Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

help me make them believe we are stardust


turbotim

Recommended Posts

The second section on this with Charles Halt deputy base commander of a military base in England, is interesting. ive since seen this incident explained as space debris and the lighthouse which was on the coast. of course these things could have confused the men, but i have a hard time beliving a laser beam coming down from above can be a lighthouse or space debris ? that explanation seems more ridiculouse than the report itself. Many inconsistences with this report. But essentialy i find it hard to explain in terms that satisfy me that certain individuals ( possibly not all who claimed to be there ? ) did infact witness something unusual. Either Halt is lieing. or once again its a millitary test, thats going to pop up a lot the more i see these reports. Any way hope some find these things interesting, its probably all rubbish. But i find it hard to judge completely ? Enough of this from me. its just a passing fancy. Im getting back to my more interesting astronomy as of now. Ill likely not discuss this further. As it tends to go against everything i belive. But still it is interesting My god what if any of them are right. it doesnt bear thinking about. It has to be nonesense ?

US Government ADMITS UFOs - Alien contact disclosed in Press Conference - YouTube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply
For the believer, no proof is necessary. For the sceptic, no proof is possible.

I made my previous comment to highlight the paradox of faith as a philosophical system. In this context science is a completely different subject area and as a rigorous empirical discipline we follow where it leads us based on the evidence forthcoming from genuinely unbiased scientific enquiry. The essence of faith is that it does not require proof or evidence to hold true. That is the real difference between faith and science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on the faith side, John, and would say to Neil that if a believer doubts or ceases to believe then, by definition, he ceases to be a believer. And I suppose that, very stricly, a seriously scientist never quite believes because no proof can be absolute. But the idea, critical to science, of a working hypothesis (which is what the body of science is) contains descriptions which are vanishingly close to being 'believable.' If this were not the case, would science be worth doing?

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critical difference is indeed the role of doubt. In many faith based systems doubt is seen as weakness, or even sin. In science it is a source of strength. At the same time many scientists including Feynman (also a hero of mine) and to be quite honest me too, are often perceived as arrogant. In a sense scientists are arrogant, in the sense that they have the confidence to believe they can solve nature's mysteries. Furthermore, they are arrogant in the sense that if the whole world disagrees without giving good arguments, they do not change their minds. You really do need to trust your ability to get the right answer, even if you are willing to doubt all the answers you or others have found so far. It is a curious tightrope act.

Scientists see their world view as an interesting model (possibly the best so far) of the workings of the universe, and themselves included. They do not see it as the foundation of their being. The foundation of their being is curiosity (my wife thinks I have never grown up, and am stuck in the "why" phase, to which I always respond: be grateful it wasn't the "no" phase :) ).

For many adherents of faith based systems, contradicting their world view is seen as an attack on their very being, as Neil pointed out, and anger often results.

Maybe this explains the difference between many scientific and other debates. Scientists are often considered blunt, if not rude, when debating. This is because they know the other scientist (often, we are only human after all) will not see it as a personal attack.

BTW, I am pleased that Neil, who states he has severe qualms about discussing certain matters such as UFOs, finds SGL a good environment to discuss them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'be honest I never feel that UFO-ligists are beating a path to *my* doorway, to "distort" my thinking. Idem Russell Grant, (the strangely attractive!) "Mystic Meg", Or even the (Elephant in the Room?) mainstream "religionists" - Not my term, but introducing a "Dawkinite" frisson? My PAGAN friends are a soft target, for "conservative" astronomers, I sense... :)

Maybe "popular scientists" should take heed of Frank Zappa:

Shut Up 'n Play Yer Guitar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Shut up and Get on with yer SCIENCE", maybe? :)

Of course there are (probably) "serious" issues re. "aberrant thinking". The alliance of "those in power" with "weird sh**"? But set against my real world of (personal) financial and health issues. I'm afraid I must limit my Quixotic interest. :)

