Grinspoon touches upon the UFO phenomenon in the book, although it is certainly not the focus. My favourite part comes when he talks about the Disclosure Project. Here is what Grinspoon has to say about Dr. Greer et al (p. 372 - 373):
"Disclosure is, ultimately, a little sad, a little silly, a little scary, and more than a little stupid. But, why should I care what other people believe, if what they are doing is harmless?
Because I don't think that the Disclosure Project is completely harmless. In June 2002 Greer jumped on the post-9/11 'it's a shame that thousands of people were killed but at least I can use it to promote my cause' bandwagon in a new paper he circulated on the Internet stating, 'One of the few silver linings to these recent tragedies is that maybe - just maybe - people will take seriously, however far-fetched it may seem at first, the prospect that a shadowy, para-governmental and transnational entity exists that has kept UFOs secret - and is planning a deception and tragedy that will dwarf the events of 9/11.'
At the very least, these guys are destructive to our society in the way that a useless mutation in an organism is maladaptive - simply because it uses up energy and resources that are needed elsewhere. On the way out of the Campaign for Disclosure meeting, we passed by boxes where you could make a tax-deductible contribution to the cause, and people were stuffing them full of bills. Maybe the Disclosure Project is really a vast right-wing conspiracy to sap the life out of the environmentalist and pacifist movements by getting people to believe in this crap."
I couldn't have said it better myself, other than to add that the Disclosure Project, and its Exopolitics running mate, have the same effect on the serious study of the UFO phenomenon - using up energy and resources that are needed elsewhere.
Paul Kimball
7 comments:
Paul,
Another tidbit "I thought" was interesting in Grinspoon's book (aside from Sagan being a family friend and mentor), on page 355 he says, "Science has given us a criteria for distinguishing the physical from the metaphysical. But if a conscious entity is studying us, which box does it go in? If advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, the boundary between the physical and the metaphysical vanishes again, as if science never happened . . ..
Despite the undeniable truth of Clarkes Third Law, in our debunking of alien stories we insist that aliens must conform to our current notions of evolution, our understanding of the laws of physics, and some extrapolation of our own technological capabilities. Because we must extrapolate from the known, and because we cannot consider to be real any phenomenon for which there is no scientifically acceptable evidence, we are not open to magic. So scientists may not be any better qualified then anyone else to predict what aliens will look like.
Here’s what we don’t always cop to: Our scientific arguments against “the extraterrestrial hypothesis” for UFOs depend on a framework of assumptions. These are the pesky metaphysical leaks and leaps in our assumptions. These are the pesky metaphysical leaks and leaps in our airtight worldview—the things we feel we to know to be true, but cannot prove.”
Frank
http://frankwarren.blogspot.com/
Frank:
This is one of the things I find refreshing about Grinspoon - he admits that he (and science in general) might not know everything.
Of course, that still doesn't mean that one should simply accept every wacko theory that comes down the pike.
It always comes down to the evidence, and the need to not draw conclusions that are unsupported by it.
Paul
The flaw, my dear fellows, is not in the stars but in ourselves.
The "evidence" that you seek, Paul, as do most serious ufologists, may not be there at all.
It's akin to the "hand of God" which seems palpable but just isn't there as evidence, in that term's real meaning.
Wacko ideas might just be what are needed....strange, obtuse ruminations or insights that open the door to an explanation that 50 years of "evidence" and the threat of evidence haven't provided.
Grinspoon may be a nice, seemingly objective fellow, but his lack of hubris and determination are not what's needed in science -- or ufology.
He's wishy-washy, and great ideas and discoveries rarely come from persons so humble.
Rich
Guys,
I think that Grinspoon is "admitting" that there are "scientific boundaries" in place; personally, I have always said that (in support of ETI) "without further data, one can't 'predict an alien agenda using human logic.'" Sagan said, "in physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."
I think Grinspoon is acknowledging his mentor's mindset, and leaving a door open - which in my view is refreshing given his position . . .
Frank
http://frankwarren.blogspot.com/
I've been reading "Lonely Planets" and I love Grinspoon's tone. Great book. However, I winced at his facile treatment of the Face on Mars.
Grinspoon's a momma's boy!
The reality is there, in ways that Jung and Vallee can talk about, even without the Doubting Thomas kind of evidence that some UFO people require.
No wonder the things are still unexplained!
(I need some lunch I think.)
Rich
Frank:
Exactly.
Mac:
We can't agree with everyone all the time.
Rich:
You're starting to slip off the deep end into Believer-ville.
Paul
Post a Comment