UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    So we are going down the philosophical rabbit hole then. Everyone and everything is just a figment of your imagination; nothing and no one really exists.

    This may be true, but is utterly useless. It leads to paralysis and stagnation.

    So, we don't go that way. We have gotten quite far assuming that the world is not just in our imagination, just as we have gotten quite far putting our efforts behind things that can be shown to exist and regarding things that can't be shown to exist with skepticism.

    It would be a good topic for a new thread about the philosophy of UAPs where we can navel-gaze to our heart's content. But really it's just a distraction in this thread.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    So is urinating, but can we agree that being 'natural and universal' does not qualify something to belong in a fact-finding study?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    My philosophy of reality is exactly what reality throws at me whether I agree with it or not... beyond that is pure speculation from what my imagination can conjure. If you truly believe your philosophy goes beyond what reality is giving you, then you might reconsider your thinking and decision making process, before it does you harm.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It already is harmful. He repeatedly states interpretations of phenomena as if they are evidence in favour of a preferred explanation. For example, things moving across the line sight being interpreted as hypersonic, and objects interpreted as craft, leading to the second-order interpretation of optical artifacts as hypersonic craft.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    How is going by the eyewitnesses' accounts harmful?
     
  9. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Hmm, I don't consider misinterpreting phenomena in the same category as philosophy.

    MR may be saying though that both philosophy and science are needed when discussing extraordinary phenomena, that doesn't yet have mundane explanations. Not speaking for him, but just following along the thread long enough to believe that's his thought process.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Yes..that's what I'm saying in so many words. We cannot escape our own philosophical assumptions, no matter how objective and fact-driven our research is. Science provides the data and the evidence. Philosophy provides the relevance to an overall scheme.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2022
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Yea, I hear you.

    I think what the others are saying though is that every question doesn't ''deserve'' an investigation. Or an answer. ''Why are aliens so mysterious?'' is an example of a question that would irritate even the most patient of skeptics. lol We don't know if space aliens even exist, so to ''philosophize'' over their nature, isn't a good use of time.

    ETA - Maybe it's safe to say that there's always room for either 'side' to hear each other. I want to believe philosophy and science can live together in harmony.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2022
    Magical Realist likes this.
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    The issue being discussed in this tangent is whether those who are experts in the philosophy of science should sit on the committee in question, with Yazata saying that to omit such people would be to hamstring the inquiry. You are... not really addressing that issue.
    Are you saying that we all philosophise therefore we don't need specialist philosophers? Because we all do it sufficiently for the purposes of the committee? Or are you saying that they do need such philosophers on the committee?
    Noone has said otherwise. The issue is whether experts in the philosophy of Science should sit on the committee, or not.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” - Richard Feynman

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sideshowbob and Michael 345 like this.
  14. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Hmm.

    The definition of philosophy of science is “a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concerns what qualifies as science…” (from Wikipedia)

    I would think that would be considered at least somewhat relevant to a scientist?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    When a scientist is doing science she doesn't much concern herself with philosophizing about it.

    Much like a football player on the 10 yard line doesn't concern himself with the social benefits of organized teamwork.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Philosophy is what science textbooks say in their last chapter. It ties it all together in a nice anthropocentric bow. Here is all this information. And here is its relevance to the human species. We need philosophy because we need the big picture---the overall importance and value of all the scientific data and theories.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2022
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I think therefore you are. I've never been good with navel gazing.
     
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I suppose that's a good thing. That means you're not obsessed with yourself.
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    True. Tiassa is obsessed with me (and probably you in secret) Amiright!
     
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    And......on that note, we shamefully took this thread off topic. Let's get it back on track...

    That is one of the main problems with philosophy, to be honest...there is no track.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It seems to me that a few people here are being a little hasty in dismissive the general usefulness and applicability of philosophy. Yazata is right when he says that there are many "hidden" assumptions that we tend to take for granted and not think about when we talk about what we know and how we know it and how we can know it. Philosophers are the people who actually question those assumptions, to find out just how reasonable or unreasonable they really are. This is not a worthless pursuit. Not all opinions are equally good or equally correct. There really are some philosophical ideas that are more rational, more sustainable, better evidenced, more logical etc. than others.

    What if some of the things we tend to take for granted are actually wrong? If that's the case, then we might be building our edifices of knowledge on shifting sands. Maybe we'll end up believing in false things rather than true things, if we don't take an interest in the question of how we know what we think we know.

    Having said that, I'm not convinced that normal, business-as-usual scientific methods can't "work" for getting to the bottom of UAPs. The problem, as I see it, is not that science is broken and UFOs are a deep mystery that needs a new "paranormal" paradigm to investigate it - not that anybody has seriously attempted to suggest any viable replacement for "normal" scientific enquiry as a way to get to Truth. The problem is much simpler: we just have very poor data for the "unsolved" UAP cases.

    It's not that science or scientists or even the military aren't up to the job of positively identifying the small proportion of UFOs that remain puzzling after a brief initial examination of the available evidence. It's more that the evidence needed to sort things out and reach a conclusion with high confidence just isn't available, for those cases.

    For those who take the faith-based position that the relatively small number (proportional to total UFO reports, understand) of "unsolved" UFO cases are actually alien spaceships, or interdimensional time travellers or Great Cthulhu come from another dimension, the next step towards proof ought to be obvious. Those people need to go out and collect some really good evidence for their claims.

    Everybody carries a video recorder around in their pocket these days. As a species, we're all out observing what things in the sky are doing more than we ever have before. Can't anybody do better than provide the odd low-res blurry photograph of the alleged alien craft they saw? Why do we have to settle for second or third hand word-of-mouth tall tales of alien visitations? Where are the carefully documented video interviews with our alien visitor friends? Why can't the US military - for goodness sake - do better, in terms of evidence gathering, than to gather a blurry piece of footage of what could well be an infrared image of a normal jet plane, or a bird flying above some water?

    Come on people! Is it really so hard to gather some decent evidence? You've had 70 years, now. When will you get your act together? If you think you know the aliens are here, tell us what convinced you. Show us your very best evidence. Not the fakes and the blurry images and the photoshopped hubcaps. Why can't you do better?
     
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Simple

    First you appear to be presuming there is better, or you would not be asking for it

    My presumption is the stuff put forward is as better as it gets

    In the 70 years you mentioned those who came to the party, say 20 years ago, should have twigged what would be required of their evidence, however they continued to produce only low grade stuff

    My summation - only low grade stuff has always been the only stuff out there which makes asking for better a futile exercise

    My other presumption, based on the knowledge about the real constraints the Universe functions under, visitation by aliens is several levels lower than myself winning the next Miss Universe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page