But Hey, If you think I'm "crazy": Sinead O’Connor Scares Followers With Suicidal Tweets

On the other hand, it raises a question. The internet provides immediate access to a very WIDE audience. "Celebrities" often come across as naive, crazy, or in need of sub-editors? LOL. But despite laughter, I sometimes worry... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critical difference is indeed the role of doubt. In many faith based systems doubt is seen as weakness, or even sin. In science it is a source of strength. At the same time many scientists including Feynman (also a hero of mine) and to be quite honest me too, are often perceived as arrogant. In a sense scientists are arrogant, in the sense that they have the confidence to believe they can solve nature's mysteries. Furthermore, they are arrogant in the sense that if the whole world disagrees without giving good arguments, they do not change their minds. You really do need to trust your ability to get the right answer, even if you are willing to doubt all the answers you or others have found so far. It is a curious tightrope act.

Scientists see their world view as an interesting model (possibly the best so far) of the workings of the universe, and themselves included. They do not see it as the foundation of their being. The foundation of their being is curiosity (my wife thinks I have never grown up, and am stuck in the "why" phase, to which I always respond: be grateful it wasn't the "no" phase :) ).

For many adherents of faith based systems, contradicting their world view is seen as an attack on their very being, as Neil pointed out, and anger often results.

Maybe this explains the difference between many scientific and other debates. Scientists are often considered blunt, if not rude, when debating. This is because they know the other scientist (often, we are only human after all) will not see it as a personal attack.

BTW, I am pleased that Neil, who states he has severe qualms about discussing certain matters such as UFOs, finds SGL a good environment to discuss them.

Hi Micheal. actually i dont find SGL a good enviroment to discuss things that i have learned. But too often i see the smug comments directed at begginers who quite frankly are 99.9% of the time mis interpreting space debris objects ect. Thats obviouse.

Its not the naive inexperiance of the reportee that bothers me quite as much, as the self assured, often bellittling comments directed towards anything that lets say Allen Hynek would not have been so arrogantly smug about. when he was privvy to high class information of the likes of cooper. Not a beginer on SGL

yes its ok to hold more knowledge than beginers. But to be superiour, in a kind of this is our personal little joke club about the silly ufo nonsense, leaves a very bitter Taste in my mouth.

As it really isnt the greatest of human charities.

I think i wanted to show that yes there is a seriouse side to this. despite what the angry skeptics will say, and there little joke club.

No wonder the ufo crowd belives that project blue book and the condon committe was a white wash. Hynek said so, and there is some evidence for this.

Maybe i hoped Micheal that through friendly reasoning a new air of dis belief could at the very least ensue the forum.

Its ok to be skeptical, its ok to not belive everything we are being told. ( that might actually go both ways ) But the smugness is ugly, its not a club i would want to join anytime soon, i tend to respect Edgar Mitchell more for being brave enough to stand up for what he sees is the truth.

For example was Edgar Mitchell lying when he said the admiral now denies certain things ? I do not belive belive he was, he strikes me as a very noble american hero. Of humble background. who has not forgot hes roots. who has a vision of the future space program that is sadly lacking in obamas considerations.

cutting the moon project was a mistake in my opinion.Do you not get the feeling that something at the very least doesnt feel quite right, for example the meeting at the pentagon. What a position the goverment is in, they can not openly say Edgar Mitchell and particulaly Gordon cooper are lying, because they are ( were ) one of there own.

They can of course say Edgar Mitchell is mistaken, but they can not belittle him openly, and so we see a silence. They can not say Gordon cooper is lying So we get silence, a fear of reacting to the american heroes, because what can they say ?

yes hes telling the truth. sorry you have all been denied access to information that the likes of cooper took it upon themselves to tell the world. My God if that happened would we as human beings ever trust our goverments again. Who would get voted in next time after the big addmission ? The radical change in goverments might de stabilize the world after that bombshell was released. we would forever after live our lives in a semi permament parenoid state towards goverment, though we know some in high places have lied ( clinton )

Of course if cooper isnt lying ( because he sure cant be mistaken about the things hes said ) Then the goverment is in a very tricky position to be in. So we see this silence, and ill admit that silence bothers me a bit. Where did they reasure Both of these great men that they are wrong or just mistaken ?

