UFOs are fake, so y'all better straighten up!

[Ryan]

Fact of the matter is that one certainly can go quite a few places - just the type of places that I am working very hard to avoid.

You and me both! :)

 

[Laura]

Well, I have some more "interesting" homework to do tonight.
Explain in a short essay whether the following claims should be evaluated scientifically or whether it falls into the realm of nonscience.
"Aliens can manipulate time so that they can abduct people and perform experiments on them without the people ever realizing they were taken."

Well now, wouldn't that be freaky. I wonder if this guy actually knows what's going on. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go with nonscience because I don't know how to explain it without sounding like a total nut. I also find it interesting that out of 9 exercises that was the only one I was assigned. There are only two exercises regarding aliens, but I guess I didn't get the other one because I could debunk it in good conscience.
"A huge fleet of alien spacecraft will land on Earth and introduce an era of peace and prosperity on January 1, 2020."

Any bright ideas?

I think you ought to utilize a strategy of "external considering" and get this guy off your back.

Just write that the foundational premise is illogical: assuming that aliens even exist. If it is assumed they exist, without study, we can't know what they may or may not be able to do. If it is assumed that they do not exist, then there is no point to the question.

You could then, of course, add the following:

Laura Knight-Jadczyk writes in her book "The Secret History of the World":

In considering the general theory of relativity, science usually utilizes a four-dimensional space-time continuum. In classical general relativity, the metrical properties of the continuum are intrinsic to the continuum, but a fifth dimension in which our normally sensed space-time is embedded can also be used to account for the curvature and properties of physical space. In the space-time continuum, one can say that all parts of the four-dimensional world exist simultaneously, in the sense of a mathematical formalism, and this would naturally lead to a complete collapse of the philosophical ideas of causality.

However, many scientists who work with these ideas do not think that this continuum is ‘real’ in a physical sense, such that physical entities could move back and forth at will in and out of time as easily as changing direction in three-dimensional space. ...

In relativity theory, time intervals between events are not completely fixed relative to moving systems or frames of reference. This has led to some speculation that there may also be analogies between precognition and anomalies. However, “time dilation,” the contraction of time intervals between moving reference frames, is too small to account for precognition and would still require any information transfer to travel faster than light, and the special theory of relativity, when narrowly interpreted, does not allow for physical travel backwards in time, but relegates this concept to an imaginary mathematical formalism.

Even though it is almost forbidden to question Einstein’s restriction on superluminal travel, Einstein did, at one point, propose to consider the hyperdimensional world as “real.” In 1938, with P. Bergmann, he wrote a paper entitled On a Generalization of Kaluza’s Theory of Electricity:

So far, two fairly simple and natural attempts to connect gravitation and electricity by a unitary field theory have been made, one by Weyl, the other by Kaluza. Furthermore, there have been some attempts to represent Kaluza’s theory formally so as to avoid the introduction of the fifth dimension of the physical continuum. The theory presented here differs from Kaluza’s in one essential point; we ascribe physical reality to the fifth dimension whereas in Kaluza’s theory this fifth dimension was introduced only in order to obtain new components of the metric tensor representing the electromagnetic field.

... Einstein... was somewhat nervous about this idea, but he followed it anyway, writing in his paper:

If Kaluza’s attempt is a real step forward, then it is because of the introduction of the five dimensional space. There have been many attempts to retain the essential formal results obtained by Kaluza without sacrificing the four-dimensional character of the physical space. This shows distinctly how vividly our physical intuition resists the introduction of the fifth dimension. But by considering and comparing all these attempts one must come to the conclusion that all these endeavors did not improve the situation. It seems impossible to formulate Kaluza’s idea in a simple way without introducing the fifth dimension.

We have, therefore, to take the fifth dimension seriously although we are not encouraged to do so by plain experience. If, therefore, the space structure seems to force acceptance of the five dimensional space theory upon us we must ask whether it is sensible to assume the rigorous reducibility to four dimensional space. We believe that the answer should be “no,” provided that it is possible to understand, in another way, the quasi-four dimensional character of the physical space by taking as a basis the five dimensional continuum and to simplify hereby the basic geometrical assumptions.[…] The most essential point of our theory is the replacing of …rigorous cylindricity by the assumption that space is closed (or periodic).[…] Kaluza’s five dimensional theory of the physical space provides a unitary representation of gravitation and electromagnetism. […] It is much more satisfactory to introduce the fifth dimension not only formally, but to assign to it some physical meaning. (Einstein, A, Bergmann, P., Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 38, No. 3, July 1938.)

The reader should note that when considering field theory, it is necessary to differentiate between 1.) Pure field theory such as gravitation, and electrical and magnetic fields and 2.) Quantum field theory. Fields such as electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields are continuous and spatial while quantum fields are quantized, broken into discrete sections of particulate substance or energy. The basing of a theory of psi on a gravitational field rests partly on the fact that gravitation is not subject to the maximum velocity of light because it doesn’t travel, but is structural. Evidence from Vasiliev and others suggests that psi is also independent of the velocity of light.

However, general relativity has obliged science to abandon the “action at a distance” idea, causing the ‘distance force‘ to be abandoned, and has placed gravity under subjection to a maximum velocity. Nevertheless, Margenau has suggested that general relativity ought to be regarded as a ‘formal’ principle such as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. In this case, gravitation would be non-energetic and subject to no maximum velocity and would act as a guiding way to physical phenomena.”

These ideas have been adopted by many “alternative science” writers who have related them to buildings, energy fields, light beings, earth grids and all that, and it does, indeed, seem that there may be locations on the planet where one can “tap” a certain energy with greater or lesser ease. But the phenomenon that these ideas speaks to more directly is that of hyperdimensional realities wherein mental energies or consciousness energies are amplified and can be interactive with the environment. There may be a specific technology that suggests not only power for transport that is partly physical, partly “ethereal,” that suggests communication that is also partly physical and partly ethereal, as well as powers of “manifestation” that might seem impossible to us in our present state of technology. All of these properties DO belong to hyperdimensional existence, and such a state of being has been reported for millennia as being the “realm of the gods.”

