{"id":2551,"date":"2010-04-13T14:18:07","date_gmt":"2010-04-13T14:18:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/irdial.com\/blogdial\/?p=2551"},"modified":"2010-04-14T09:22:51","modified_gmt":"2010-04-14T09:22:51","slug":"the-ufo-problem-from-a-strategic-events-perspective","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/irdial.com\/blogdial\/?p=2551","title":{"rendered":"The UFO Problem from a Strategic Events Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tom Chivers the Telegraph.co.uk’s “Strategic Events Editor”, ‘science nerd and pedant’ startles us by the stupidity of his unintelligent and pedestrian twaddle on UFOs:<\/p>\n

\n

Marvellous. An \u201cAmerican professor\u201d has called for UFOs and other \u201cunexplained phenomena\u201d to be a university subject.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Science IS marvellous… what is your problem?<\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s in the US, not in Britain, mercifully,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Properly executed Scientific method not being practiced in the UK is a good thing?<\/i><\/p>\n

\n

although with our excellent range of pseudoscientific BSc options you feel it\u2019ll only be a matter of time (the University of Westminster\u2019s course in \u201cVibrational Medicine\u201d is a case in point).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I smell a Saganite, Shostlackite<\/a> skeptic. And it smells BAD.<\/p>\n

\n

I\u2019ve put the words \u201cAmerican professor\u201d in inverted commas, not because he isn\u2019t really American or really a professor, but because it\u2019s a direct quote from the news story. It\u2019s a funny thing that being a professor \u2013 of any subject, at any university \u2013 seems to make you an authority on anything at all.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the same way that a “Strategic Events Editor” makes you an expert on Science. I guess.<\/p>\n

\n

So Prof Philip Haseley, a professor of anthropology at the Niagara County Community College in New York State, is now held up as an expert on alien life.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He at least, appears to be a real scientist, which is quite different to a skeptic; skeptics are not scientific, they are religious fanatics in the cult of Science.<\/i> This cult of science has its own dogma, its high priests and rabid followers, just like Tom Chivers, who is, apparently, a fully paid up member.<\/p>\n

\n

Let\u2019s be clear: I\u2019m not saying a belief in alien life per se is ridiculous. The debate over whether or not we are alone in the universe is huge and ongoing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That debate is over; haven’t<\/a> you heard<\/a>?<\/p>\n

\n

The most famous tool we have is the Drake Equation,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here comes the dogma!<\/p>\n

\n

which \u2013 using estimated figures like how many stars there are in the universe, how quickly they\u2019re formed, how many planets they have on average, how many of those planets could support life (and how many of those then do), and so on \u2013 attempts to work out how many extraterrestrial civilisations we might, in principle, be able to communicate with.<\/p>\n

One set of current figures puts that number at two, but that is highly controversial; a few minor tweaks to the estimated inputs can easily raise it as high as 20,000 or as low as 0.000065, which would imply that we are almost certainly alone in our stellar neighbourhood. This continuing argument is the basis of SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, which for 50 years has scanned the skies for signals which could only come from intelligent life (and there is, of course, a further argument over what that means).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Now lets hear from an actual, real scientist:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cDrake\u2019s Brave Guess\u201d. He waxed poetic about the Drake Equation, originated 45 years ago by radio astronomer Frank Drake (now co-director of the SETI Institute) which supposedly is a scientific approach to determining the number of civilizations in the galaxy capable of sending radio signals. The idea is that, if we just keep listening, we will make the great discovery that man is not alone in the galaxy. The reasoning is a great example of pseudo-science. The primary reason for the article was the fact that the new Allen Telescope Array with 42 dishes, each 20 feet in diameter, is just going on line at Hat Creek in Northern California.<\/p>\n

Eventually there will be many more dishes. He really seems to believe the quaint notion that our best systems are on a par with alien civilizations\u2019 best capabilities apparently assuming they would not have improved in what could easily be the billion years during which such systems have been around. I was using a slide rule 50 years ago. I don\u2019t anymore. A laser printer is not just a better IBM Selectric Typewriter. Atomic bombs are not just bigger 10 ton block busters that were used earlier in WW 2.<\/p>\n

Of course Shostak doesn\u2019t mention that Hat Creek can\u2019t tune into Southern sky alien radio transmitters,even assuming they are still transmitting using very old, for them, technology. In the \u201cZeta Reticuli Incident\u201d by Terence Dickinson, which discusses Marjorie Fish\u2019s very exciting research on the Betty Hill star map, it is noted that many sun like stars in the neighborhood can only be seen from below the equator.<\/p>\n

Shostak presents the Sacred Drake equation<\/b> and then plays dartboard physics to try to come up with values for such things as on what fraction of planets life develops; on what fraction of those intelligence develops; and on what fraction of those the ability to send radio signals develops and perhaps most important, the lifetime of a civilization.. Considering that we have data for some of these factors from one planet around one star in a galaxy of a few hundred Billion stars, one can see that this is just a mite of a stretch, a rather huge extrapolation. The galaxy may be 13 Billion years old and the sun is only about 4.5 billion years old. But Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli, just 39 light years away, are a billion years older than the sun and just down the street.<\/i><\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.theufochronicles.com\/2006\/06\/drake-equation-by-stanton-t-friedman.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My emphasis. Quoting Stanton Friedman is not an appeal to authority by the way, it is simply quoting facts. Here are some more facts about the Drake Equation:<\/p>\n

\n

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:<\/p>\n

N x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x fL = ?<\/p>\n

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.<\/p>\n

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses — just so we’re clear — are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.<\/p>\n