It bothers me a little that hasnt actually happened, because if there is no truth to these claims, Cooper would have been given a explanation long ago that would have satisfied him enough to not tell the world there is indeed a with holding of information.

why did that not happen ? i get a horrible feeling in my stomach that its because they can not. Which personally i find quite frightening, And that bothers the hell out of me, because i no longer am so **** sure as i used to be that everything said on this subject is nonesense. Even though i want it to be.

My Astronomy background as far as wht i belived and learned growing up, wants cooper to be lying. And all the milltary witnesses that now appear to be coming foward.

you can tell Dr Mitchell seems akward on occassion, ( hey wouldnt you ) and that hes careful and measured in what he says in interviews, I get the feeling that he does not want to do anything to hurt hes country, which he clearly loves, but like cooper seems compelled to speak out.

Exactly the same For Charels Halt. and many many others. Like i said im not convinced about anything. But whats botherimg me is that im not so 100% sure the likes of Hynek were wrong.

The likes of Nick pope are wrong. There can and has been, and will continue to be a thousand explanations, to explain away what all these important people are telling the world.

I think im finding it harder and harder to accept all the explanations that are given. Because when in a corner. The goverment only produces silence, and this is what we are seeing with these two american heroes of the space programm. Untill we know for sure there is no substance to any of these high class reports ( im not interested in the guy who speaks to martians on a daily basis ) There are also thousands of low class reports that are almost certainly mis identifications, its very easy to fool the general public, hoaxes have shown how easy it is to fool the general public into beliving they have seen spachips from elswhere, we know that. what perplexes me is how the hell was Cooper and Halt and many other high class witnesses fooled so easily ? For that disturbingly i have no answer. some are clearly wrong. But are they all ? i have no idea.

Please at least lets try to be civill to those who may hold other views. with the superiour club, having a requitement of bellitling Joking the subject a requirement before they can join the club.

Im afraid the more i see and feel that, the more i realize how little so many actually know. And how little they may actually have researched the high class reports to be commenting in a educated way.

And how easy it actually is for goverments to set a tone of ridulouse nonsense, Through out society. That makes us become ugly as human beings.

If i shout its all nonsense, its all nonsense a thousand times. Maybe it will go Away. I for one wish it would go away. Because like Dr Mitchell i feel akward talking about it, with those that i know ( some not all ) will be hateing and laughing. But becuse i accept nothing but question everything. I know i shouldnt feel like that, i have done nothing wrong to wonder why, so many things just do not appear to be adding up. Despite what seth from seti says. He doesnt appear to have all the answers either unfortunately. I actually wish he did. Im in two minds about posting this. one side of me wants to leave it. How wrong is it that i feel like that with Astonomy friends.

Not because of what you have done, Your actually very respectful. But because the subject is ridiculouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this has gone so way off topic :)

When can we discuss werewolves......? :)

:):D

However some of the stuff has been insightful - perhaps SGL would allow it to continue in a dedicated thread??

Fair enough, it has meandered a great deal. Though at least nobody mentioned otters...

oh, drat!

:)

But to get back on topic, I have always found the notion that I am a piece of stardust pondering the stars very attractive. One could suggest to anyone of any belief that it is curious that you being a part of the cosmos, and being made of the same materials as the cosmos, have the ability to study the cosmos. This should be quite unthreatening, as you never say how this cosmos came into being (something we still do not really understand). You just bring into focus the strange fact that some part of the cosmos can suddenly open its eyes and wonder about life the universe and everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this has gone so way off topic :)

When can we discuss werewolves......? :)

:):D

What do you 'off topic'? Werewolves always turn up to lunar observing sessions. :)

Ah, lunar observing, when did that first pop up in this thread. :iamwithstupid::D:dog: <- couldn't find a werewolf smiley, dog will have to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this has gone so way off topic :)

When can we discuss werewolves......? :)

:):D

However some of the stuff has been insightful - perhaps SGL would allow it to continue in a dedicated thread??

