Statement from a skeptical scientist regarding UFOs

[coolmacguy]

I just noticed this statement by Bernard Haisch at UFOskeptic.org.

Haisch, who is most definitely a professional and respected scientist, presents an interesting viewpoint on his personal inquiry into the UFO issue and what others have told him about their studies. He relates, among other things, what has become an increasingly common trend, the fact that those scientists who give the issue real consideration and study come away with an increased interest and a sense that there is something very serious going on.

Dear Colleagues,

I have been an active professional astronomer since earning my doctorate in 1975. I have published a respectable number of scientific papers in most of the right journals (including our favorites, Science and Nature), have been Principal Investigator on several NASA studies, have served as referee and proposal reviewer for NASA and NSF, belong to half a dozen professional societies, have chaired international conferences, i.e. I've engaged by and large successfully in all the usual activities of a busy professional scientist. For those of you who want the full details, click here for my CV.

[Added by Stryderunknown]
If you want to read the rest, you can find it here.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Good post Coolmacguy, thanks.
I liked this part;

I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.)

Grins at the "skoffers".

ADDED;
Plogger, I can chit chat with anyone, but not in the threads that arn't for that. Do you ever add any REAL content to threads?

 

[phlogistician]

Grins at the "skoffers".

At least you managed to stay on your chair this time.

 

[FieryIce]

I find this particularly interesting:

Recently astrophysicist Ken Olum at Tufts University argued (gr-qc/0303070) that anthropic reasoning applied to inflation theory predicts that we should find ourselves part of a large, galaxy-sized civilization, implying that the "We are alone" solution to Fermi's paradox is inconsistent with our best current theory of cosmology. Beatriz Gato-Rivera, a physicist at the Instituto de Matematicas y Fisica in Madrid, followed up on this (physics/0308078)with the hypothesis that Olum is correct, but that by design we would be kept unaware of a greatly advanced surrounding civilization. She also argues that modern superstring and M-brane theory further aggravate Fermi's "missing alien" problem.

 

[SkinWalker]

Dr. Bernard Haisch may have some publications in mainstream journals (including one each in Science and Nature), but he also publishes freely in pseudoscience journals as well. In fact, he's even set up his own journal (typical of pseudoscientists) since it appears that the real journals aren't humoring his Zero-Point energy claims as much as he'd like (read: his articles aren't getting past the peer-review process).

One of Haisch's claims is that "someone" in government, whom he considers trustworthy, has told him that the government actually has the debris and bodies of aliens who crashed on the planet. Haisch offers his curriculum vitae as a credibility factor, but, in the end, he still looks like a kook. Albeit an educated one.

What does Dr. Haisch's CV prove? That education isn't the deciding factor in gullibility and failure of critical thinking.

 

[Hathor]

...(read: his articles aren't getting past the peer-review process)

what is your point? your statement is a bit ambiguous if you do not elaborate
have you been privy to the actual deliberations? do you know reasons for these alleged rejections?

 

[Hathor]

One of Haisch's claims is that "someone" in government, whom he considers trustworthy, has told him that the government actually has the debris and bodies of aliens who crashed on the planet.

you consider the above scenario, an impossible sequence of events?
why? give me your reasoning please.

 

[SkinWalker]

what is your point? your statement is a bit ambiguous if you do not elaborate
have you been privy to the actual deliberations? do you know reasons for these alleged rejections?

Why wouldn't Haisch publish in mainstream journals if he was so sure about his theories? Why stoop to adding his Zero-point "research" to the same journal that includes articles of "dowsing for water?1" A journal, I might add, that he is the "editor-in-chief" of.

The answer: the peers of the mainstream journals hammer his articles and expect extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary hypotheses.

Of course these are only inferences based on the available information, but can you suggest why he might create his own journal to publish research? What credibility does that offer? Indeed, I've seen no evidence that his peers are invited to review/criticize the research.

So to remove any ambiguity in my statement in the first post: I think Haisch is mostly a fraud. He might have done some legitimate work, but his current focus is psuedoscience.

you consider the above scenario, an impossible sequence of events?
why? give me your reasoning please.

Not impossible. But highly improbable. There has been no evidence to support that our government is even capable of maintaining such a cover-up. Hell, they couldn't even keep Abu Gharaib under wraps. If the government had that kind of capability, you'd think that the Rosenbergs mightn't have been able to pass on secrets from the Manhatten Project2.


