While I agree with Jed's point about reproducibility and hard
evidence, such hard evidence is claimed to apply to the UFO
phenomenon, the existence of which is rejected with the same kind of
arguments. Other than personal observation, we have:
1. Photographs.
2. Radar signals.
3. Pieces of space craft.
4. Pieces of strange foreign material found imbedded in the skin of
abductees.
5. Changes in the retina of the eye of people who claimed to be near a
UFO.
Simultaneous sightings and photographs have been made at different
locations allowing the actual position in space of the object to be
determined. This virtually eliminates fraud. While some of the
evidence can be faulty, all the evidence, especially that which is
internally consistent, can be ignored on this basis.
Nevertheless, I can sympathize with people who do not want to accept
this idea. It would require a basic change in religious belief and it
would provide one more reason to be afraid. After all, most people
are expected to have no contact with the aliens, so why bother with
the idea?
Ed
On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
The UFO phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen
directly by
thousands. If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example.
Not so perfect. It is more in the category of a natural science
field observation, rather than a phenomenon reproduced in an
experiment, and detected with instruments. The latter is far more
reliable. Field observations are essential to science. Darwin used
them to make biology into a science, rather than glorified stamp
collecting. But observations made by untrained people are often
flawed.
It seems to me that the term "reproduce" usually means that the
researcher plays an active role in bringing about the phenomenon.
The researcher makes it happen in some sense. This would not apply
to a UFO unless you invent a gadget that brings a UFO to your door,
like the one shown in the movie "ET." It doesn't have to work every
time. Low reproducibility would be convincing, as long as the proof
itself is solid, the way it is with cloning, for example.
- Jed
