Abduction Experiences - Environmental Factors

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby caleban » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:46 am

Remember, this may seem counter-intuitive, it does to me anyway. Yet
we all have insite in the counter-intuitive. Its when we start to think about
it that we mess things up.

I'm a little bit concerned about leaving out the "long-term" though...it's too
easy to point to cases of short term exposure where no anomalies are seen, and then throw out the baby with the bathwater.

See what I mean? Your insite works until you start to think about it. (Grin) OK, you
see the reason for dumping the long term constraint, then you thought about it and
get concerned about the hypothesis testing. The testing (reverse process) is part of this but
we are going backwards to get to the core hypothesis. Seat belts on, it gets worse.
If you see why the "long term" was dropped, the same reasoning applies to dropping
"non-ambient" as well. If there are effects from EMF, do these extend even into our
ambient (but variable) environment ? You cant just draw a line in the sand here, you
have to find the sand first.

So - yes, your 1st try above I think is perfect. ..snip..
ref 2nd try.
I'm afraid not so much. This one feels far too general and a little too vague. How is it related? Could be a million ways...and which anomalous perception...there are hundreds, if not more. I think a hypothesis this general would take 4 or 5 lifetimes to test - I think at least a few constraints are needed. Again - I really like your first attempt...

My turn to say "excellent". Science in a nutshell. Related - could be a million ways. Yep. And hundreds of anomalous perceptions, yep. That means I got close with the second try. What the "too general and vague does" is allow the hypothesis to extend across many disciplines. Who knows what strange tests may be thought of by those who would otherwise be constrained out ? But to ease your concerns, the testing is where we start adding the constraints back in. So it should not surprise you that I not only prefer the first try you like,
but I prefer your own first try as well. Each of those are progressively more suggestive of testing. But your first try adds implications as to which disciplines are more suitable for those constraints. And it has to be easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you get a mix of positive and negative results, where the baby gets thrown out may very well be a boundary for significant versus insignificant effects.

Depicting EMF as a conceptual circle, perceptions as a slightly overlapping circle, you get to use the colored pencil to shade in the overlapping area and say: "There is the model for the area I will investigate. Lets characterize this area by testing. Here is my proposal for Congress to grant me some of that porkbarrel crap." Get some environment greenies to back you, and you got a research job. In my opinion, far better than some of the junk getting funded these days.
User avatar
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:33 am
Location: NM



Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests