboozles people for financial profit is a despicable person. The authors of The Jupiter Effect knew that they were lying. They knew that the alignment of the planets on one side of the sun would have no noticeable effect on solar system dynamics, but they claimed catastrophic effects would result. To me they are worse than a scam artist. They are closer to the priest/minister who uses his authority to seduce young boys/girls (not quite as bad, but close).

I believe that an educated person with serious scientific credentials should have integrity and not lie to those less knowledgeable. If i were a publisher or responsible for hiring a scientist, I would have nothing to do with one who told scientific lies to make money publishing a book.

I own two books written by one of the authors and published several years after The Jupiter Effect. Even though I learned much from them, I am sorry that I bought them and would not have bought them if I had known that the author was one of those who wrote The Jupiter effect.

 

ok i can respect that. however...

Some of the previously quoted comments from Daniel Drasin seemed reasonable, but the above makes me lose all respect for who ever he is.

do you hold yourself to the same exacting standards as you do for drasin? is an alleged instance of illogical reasoning and a deficit in knowledge with regards to this particular example good enough reason to ostracize the fellow? does it make his other points any less valid?

*dino, is it possible for you to refine his argument? (below) perhaps a viable example ?

Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with hammers. (daniel drasin)

These explanations are far more plausible than the government coverup & ET visitation explantions.

analyse the belgium flap. if you present a reasonable and plausible scenario, i'll drop it. show me how to think. show me the error of my ways

The following is an interesting statement from a believer in ET visitations

incorrect. i am willing to entertain possibilities. aliens are not an article of faith. i have nothing to lose by speculating on ufos. the sci establishment however, after over 50 years of outright denial, will end up looking very stupid if they do so. it is they that have a vested interest on stifling any investigation into this matter, not me. being content to debunk fraudulently/brush under the carpet/have no opinion on the matter, is indicative of this. what natural laws are violated by the concept of interstellar travel? or of aliens?

 

I am rather intersted in who this 'scientific establishment' is, that is being touted here. Who are They and where can I get membership of this team? I am a member of the Skepticult, Number 389-3187, Position: Lord High Pooh Bear, but I don't get a business card.

To be more blunt about it, would a Biologist end up looking stupid if UFO's where proven to be real. Perhaps Chemistry or perhaps just Organic Chemists? What of Geologists or Oceanic Sciences? I doubt the entire panoply of scientific areas of study would collectively look stupid.

OK, we all know you are talking more about Physics but even then what of Quantum Physics Vs. Solid State or Materials Vs. Astronomy. Very, very few working scientists have become active debunkers.

To Paraphrase; Frankly, they just don't give a damn.

Debunkers as a group are not indicative of the 'scientific community' as a whole. Most of us are from a Physics background and simply don't like people being duped by con artists.

 

Although I know he is not representive of all scientist, here is one
that may look a little silly if ET showed up:
"Another possibility is that the growth of intelligence precedes

[[38]]

the growth of technology in such a way that by the time a society would be technically capable of interstellar space travel, it would have reached a level of intelligence at which it had not the slightest interest in interstellar travel. We must not assume that we are capable of imagining now the scope and extent of future technological development of our own or any other civilization, and so we must guard against assuming that we have any capacity to imagine what a more advanced society would regard as intelligent conduct.

In addition to the great distances involved, and the difficulties which they present to interstellar space travel, there is still another problem: If we assume that civilizations annihilate themselves in such a way that their effective intelligent life span is less than, say, 100,000 years, then such a short time span also works against the likelihood of successful interstellar communication. The different civilizations would probably reach the culmination of their development at different epochs in cosmic history. Moreover, according to present views, stars are being formed constantly by the condensation of interstellar dust and gases. They exist for perhaps 10 billion years, of which a civilization lasting 100,000 years is only 1/100,000 of the life span of the star. It follows that there is an extremely small likelihood that two nearby civilizations would be in a state of high development at the same epoch.

Astronomers now generally agree that a fairly large number of all main-sequence stars are probably accompanied by planets at the right distance from their Sun to provide for habitable conditions for life as we know it. That is, where stars are, there are probably habitable planets. This belief favors the pos~-possibility of interstellar communication, but it must be remembered that even this view is entirely Speculation: we are quite unable directly to observe any planets associated with stars other than the Sun.

In view of the foregoing, we consider that it is safe to assume that no ILE outside of our solar system has my possibility of visiting Earth in the next 10,000 years."
============================================
He then went on to explain why an intelligent lifeform could not
evolve on the moon, any planet except earth and a mythical
planet I had never heard of. He did fail to mention Europa or
any moon except ours, not that I believe a space traveling ET
could evolve on any of them. If an ET cannot get here from
outside our solar system and cannot evolve in it, he then concludes
it is impossible for them to be here. Who was this gentleman?
Dr. Edward Condon, head of the Scientific Study of Unidentified
Flying Objects, conducted by the University of Colorado for the
U S Air Force. It is also known as the Condon Report. It was Dr.
Condon's conclusion that further study of UFO's was a waste of
money, thus terminating official investigations.
http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/index.html

 

thed

thanks
a little flexibilty in the interpretation of "scientific establishment" is required.
the structure is informal. it is not fixed...

universalism: the expectation that scientists should judge empirical claims according to impersonal criteria, without regard to the identity of their author.

disinterestedness: the expectation that scientists will subordinate their own biases and interests to the advancement of knowledge.

communalism: the expectation that discoveries will be freely shared and dedicated to the community of scientists

organized skepticism:the expectation that scientists will subject empirical claims to systematic scrutiny and validation.

heh heh, so what really happens?

According to Merton, science norms are firmly prescriptive. The norms are expressed in the form of prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences and permissions. They are legitimized in terms of institutional values. These imperatives [or norms] transmitted by precept and example, and reinforced by sanctions, are in varying degrees internalized by the scientist, thus fashioning his scientific consciencee Although the ethos of science has not been codified, it can be inferred from the moral consensus of scientists as expressed in use and wont, in countless writings on the scientific spirit and in moral indignation directed toward contraventions of the ethos.

The norms of science are transferred by socialization and reinforced by punishments and rewards. This is particularly clear when science and scientists depart from the posited norms as they do in ufology. Social responses to the violation of norms are key points of study for the researcher trying to understand how the interaction between science and society shapes the practices and conduct of the scientist. Moreover, the norms of science are often seen as morally superior by scientists.

The mores of science produce a methodological rationale, but they are also binding, not because they are particularly efficient, but because they are believed right and good. They are moral as well as technical prescriptions.

As is the case with other institutions, the institution of science has developed a complex of reward systems for living up to the norms and a corresponding system of punishments for those who violate those norms. By all measures, ufology violates scientific norms

The value of the work of scientists is judged by their peers, operating largely thorough invisible colleges, or geographically distributed networks of peers working in the same discipline, in universities and laboratories. The currency of science is publications, awards, promotion, and recognition; the more a scientist's work is cited with approval by his or her peers in the literature, the more he or she is respected and valued by his or her peers.

When a scientist behaves outside of the consensual norms of science and ventures into studies of anomalies such as those of ufology, he or she loses peer esteem, and eventually stature and place in society. If enough peer esteem is lost, the scientist loses traction in the field and his or her career falters. In the worst case, the scientist is shunned by his or her peers. By all measures, engaging in ufology is an extremely dangerous activity for a scientist. (hoyt)

do you disagree?