Friday, December 26, 2014

Debunking Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs:

"If you see an ET craft, you need to prove it. Other scientists will always require proof before discussing the subject. Proof is needed before acceptance of the idea. This can be done by distracting the aliens by telling them to 'look over there' while you grab evidence."

I'll get to some proof here in a second, but first here's a few comments I liked.

https://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien-discussions/64116-dr-neil-degrasse-tyson-ufos.html
Oh boy, where to start.

So many points I can make here, but I have to say I am disappointed with Dr. Tyson.

He was speaking from a point of ignorance. Not saying he's stupid here, because clearly he is not, but ignorant in the true sense of the word - he is not aware of the huge mass of UFO research done by scientists, including astronomers.

I'll be the first to admit that the field of ufology has a way of attracting the 'ufo nuts,' but I think he discounts the data from 'regular' people way too much. Doesn't matter who you are, if you see a craft that defies modern technology at 30 feet - you know what you saw, scientist or not.

I think we have to remember that he is a scientist who, by his response, considers the scientific method as the only valid method for knowledge acquisition. And it absolutely is not. There are many other research methodologies that are just as valid. The scientific method manipulates a single variable in a controlled environment, which is just not possible in many fields. Like ufology.

Many things we study involve complex systems which if a single variable is manipulated, it crashes the whole system. I once heard someone illustrate this saying if the Wright brothers first tried to fly a plane without a left wing, then without a right wing to see if it made a difference, they would have never invented the airplane. Yes, silly example that doesn't really have anything to do with UFOs - other than saying that the scientific method cannot be used universally as 'the only' research methodology - certainly not in ufology. We can use devices that employ scientific principles, but I personally don't believe the scientific method alone will ever prove anything in the study of UFOs.
It's very interesting that this huge campaign of "debunking" is ongoing. Governments and military worldwide have been encountering "flying saucers" for decades. Not to mention the millions of people that have seen a UFO phenomenon that should be examined and/or explained by our scientific community; at very least, acknowledged. I like to differentiate between hardware "flying saucers" and "lights in the sky", though both are worthy of intense examination. However, we as a civilization, cannot even admit that THEY exist!
Neil comes off as a very condescending and arrogant person IMO.
 OK, now regarding the issue of proof that this champion of science speaks of.

Full Definition of PROOF

1
a :  the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Source: 


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

Physical - also referred to as real evidence, consists of tangible articles such as hairs, fibers, latent fingerprints and biological material.

Source:

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject01/pdi_s01_m01_01.htm

PHYSICAL traces. Compressed and dehydrated vegetation, broken tree branches, and imprints in the ground have all been reported. Sometimes a soil sample taken from an area where a UFO had been close to the ground will be determined by laboratory analysis to have undergone heating or other changes not present in the control sample. CUFOS has a computer file of over 5600 such cases.

Source:

https://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien-discussions/23552-ted-phillips-ufo-physical-trace-research.html#post9424301

PETER JENNINGS PROGRAM 2005

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2005.03.03

"Particularly irritating was the frequent mention of lights in the sky, billions of stars, and absence of physical evidence. There was not even the slightest mention of Ted Phillips’s 3000+ [now over 4000] excellent physical trace cases from 90 countries. Why show Chris McKay digging in desert dirt and not the traces left by a UFO?" - Nuclear Physicist-Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman received his BSc. and MSc. Degrees in physics from the University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956. He was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist by such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas working in such highly advanced, classified, eventually cancelled programs as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and various compact nuclear powerplants for space and terrestrial applications.
HARD EVIDENCE - PHYSICAL TRACE CASES:

ALIEN ENCOUNTERS: UFO FILES - Aliens... by artforall101


A Blog Visitor's Comments

Commenting on the post, "Debunking Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs," they write:
Tyson to me looks part of the disinfo crowd. He's cited Shermer as someone making a good argument. He's intelligent enough to recognise the errors in reasoning, including the false premise suppositions, used by Shermer to understand his arguments do not follow sound methodology and reasoning. I consider Tyson a heinous propagandist.

That 'statement' of his posted there has so many holes in it. He posits a ridiculous situation where (his scenario) the victims of an abduction, outwit their captors, who in many cases can reportedly read minds, to steel items from their vehicle?

This kind of demand of proof is a straw man argument. It's used to obfuscate all the other evidence of landing traces, pictures, and radar-visual encounters that indicate real phenomena (natural or ET) are active around our planet.

He further needs to consider if the ET hypothesis is true (which is assumed in his statement) that the visitors may not want overt contact with our species - just as human scientists bag and tag less cognizant animals, before releasing them back into the environment.

When it comes to the idea of proof he needs to look those Stanton Friedman interview clips where he talks about four kinds of scientific proofs where you can collect data - controlled experiments, regular natural events (like eclipses), random but period events (like earthquakes), and then the actions of intelligent beings (where you cannot predict things but rather make measurements after the fact - like collecting data on car crashes etc)
I dislike Dr Tyson ...
Related:

Response to Neil De Grasse Tyson quote: UFOs are only unidentified, Not necessarily aliens.