 

[Ruth]

Well, I have some more "interesting" homework to do tonight.
Explain in a short essay whether the following claims should be evaluated scientifically or whether it falls into the realm of nonscience.
"Aliens can manipulate time so that they can abduct people and perform experiments on them without the people ever realizing they were taken."

What is 'nonscience'? Is this something that is difficult to study or test, or does this professor have some particular 'pet' topics that are not considered 'worthy' of study?

One would think that everything was worthy of study, is he trying to tell you that some things aren't... because they're not 'real'? Perhaps the reason they are this 'nonscience' is because they haven't been studied before? Sounds like a bit of a catch 22.

How bizare.

 

[GRiM]

Neil, I'm in a very similar situation in my university. I think I really understand what you are going through, even if our majors are not the same they both have 'paranormala' aspects to them and my professors and teachers keep telling me its just common sense that it does not exist anything of the sort.
My way of coping with that is just trying to point out to myself what I find and not being to open about it, but sometimes I *feel* like taking a stand and try to explain, however I said to myself that If someone askes or talks about it in an honest way then I would do it.

Ok, how about this? You're no longer in high school - thus, you are going to hear many things from your professors that you would never hear from your high school teachers - but, guess what? That doesn't mean they are profound or that the words they speak are anything more than words mechanically coming out of a sound asleep person. Words, Neil - often specifically designed to prompt a response from you that serves the purpose of the professor.

If think that is a very good statement personally.

 

[mkrnhr]

strange synchronicity! I'm a student on physics and we have in our department a strong tendency to ridiculize ufo sighters (astronomy department). Yesterday I was warning a new student of keeping herself open minded and not submit to dogma and programming. Late in the night I was randomly reading excepts from the wave and the adventure series and what came into my eyes several times was the C's "nobody is a nobody" in reference to the interaction of the matrix with any particular seeker. The scintific carrer favorizes those of narrow minded who have efficient robotic minds and who never ask "irrelevent questions". I have a friend who will present a thesis in the next weeks and our shared interrests in shamanism and spirituality is realy our little secret because it can dammage her carreer. You are right to resist reprogramming (scientific in your case but it could be religious or emotionnal for other people). But you have to hide in order not to make the matrix react with too much violence, being a "nobody" as did Odysseus in order to escape the cave of the cyclope (the all seeing eye ;) ).

 

[Neil]

Geez, UFOs are even in the school newspaper.

To all new and returning readers, welcome! Here's hoping all of my devotees (and detractors) had a safe summer. To newcomers, thank you for venturing all the way back to the editorial pages to discover this column. "Critically Thinking" is a column committed to exploring issues at the intersection of science, skepticism, and belief. It began as a skeptical rejoinder to supernatural claims of a weekly Feng Shui column, and developed from there, exploring a new topic each week. A year and a half later, there is still no shortage of flim-flam in sight. But as each topic is researched, whether it it's UFO, tarot, psychic, or religious claims, it is apparent that many misconceptions regarding skepticism stand in the way of otherwise civil critical discussion, yeilding an important question...Am I examining individual beliefs, or some larger system encompassing all kinds thereof? As I've examined many candidates for subject matter, many paralells seems apparent. With most psychics, confirmation bias (counting "hits" and forgetting "misses") is the joining theme, though it bleeds into other subjects as well. UFO conspiracies rely on intricately woven assertions fed by a collective paranoia shared by many who promote "revealed truths." But this column isn't about UFOs of Feng Shui, specifically. Its ultimate goal is to analyze the way these beliefs or memes are disseminated. It's not about beliefs; it's about belief.

Like many sekptics, I'm often amazed when discussing supernatural and paranormal topics with proponents. A communication barrier of sorts sometimes encumbers interaction between the skeptical and the credulous. I must admit that I don't understand every aspect of credulity; it's whyI study claimants of astrology dowsing, and psychic phenomena. The mechanisms by which these events are performed are well documented and their results are regularly reproduced by skeptical investigators, often with more impressive results than the psychics or other practitioners themselves! Telekinesis and other forms of trickery are no longer mysterious. Nowadays, you're almost more likely to see a skeptic bend spoons, levitate, or preform vanishings (for educational purposes) than a self-proclaimed psychic. One of my favorite disappearances involves an ordinary coin and holy water (perhaps a Hail Mary or Ave Satani for good measure; might not work otherwise) to dematerialize the "root of all evil." The beliefs or claims themselves are well understood; my interest is in the process by which these claims are accepted and passed on.

Skeptics are not immuneto and do not always fully understand every mechanism of credulity, but this doesn't stop us from trying. It's true that often enough, people sell beliefs as scientific certainties or use credulity to take advantage of people or advance an unconstitutional agenda, and they must be confronted. Some skeptics simply write it off as intellectual inferiority, yielding to unhealthy pride or intellectual vanity. But many of us continue to beaver away at it, desiring to better understand the memetic mechanisms behind belief. Conversely though, believers are often convinced that they understand skepticism, writing it off as ignorance or some other state to be rectified. Few bother to try and understand incredulity. They prefer to see inquiring skeptics as "shopping around" for their own viewpoints or a new set of personal doctrines, and they're trying to make the hard sell.

Because of this obstacle, I'm likely writing "to the choir" most of the time. Nevertheless, I look forward to another semester writing about credulity, skepticism, and the propagation of them memes we refer to as "beliefs." Next week, I will take a look at some psychics who abuse copyright law to hide their mistakes and suppress criticism. Until then, dear choir, keep singing.

Not a bad article, even if it does gently lead one to believe the entire UFO phenomenon is nonsense. I think it's easy for a fairly objective person to think that with all of the disinformation that is floating around. The idea seems to be central to this forum; belief vs. true knowledge and this article served as another synchronicity in the chain of interesting events that has been going on in recent days. Maybe QFG is the one group that can prove that the paranormal reality is more than mere "flim-flam."

