home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
linuxmafia.com 2016
/
linuxmafia.com.tar
/
linuxmafia.com
/
pub
/
skeptic
/
files-to-classify
/
scientific-method-by-edis.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1996-02-19
|
7KB
From: Taner Edis <edis@ETA.PHA.JHU.EDU>
Subject: Re: HALLUCINATIONS AND UFOLOGY
Message-ID: <9308111514.AA05172@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 11:13:03 EDT
> . . .Occam's razor is invoked mercilessly in skeptical UFO "studies."
> My dichotomy (by your choice of words) was to accentuate the
> contradictions that can arise by invocating Occam's razor. You chose
> to categorize it as dubious. . .
Ed Stewart (Whee -- I got it right!) should argue against my
point, which did not use any Razor, or rely on dubious invocations of
the same by unnamed skeptics. For the record, I'm not overly
impressed by the loose usage of parsimony common among skeptics -- it
lends an impression of formal exactitude to an argument when this is
much too strong a property. In any case, Stewart (or Edwards, his new
alter-ego?) has set up a false dichotomy, and made a dubious call upon
parsimony; that some others might routinely behave similarly does not
bear upon his particular argument.
> It appears to me that you are implying that the phenomena needs to be
> looked on a case by case basis, yet with no reason to expect a simple
> explanation if looked at in the aggregate.
Precisely. One of the common problems with the complex
sciences is operating on a model suitable for physics, and getting
stuck in searching for single/simplistic explanations. It is, of
course, possible that a case by case examination will be useful in
stripping away irrelevant confounding information, revealing the
significant common core to the matter.
However, the possibility that no simple pattern common to many
events exists must be also kept in mind -- there may be no good
explanation at the bottom of UFOs, but a complicated, idiosyncratic
mess of factors that enter into an explanation, quite differently in
different cases. Note that if this is the case, the complexity of the
situation will mean that many "unexplainable" cases will be expected;
so the interpretation of the residue of "white crows" depends on the
theoretical perspective.
Obviously, I have described extremes of possible explanations,
and there is a vast middle ground. However, I think it quite possible
in our current state that the "mess" option is viable. In certain
ways, that's closer to the vile debunkers' position, but then, I'm not
that impressed by the rhetorical barrage directed against them of
late.
> I also see the need to look at cases individually, but in the context
> of a methodology which examines the phenomenon as a whole.
Fine -- except that I'm wary of the implicit assumption that
there is a "whole." McCampbellesque speculation aside, are we that
certain that UFOs are that much of a coherent phenomena? This
question is particularly relevant in that there seems to be a good
deal of preselection and sifting through of cases going on. As with a
badly designed psi experiment, I have to wonder how much of any
patterns found have to do with the selection rather than a substantial
cause.
Now, I'm not advancing the above as a fatal objection or
anything, just a question. But it remains that there are some
nice-sounding statements about methodologies grasping the whole being
made, without much follow-up. If we have little to tell us what this
methodology what might be like, such sentiments are not much better
than platitudes.
> Taner, I am afraid here you have completely disregarded the detail of
> the quoted text. Nowhere in the quoted text that I posted does
> McCampbell decide "that no other explanation will do". The quoted text
> is filled with qualifier statements, phrases and single words such as:
> it appears, might be, sometimes, as though, and if.
I hope I'll be excused if I'm not too impressed by the
hand-waving and ass-covering statements. It remains the case that
McCampbell has engaged in speculation, of a particularly uncalled-for
character, without explicitly stating so. It is reasonably clear from
the details of his remarks that he thinks of UFOs in the context of
some sort of craft, perhaps one that has some anti-grav behavior.
He nowhere states that a tie-in to General Relativity is
necessary, true. I can only direct Stewart back to the context of my
original remark, which was to the effect that (i) the link to
gravitation was extremely tenuous to begin with, and (ii) one would
need to consider and solidly reject alternatives before starting to
think about playing with physics in a way as to construct a truly
extraordinary claim. McCampbell's statements are such that one has to
wonder whether he truly has an appreciation for General Relativity, or
if he's just impressed with himself for knowing about a mass-inertia
connection (that is not even unique to General Relativity, by the
way).
> Of course, if you do have another explanation, I would like to hear
> it. Skeptics are not required to do that, but it is somewhat arrogant
> to misrepresent the position stated and then dismiss it out of hand.
I have no alternate explanation -- my position is that I don't
know, and that uncertainty is the proper attitude -- McCampbell
certainly shows no signs of having a clue either. As for the
misrepresentation, I'm convinced that, unless the brief excerpt
Stewart provided has an effect of drawing his remarks out of context,
I have done no such thing. The dismissal is not out of hand, rather,
the thrust of my remarks was that there is no reason to spin tales
involving gravitational theories as yet. One day, me might be forced
to conclude that McCampbell is right, however, we'd be ill-advised to
bet on it.
> That McCampbell's observation of the witnesses describing the
> phenomenon of General Relativity correctly is accurate, REGARDLESS
> whether or not that might be the real or final interpretation.
Let me state this explicitly -- no one has described the
"phenomenon of General Relativity," any more that someone observing a
light bulb going on would be describing the phenomena of Quantum
Electrodynamics. Bringing in an impressive-sounding theory is a cheap
rhetorical ploy here.
Also, consider something that many who have taught high school
or freshman physics might have observed: folk-physics concepts are
*not* Newtonian; thus reports of noninertial behavior are not the most
solid ground to stand on.
> . . . Perhaps a precondition is for both the scientific
> community and UFO researchers to approach it with less arrogance in
> their respective viewpoints and more of an understanding of what is
> really required --- objective attempts at multi-disciplinary research
> and analysis.
Yes. But also a noncommittal statement that most can agree
with, and thus probably rather vacuous in effect.
Taner Edis