Jun 102021
 


After decades of official denials about unidentified flying objects (UFOs) the U.S. Pentagon is expected to publicly release what it knows about this phenomenon by the end of this month. The timing of such an announcement has many people scratching their heads, particularly given the current political crisis in the U.S. and the global lockdowns.

At the heart of the issue has been the release of photos and other data about sightings of UFOs that have been called ‘tic tacs’ owing to their shapes resembling the popular candy of the same name.

For our purposes, what makes the issue particularly fascinating are the public discussions surrounding UFOs, given the vacuum of knowledge inherent in the nature of the phenomenon.

Particularly egregious was a May 27 panel discussion hosted on the Daily Wire wherein all the panelists failed to provide any credible theories or perspectives about the many issues involved. Unable to discuss the possibility of extra-terrestrials objectively, they resorted to the use of non sequitur, irrelevant equations of ‘probabilities’ and even introduced elements of the supernatural in an attempt to minimize the possibility of life not of this earth.

Should extra-terrestrials actually prove to exist, many fundamental religious and philosophical assumptions could be rendered invalid, challenged by the contradictions inherent in those beliefs that consider humanity to be utterly unique in the universe. Consequently, many fear that some kind of moral crisis could ensue leading to chaos in the social and moral order of humanity.

It is perhaps considerations like this that may account for the government’s historical reluctance to reveal information about UFOs, particularly anything that might entail evidence of extra-terrestrials.

Whether ‘aliens’ exist or not, discussions of this nature, while often frustrating, serve as ‘Exhibit A’ in demonstrating how so many otherwise intelligent individuals refuse to apply known epistemological principles (or even common sense) to circumstances outside of normal experience. In the case of ‘aliens,’ it is a conscious effort driven by a fear that deeply held beliefs may no longer correspond with reality.

However, it seems to us that there is nothing threatening about the possibility of extra-terrestrials that should concern anyone whose interpretation of reality is based on any epistemology that is Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

  One Response to “710 – Alien considerations about UFOs—an epistemological challenge”

  1. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is liberating. I too say yes to the fact of alien existence even though I have not seen one, nor am convinced any photo of blurred shots prove their existence here.

    But here is where wrong epistemology can really become wildly whacky if the military do acknowledge even a tiny fraction of not knowing what tic tac was. The mix of religion, or alien theory as a new religion, because of lack of objectivity on the subject will enlarge in massive “applied” proportion. The new knowledge (largely conjecture) will simply be application of already existing theory.

    The earliest philosophy grew in the same manner as understanding aliens today.

    Materialism was rejected in Ancient Greek philosophy. So was scepticism, but Idealism dominated. Idealism was adopted simply because people understood the fact their ideas meant something, it was their means of survival. Man’s means of survival critically depends on his abstractive ability.

    As long as there are three squares a day man seems to think all other generalized (background) ideas can be a playground of thoughts and whims. People generally do not deeply question their thinking processes like philosophers do even though the full range of their epistemological development is critical for direction and towards a rational society.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>