Are there any holes in my logic (if you can't find any would you mind asking your professor to look it over?

Your logic is good, but it loses scientific traction on assuming that the phenomenon is real and then that evidence of alien visitation is "possible." It becomes a series of speculations amounting to the abduction phenomenon COULD be evaluated scientifically; and this is an important distinction from should or can. Also, I consider it a bit of a leap that we could test the aliens' mistakes and accumulate usable data from it; though it is not impossible. I did not incorporate this into the actual assignment, in fact I haven't done it yet, but I did bring up your ideas in a little hypothetical after class discussion. After much deliberation, I got him to agree that if your premises were true, then the abduction phenomenon could be studied scientifically; but this avoids the question of whether it should. "We are basing this on a major assumption on which there is no evidence to substantiate" basically meaning that your logic is moot to a staunch skeptic. "We must base our hypothesies on avaliable evidence and observations; and upon close examination of the evidence avaliable, there is no reason why one would hypothesize that flying saucers are piloted by little green men." It's quite funny to me, because there is substantial evidence that UFOs are piloted by little "grey" men; but any evidence can be spun in a way that makes it more appealing to the researcher. Until there is conclusive proof, it will always be a question of belief, or at the very best, probability. UFOs are like every other paranormal occurrence; they can't be tested in the lab and the experience is usually heavily dependent on the observer. If it doesn't happen to you, it's easy to discredit.

Both Mouravieff andGurdjieff said that those who are doing the Work must play a role as they do the Work when around those who do not do the Work. We must play the role of someone who knows nothing about the Work. If we walk around telling everyone what we really think and are doing, we are setting ourselves up to be bowled over by the General Law.

This is both applicable in my social as well as intellectual life. I guess it would be important for me to get along better with people, but I tire of wearing the mask of normalcy all the time. Still, I understand that isolationism and unending contemplation are the path to stagnation. I understand that without networking, one will not find the inspiration to discover new ideas. I suppose if one can abuse enough people, and impose one's authority over others, one could harvest ideas out of their fearful minds, and then amass all the knowledge. But even that path seems to involve some form of networking. It goes back to being in the world but not of it. I guess this is a lesson that is critical to me at this point. Trying to operate "out of the world" is to arbitrarly place oneself out of the "school" and impedes progress. In addition, at least where a Matrix is involved, one must stay under the radar in order to avoid attack.

Words, Neil - often specifically designed to prompt a response from you that serves the purpose of the professor.

Yes, you thourghly established this; and he was quite successful too.

To put it mildly, you are no longer a big fish in a small pond - learn your pond and stop assuming you understand all there is to understand. Crass enough?

I do not "know everything." If I thought I did, I would be one of those authoritarian types that tells you how you should run your forum because you obviously need my "omnipotence" to guide your endeavors. Or I wouldn't seek your counsel at all because I am "superior" and know everything. On the same token, I do suppose I'm prone to thinking I know more than I do, which results in lapses such as this. Not too crass; it gets your point across so what difference does it make? I think the fishpond analogy is useful, though.

For now, the only other thing I have to say is that you will never really learn anything of consequence if your emotional center is dead. A person can be as intellectually gifted as is humanly possible and go nowhere if his emotional center is dead - I cannot stress strongly enough how crucial this point is.

A girl that I cared deeply about once told me, "without emotions you will never advance." It is something that stuck in my mind and you have brought it up again. It is a character flaw that I created to avoid being overcome with grief at the Matrix reality. To have no emotions is to be like the greys. Yet, we must not allow emotions to color our perceptions and make us do rash things. Where does the balance lie? I do not know, it is another lesson that I am dealing with. Even though it may be obvious for you, it is a very real problem to me. That is all I can really say about that.

Well, there is the option of becoming an "immortal thing" (as G. put it)... but I don't imagine the company would be much fun.

No, Lizzieland doesn't sound very appealing.

I think you ought to utilize a strategy of "external considering" and get this guy off your back.

You're probably right. If I continue to openly resist, I will just draw more and more attention to myself. My presence on this forum indicates that I am a bit of a scientific heretic. Arguing the case for UFOs is a good way to get marked and then "dealt with."

What is 'nonscience'? Is this something that is difficult to study or test, or does this professor have some particular 'pet' topics that are not considered 'worthy' of study?

Both, nonscience technically does not have repeatable, testable observations. The textbook defines it as missing one of the three "hallmarks of science."
1. Modern science seeks explanations for phenomena that rely on natural causes.
2. Science progresses through the creation and testing of models of nature that explain the observations as simply as possible.
3. A scientific model must make testable predictions about natural phenomena that would force us to revise or abandon the model if the predictions do not agree with observations.

From a skeptic's point of view, I can say the UFO phenomenon breaks all three of these rules.
1. UFOs are unnatural.
2. Alien spacecraft that defy the laws of physics are impossible to model and the most complicated explanation for what we see in the sky.
3. The UFO phenomenon occurrs randomly and is not subject to testable experiments.

