Board Logo
« Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abduction »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 11th, 2017, 07:11am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  ...  33 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abduction  (Read 53486 times)
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #45 on: Jun 8th, 2013, 3:02pm »

Hello, all -

Perhaps some might find my latest post at The UFO Trail of interest, Sham Inquiry Run Riot. A 2010 thesis written by scientist Sharon Hill is explored, including comments from Ms. Hill.

An excerpt from the post:

Hill's thesis contained a study of 1,000 websites of amateur research and investigation groups, each of which conducted activities focused around unexplained events, and a majority of which claimed to use science as part of their approach to investigation and research. She conducted a thorough examination, resulting in a qualified and factual analysis that those of us looking for the truth out there - and what Hill conclusively demonstrated to be its frequent misrepresentation - might find helpful to review.

Each amateur research and investigation group, or ARIG, involved in Hill's study had certain qualifying characteristics. ARIGs examined had primary interests in ghosts, UFOs, mystery animals and similar such reported phenomena. Group activities did not provide a primary income for participants, and groups studied were not part of an academic institution or headed by working scientists. The Mutual UFO Network, for example, fell within the criteria and was included in the study, as was The Atlantic Paranormal Society, known to ghost enthusiasts far and wide as TAPS.

[...]

When held accountable for explaining exactly what is scientific about their methods, Hill reported that ARIGs abandoned their platform of conducting scientific investigation. ARIGs provided vague answers and invalid explanations, demonstrated significant misunderstandings of science and withdrew their claims altogether of conducting scientific research. Hill concluded the groups were comfortable appealing to the public's sense of science while evading discussion of relevant issues when confronted by a knowledgeable inquirer.

"The most disturbing finding,” Hill wrote in the thesis, “is the emphasis by ARIGs to educate the public. In the process of communicating their work to the public, they most often promote a matter-of-fact paranormal viewpoint and present their methods and conclusions as sound. The public is delivered inaccurate information and a distorted view of science.”
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #46 on: Jun 14th, 2013, 8:23pm »

A video pubished by microbiologist Dr. Tyler Kokjohn on August 12, 2011:



Almost two full years later, April 17, 2013:

Barbara Lamb and MUFON: 'ET-human hybrids: They are real and they are here'

Orlando Paranormal Examiner

MUFON Orange County, a California-based chapter of the Mutual UFO Network, distributed an email containing information about the activities of alien abduction researcher Barbara Lamb. Printed boldly in caps and large font across the top of the email was the proclamation, “ET-human hybrids: They are real and they are here.” The message contained information related to Ms. Lamb's speaking engagement at MUFON Orange County, where she appeared in March prior to her stop at the Cosmic Reunion Fourth Density Conference.

The email stated Lamb previously conducted regressive hypnosis sessions with some 900 individuals, “helping them to access details of encounters they've had with a variety of Extraterrestrial Beings [sic].” It was claimed that Lamb “discovered that many of her clients have unwittingly contributed to the ET's programs of creating ET-Human [sic] hybrids.” According to the MUFON email, such hybrids “live here among us on earth,” and some of them, it was stated in the email, “Barbara knows personally.”

'Orlando Paranormal Examiner' emailed Lamb and requested comment, specifically inquiring if she has provided evidence of her assertions to any qualified third parties for review. She was also asked if blood work and related physical examinations have been conducted on any of the alleged ET-human hybrids, as well as what justification she could present for such extraordinary statements as contained in the MUFON email.

“I am in a huge rush this week,” Lamb replied March 18, “but basically you would have to talk to the three people who are convinced (and I am convinced) that they are hybrids, and find out from them about blood tests, bone tests, etc. I don't know whether or not they would be willing to talk to you (whom they don't know), but if you are interested, I could ask them and they could decide.”

Lamb was encouraged in a subsequent series of emails to coordinate correspondence with the alleged hybrids and thanked for her efforts. When urged to provide direct answers to the questions concerning physical examinations and evidence available for public review, no further emails were received from Lamb. Neither has any correspondence been received from alleged ET-human hybrid beings.

Jan Harzan was emailed and asked to provide comment. According to the MUFON website, Mr. Harzan is a member of the MUFON board of directors and is the Southern California assistant state director.