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing…<\/b><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the case of the Drake equation, we wind up with a formula that would be science if the values were known, but they aren’t so it doesn’t tell us anything. They may claim to use conservative estimates in their calculations, but if the value has no known basis then there’s no good reason to suggest the “guesstimate” is conservative or wildly optimistic. Of course, looking for ET to call home, or Earth, is not that serious a question so we cut the SETI folks some slack even though they are spending taxpayer money.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.terrycolon.com\/4features\/quasi.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And by the way SETI SHOULD be closed down, not only because it is junk science, but because it is being funded with stolen money. They should be cut no slack whatsoever, they should just be CUT.<\/p>\n

But I digress.<\/p>\n

\n

But even if we assume the 20,000 figure, the nearest alien civilisation would probably be about 1,500 light years from Earth. So what Professor Haseley is proposing we take seriously is the following:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

All true scientists take everything seriously. It is precisely the same sort of mocking and illogical posture that ‘scientists’ in the 1800’s took when they shouted down the real scientists who proposed that meteorites<\/a> came from space<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

1) That one or more alien civilisations have either developed vastly faster-than-light propulsion systems or flown for a minimum of 1,500 years across space to find us<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This argument is faulty. First of all, it is like arguing that the only way to cross the atlantic in three hours is by building a boat that travels at twice the speed of sound. You do it in a plane, not a boat. There are probably many ways of travelling long distances that have nothing to do with the holy laws of physics (thou canst not travel faster than the speed of light. To say so is HERESY!). Real scientists<\/a> are not concerned with the skeptical drivel of “strategic events editors”.<\/p>\n

\n

2) That having done so, they neither make contact with our leaders, nor annihilate us in a single blaze of terrible light with their unimaginably advanced technology<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Now we have a telling sentence. Aliens would, quite naturally, contact ‘our’ leaders; the warmongering, deadly, deceptive, devilish, dastardly, dunderheaded scum who murder millions of people at the drop of a hat. Aliens are of course, extremely violent, just like ‘us’. They would come 1500 (actually, more like 39) light years, a feat which this man claims is not credible…. just to annihilate us. Any alien reading this piece would mark this planet ‘STAY AWAY: TOXIC’ on their collaboratively drawn maps. It makes perfect sense; no one in their right mind would come here to be dissected by vivisectionist “strategic events editors” posing as scientists.<\/p>\n

\n

3) That instead they appear to some not-always-stable individuals in remote communities, either bearing confused messages of generic peace-and-goodwill or briefly kidnapping them, usually for bizarre semi-sexual purposes<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yes indeed; it all would look bizarre to the victims of such experimentation<\/a>. It would look inexplicable, unfathomable, terrifying. It would leave marks, and of course, your fellow polar bears would say you were insane when you recounted the story. If polar bears could talk.<\/p>\n

\n

They\u2019re big claims. And, as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

ALL HAIL SAINT SAGAN, SAGE OF SCIENCE, SOOTHSAYER, SKEPTIC, SAVIOUR – PARAGON OF REASON AND OUR GUIDING LIGHT!<\/p>\n

\n

And there is no such evidence.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That is a lie. One out of three<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

The trouble with the whole field of \u201cUFOlogy\u201d is that it relies on a logical fallacy. \u201cYou can\u2019t explain this photograph\/video\/experience\u201d, say the UFOlogists, \u201ctherefore aliens did it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That is another lie. Two out of three<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s reminiscent of creationist logic \u2013 \u201cyou can\u2019t explain this chemical pathway\/complex organ\/unfound fossil, therefore God did it\u201d, and like creationist logic it cheapens what it wants to promote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And yet another lie. Three for three<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

It is a weak and attenuated religion that hides God in a dwindling supply of feeble, unexplained details, instead of seeing God in the whole glory of the universe; and it is a sad misrepresentation of the serious and important search for alien life to reduce it to conspiracy theory and nonsense.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know Prof Haseley, or the Niagara County Community College. Maybe the course will be sceptical and scientific. But I think the really interesting university course \u2013 and one more appropriate for a professor of anthropology \u2013 would be one examining why humanity has such a powerful urge to believe that they have seen ET. What is it in our psyche that needs to know we are not alone?<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

http:\/\/blogs.telegraph.co.uk\/culture\/tomchivers\/100007612\/a-degree-course-in-ufology-cheapens-the-real-search-for-alien-life\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here is an interesting question; how would a “Strategic Events Editor” recommend the release of information relating to the reality of UFOS as alien spacecraft<\/a>, so that the minimum number of people goes insane when the trigger is pulled?<\/p>\n

We may never get the answer to that one, but one thing is for sure, this particular “Strategic Events Editor” does not have the intellectual capacity to design that programme.<\/p>\n

Another classic example of weak mindedness, poor logic, religious dogma masquerading as science and ostrich posturing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Finally, science is not something that can be ‘cheapened’, at least, not in the minds of people who actually have an understanding of how science works.<\/p>\n

The scientific method can be applied to anything. Your personal prejudices, deeply held superstitions, religious beliefs and childish thinking have no effect on what is and is not true. If someone is applying the scientific method to a subject that offends you, science is not in any way cheapened. This is the language of the religious fanatic; what this man is really saying is that studying UFOs is blasphemy<\/i> and that the people who are doing it are fit only for ridicule and then excommunication.<\/p>\n

The history of science is littered with this sort of bad behaviour<\/a>:<\/p>\n