[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
of the mistakes of judgment by individuals, but also proof of an error existing in the ruling
doctrine of the philosophy of science. The universe seems to be built in such a manner that
"everything is possible, only we need to find out the way to achieve it". In all actions and
discussions of scholars the above principle should replace the doctrine reported earlier. This
new principle should become an essential foundation for the future philosophy of reformed
science.
Scholars, acting in accordance with this reformed principle, would not discuss goals, but
concentrate their efforts on verifying the ways of achieving them. By this means, the respect and
authority of many people would be secure when the inventions or ideas they tried to disqualify
became reality. To prevent us from repeating the same errors with regard to the Oscillatory
Chamber and the Magnocraft, perhaps we should implement this reformed principle
immediately, beginning with the content of this monograph.
E2. All facts are equal - each of them deserves the same consideration
From the blackness of ancient times we have inherited the habit of segregating
everything into categories of "better" or "worse". Some religions have claimed to be better than
others, some races have tried to dominate others, social classes were introduced. Even our
body was recognized as having good and bad parts - in spite of a hypocritical use of all of them.
This habit is probably the reason why many scholars also segregate facts into "permissible" and
"heretical" categories.
While the development of our civilization and culture has gradually removed most of the
above prejudices, scholars still remain the last bastion of conservatism. The reaction of some
contemporary scientists to the appearance of any "heretical" fact such as a UFO sighting,
psychic phenomena, ghost story, etc., is exactly the same as the reaction of the nineteenth
century public to the sight of a naked person - when embarrassment, shock, and sometimes
E-4
even disgust was manifested.
In no other area of human activity are facts segregated or ignored to such an extent. For
example, the spoken statement of a witness is sufficient for our courts to convict someone with
a death sentence, but a report by the same witness about a UFO sighting would be dismissed
and laughed at by scientists. In science medieval concepts still seem to be operative, and many
scholars are judging people not by the level of their expertise, but by the type of facts that they
are associated with or investigate.
It is about time this irresponsible attitude is changed. Our civilization will not be able to
progress much further if we continue segregating facts into "permissible" and "heretical" ones.
Such segregation is damaging as well as irrational. We can not tell the forces of the universe
what kind of manifestations they are allowed to display. No person has the right or sufficient
knowledge to dictate this, especially if the only purpose is to avoid the methodical investigation
of existing, repetitive, well documented, and explainable facts on UFOs, extraterrestrials, psychic
abilities, and other phenomena which do not fit into our contemporary philosophy of science.
Facts are equal and all of them deserve to be treated with the same consideration and
investigated thoroughly. The only permissible criterion for establishing priorities in research
should be the benefit that they may provide for mankind.
In the third part of this monograph some facts are investigated which fall into the category
of "scientific heresy". For the author, they are facts which are just as valid as all other scientific
evidence. Because they are well documented and reliable, there is no reason why the benefits
they promise should not be directed for the good of people. Perhaps, when reading this
monograph, we all should look at them in that way.
E3. All statements are true unless they are proven to be untrue
Not many people would like to be judged by a court operating on the principle "guilty until
proven innocent". Most of us would consider such a court to be barbaric and more appropriate
to medieval times or savage tribes than to modern civilizations. A today citizen expects to have
the right of "being innocent until proven guilty". Having such a clear idea of our rights, we seem
to forget about the rights of others. How frequently we respond to the claims of others "I will
believe it when I see it". Such a reply is only a different wording of the doctrine "all statements
of others are untrue unless proved to be true". This in turn is the intellectual application of the
old court rule: "guilty unless proven innocent".
The present situation with UFO sightings indicates how a vicious circle is formed by the
application of this principle in life. If someone is describing his/her UFO experiences, most
people tell him/her "we will believe it when we see it". But when their turn comes and they in fact
do see it, the same rule makes them victims because no-one else believes their story. This
situation will never stop unless we all change our philosophy and ignore the requirement of
others to prove the claims. Of course, changing a philosophy is difficult because it requires
orienting ourselves into an unconditional accepting, understanding, and positive attitude
towards our surroundings. But after such re-orienting, even if we haven't experienced something
personally, our intellect is still able to accept its possibility.
If only a few individuals acted according to the doctrine "all statements of others are
untrue unless proven to be true" the fault could lie in their lack of education, difficult character,
unpleasant experiences in the past, and many other reasons allowing us to overlook this. But
when the entire establishment applies it there is no excuse. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that
the above doctrine lies at the foundation of the ruling philosophy of science. No evidence, no
fact, no statement, no theory is accepted or even considered by contemporary science until the
appropriate proof is presented.
This doctrine causes enormous harm to our development and to the progress of science.
E-5
Let us review the main areas that suffer because of it.
(a) Randomly appearing evidence is ignored or rejected. The requirement for proof of
everything excludes from scientific recognition all evidence that appears randomly with
significant time differences, in unexpected places, or which leaves no apparent marks
afterwards. Example of such evidence can be modern UFO manifestations and earlier "stones
from heaven" (i.e. meteorites). Therefore whatever prospects for the advancement of our
civilization the investigation of this evidence may open, they remain inaccessible to us, if the
"easy way out" scholars retain their views.
(b) Intellectual laziness is promoted. At present, the principle under discussion allows for
each scholar or each scientific institution to reject every new theory, every new invention, and
all new evidence, without even examining its content (just as a medieval court could sentence
anyone who did not have enough power to defend him/herself). Because, to reject this
evidence, it is not necessary to prove that it is invalid or wrong, scholars feel free to do so. In this
way a wealth of evidence and excellent ideas are discredited only because saying NO doesn't
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]