Multiple emails were sent to Harzan at two different addresses provided on the website as points of contact. He was asked to comment on why MUFON, an organization purporting to be dedicated to scientific study, would circulate an email promoting as fact such unsubstantiated and fantastic claims. No replies were received.
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
FlatEarth
Guest
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #47 on: Jun 17th, 2013, 9:50pm »

Here's a Scientific American article on hypnosis. I wouldn't dismiss hypnosis as a tool for revealing lost memories just because it may have been misused by some.

Flat

P.S. Wow. Ms. Hill sure is a beauty! smiley
User IP Logged

Soryu
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 86
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #48 on: Jun 18th, 2013, 09:52am »

Another fine “Scientific American” article on hypnosis.

The association of the posthypnotic amnesia (PHA) effect with brain activity in the occipital lobes, left temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex involved in explicit recall, as measured on the fMRI, is suggestive. Assuming that UFOs are a real phenomena (and there can be little doubt of that), and that at least some UFOs represent an ET technology with crews who indulge in occasional catch and release (treated skeptically by the majority), to account for abduction amnesia, perhaps they’ve developed a psychotronic device, which is to say, an electromagnetic device which impacts the psyche by disrupting ordinary perceptual and memory mechanisms in the brain.

When it comes to the use of hypnosis in what is essentially a therapeutic context, it is often overlooked that “truths” revealed under hypnosis are not “legal truths,” in other words, are not to be viewed as something like a smoking gun. As one author put it “the assumption [is] that therapy uncovers legally relevant “facts” connecting past trauma to current stress. A psychiatrist or other mental health professional, however, is not a detective. In psychology, mental reality is more important than objective reality. Punctilious history taking is not vital to therapy, and a patient does not – and need not – take an oath like a witness to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What a patient tells a therapist about his or her [past] is not necessarily related to what actually happened. In the psychoanalytic dialogue, the attention is focused on continuity and coherence, not on historical truth. Psychoanalysis or other psychotherapy is not an archaeological dig but a search for a regenerative story.” (Slovenko, “The Effect of Return of Memory in Sexual Abuse Cases on Statute of Limitations and The Justification For a Counter Attack” quoted in Alan Gold, “False Memory Syndrome In Perspective” (1996) 6:2 Canadian Insurance Law Review 156 at 159.)

In a sense, there’s a fundamental “conflict of interests” between the applications of hypnosis as a therapeutic tool, versus its use as a fact-finding tool. There may be overlap, but a determination of the extent of the overlap requires recourse to other sources of veridical information which are, more often than not, unavailable. (Donald Soryu)
User IP Logged

jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #49 on: Jun 18th, 2013, 12:08pm »

on Jun 18th, 2013, 09:52am, Soryu wrote:
When it comes to the use of hypnosis in what is essentially a therapeutic context, it is often overlooked that “truths” revealed under hypnosis are not “legal truths,” in other words, are not to be viewed as something like a smoking gun. As one author put it “the assumption [is] that therapy uncovers legally relevant “facts” connecting past trauma to current stress. A psychiatrist or other mental health professional, however, is not a detective. In psychology, mental reality is more important than objective reality. Punctilious history taking is not vital to therapy, and a patient does not – and need not – take an oath like a witness to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What a patient tells a therapist about his or her [past] is not necessarily related to what actually happened. In the psychoanalytic dialogue, the attention is focused on continuity and coherence, not on historical truth. Psychoanalysis or other psychotherapy is not an archaeological dig but a search for a regenerative story.” (Slovenko, “The Effect of Return of Memory in Sexual Abuse Cases on Statute of Limitations and The Justification For a Counter Attack” quoted in Alan Gold, “False Memory Syndrome In Perspective” (1996) 6:2 Canadian Insurance Law Review 156 at 159.)

In a sense, there’s a fundamental “conflict of interests” between the applications of hypnosis as a therapeutic tool, versus its use as a fact-finding tool. There may be overlap, but a determination of the extent of the overlap requires recourse to other sources of veridical information which are, more often than not, unavailable. (Donald Soryu)


I very much agree that your points are relevant. Thanks for the post.

It appears to me that a vast majority of the general public, and, in turn, the UFO community, do not understand the dynamics of therapist-client relationships. That indeed results in a number of commonly held yet entirely inaccurate assumptions. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, or EMDR, is a good example of what can be an effective tool for treating trauma, yet the mental images experienced during its administration (and non-ordinary states of consciousness) should not necessarily be taken literally.
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #50 on: Jun 18th, 2013, 12:21pm »

on Jun 17th, 2013, 9:50pm, FlatEarth wrote:
Here's a Scientific American article on hypnosis. I wouldn't dismiss hypnosis as a tool for revealing lost memories just because it may have been misused by some.