Additionally, because of what I said above, my teacher is so convinced that UFOs are fake that he probably wouldn't change his mind unless the Greys landed and started teaching the class. To add to your catch-22, there is the famous alien interview video on Youtube where "Victor" tells the interviewer about UFOs not travelling through space as we know it; that they may come from alternate dimensions[I'm thinking densities] entirely. The interviewer suggests that it sounds too paranormal, and the response was something like, paranormal is just a word we use to classify things that are beyond our ability to comprehend. It can't be comprehended from a 3rd density perspective therefore it can't be studied and is nonscience according to the aware conservative thought process.

they both have 'paranormala' aspects to them

May I ask what you're studying?

sometimes I *feel* like taking a stand and try to explain

Yes! This is what I want so badly to do, especially on something as profound as intelligent life in the universe. But I don't have proof. I can't say that I know absolutely without a doubt that aliens are real. They will whittle you down until you're left with little more than beliefs or experience, which is subjective and can't be tested. Then you will be a superstitious fool, and carry that label for a long time. I feel the same way about talking to someone honestly, but the only place I am likely to have an intelligent open-minded conversation is this forum. Most everyone else falls into the Carl Sagan, virtuous Space Brothers, or don't know don't care camp. I will be surprised if anything happens to the contrary.

strange synchronicity! I'm a student on physics and we have in our department a strong tendency to ridiculize ufo sighters (astronomy department). Yesterday I was warning a new student of keeping herself open minded and not submit to dogma and programming. Late in the night I was randomly reading excepts from the wave and the adventure series and what came into my eyes several times was the C's "nobody is a nobody" in reference to the interaction of the matrix with any particular seeker. The scintific carrer favorizes those of narrow minded who have efficient robotic minds and who never ask "irrelevent questions". I have a friend who will present a thesis in the next weeks and our shared interrests in shamanism and spirituality is realy our little secret because it can dammage her carreer. You are right to resist reprogramming (scientific in your case but it could be religious or emotionnal for other people). But you have to hide in order not to make the matrix react with too much violence, being a "nobody" as did Odysseus in order to escape the cave of the cyclope (the all seeing eye ).

I guess that in light of the state of affairs in the world, none of this should be a surprise. If a handful of indoctrinated scientists got into the workforce and brought their knowledge of the UFO phenomenon with them...Do you have any idea the gaping hole that would blow in the control system? "We are not alone," finally discovered by open-minded creative researchers, not releasing information at a controlled manipulative pace like the MCS is doing. Much that is considered secret would be in the hands of the public. The Secret Government wouldn't know what to do with this one. Since there is an awareness explosion regarding all things strange and mysterious, this is more damage control to keep people in the dark as possible. They can weed out the people that are a potential threat to the continuance of the MCS and keep them from spreading their knowledge. Yes, I seem to frequently forget that I'm not a "nobody." Given my interest in understanding what has kept us enslaved for years, it's natural that something will be thrown my way every once in anwhile to make sure I never wake up enough to figure it all out. It seems I was a little naive. I knew there were political restrictions on scientific thought, but I never knew there was outright programming like this. Once again, it shouldn't be a surprise. They don't call it the matrix for nuthin'. Hide we must.

I was flipping through the textbook today, and it turns out that by the time we get almost to the end of the book, there is a chapter that discusses life beyond our solar system, and it uses the Roswell Incident as a nonscience example of the search to find life beyond Earth. I wonder if by the time we get that far, the class will be so brainwashed that they will resort to outright debunking Ufology's holy grail just to eliminate any last doubt. There is the nice picture of the military officers holding pieces of the weather balloon. Yet they conveniently forgot to mention that the government changed its official story 6 times (according to Jim Marrs) and that numerous people came forward denying the official story. Ah, I just love the selective nature of history.

Additionally, the teacher wasn't there for my seminar class today and we were suppossed to take a quiz. Interestingly, this quiz has little to do with physics, and I don't even know how such a thing is to be graded. It came in my inbox, check it out.

Name:___________________________
PHY1050 -- Freshman Seminar Quiz 2
1= Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Don't Know, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree

1) Intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe. 1 2 3 4 5

2) Earth has been/is being visited by "Aliens" 1 2 3 4 5

3) Paranormal (ESP, Telekinetic ability etc.) is real 1 2 3 4 5

4) Catastrophic Global Warming caused by man is

Occurring 1 2 3 4 5

5) Ozone destruction caused by CFC's is occurring 1 2 3 4 5

6) Magnets placed on joints can improve strength 1 2 3 4 5

7) Psychic predictions and astrology are real 1 2 3 4 5

8) Human perception is objective 1 2 3 4 5

9) Man coexisted with dinosaurs 1 2 3 4 5

10) Faster than light travel is possible 1 2 3 4 5

11) 20% of 99 is smaller than 99% of 20 1 2 3 4 5

12) Household EMF radiation causes cancer 1 2 3 4 5

13) Moonlight is reflected sunlight 1 2 3 4 5

14) Scientists are skeptics 1 2 3 4 5

15) Crystals have healing powers 1 2 3 4 5


16) Is the following argument sound? (Sound or Not sound?) Why or Why not? (Please answer the question based on the following statement only and not other outside/inside information)

“About half of the lung cancer/respiratory disease victims SMOKE. This is EVIDENCE of a direct link between smoking and lung diseases.”

I suppose if you agree with the normal statements and disagree with the more paranormal ones, you have learned well and are a good scientist, eh?

 

[Renaissance]

Not a bad article, even if it does gently lead one to believe the entire UFO phenomenon is nonsense.

I have to wonder why you think it's not a bad article. I sense you think it's 'not bad' because it seems to recommend to be critical of belief. If it's true you think this, maybe we can see some hypocrisy here: perhaps in your perception and most definitely in the article. On one hand there is an appearance of being critical to belief, and on the other hand there is 'leading one to believe...' So really, the surface 'critical' appearance is just a mask used to persuade the audience to accept belief and credulousness (even though it claims to be against such things) - a good example of ponerology. The author uses a lot of words that prove to have little to no (and even opposing) value. I think words can begin to have some value when we apply them to our own situation. Frankly, I think the author is full of him or herself. It seems apparent that the author has no understanding of what s/he saying. Crimson is using distanced resources for investigating credulity when the material that could really hit home is what is immediately facing him/her.

I think it's easy for a fairly objective person to think that with all of the disinformation that is floating around.

If someone accepts disinformation how can they be 'fairly objective'?

The idea seems to be central to this forum; belief vs. true knowledge

Does this idea appear anywhere in the article you presented?

and this article served as another synchronicity in the chain of interesting events that has been going on in recent days.

Do you see this synchronicity as a good thing? It could be a 'good' thing if learned from, but I get the sense that you're being pulled in, or perhaps better put: being kept in by it.