Yes i agree its my fault apologies to all. I kind of do think its worth discussing, But belive me a very strong part of me really doesnt want to. I take my astronomy very seriousely, and i work hard it, ive loved it all my life. This is like having a itch that im finding hard to scratch.

Easier to forget really. You may notice ive been on SGL for quite a while but steered clear of any of this. why do you think that is ?

Because i want to be judged on my astronomy. Not a confused position on a subject that really just shouldnt be. but yet, some of my astonomy heroes. Seem intent on shaking what ive always belived. Those that find it really that easy to dismiss, are probably the lucky ones.

I think ive really made my point. I hope my points are valid, and insightful. If thats the general feeling im happy. If not, then ive produced a poor discussion. And we can all go back to our safe positions. and my silence on all things ufo Will go back to what they was. Only problem is, you only need a tiny amount of doubt. To change ones position ( even slightly ) And thats the problem im left with.

Thinking some of these guys could be right. Not knowing it, thats impossible. But not having that safe sure position, that is quite frankly a lot easier to live with.

That really is it from me. I would rather not another thread started. Just apologies again for letting the topic go so far off. But ill admit ive wanted to input on this for a long long Time. Shows you how much i love my astronomy, and distrust this subject and by virtue human nature with it. Good show on tolerance here anyway. I expected far worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes i agree its my fault apologies to all. I kind of do think its worth discussing, But belive me a very strong part of me really doesnt want to. I take my astronomy very seriousely, and i work hard it, ive loved it all my life. This is like having a itch that im finding hard to scratch.

Easier to forget really. You may notice ive been on SGL for quite a while but steered clear of any of this. why do you think that is ?

Because i want to be judged on my astronomy. Not a confused position on a subject that really just shouldnt be. but yet, some of my astonomy heroes. Seem intent on shaking what ive always belived. Those that find it really that easy to dismiss, are probably the lucky ones.

I think ive really made my point. I hope my points are valid, and insightful. If thats the general feeling im happy. If not, then ive produced a poor discussion. And we can all go back to our safe positions. and my silence on all things ufo Will go back to what they was. Only problem is, you only need a tiny amount of doubt. To change ones position ( even slightly ) And thats the problem im left with.

Thinking some of these guys could be right. Not knowing it, thats impossible. But not having that safe sure position, that is quite frankly a lot easier to live with.

That really is it from me. I would rather not another thread started. Just apolgies again for letting the topic go so far off. But ill admit ive wanted to input on this for a long long. Shows you how much i love my astronomy, and distrust this subject anD by virtue human nature with it doesnt. Good show on tolerance here anyway. I expected far worse

No need to apologize. It followed quite naturally from the thread. There was no sudden hijack, just a gentle drift from one topic to the other, as happens in most interesting conversations.

Regarding judgement: it is better to understand than to judge people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original thread starter about 'making' someone believe that we're made of stardust the basic answer is that you cannot 'make' someone believe anything thay don't want to. Just agree to disagree, vive la difference and we can bring this thread to a close and discuss other topics.

BTW, I used to be a werewolf but I'm alright NOOOOOWWWWW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original thread starter about 'making' someone believe that we're made of stardust the basic answer is that you cannot 'make' someone believe anything thay don't want to. Just agree to disagree, vive la difference and we can bring this thread to a close and discuss other topics.

BTW, I used to be a werewolf but I'm alright NOOOOOWWWWW!

You cannot make someone believe, in the sense of coercion, but you can teach. A valid question is how we can teach people things about astronomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.