Flat


Thanks for the article link, Flat. Researchers at Weizmann Institute seem to be systematically examining effects of hypnosis and its implications to human consciousness. Good for them, as such research could prove to be valuable in many fields and from several perspectives.

Three related yet different issues for consideration, please:

1) There are many different types and applications of hypnosis, reasonably all of which, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific community views as requiring further research (as apparently being conducted at Weizmann),

2) The lack of reliability of regressive hypnosis as an effective memory retrieval tool, and

3) The popularity of regressive hypnosis (RH) as an investigative tool for use on self-described alien abductees by individuals falsely claiming to practice science.

I think it is important to note and be aware of the issues and their differences.

The article cited, Hypnosis, Memory and the Brain, while interesting and informative, is not about RH. If I am understanding it correctly, it is about posthypnotic amnesia, or PHA, intentionally induced among research subjects. Subjects were then later hypnotically instructed to recall what they had been initially hypnotized to forget. Researchers concluded, among other observations, that the PHA, followed later by additional hypnotically induced suggestions, directly effected and produced brain activity and perceptions. That would be a conclusion that, if applied to regressive hypnosis at all, might be interpreted all the more to imply its high risk for participant susceptibility to suggestions and their potential for becoming unnecessarily traumatized. I can understand, though, how one might read the article in the context of hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool, leading us to the second issue.

As I understand the situation, the reliability of RH as a memory retrieval tool is a matter of sometimes RH might be effective and sometimes it is certainly not. That is not particularly different than is the case with any exercise designed to relax the mind and hopefully assist in recalling past events, such as writing with the less favored hand, the use of aromas to momentarily enhance memory and similar such activities. It is at best hit and miss, meaning it is by definition not 'reliable'. Moreover, mental health professionals inform us that even if one successfully recollects their original perceptions while under hypnosis, the degree of accuracy of those perceptions will continue to be unknown and called into question; you might relatively accurately remember events at a magic show, but that does not mean the magician actually sawed someone in half. All of the challenges and doubts are still applicable that apply to any seemingly recalled event or story someone narrates, if not more so. What's more, let's cut to the chase: RH was popularly embraced by abduction-researchers as an investigative tool largely because a poorly informed and exploitable segment of the public (which, by the way, once included me) was willing to incorrectly accept it as indicative of extraterrestrials in lieu of valid, scientific proof that continues to simply not exist.

About the third issue: Given that we conclusively know that regressive hypnosis cannot provide reliably accurate results – and even if it could, it only offers relatively inconsequential anecdotal testimony – hypnotizing people for the purpose of obtaining narrations about alien abductions is simply not a scientific procedure. People can do it if they want, and they can believe its accuracy if they choose, but, nonetheless, it is not science. Claims to the contrary are simply incorrect, and those are the types of circumstances I was offering for consideration in the original and subsequent posts.

Research related to all disciplines of physical and mental health should indeed continue to be professionally conducted by qualified experts in manners that the safety is prioritized of fully informed and consensual subjects. Then, as points are systematically learned and examined - as seemingly demonstrated at the Weizmann Institute in the article – detailed reports are submitted to journals and subjected to peer review. That is legitimate scientific inquiry, and the methods undertaken and reports produced by Weizmann show us specifically what we should be expecting, yet chronically failing to be offered, from researchers of alleged alien abduction. Self-described abduction-researchers, some of which are more accurately described as hypnotists falsely claiming to practice science, should take note – or at the least the public should take note, it could be argued. The use of RH as a memory retrieval tool for self-described alien abductees, and the related lack of reporting and lack of peer review by 'researchers' of abduction, are simply not science. Consumers are fully justified in questioning why RH practitioners and supporters are fraudulently labeling it as such.

The related issues and questions are not going to go away, no matter how much competent research is published by institutions such as Weizmann. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that such competent research continues to demonstrate just how unprofessional and poorly executed is typical abduction-research. The continuing lack of scientific reports and peer review shows us, it seems to me, that abduction-researchers proceeded with RH way too far, way too fast.
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
FlatEarth
Guest
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #51 on: Jun 19th, 2013, 9:13pm »

on Jun 18th, 2013, 09:52am, Soryu wrote:
Another fine “Scientific American” article on hypnosis.