For now, the only other thing I have to say is that you will never really learn anything of consequence if your emotional center is dead. A person can be as intellectually gifted as is humanly possible and go nowhere if his emotional center is dead - I cannot stress strongly enough how crucial this point is.

A girl that I cared deeply about once told me, "without emotions you will never advance." It is something that stuck in my mind and you have brought it up again. It is a character flaw that I created to avoid being overcome with grief at the Matrix reality. To have no emotions is to be like the greys. Yet, we must not allow emotions to color our perceptions and make us do rash things. Where does the balance lie? I do not know, it is another lesson that I am dealing with. Even though it may be obvious for you, it is a very real problem to me. That is all I can really say about that.

Neil, it seems your missing some very important knowledge of the fourth way. I think reading up on the material will probably appeal to you because it can be a very intellectual system that can help to awaken the emotional center. Interestingly, the description of your separation to emotions is quite similar to the way the author in your mentioned article seeks credulity through far off means of the paranormal. You talk about emotions in terms of the matrix and the greys. But emotions are personal, and they relate us to our interactions with others. I'm not saying this because I think you don't realize it, but because I don't know that you're dealing with it in this way.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

I completely agree with what Shane said. The article by "Crimson" I thought was a terrible article. Crimson is what many better-informed people call a "pseudoskeptic" -- someone who pretends to be a true skeptic but in actual fact has a very fundamental belief system at stake which they must defend, at ALL COSTS! That belief system is often called "scientism". I suggest you Google "pseudoskeptic" as there's plenty of good articles about what they are and the disingenuous ways in which they operate. One man has even coined the term "Skepti-Cult" to represent that group of individuals who are fanatical about "debunking" ANYTHING that goes against what is accepted in mainstream science (even something quite well-proven like acupuncture) . These people are so blinded by their fanaticism that they are willing to concoct extremely tortuous, convoluted explanations for EACH INDIVIDUAL unexplained phenomenon, when one simple, cohesive explanation would succinctly and very adequately explain a WHOLE RANGE of similar phenomena. The irony here, of course, is that pseudoskeptics are failing to follow their own favoured precept of Occam's Razor! For instance, by accepting that there is very likely a real higher dimension (as Einstein suggested), a whole range of bizarre and well-documented incidences such as UFOs, strange creatures, crop circles, hauntings etc., etc. suddenly become much more plausible. But no, the pseudoskeptic would much prefer numerous different complicated (and frankly credibility-stretching) explanations to explain these individual incidents because they must avoid explanations that are not currently accepted by the mainstream dogma!

I should add that after studying these people for some time, it seems to me that they have a pathological condition, VERY SIMILAR to those religious fundamentalists. I don't believe that all of them are ponerized; however if they are it is very likely due the influence of other ponerized pseudoskeptics.

 

[Cyre2067]

Hi Neil, wow - that "quiz".... definitely seems like their trying to "identify" free-thinkers. I would do as the others suggest, try to make it appear as if you're going along with the program, but retain your personal views and if you have time, expand upon them (If you haven't yet, Dolan's UFOs & The National Security State is a great resource). Gentle as a Dove - Wise as a serpent.

Here's another suggestion: that feeling you get when these "authority" figures mechanically lambast the paranormal - try to catch it and examine it as if under an internal microscope. If you can hold it(without turning it into thoughts/words or actions), you might get a good glimpse at your emotional center.

Re: College - I found that dorm life, and the food especially was "draining". I'm not sure what your living situation is, i was in a dorm room with 2 other people and one of them was a narcissist. After one semester in that situation i moved off campus, never would do the dorm thing again. Try to eat healthy, make sure to get plenty of vege's/fruits. In retrospect my diet took a major turn for the worse in college, i would avoid the same mistake if i could "do it over".

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

The difference between science and pseudoscience is *not* the subject matter, never was. The difference is approach. Calling a subject matter a "pseudoscience" is completely incorrect. Pseudoscience is the approach of including assumptions in your investigation or research. Science is the approach of questioning and testing and making working hypothesis that fit the data, without relying on assumptions to draw your conclusions. The subject matter never had anything to do with it. Everything that humanity ever invented or discovered - from x-rays to heavier-than-air flight to atoms and quantum physics was at first only a theory, and sometimes just a misunderstood phenomenon that someone accidentally noticed but did not understand and decided to scientifically research. Just because you don't understand the nature of something, does not make it a pseudoscience.

The problem is, whenever serious researchers undertake an investigation into an unknown phenomenon or theory, there is a lot more people making all sorts of assumptions about what it is and what it's not before having any data. Those are the pseudoscientists practicing their pseudoscience.

And Occam's Razor is tricky business. If 2 theories fit when describing the same phenomenon, pick the simple one? The problem is, how do you know which theory truly fits when your data is incomplete? If your data was complete it would no longer be a theory, it would be a fact. So as long as it is a theory, you are still lacking data. Another problem is, how do you know which is the simple one? More data can easily show that the one that at first glance looked more complex is actually much simpler. For example, where did humans come from? Evolution? God? Alien bioengineering lab? Which of those is the simplest one? It depends on whom you ask, and depends on whether you think about the logical implications of each answer thoroughly enough and consider the data. Most people would not touch that alien bioengineering one because the other 2 sound much more simple. Hey, God is all powerful, he just sneezed and everything appeared. Simple! Or, evolution, just billions of years of accidents and randomness and voila, humans. Simple. But that doesn't make them have *anything* to do with objective reality, their simplicity at first glance may be an illusion. And the idea that really IS the simplest and most likely may in fact be that 3rd one, or something else entirely.

I think Occam's Razor is only useful to help save time. If you have a number of theories that equally fit the currently evailable data, it might simply be easier and faster to start with the simplest one first (one that may be easiest to test for example), but Occam's Razor has nothing to do with deciding which theory is most likely to be true.

