tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post5455791678834286449..comments2024-03-21T08:16:46.130+10:30Comments on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena - scientific research: "Guru" - counselor, inspirational source, sharing knowledgeKeith Basterfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-86196379896735684342016-05-20T20:14:36.795+09:302016-05-20T20:14:36.795+09:30Hi barasits, Thank you for your considered comment...Hi barasits, Thank you for your considered comments. Long term readers of this blog will be aware that I have tended to be an individual who favours a firm, but gentle approach. In my HIBAL hypothesis, which suggested that an alternative explanation for the 2 April 1966 Westall incident might have been flight 292 of the US/Australian HIBAL program, I put forward all the known facts, proposed the hypothesis; defended it against respondents, but in the end reminded people who personally attacked me, not the hypothesis, that it was after all, simply an idea to be debated. I never stated it was the answer, merely one proposed answer. I believe that this was a scientific approach, i.e. put forward a testable hypothesis for discussion and debate.<br /><br />Keith Basterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05367372091711887711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7040353126484409527.post-84977815186630380922016-05-20T15:01:44.150+09:302016-05-20T15:01:44.150+09:30I think evaluating the claims made by those who ho...I think evaluating the claims made by those who hold extreme perspectives is a worthy pursuit. I would likewise argue that claims made by debunkers are equally worthy of critical evaluation. I see at least two potential problems with the project you propose. The first is the manner in which criticism is delivered. If your goal is to encourage readers (devotees and debunkers alike) to step back and examine unstated assumptions, methodological flaws, errors of logic, and substandard analyses, then I think your approach needs to be firm but gentle. Partisans of either side who have emotionally invested in their viewpoints are likely to dismiss what you have to say if you use terms such as "guru" to describe the promoter of a particular perspective. Likewise, debunkers who hold a narrow and dogmatic view of science will not appreciate being informed that they are treating science more as a religion than a systematic method of inquiry which tolerates no dogma. Second, before embarking on a project that subjects the extreme positions of both devotees and debunkers to critical scrutiny, I think it essential to clearly describe your philosophy of science, because your view of what science is supposed to be and how it is supposed to operate will be the basis of your evaluations. I'm a rational empiricist in the tradition of Alfred North Whitehead, and I have serious issues with narrow positivist or materialist views of science. At any rate, I wish you the best of luck.barasitshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00974537179202082024noreply@blogger.com