The association of the posthypnotic amnesia (PHA) effect with brain activity in the occipital lobes, left temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex involved in explicit recall, as measured on the fMRI, is suggestive. Assuming that UFOs are a real phenomena (and there can be little doubt of that), and that at least some UFOs represent an ET technology with crews who indulge in occasional catch and release (treated skeptically by the majority), to account for abduction amnesia, perhaps they’ve developed a psychotronic device, which is to say, an electromagnetic device which impacts the psyche by disrupting ordinary perceptual and memory mechanisms in the brain.

When it comes to the use of hypnosis in what is essentially a therapeutic context, it is often overlooked that “truths” revealed under hypnosis are not “legal truths,” in other words, are not to be viewed as something like a smoking gun. As one author put it “the assumption [is] that therapy uncovers legally relevant “facts” connecting past trauma to current stress. A psychiatrist or other mental health professional, however, is not a detective. In psychology, mental reality is more important than objective reality. Punctilious history taking is not vital to therapy, and a patient does not – and need not – take an oath like a witness to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What a patient tells a therapist about his or her [past] is not necessarily related to what actually happened. In the psychoanalytic dialogue, the attention is focused on continuity and coherence, not on historical truth. Psychoanalysis or other psychotherapy is not an archaeological dig but a search for a regenerative story.” (Slovenko, “The Effect of Return of Memory in Sexual Abuse Cases on Statute of Limitations and The Justification For a Counter Attack” quoted in Alan Gold, “False Memory Syndrome In Perspective” (1996) 6:2 Canadian Insurance Law Review 156 at 159.)

In a sense, there’s a fundamental “conflict of interests” between the applications of hypnosis as a therapeutic tool, versus its use as a fact-finding tool. There may be overlap, but a determination of the extent of the overlap requires recourse to other sources of veridical information which are, more often than not, unavailable. (Donald Soryu)

Hi Donald. I get your point and agree. I do believe there may be something to be learned from hypnotizing individuals who have lost memories, but it should be done by qualified professionals who do not have an agenda.

Flat
User IP Logged

FlatEarth
Guest
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #52 on: Jun 19th, 2013, 9:16pm »

on Jun 18th, 2013, 12:21pm, jjflash wrote:
Thanks for the article link, Flat. Researchers at Weizmann Institute seem to be systematically examining effects of hypnosis and its implications to human consciousness. Good for them, as such research could prove to be valuable in many fields and from several perspectives.

Three related yet different issues for consideration, please:

1) There are many different types and applications of hypnosis, reasonably all of which, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific community views as requiring further research (as apparently being conducted at Weizmann),

2) The lack of reliability of regressive hypnosis as an effective memory retrieval tool, and

3) The popularity of regressive hypnosis (RH) as an investigative tool for use on self-described alien abductees by individuals falsely claiming to practice science.

I think it is important to note and be aware of the issues and their differences.

The article cited, Hypnosis, Memory and the Brain, while interesting and informative, is not about RH. If I am understanding it correctly, it is about posthypnotic amnesia, or PHA, intentionally induced among research subjects. Subjects were then later hypnotically instructed to recall what they had been initially hypnotized to forget. Researchers concluded, among other observations, that the PHA, followed later by additional hypnotically induced suggestions, directly effected and produced brain activity and perceptions. That would be a conclusion that, if applied to regressive hypnosis at all, might be interpreted all the more to imply its high risk for participant susceptibility to suggestions and their potential for becoming unnecessarily traumatized. I can understand, though, how one might read the article in the context of hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool, leading us to the second issue.

As I understand the situation, the reliability of RH as a memory retrieval tool is a matter of sometimes RH might be effective and sometimes it is certainly not. That is not particularly different than is the case with any exercise designed to relax the mind and hopefully assist in recalling past events, such as writing with the less favored hand, the use of aromas to momentarily enhance memory and similar such activities. It is at best hit and miss, meaning it is by definition not 'reliable'. Moreover, mental health professionals inform us that even if one successfully recollects their original perceptions while under hypnosis, the degree of accuracy of those perceptions will continue to be unknown and called into question; you might relatively accurately remember events at a magic show, but that does not mean the magician actually sawed someone in half. All of the challenges and doubts are still applicable that apply to any seemingly recalled event or story someone narrates, if not more so. What's more, let's cut to the chase: RH was popularly embraced by abduction-researchers as an investigative tool largely because a poorly informed and exploitable segment of the public (which, by the way, once included me) was willing to incorrectly accept it as indicative of extraterrestrials in lieu of valid, scientific proof that continues to simply not exist.