Another example is 911. What is simpler that Osama and his buddies did it, or Israel and US working together? At first glance the former sounds much simpler, and the latter sounds very convoluted and involved with all those coverups and complexities etc. But in reality, the latter is in fact the case - logically who benefits, and what all the evidence is pointing to. And if you really think about it, it is actually easier for the government to do something like this than for a band of muslim terrorists to plan, and execute it all out of sight of all our intelligence agencies, and with impossible elements thrown it like ordering our military to stand down when it happens. So what seems simple at first glance might end up being impossibly complex and highly unlikely after the data is examined.

And what do you mean he is "highly philosophical"?

Philosophical means: Related to the rational investigation of the principles and truths of being, knowledge or conduct.

What is rational about his statements? He is irrationally telling you to NOT investigate principles and truths of being and calls what he doesn't understand "pseudoscience". That is as far from philsophy as you can get, osit.

My humble advice - don't worry about your professor, don't worry about talking to him about this stuff.

And for some reason, the sound of the voices of Scott, Henry, and Laura reignited my mind; though I'm still not where I was.

Well here's something from the C's:

Q: (L) Alright you trade off, see what happens.[Terry removes his hand from planchette leaving only Ark
and Laura.]
Q: (L) Hello, hello, anybody?
A: Give rest to Terry.
Q: (L) What do you mean "Give rest to Terry?"
A: He is detuned due to long absence.
Q: (L) What's this about ill?
A: Ill fitting energy resonance. Terry needs to regroove.
Q: (L) How does Terry regroove? (T) Yes, how do I regroove? (L) How does a person regroove?
A: First by spending time in learning to the same level as others in resonance.
Q: (T) It moves quick now! (L) So in other words, umm...well I don't know. (A) We are not talking to
Cassiopaeans, we are talking to someone unknown.
A: Yes Cassiopaea.
Q: (L) Why was it spelled funny the first time?
A: Lack of resonance.
Q: (T) Well I guess I'm out of resonance. (L) Why is Terry out of resonance?
A: Too long absence and cares of life.
Q: (T) Too much 3rd density?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) It's been a busy summer. (J) There's been a lot happening. (L) Alright so, tell us what to do about
it, do you want to know what to do about it?
A: Interaction is highly desirable. Even if only he is in contact via email.
Q: (T) Email? Do they have email at 6th density?
A: Grooving is long process.
Q: (T) So being away too long is a loss of the groove, frequency?
A: Not loss, failure to keep with pace of rapid advancement of process of network.

Maybe try to keep up with the network, just being here might be good for your mind - spending too much time in sleeping and ponerized environment is bound to rub off on our mind, I know that from my own experience, and then reading the SOTT and forum is extremely refreshing and really helps to shake off that mental fog of pseudo-logic and other sillyness that I might pick up while away from the group. It definitely takes conscious effort to maintain your mental state and not let it get skewed etc. So if your mind is impressionable and influenced by the ponerization of others, sometimes it helps to NOT go into such subject matters with others, as you will be met with tons of programs and rationalizations, some of which can be subtle and even convincing sounding - they have to be if the person is intelligent and needs a convincing rationalization for himself to rule out what is uncomfortable and what gets in the way of his "rational" world view. I'd just focus on the subject matter at hand - do what you need to do to get a good grade, tell the professor what he wants to hear. Remember STO - help those who ask. If you do go into such subjects and end up sticking your head in the mud, don't forget to get a healthy doze of "healthy psyche" back here at the headquarters, refresh your mind, and address whatever issues you may have picked up, and hopefully strengthen your mind and make it less likely to be confused/influenced next time. Just my 2 cents.

 

[anart]

On the same token, I do suppose I'm prone to thinking I know more than I do, which results in lapses such as this.

That's my point. Because you consider yourself 'smarter than the average bear' - you are missing both the finer details and the larger context of your situation. You are reacting - instead of acting. You are underestimating the situation because you consider yourself smart enough to not be in the same kettle of soup with everyone else.

Not too crass; it gets your point across so what difference does it make? I think the fishpond analogy is useful, though.

The difference it makes is up to you, not me. But if you mean, 'what difference does being crass make' - then it can make quite a difference in whether or not one's message gets across. Being crass tends to turn people's minds off; to turn them away, thus, it's not a very effective away to communicate. But, back to the topic, either you start to wake up and realize you are in the soup and that you have to learn how to not get too close to the flame, (through external consideration and building a strong strategic enclosure) - or you dissolve into the soup with everyone else, dreaming that you are different.

For now, the only other thing I have to say is that you will never really learn anything of consequence if your emotional center is dead. A person can be as intellectually gifted as is humanly possible and go nowhere if his emotional center is dead - I cannot stress strongly enough how crucial this point is.

A girl that I cared deeply about once told me, "without emotions you will never advance." It is something that stuck in my mind and you have brought it up again. It is a character flaw that I created to avoid being overcome with grief at the Matrix reality. To have no emotions is to be like the greys. Yet, we must not allow emotions to color our perceptions and make us do rash things. Where does the balance lie? I do not know, it is another lesson that I am dealing with. Even though it may be obvious for you, it is a very real problem to me. That is all I can really say about that.

This grief of the Matrix reality is exactly why most people stifle their emotional center. Such techniques may very well serve a vital purpose at some point in our lives, usually when we are too young to cope any other way. Unfortunately, as one grows, these techniques become dysfunctional and destructive to learning.

Have you read 'In Search of the Miraculous' or 'Myth of Sanity'? If you haven't, you should as soon as possible. The Fourth Way can teach you how to awaken your emotional center and how to keep control of those horses - as long as you have not gained control over these horses (your emotional center), they will limit and control your life in many ways. Pretending to not feel them doesn't mean they aren't there, and that they aren't controlling you. You have a lot of work to do - but I think you can do it.

Oh, as far as that questionnaire, I would peronally answer them all 'I don't know' - not enough data to conclusively decide either way - but that's just me - and it would probably still send up a red flag. The other input you've received on the other things you've brought up seems right on target, btw.

