3 ms·

I can see where you might think I was asserting one way or the other whether Robert Bigelow was qualified for this work, and that's my fault. I have no opinion

I can see where you might think I was asserting one way or the other whether Robert Bigelow was qualified for this work, and that's my fault. I have no opinion about this man specifically. I am just saying that I think this problem is worth further study by the organizations which exist for the purpose of knowing these kinds of things. That being said, according to the article, "Mr. Bigelow said he was 'absolutely convinced' that aliens exist and that U.F.O.s have visited Earth." And while on the surface that might seem to reveal his having an agenda and disqualify any of his analyses, do we feel the same way about physicists that believe God created the universe? Or do we just feel that way about people with out-group beliefs? I suppose a better analogy here would be the business owner of a company doing physics research, since he's not a scientist. But beyond that, I think we can agree that the conversation elsewhere in this thread demonstrates there is a whole lot of negative context which serves to drive people away from taking it seriously.

krapp 9y ago
> And while on the surface that might seem to reveal his having an agenda and disqualify any of his analyses, do we feel the same way about physicists that believe God created the universe? I don't, but only so long as they don't ascribe magical or supernatural qualities to physical phenomena. It's one thing to believe alien spacecraft as an extremely unlikely possibility, and another to consider it not only likely, but indisputably so. The lack of skepticism combined with unfalsifiable claims are what disqualify him, in my view. There does seem to be a fringe of interesting events in the field worth studying. I'm not convinced that there aren't plausible explanations for them - after all, how many "black triangle" sightings are likely to have been classified stealth aircraft? But I also think the negativity serves a valuable purpose as long as it keeps people from entertaining flights of fancy. I'll believe the Robert Bigelows and Bob Lazars and Whitley Streibers of the world when they can back their claims up with undeniable and irrefutable evidence. Given the nature of their claims, I don't believe that's an unreasonable bar to set. Even Einstein was doubted until someone proved him right.

krapp 9y ago

> And while on the surface that might seem to reveal his having an agenda and disqualify any of his analyses, do we feel the same way about physicists that believe God created the universe? I don't, but only so long as they don't ascribe magical or supernatural qualities to physical phenomena. It's one thing to believe alien spacecraft as an extremely unlikely possibility, and another to consider it not only likely, but indisputably so. The lack of skepticism combined with unfalsifiable claims are what disqualify him, in my view. There does seem to be a fringe of interesting events in the field worth studying. I'm not convinced that there aren't plausible explanations for them - after all, how many "black triangle" sightings are likely to have been classified stealth aircraft? But I also think the negativity serves a valuable purpose as long as it keeps people from entertaining flights of fancy. I'll believe the Robert Bigelows and Bob Lazars and Whitley Streibers of the world when they can back their claims up with undeniable and irrefutable evidence. Given the nature of their claims, I don't believe that's an unreasonable bar to set. Even Einstein was doubted until someone proved him right.