About the third issue: Given that we conclusively know that regressive hypnosis cannot provide reliably accurate results – and even if it could, it only offers relatively inconsequential anecdotal testimony – hypnotizing people for the purpose of obtaining narrations about alien abductions is simply not a scientific procedure. People can do it if they want, and they can believe its accuracy if they choose, but, nonetheless, it is not science. Claims to the contrary are simply incorrect, and those are the types of circumstances I was offering for consideration in the original and subsequent posts.

Research related to all disciplines of physical and mental health should indeed continue to be professionally conducted by qualified experts in manners that the safety is prioritized of fully informed and consensual subjects. Then, as points are systematically learned and examined - as seemingly demonstrated at the Weizmann Institute in the article – detailed reports are submitted to journals and subjected to peer review. That is legitimate scientific inquiry, and the methods undertaken and reports produced by Weizmann show us specifically what we should be expecting, yet chronically failing to be offered, from researchers of alleged alien abduction. Self-described abduction-researchers, some of which are more accurately described as hypnotists falsely claiming to practice science, should take note – or at the least the public should take note, it could be argued. The use of RH as a memory retrieval tool for self-described alien abductees, and the related lack of reporting and lack of peer review by 'researchers' of abduction, are simply not science. Consumers are fully justified in questioning why RH practitioners and supporters are fraudulently labeling it as such.

The related issues and questions are not going to go away, no matter how much competent research is published by institutions such as Weizmann. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that such competent research continues to demonstrate just how unprofessional and poorly executed is typical abduction-research. The continuing lack of scientific reports and peer review shows us, it seems to me, that abduction-researchers proceeded with RH way too far, way too fast.

Hello, Jack. Thanks for taking the time to consider and respond to my post. I actually share your concerns regarding alien abduction research.

Also, I don't disagree that hypnosis isn't completely reliable, especially as it's used by some researchers today, however, there is at least one example, the Hills case, where it seems very possible that it revealed an actual alien encounter. The circumstances in that case were unique from every other abduction case that I've come across. Certainly, the doctor who hypnotized the Hills was not looking for an abduction story, and he was known to be one of the most qualified doctors in the field.

I believe the article I posted is relevant to the conversation even though it is not about RH specifically. If a subject suffers memory loss due to an abduction, then a possible cause may be attributed to induced amnesia, which may be related to PHA.

If RH subjects sometimes accurately recall abduction experiences, doesn't that mean that some of the subjects may have something important to tell us? John E. Mack was critical of the extreme skepticism of the scientific community. He felt that if so many experiencers were convinced they met alien life forms, then these people should be taken at their word and the experiences should be studied as real events. He said the vast majority of people he interviewed were not crazy, by the way. By not accepting this testimony, by treating it as useless and dismissing it outright, an opportunity to study the phenomenon is lost.

The problem is that qualified people are either unwilling to participate or resources are unavailable to fund the research. We're left with amateur researchers who may be doing the best they can, but there's always the stigma that they're in it for the money, and therefore the waters are muddied. Would a ufologist actually ever come to the conclusion that there's nothing to alien abductions? It's doubtful.

Flat
User IP Logged

jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #53 on: Jun 20th, 2013, 1:41pm »

Hi, Flat. You bring up some points certainly worthy of deeper consideration. Perhaps in due time we will further discuss such issues as the Hill case and some typically held assumptions.

My initial point, however, that I would appreciate not getting lost in the mean time, was about some abduction-researchers and organizations misrepresenting their methods to be scientific. I appreciate you sharing related concerns, Flat. Thanks.

I think it is reasonable to point out that misrepresentation, or what Sharon Hill calls sham inquiry, as well as to ask why the community seems to be so collectively vested in enabling it. The sham inquiry is enabled to the point of not only allowing it, but making excuses for it and encouraging its continuation. I also think answers to that question (why sham inquiry in abduction-research is enabled) lie at least partially in the deep desire the community has for validation of its beliefs (and the related potential for exploitation and fraud).
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8443
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #54 on: Jun 20th, 2013, 1:50pm »

IT WAS KEPT CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL HER DEATH BUT,...BETTY HILL WAS IN FACT A MEMBER OF THE CASEBOOK FAMILY...OUT OF ALL THE OTHER SITES AVAILABLE...SHE FELT AT HOME HERE...