 

[John G]

This may be an example of input that isn't right on target, but if you are going to throw up a red flag somewhere anyway, I personally would have a little discussion with him but I'd stick to physics and physicists. I'd probably bring up Michio Kaku

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

more for his name recognition than for his actual ideas. I'd then probably try to get into more detailed physics where I'd bring up conformal degrees of freedom via Ark and Tony Smith (and their credentials). I'd ask politely, OK where are these guys going wrong? Physics discusions tend to end up a stalemate with nobody convincing anyone of anything. At least you would come across as focusing on physics.

 

[Neil]

I have to wonder why you think it's not a bad article. I sense you think it's 'not bad' because it seems to recommend to be critical of belief. If it's true you think this, maybe we can see some hypocrisy here: perhaps in your perception and most definitely in the article.

I suppose it is because I have a fair amount for the skeptical point of view. If some weird stuff didn't happen to me when I was a kid, I probably wouldn't be at all interested in this stuff. I can easily see myself being one of those debunkers, which is what they seem to be so desperately training me to be. You have shown there is some subtle hypocrisy in the article and hence in my perception as well. I needed to take more time to analyze the details. You're right, it is leading one to believe and being critical of belief at the same time. I simply did not make the connection. So I believed that the article was comparing belief to true knowledge while it was really twisting the knowledge to create new belief.

I realize that "fairly objective" is an ambiguous term, but the intended meaning was to denote someone who is intelligent and capable of critically analyzing something. I do not think that anyone has attained absolute objectivity, so the objectivity of a person is relative to their ability to percieve the objective reality. It does not seem logical to me that a "really objective" skeptic or skeptic that is advanced in the Work could dismiss the paranormal in the way they do.

Do you see this synchronicity as a good thing?

No, the paranormal slant that is hitting me through various mediums is buillding a wall around me. It serves as a reminder that I must keep contact with those on the outside and not become entirely encircled by it.

I have not read "In Search of the Miraculous." Only excerpts. I know that I must get it. The scenario I just described sounds very similar to getting out of the "prison" that represents the control system and its pleathora of A influences. It seems there are some wolves in sheep's clothing as well. All of this combined with my emotional issue is making the road rather bumpy at the moment. The situation will only get worse if I do not recognize these problems and do something about them. Networking is essential, without networking I will become completely isolated and will be easy to deal with. I think I can dig out of this if I take your advice to heart, restore my ability think, and balance my centers. It's going to be a hell of a ride but it's worth a shot.

I should add that after studying these people for some time, it seems to me that they have a pathological condition, VERY SIMILAR to those religious fundamentalists. I don't believe that all of them are ponerized; however if they are it is very likely due the influence of other ponerized pseudoskeptics.

Geez, everything is infected. I seriously underestimated the power of the Matrix in this area. The price of ignorance is not cheap. Not only is there old time religion for simple minds, there is a religion of science for intricate minds. I almost bought it. I thought, "Yeah, well, the paranormal is so far out there they'll never talk about that. They'll never question me about it because I'll never give them any reason to believe that I think about such things. Everything will be just fine." The reality is, "So you think science is cool. We teach the real science. We've been waiting to teach people just like you."

Hi Neil, wow - that "quiz".... definitely seems like their trying to "identify" free-thinkers. I would do as the others suggest, try to make it appear as if you're going along with the program, but retain your personal views and if you have time, expand upon them (If you haven't yet, Dolan's UFOs & The National Security State is a great resource). Gentle as a Dove - Wise as a serpent.

Read, yes, I need to start reading again. I haven't read any books that are "real" since I got here. I ended up putting 3 for all of the paranormal questions, denying statements such as "men coexisted with dinosaurs," and affirming statements such as "CFCs are damaging the ozone layer."

Here's another suggestion: that feeling you get when these "authority" figures mechanically lambast the paranormal - try to catch it and examine it as if under an internal microscope. If you can hold it(without turning it into thoughts/words or actions), you might get a good glimpse at your emotional center.

I think my emotions are trying to "do" something here. I lie to myself and most everyone else so I don't stand out in a crowd. When my professor makes a sarcastic comment about the paranormal, I feign laughter and feel as if I'm betraying myself. It never used to bother me before; I considered it "good cover." I willingly participate in the vandalism of my own thoughts. It makes me feel guilty in a way. It keeps me from being able to throw the paranormal away because it is a part of me, but it also makes me depressed that this part must always remain hidden from view. This is a new phenomenon. See what trouble emotions can cause?

Re: College - I found that dorm life, and the food especially was "draining".

Thus far, the only noticiable effect college has had on me is a pronounced "draining" of my cognitive capabilities. I had a nice little chat with my roommate on the first day about my world view; and he thinks I'm a bit too weird and he stays away from me as much as possible. He comes to sleep and get stuff, occasionally watch skateboarding videos on YouTube and that's it. There's his friend Rocky, which is very manipulative. He calls my roommate names when he doesn't get what he wants. His most popular name is "deusch"[sic?] which means poop. And then he will call Rocky a "deusch" back and then Rocky will elevate it to F***er. And eventually my roommate will give in and go to the pool or the cafeteria or whatever with him. When he tried it on me I said "I suppose anyone who doesn't conform to your demands is a "deusch". I'm not your slave, find someone else to bother." He kept his distance after that. There's Rocky's friend Ryan, who wants to be everybody's friend. I don't mind him so much, but he follows Rocky around and partakes in the same activities; so I keep my distance. There's "Crazy Tom" who always talks about sex and various drinking parties. He offers to "set you up" and he wants to be my friend but I wouldn't trust him with a penny. There's the black people next door who listen to their rap music every day; makes me want to shoot their stereo. So you could say we have a nice little psycho merry go-round going on here. There are other people who live in this wing who are more sensible and kind of keep to themselves, but the overall atmosphere is a bit uncomfortable.

I'm also concerned about the electrosmog factor. There is a radio station in this building which uses the big antenna on top. The campus-wide Wi-Fi network also has a broadcasting station up there. There are 250 or so people in this building, and you can assume they all have cell-phones. (We're in a seven story building, so it's pretty compact.) Then there's a cell tower about a mile up the road, and various other antennas scattered about. I've always kind of doubted the EMF conspiracy theories becuase if they really do so much damage; how did it get into such widespread use? Why hasn't anyone blown the whistle on this? However, if there's even a grain of truth to it, I've got so much more exposure now that it's ridiculous. Additionally, there were a bunch of military guys here a couple days ago walking around with computers doing a "security inspection."

Industrial Security Program Passes DoD Review
Florida Tech’s industrial security program got a clean bill of health from the Department of Defense (DoD) Security Services recently. “This means the university can continue participating in classified
activities with the DoD,” said Facility Security Director Pete Porche. Activities include cooperative research and sponsorships by government agencies and defense contractors.
DoD Special Agent Josh Gibson was on campus recently to “make sure we are following all the rules,” said Porche, the university’s industrial security officer. While here, Gibson conducted the annual review of the university’s industrial security program and gave a briefing to Provost T. Dwayne McCay
and President Anthony Catanese.

And Occam's Razor is tricky business. If 2 theories fit when describing the same phenomenon, pick the simple one? The problem is, how do you know which theory truly fits when your data is incomplete?

That is a good point.

And what do you mean he is "highly philosophical"?

This is a word that has perhaps been ponerized. In America, philosophy has come to mean a set of abstract principles that are applied to improve lifestyle or condition. It is that definition of philosophical that I was referring to. At least, everyone I've met has used the word in that sense.

Maybe try to keep up with the network, just being here might be good for your mind - spending too much time in sleeping and ponerized environment is bound to rub off on our mind, I know that from my own experience, and then reading the SOTT and forum is extremely refreshing and really helps to shake off that mental fog of pseudo-logic and other sillyness that I might pick up while away from the group.

Yes, that is the excerpt about grooving. I agree, when you "leave the group" you tend to get left behind. I fear that I am being ponerized, little by little. Writing about it on this forum seems to slow it down, but there is a force trying to draw me into this ponerized society. I do not understand why it is so influential; I suppose the realization that I must make is that my work here is as important, if not more important than my work at school. Thus far, I've only participated in esoteric studies in my free time. But it seems like I'm going to have to make more time or I risk losing my soul! When I first
joined up, I thought it was rather fun, because I would get to have intellectual conversations with people who wouldn't think I was crazy. But as anart has pointed out, it's time to get a move on. I have very real things that need to be accomplished.

Anart- You're quite active on this forum. You seem to be the one who spots all the crazy people. The guy with the sex dream in the graveyard sticks in mind for some reason. Anyway, there are some people that have major programs or issues, but might otherwise be ok. However, they lack the desire for genuine introspection and when you try to tell them what their issues might be they pretty much ignore you and keep going. When you put it in more simple and direct terms, they go into complete denial that they have any problems at all; and when you push the issue, they accuse you of attacking them or singling them out or whatever. I've seen several people get banned because they have deluded beliefs of their own perfection and think that anyone who sees that they are obviously not are the ones who are flawed. Not wanting to fall into that trap, I wanted you to tell me what you really thought with the niceties aside. I did not know that people often shut off their emotions to deal with the Matrix. I'd read about so many examples of people who are just so overcome by it that they can't bear it and go back to sleep, usually a la New Age belief systems. I was so determined not to fall into that camp... But I see what you're saying. That in avoiding to become unbalanced in one extreme, I became unbalanced in another. Balance must exist for real work to be done. Gurdjieff's work is first on my shopping list.

Well, I turned in the questionaire and the paranormal theme continues. Now we must take a position on this article http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-04.html#freeman and write a short essay explaining our position. In addition, we were instructed to watch this http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/ted_shermer_m_2005.mov

Did you hear the guy's rationalization for the UFO pictures that might be real? "Well, there could be a few real ones, but since most of them are fake they're all probably fake." That's so stupid it's almost funny.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Well, I turned in the questionaire and the paranormal theme continues. Now we must take a position on this article http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-04.html#freeman and write a short essay explaining our position. In addition, we were instructed to watch this http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/ted_shermer_m_2005.mov

Did you hear the guy's rationalization for the UFO pictures that might be real? "Well, there could be a few real ones, but since most of them are fake they're all probably fake." That's so stupid it's almost funny.

So which subject are you supposed to be studying -- astrophysics isn't it? In which case, I am completely STUNNED at how off-topic your course material is. Unless it's more of a 'philosophical' astrophysics, in which case that's a new area I've never heard of before. And if it is philosophical, what makes people think that the physics known to higher-density denizens is ANYTHING remotely like our level of understanding? The answer to that is something like 'wishful thinking leading to self-delusion'.

 

[GRiM]

"they both have 'paranormala' aspects to them"

May I ask what you're studying?

Cognitive neuro science and philosophy. I have a bit different view about consciousness then my lectures and professors do, I try to make small hints when some new research cast doubt on old paradigms but often I just have to suck it up and go with the current models (that consciousness is a evolutionary latecomer which helped us escape lions and bears)

Yes! This is what I want so badly to do, especially on something as profound as intelligent life in the universe. But I don't have proof. I can't say that I know absolutely without a doubt that aliens are real. They will whittle you down until you're left with little more than beliefs or experience, which is subjective and can't be tested. Then you will be a superstitious fool, and carry that label for a long time. I feel the same way about talking to someone honestly, but the only place I am likely to have an intelligent open-minded conversation is this forum. Most everyone else falls into the Carl Sagan, virtuous Space Brothers, or don't know don't care camp. I will be surprised if anything happens to the contrary.

Maybe its a good idea to just point out new research which cast doubt on the current paradigm and wait for people and friends to come up with there own questions. I think they will remember were they heard the claim/fact from and return with a question.