tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post7856415349353490212..comments2023-08-15T01:24:39.187-03:00Comments on The Other Side of Truth: The Scientific MethodPaul Kimballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-87017838306961960252010-09-02T03:20:53.858-03:002010-09-02T03:20:53.858-03:00Always remember when using the scientific method p...Always remember when using the scientific method properly to begin with observations and experiments before even forming the hypothesis. Never leap into an invalid hypothesis unless you wish to spin your wheels and waste valuable time and money. The preliminary work is the most important,otherwise you will be the Engineer that proposes the new jet engine made of balsa wood. Most new research doesn't even make it to theories and laws. Scientists spend most of their time testing and making observations about the real world not speculating with invalid hypotheses that would lead to nowhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-16678514155209704002010-08-28T04:31:51.528-03:002010-08-28T04:31:51.528-03:00I understand where Chris O'Brien is coming fro...I understand where Chris O'Brien is coming from: Stanford and Louis Jarvis (and others, like Linda Moulton Howe), are friends of his, and it's tough to go against your friends, because you want to believe them or give them the benefit of the doubt at least. That's a commendably human reaction.<br /><br />But it isn't good research, and there's the problem. Without revealing who I am, let me just say that I'm (a) a friend of Paul's, and (b) I've butted heads with him frequently over the years, and he's been very critical of some of my ideas and work. You know what - I respect that, and I respect him for it. I know others who he counts as friends, like Stan Friedman, Nick Redfern, and Rich Dolan, do as well. And that's why, despite our disagreements, I still read Paul's blog, and I'll always watch his films. Because he's earned my respect, precisely because he's disagreed with me.<br /><br />Chris seems to work differently. As I said, it's a very understandable, human reaction. It's also wrong for a serious researcher, and even more wrong for someone hosting a paranormal radio show that claims to be "the gold standard".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-4717114191660683722010-08-28T03:12:05.331-03:002010-08-28T03:12:05.331-03:00How many articles on UFOs, citing evidence, has St...How many articles on UFOs, citing evidence, has Stanford published in legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journals? None. His amateur work collecting donosaur fossils is certainly worthwhile, but let's not pretend that it makes him the next Darwin, or Einstein, or even Sagan, and let's also not pretend that it has anything to do whatsoever with his decades of making unsubstantiated claims about the UFO phenomenon, particularly when it comes to having <i>the</i> evidence that will change everything.<br /><br />He's been running a bait-and-switch for a long time now, and everyone with any common sense has figured it out. Which tells us what we need to know about you, Chris, and your common sense.<br /><br />And if his work is too important to publicize, then why is he going on radio programs to publicize it? I think we all know the answer - his ego, which is the one thing that Stanford clearly does present evidence for.Paul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-61627587439121280142010-08-27T21:50:05.526-03:002010-08-27T21:50:05.526-03:00Thanks for the grade-school primer on "the sc...Thanks for the grade-school primer on "the scientific method," Paul. Your opinion of Stanford is just that, your opinion. Ray has published papers in scientific journals--you forgot to mention this fact. How could this be so, if he wasn't aware of the "scientific method?" Why is his (non-UFO related) scientific work on permanent display at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum? How come one of the world's top scientists co-authored a paper w/ Stanford? Because he doesn't know what he is doing?<br />You also forgot to mention that a true scientist doesn't present their hypothesis and conclusions in the media before publishing for peer review. Stanford has decided that his UFO related scientific work is too important to publicize before he is absolutely ready to publish. Sorry dude, everyone (including me) will just have to wait until he published the results of decades of hard, SCIENTIFIC work.christopher o'briennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-3463446330576350882010-08-27T12:20:39.163-03:002010-08-27T12:20:39.163-03:00Looks like the kid gloves have come off. Good for ...Looks like the kid gloves have come off. Good for you. It's nice to see you back on form, calling out people on their ridiculous crap.Ryan P.noreply@blogger.com