SHALOM...ZETAR
User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #55 on: Jul 9th, 2013, 6:10pm »

Motivated Reasoning and Research of Alleged Alien Abduction

The UFO Trail

July 9, 2013

Science and political journalist Chris Mooney wrote an article, The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science. It was published in the May/June 2011 issue of Mother Jones.

Mr. Mooney explored a 1950's era case study undertaken by renowned Stanford psychologist Leon Festinger. The study focused upon the activities of the Seekers, a Chicago-based group whose members were convinced they were interacting with aliens.

Those familiar with the present day phenomenon known as alien abduction will not find it surprising to read that the Seekers' interests included matters of religious and existential significance. They also believed their activities, which included transcribing messages through automatic writing from their alien counterparts, were both reliable and ahead of their time, not entirely unlike assigning such beliefs to regressive hypnosis.

One such message was believed to notify the group of not only an impending apocalypse, but its exact date, December 21, 1954. Careers were abandoned and preparations were made to be rescued by a flying saucer.

When the day of reckoning came and went, Festinger and his colleagues were eager to observe how the group would respond. Following a brief period of apparent confusion, a new message arrived. The Seekers, the message indicated, had gloriously saved the entire world from ruin. Their willingness to be drawn to the light and believe in the prophecy had negated the dark contents of the prophecy. The members of the group, Festinger documented, framed the lack of occurrence – and arguable destruction of their belief systems - in a manner that strengthened their resolve to believe.

Mooney explained that the behavior of the Seekers is what is known as motivated reasoning. Preexisting beliefs and emotions can be primary factors in forming conclusions, and far more so than the introduction of facts. More studies were cited by Mooney, demonstrating how people will cling to any number of political and social belief systems even after conclusive evidence to the contrary is presented. As Mooney concluded, “In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values - so as to give the facts a fighting chance.”

Cultural Beliefs

Factory owners in Bangladesh needed no convincing of Mooney's findings when they opted to shut the business down and hold special prayers to rid the site of a reported ghost. Skeptical author Benjamin Radford reported last month at Live Science that some 3,000 workers at the garment factory rioted due to what they believed was a haunted ladies restroom.

Interestingly, Mr. Radford noted, very few, if any, workers claimed to have actually seen a spirit. A woman who apparently started the chain of events did not report seeing a ghost, but said she felt sick and assumed such a ghost was responsible.

Are such unfounded cultural beliefs entirely different from some of those found in the UFO community, such as identifying short term amnesia, or “missing time”, as an indication of alleged alien abduction? Similarly, it could indeed be considered unreasonable to assume alien abduction, the perpetrators of which have yet to be so much as demonstrated to exist, typically occurs among multiple generations of a family. It would seem much more reasonable to establish a presence actually exists prior to claiming qualified to identify its preferred methods of operation. Should such a presence continue to defy identification, a valid argument could be made that alternative explanations should be considered, perhaps not altogether unlike seeking a more readily available explanation than a ghost for the Bangladeshi woman's illness.

Wanted: Abduction Researcher - No Ethics Required?

In recent weeks I have increased writing about UFO researchers and organizations that inaccurately claim to conduct scientific investigation. I subsequently participated in several discussions at a number of venues in which self-described abductees, self-described experiencers and various interested parties defended their chosen perspectives. Discussions evolved at times to some participants defending sham inquiry, or the misrepresentation of nonscientific activities as science, and as consistently committed by such individuals as David Jacobs and such organizations as the Mutual UFO Network.

I listened to many excuses made for sham inquiry, and why alleged alien abduction – and even UFOs in general – are such difficult subjects to research and investigate. I reasonably patiently entertained statements which included such claims as the definition of science is a matter of opinion. The same individual informed me that aliens use some kind of technique that somehow blocks human memory from functioning, as those familiar with abduction lore will quickly recognize as common subject matter. The individual then assured me that techniques such as regressive hypnosis implemented as a memory retrieval tool can effectively be used “side by side” with psychoanalytic techniques as developed by “Fraud and Young”.