References:

1. Betz, H (June 1995). Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of the Dowsing Technique in Dry Zones: Part 1. Journal of Scientific Exploration Vol. 9:1, article 1.

2. Crime Library (2004). THE ROSENBERGS: A CASE OF LOVE, ESPIONAGE, DECEIT AND BETRAYAL. Court TV.

 

[an>roid.v2]

Dr. Bernard Haisch may have some publications in mainstream journals, but he also publishes freely in pseudoscience journals as well.

Pseudoscience journals exist? Which ones specifically has Haisch published in? Or are you advocating a status quo? Surely, anyone with brains would know where and where not to publish.

In fact, he's even set up his own journal (typical of pseudoscientists)...

I see... being independent is not permitted in science lest one becomes a pseudo scientist. Interesting.

...since it appears that the real journals aren't humoring his Zero-Point energy claims as much as he'd like...

"since it appears..." is being irrelevant. Prove it! Prove it in the Parapsychology sub-forum. Just kidding.

...(read: his articles aren't getting past the peer-review process).

But peer-reviewing would be conducted by mainstream journals, hense this quote in the opening paragraph of his JSE website:

...responding to challenges that do not fit neatly into the matrix of present-day science.​

Haisch offers his curriculum vitae as a credibility factor, but, in the end, he still looks like a kook. Albeit an educated one. What does Dr. Haisch's CV prove? That education isn't the deciding factor in gullibility and failure of critical thinking.

That's your opinion. And a highly offensive one at that. Here's another:

Bernard Haisch:
"Advances are made by answering questions.
Discoveries are made by questioning answers."

Doesn't sound like a kook to me.

.

 

[SkinWalker]

Pseudoscience journals exist? Which ones specifically has Haisch published in?

Science & Spirit and The Journal of Scientific Discovery are two.

Or are you advocating a status quo?

I advocate proper scientific method, not circumnavigating the process of review and referee by peers in the field.

Surely, anyone with brains would know where and where not to publish.

And Haisch has published in many of the right places. That he now chooses to self-publish upon failing the review process is telling.

I see... being independent is not permitted in science lest one becomes a pseudo scientist. Interesting.

Not interesting. Fact. One can be as independent as one wants to be, but in the end, the methodology used must be reviewed and critiqued by peers. If the hypothesis solid or able to be modified/revised to answer criticisms, then the "independent" scientist is legitimate. If this same scientist refuses to appropriately answer criticism, either by revision, modification, or successful rebuttal, and refuses to abandon the hypothesis, then he/she begins to lose credibility. By circumventing the process and creating an "alternative publication" and only surrounding oneself with those that agree not to be critical, then that is pseudoscience.

"since it appears..." is being irrelevant. Prove it! Prove it in the Parapsychology sub-forum. Just kidding.

Woodward (2001) refuted Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff and concluded that each "claim they make regarding the gravitational origin of inertial reaction forces is flawed." He continues with more critique of so-called "breakthrough propulsion physics" (2003) in a later publication. In that, he doesn't directly cite Haish, et al, but the implication is clear: ZPF and other speculative technologies are only speculation and to assert that there are any discoveries or facts to suggest they are, indeed, reality simply isn't true. Haisch has been doing just that. Getting too much resistance from the mainstream publications; a need to fluff his CV; who knows? But Haisch created his own "journal" to get around the criticism.

But peer-reviewing would be conducted by mainstream journals, hense this quote in the opening paragraph of his JSE website:

...responding to challenges that do not fit neatly into the matrix of present-day science.​

And that doesn't read like pseudoscience to you?

That's your opinion. And a highly offensive one at that.

Indeed, it is an opinion. But I believe it to be accurate.

""Advances are made by answering questions.
Discoveries are made by questioning answers."

Doesn't sound like a kook to me.

Are you meaning to imply that a "kook" is at all times nonsensical or irrational and therefore anyone who makes a rational or true statement cannot be "kooky" at some other point in time, either prior to or post the rational moment? J. Edgar Hoover said, "Justice is incidental to law and order," but it didn't keep him from crossdressing.

References:
Woodward, J. (2001). Gravity, Inertia, and Quantum Vacuum Zero Point Fields. Foundations of Physics Volume 31, Issue 5, pp. 819-835

Woodward, J. (2003). “Breakthrough” Propulsion and the Foundations of Physics. Foundations of Physics Letters. Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 25-40

 

[Hathor]

skinwalker

The answer: the peers of the mainstream journals hammer his articles and expect extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary hypotheses.

while i will not vouch for the legitimacy of this guy's research, have you considered the possibilty that these journals and science as a whole have a culture of resistance to new ideas? that it is about preserving the status quo and dogmatic attitudes? there have been numerous instances where theories have been rejected and later vindicated. that some of these ideas subsequently received the nobel?

rejection by the peer review process doe not neccessarily mean it is junk science

Not impossible. But highly improbable. There has been no evidence to support that our government is even capable of maintaining such a cover-up. Hell, they couldn't even keep Abu Gharaib under wraps. If the government had that kind of capability, you'd think that the Rosenbergs mightn't have been able to pass on secrets from the Manhatten Project

if there are secrets, there will be no evidence. nothing can be said about it. offering up incidents of failure prove nothing. to imagine incompetence at every turn is shortsided. after all, skinwalker, i imagine there are instances where you too, occasionally, get it right.

tell me skinwalker, can you keep a secret? can you establish a system of controls where you can ensure secrecy? if so, others can too.

why do you think abu ghraib is an example of a "secret project" ?

 

[coolmacguy]

In fact, he's even set up his own journal

The Journal of Scientific Discovery

.

Get your facts straight. It's the Journal of Scientific Exploration and it was started by Peter Sturrock, not Haisch.

 

[coolmacguy]

There has been no evidence to support that our government is even capable of maintaining such a cover-up.

They aren't capable.

There have been dozens who have and continue to spill the beans.

The problem is not the credibility of the people, but rather those who choose to remain ignorant of them.

 

[2inquisitive]

by SkinWalker:

"Fact. One can be as independent as one wants to be, but in the end, the methodology used must be reviewed and critiqued by peers. If the hypothesis solid or able to be modified/revised to answer criticisms, then the "independent" scientist is legitimate. If this same scientist refuses to appropriately answer criticism, either by revision, modification, or successful rebuttal, and refuses to abandon the hypothesis, then he/she begins to lose credibility."
===========================================================

Yes, credibility is lost by many 'quacks'. One of my favorites was Ignaz Semmelweis.
He was an obstetrician who noticed that 'childbed fever', a 'disease' suffered by the
mothers of newborn infants, was sometimes much more prevelant in some wards than in others. He developed a theory that the disease was being spread from one patient
to another by doctors who did not wash their hands. He set up a control and had the
doctors in one ward wash their hands going from one delivery to the next. Guess what,
the incidence of disease was greatly reduced in the wards where doctors washed their
hands. The accepted science of the day was that diseases were caused by an imbalance of the 'humours' in the body. Bloodletting was the accepted treatment.
Dr. Semmelweiss lectured and wrote books for 14 years trying to convince the scientific establishment of his findings. He was ridiculed, harrassed, and treated with
hostility, eventually leading to a nervous breakdown after which he was committed
to an insane asylum where he died. A real 'Quack'.

 

[an>roid.v2]

SkinWalker, about "pseudoscience" publications.
Science & Spirit and The Journal of Scientific Discovery are two.

That's not quite what I meant: is there a legitimate classification in science that is called Pseudoscience, or is "pseudoscience" simply a derogative, something like the Cesspool, I would imagine? As a matter of fact, I've noticed that there are threads in the Cesspool that are legit but victims of a moderator's whim and fancy. Or, to put it another way, I detest appraising man's worth according to economical class. So Haisch hasn't won your respect -- but exclude the prerequisites of prestige and scientific affluence and what's left? A man whose brainpower obviously has the capacity to delve into more conventional projects deemed worthy of his peers. Was not da Vinci ridiculed? Copernicus declared insane? Galileo, hostilely opposed? I'm not saying that you should relax your ethics for "sound" verification, but it seems to me you exemplify a constricted and intolerable attitude towards a rather new field of study, ufology, and that, in another age of history, you would have condemned such individuals as Haisch to be put to death simply because you viewed them as unacceptable and a threat to the status quo, to the... conventional. And is there a neat little word that would serve to stuff your prejudices in, and bolster your self-worth as 'proper' methods without attracting the wrath of human rights groups? Of course there is: Pseudoscience. The neo-nazi's should perhaps try that word -- no one would argue against them, except, of course, the pseudo-races. But who would listen to them?

 

[moementum7]

Wow android, that was well put.
Some very intelligent info on this thread.