Mathematical theorist Alfred Tarski stated that “arithmetic truth cannot be defined in arithmetic” – a statement that corroborates Gödel’s “proof” that mathematical truth cannot be verified from within mathematics.
Tarski’s theorem (which is stated more explicitly by his mathematical formulae) can be applied to the UFO problem; that is, the UFO truth cannot be determined by the UFO mystery itself.
The UFO phenomenon can only be scrutinized satisfactorily by methodologies outside the phenomenon, methodologies not directly related to the phenomenon or even tangentially connected to it.
Ufologists have been kept from arriving at the truth of what UFOs are (or are not) by attacking the enigma from inside it rather than looking at the phenomenon from outside itself.
But how does a ufologist go about studying UFOs without using UFOs for their inquiry? By inferences from other disciplines, such as mythology, religion, psychology, sociology, astronomy, physics (especially quantum mechanics), historical and anthropological exegeses, and yes, math, among others.
Tackling UFOs by anecdotal ruminations and circumstantial evidence, such as photos and videos, merely confuses the analysis of UFOs. Witness reports end up being red-herrings, and image gathering is beset by hoaxes and fraud generally.
The problem is compounded by the dire incompetence of ufologists, who’ve kidnapped the phenomenon, and tainted it for scientific and academic scrutiny.
(For example, one ballyhooed ufologist states in a TV UFO documentary that some sightings have “collaborated” others. He should have said “corroborated” but intelligence and wit are sorely lacking in the UFO community, so his gaffe is not atypical.)
The venerated computer scientist Jacques Vallee approaches (and has approached) the UFO phenomenon much in the way suggested here, but his reclusiveness (out of a need to avoid the insane and nasty machinations of those ufologists who have assumed ownership of the whole UFO panoply) hasn’t allowed an evolution in the UFO solution.
One would think that “open-source” in UFO investigation, much as it does in software development, would endear Mr. Vallee to that methodology but, again, the madmen of ufology dissuade him, and others, from sharing insight and knowledge across the board, or in a public venue.
Nonetheless, as one mid-life critical ufologist and filmmaker suggests, the kids are alright [sic], so perhaps they will open the UFO mystery to new scrutinizes, if and when the old guard passes away, and UFOs become viable to genial dialogue and study.
12 comments:
Your comment about the incompetence of ufologists is well taken. However, before taking someone to task for using the wrong word you should proofread your own writing. To wit:
"One would think that “open-source” in UFO investigation, much as it does in software development, would endear Mr. Vallee to try that methodology ..."
Endear? That doesn't even make sense. How about "encourage"?
No, Michael, endear is the word we want.
Check the definition and our context.
(We love to be corrected, but only by those competent to do so.)
endear Definition en·dear (en dir′, in-)
transitive verb
to make dear, beloved, or well liked to endear oneself by acts of generosity
Sorry, it still doesn't make sense in that context.
Michael:
I looked at the post and see that you were right, and that the word try should not have been inserted.
I deleted "try" to make the sentence more acceptable to grammarians.
Thanks for the acute observation.
RRR
I didn't mean to be a pedant or to challenge your views. I applaud your whole take on the UFO scene. I look forward to more of your commentary on the topic.
Again, Michael, we (and me in particular) don't mind being corrected, so long as the person correcting us (and me) is competent to do so.
The sentence you cited didn't make sense, but could be understood in the context of what we were trying to say...or so I thought.
The devil's always in the details. so we are not upset in the slightest by your gentle pedantry.
RRR
I would like to mention the work of integral philosopher Ken Wilber, and suggest that ufologists consider his AQAL model as an investigative tool.
Wilber's model is powerful and elegant, and the integral approach goes far in cutting off any reductionism at the pass........
T. Doyle;
Thanks for the suggestion.
We'll surely check out Wilber's work, and make note here of what we discern from it.
Thanks for this posting. Since reading Vallee's works I have felt that "UFOlogy" (whatever the heck that is) is more akin to theology than any hard science, arguing more about how many angels dance on the head of the pin (i.e. Roswell et al) than stepping outside of the box to get a fresh view of the data. I've felt that this field of investigation needs, more than anything, folks are willing to abandon cherished belief systems and pursue the scientific method. And a multidisciplinary approach is clearly vital. Fox Mulder was right, "the truth is out there" but the signal to noise ratio is so awful as to produce only noise to the average joe. Anyway Tarski's ideas can clearly be applied here!
Why Bip...
The RRRGroup blog and our other blogs -- UFO Iconoclast(s) etc. -- seem to have some longevity, but you make a good point: all things are temporary (and temporal), including fame, life, and even God.
"I would like to mention the work of integral philosopher Ken Wilber, and suggest that ufologists consider his AQAL model as an investigative tool.
"Wilber's model is powerful and elegant, and the integral approach goes far in cutting off any reductionism at the pass........"
And yet, ironically, Wilber would tell you that this whole subject is a product of Boomeritis. That is, an extension of self-centered Baby Boomers. ("Now aliens are here for me!")
Post a Comment