Somewhat similarly, another individual undertook defending the actions of David Jacobs while recommending he be consulted by those fearing they might have been abducted by aliens. “He is a doctor of history, no ethics required for that,” the person wrote, apparently implying that Jacobs was not obligated to adhere to codes practiced by medical professionals, as well as mistakenly under the impression that such a statement strengthened their argument.

At one point an individual agreed with me that “abduction research in general and Dr. David Jacobs' research specifically fail the scientific standard.” They added that an excuse might be made that abduction is too weird to fit scientific methods of investigation. While that might or might not be effectively argued, it completely fails to address why Jacobs and others claim to follow scientific methods. One might not only ask why such false claims are made in the first place, but why excuses for them are made at all.

The enabling of sham inquiry is as much a part of the problem as is the perpetration itself. When the UFO community evolves to truly want answers – not excuses, not patronizing and not motivated reasoning – it will find them. Then and only then will it mature to seek what it has claimed it wanted all along: the truth.
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
Mythos
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 910
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #56 on: Jul 10th, 2013, 3:32pm »

Anyone recall seeing that commercial that says "If you read it on the internet - then it MUST be true?'

http://www.ufotrail.blogspot.com/2013/07/motivated-reasoning-and-research-of.html

Well once again we have a Blogger bad mouthing David Jacobs and expressing his OPINON about what he considers scientific methods and ethics in UFO research.

Well if it is on the internet, it must be the truth right?

He wants to convince people that any researchers that DO NOT apply what he considers "scientific research" produce results that are completely useless, wrong, false, did not happen, have absolutely no value or are outright lies...

I'm sure most people here (especially the abductees) do not have such expectations, I mean does anyone know of a college that teaches programs in UFO research?

I am not a professional writer, so while my arguments are not as eloquent and slick, I don't have other obscure sources to quote but let logic be your guide. Try reading some of David Jacobs book where he explains his methods and talks about the detractors and form you own opinions. Yes, David has a PHD in History, but has been involved with UFO's for 45 years and he comes of MUCH MORE convincing than some Johnny-come-lately blogger that has some type of vendetta against him....
User IP Logged

Ground Control to Major Tom
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Take your Protien Pill and put your Helmet on...
hyundisonata
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 48
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #57 on: Jul 10th, 2013, 5:00pm »

Well said Mythos, the skeptic brandishes the term scientific research knowing the scientific community will not take up the gauntlet and investigate UFO apart from the odd thesis on how insane we all are. I would see the point if it was just the average run of the mill person claiming UFO but when you have military, police, doctors, and even the guys who have been in space claiming UFO then I cannot understand why the scientific community avoids UFO unless they have been deliberately told by their peers not to investigate UFO. If I was a skeptic I would be asking why science is avoiding this subject instead of attacking people without scientific knowledge who are the only people investigating this subject with very little means or equipment that the scientific community does have?
User IP Logged

Mythos
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 910
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #58 on: Jul 10th, 2013, 7:51pm »

on Jul 10th, 2013, 5:00pm, hyundisonata wrote:
Well said Mythos, the skeptic brandishes the term scientific research knowing the scientific community will not take up the gauntlet and investigate UFO apart from the odd thesis on how insane we all are. I would see the point if it was just the average run of the mill person claiming UFO but when you have military, police, doctors, and even the guys who have been in space claiming UFO then I cannot understand why the scientific community avoids UFO unless they have been deliberately told by their peers not to investigate UFO. If I was a skeptic I would be asking why science is avoiding this subject instead of attacking people without scientific knowledge who are the only people investigating this subject with very little means or equipment that the scientific community does have?


EXACTLY>>>!
User IP Logged

Ground Control to Major Tom
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Take your Protien Pill and put your Helmet on...
skizicks
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

" Your choice of words is very important and very powerful, it is the difference between the Lightning Bug and the Lightning. " Mark Twain


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 2504
xx Re: Critical Analysis of Research of Alien Abducti
« Reply #59 on: Jul 10th, 2013, 8:24pm »

It has been asked before, but just what should science investigate?
Does anyone have one they will loan to the local college?
As for sightings what could you investigate there? How many reports can you read before they all sound alike?
What could an army of PHDs find from reading reports that we haven't already learned?
Science isn't magical, in the absence of a physical object to study and test all they can offer are theories. And these can be no more than what we have already come up with.
User IP Logged

"Two people CAN keep a secret, provided one of them is dead." B. Franklin
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  ...  33 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls