(continued from previous post)
Another example to contrast the two subjects, I made a recent trip to a DVD shop. They had a half-dozen UFO and/or alien documentaries in stock; a sum total of absolute zero titles on hand when it came to documentaries on fairies and leprechauns! It would appear that the buying public is way more interested in UFOs than they are in Celtic mythology. Can that observation resonate inside that relatively foolish brain of yours or is that revelation too complex for you to comprehend? The bottom line is that there is WAY more structure and substance to the UFO issue than to pondering the realities of fairies and leprechauns in residence at the bottom of your garden.
Regarding the Nature of Scientific Theories
According to some of a scientific turn of mind, my sceptical acquaintance, the Theory of Gravity is good but the Theory of UFOs is bad. Ah, but there is an exact parallel here. No one debates the existence of gravity and no one debates the existence of UFOs (just the association between UFOs and ET)! However, there is a debate about exactly what gravity is. Is it warped space-time meaning that space and time have to have structure and substance? 
Or is gravity just caused by a force particle – the graviton, an accepted part of the standard model of particle physics, akin to how the electromagnetic force is caused by the photon. Gravity exists but the cause is still debated. UFOs exist; the debate is how much evidence is required for the ETH to be acceptable to the mainstream. Even such things which science has once upon a time considered bagged and tagged – no debate required – has come unstuck. Newton was bagged and tagged; Einstein let the cat out of the bag or the worms out of the can. I have to repeat an earlier observation that nothing is science is absolutely fixed and set in stone. What was once debated might no longer have been debatable only to have an Einstein come along and require a new debate. Now what if the simulation hypothesis that we exist as virtual beings in a computer software-generated landscape is correct? Then gravity will have yet another explanation! Gravity is just software!
Though this isn’t the place to discuss the nature of gravity in depth, I do feel somewhat compelled to – briefly – mention two other debating points. 1) Why is gravity so incredibly weak relative to the other three quantum forces, and 2) why can’t gravity be unified into a Theory of Everything? So you see, there is just as much debate over gravity as there is with respect to the nature of those hardcore UFO unknowns. Those with that scientific turn of mind picked a bad example with Gravity is Good for a comparison.
This post was sourced from an article by John Prytz at http://EzineArticles.com
Thats all for now
Paul
The post Closer To Reality: Scientific Attitudes On UFOs Part VII appeared first on The Unexplained and Paranormal Mysteries.