Unidentified flying objects are as much a puzzle to the scientific community as they are to the skeptical and un-skeptical world at large. But it is undeniably true that the fascination for these unusual reports of abductions and other worldly happenings is going on.
And marching right along is the inability of scientist to either prove or disprove their existence; what they do, and in particular what one Canadian writer has done is to explain their reluctance in taking a stand for or against. (Don C. Donderi, associate Professor of Psychology at McGill University, Montreal Canada).
In writing his article for IUR, (International UFO Reporter) in the spring issue 1996, he stated his purpose in writing the article was to clear up misconceptions about the scientific community’s inability to either prove or disprove the sightings and the reports of UFO abductions. His works is rather what one would expect from a scientist who had the gall to attempt such a daunting task. He went to extraordinary lengths to show us how he arrived at his conclusions.
Right off he said if abduction took place it had to be a physical event; that abduction meant a person was abducted and carried away or kidnapped. This person is grabbed and forced on board this craft and there should be observers to this event and not just verbal expounding; if this cannot be shown to be true then it was not abduction.
This sounds harsh, but he softened his statements and made himself clear that he was not denying the possibility that something out of the ordinary had happened but that unless there had been actual physical contact a real abduction had not taken place and science could not make a statement one way or the other.
“We do not often examine the sources of our own ideas” he said. By that he was not saying that the person doing the reporting was fabricating but that they were not well acquainted with how their ideas originate and could assume something had taken place when in fact it had not. In other words, some people who reported sightings were more impressionable than others and possibly believes something had taken place, when, in fact, it had not. Not all of the reports would fit this category, but some would, he reiterated.
He left room for such unscientific ways of getting ideas from other minds that were distances away in the form of telepathy and admitted such means of communication is possible. He thinks a lot of the confusion is due to all the reports not being properly screened. He thinks a distinction should be made between the reports of a direct sensory experience’ and those that are most likely based on experiences of others’ reports or what they read.
And what made his report all the more believable for me was this statement:
“We can’t really decide whether the phenomenon is mental or physical; even calling it physical is meaningless because the mental and the physical are so completely intermixed that separating them is almost impossible.”
And as for my thoughts I believe that’s the truth he seeks. What science does is work with the strictly physical; and since the mind and the body and the soul are not inseparable, how could mere scientific methods find the answers sought? At least some scientists are becoming aware of this fact and are now less prone to divide up the body as if it has no remote controls.
Another scientific endearment is his quote of how scientific data should be easily explained to those who are not knowledgeable:
“Most scientists aren’t as successfully gregarious as the physicist Ernest Rutherford, who is supposed to have said, “If you can’t explain it to the barmaid in the Eagle Pub, it isn’t good science.”
With that quote he illustrated the isolation of the scientific community. They do not, he said, know how other disciplines in their field works. Each sticks to their own particular expertise and won’t dare venture out with new ideas and opinions for fear of sanction and reprisal. If that is true it is a sad state of affairs and it is no wonder the world is having such a hard time believing itself.
We must now all watch our steps or we will be carried off into the unknown by our own ignorance. When that happens we can truthfully say we have outsmarted ourselves unto death. How did we get into such a state? For the answer to that I will let my online source answer: “Fear of scientific failure.” So now the truth comes out, not only will the scientific community not comment on UFOs because they can’t prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, they do not have the courage of their convictions.
They could at least say, we don’t know, they would not have to go to such lengths to say nothing; because that’s about what much of their studies and pronouncements are when they attempt to bridge gaps that are out of their jurisdiction. Their domain is the physical world they say, if this article I read can be believed, then why are they trying to confuse the mental and spiritual parts of it?
There’s much more to the article than these few highlights and I advise all to read it for themselves. It is possible I have taken a few liberties with these scientific thoughts and mixed them in with my own. To separate my fiction from his facts check the address below and go UFO sighting.
Source:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/do12.html
