Ways of Knowing What "Is"

"Science generally assumes that the phenomena it is studying do not "mind" being studied. Such an assumption is unsafe in the world of counterintelligence, where one must assume that potential opponents are aware of your every move unless precautions are taken to disguise them. In fact, it is standard technique to disseminate a cloud of false information, the purpose of which is to deceive the opposing force. In order to deceive an enemy, one must also deceive friends--i.e., the public. Thus, an elaborate game of deception evolves between the opposing forces."

Let us return briefly to a high-level view of the ways in which society describes its cosmic situation. I have discussed various myths: the myths of ancient and/or non-western societies, and the myth of the UFO, and said that the scientific myth is one of the presentations of reality that are available. The scientific myth is the description of information gained through application of the scientific method. But there are other methods. In fact the scientific method is not necessarily the most suitable to the topic. On this page I will touch on several other systems of understanding and then return to science, because the scientific institution most visibly and actively claims the right to resolve for society its questions concerning ETI.

Don Donderi (2000), Associate Professor of Psychology at McGill University, compares the scientific method with two other routes to an understanding of the world: military intelligence and the rules of legal evidence.

In his characterization, the goal of science is "to develop a consistent understanding of the inanimate and the animate world." Drawing on Kuhn, he points out that science constructs and continually modifies a picture of nature that is never complete. The process often requires scientists to ignore evidence that does not fit current paradigms or new developing paradigms.

In contrast, legal evidence must be relevant to a theory or fact that is to be proved, material to a question at issue in the case, and admissible in that it has been obtained according to procedures that eliminate, for example, hearsay testimony. The theory or fact is related to a case being tried in court, which could be any question or issue needing to be resolved in that manner.

Military intelligence will consider any information relevant to its mission, collecting and collating facts from multiple sources without preconceptions. After all, the analyst's job is to "protect us from surprise attack from enemies we may not have suspected, and by weapons we may not have imagined."50

Which of these three approaches would you think the best suited for learning the truth about ETI? Donderi, in the context of UFOs, which we might consider a special part of our larger question of ETI existence, finds military intelligence the profession best suited to observe, analyze, and recommend action. This reminds us of Jacques Vallee's (1979) encounter with a retired counter-intelligence agent:

"Scientific analysis will undoubtedly provide part of the truth about UFOs; however, I no longer believe it will lead to the whole truth. I owe this realization to a man I shall call 'Major Murphy,' although his actual rank is much higher than that of Major. He taught me a lesson I am not likely to forget.

"Major Murphy, who retired from a U.S. Intelligence service quite a few years ago, had seen action in World War II in Italy, and also described vividly his investigations in the Caribbean, where he organized efforts to intercept submarines and German spies on their way to the United States. I met him at a gathering of UFO contactees and suggested a drink when it was over. I expressed my surprise at his interest in the event, which I had regarded as a complete waste of time. He asked me to clarify this judgement, and I said that in my opinion none of the people in attendance knew anything about science. Then he posed a question that, obvious as it seems, had not really occurred to me: 'What makes you think that UFOs are a scientific problem?' "I replied with something to the effect that a problem was only scientific in the way it was approached, but he would have none of that, and he began lecturing me. First, he said, science had certain rules. For example, it has to assume that the phenomenon it is observing is natural in origin rather than artificial and possibly biased. Now, the UFO phenomenon could be controlled by alien beings. 'If it is,' added the Major, 'then the study of it doesn't belong in science. It belongs in Intelligence. MEANING COUNTERESPIONAGE."

But this is of little use to most of us because military intelligence will not tell what it knows.

Readers interested in the nexus of UFOs and National Intelligence should review the work of Richard M. Dolan. See http://keyholepublishing.com/.47
Another must read: INGO SWANN -- To the Moon and Back, With Love Gary S. Bekkum

He finds the law to be the second-best profession, except that it will not even consider facts unless they relate to a case being tried in the law courts.

Science is the least fitted "to uncover and present radically new facts about nature."51

To the three approaches I would add two more. First, as mentioned earlier, there is the vast body of cultural history that I believe one day we will recognize as rich with the kind of information that should be considered under the heading of SETI. And finally there is the personal quest. Here, in the way of support, and only for the adventurous and open-minded, I offer a website developed by my wife Malou Zeitlin and myself:

The End of Enchantment

That website gives access to at least at least one more of ours, easily our most important work. Please review all of the icons on the navigation bar.

In a moment we shall return to the consideration of how science conducts SETI. I am going to show the many ways in which the "scientific" SETI program fails, not only because such evidence of ETI's existence as we now have is rejected as being outside the scientific paradigm, but because the SETI community arrogantly disregards even the rules of science in the formulation of its methodology.

The reader must be careful not to misunderstand. In rejecting "scientific" SETI, I am not rejecting the use of scientific instruments and methods of analysis. These I believe can be turned to highly fruitful use. But the current practitioners have not done so, and do not appear ready to do so.

Now we turn to a consideration of the fundamental assumptions that form the basis for SETI.

Open SETI SETI Physics 101 Fundamental Assumptions