reply to post by riggs2099
Hello, I was wondering if you are referring to the work of Susan Clancy when you state:
i have also linked harvard scientists who have studied this phenomenon and have done tests and have made some very good points to counter the
abduction phenomenon as just a type of metnal problem.
?
You realize, do you not, that Susan Clancy began her research project with the premise that self-titled abductees were not actually abducted. Her
research was about the implantation of memories, not the legitimacy or lack thereof of their experience. I am quite dismayed that this sort of poor
science was conducted by an institution as prestigious as Harvard University, but not entirely surprised.
I think that the evolution of the doctoral system has made real, honest research next to impossible, and I say this as someone who has gone through
it. The goal is to be published. So science/research has become tightly bound by the constraints of public and peer opinion in, ironically, much the
same respect as it used to be bound by Church dogma.
In other words, if you could be laughed or snarked at by your peers for any reason then you shouldn't bother researching the subject.
Susan Clancy and her fellow PI did not for one moment give any credence to the claims of abductees and went about the work of figuring out why they
were "lying".
There are so many problems with this that I don't know where to begin.
1) When recruiting your human subject volunteer population you attempt to make every effort to determine that they all meet a rigorous set of criteria
so that your control group's deviations will be minimal.
They did not do this. The people who had non-hypnotically induced memories were lumped in with those that were only hypnotically induced. Also, they
allowed people who just "assumed" they'd been abducted because they had missing time.
If they were really interested in true discovery (most importantly, including the possibility that this may have actually happened to some of them)
they would have chosen only one "set" from this group and recruited on that.
2) Their original research protocol was focused upon sexual abuse "created" memories, but the research would not have met the Belmont principles for
human protections.
This bothers me, as well, as the original volunteer subject population was rejected because their research had the potential to produce PTSD in those
women who may have actually been abused. Therefore, on the off chance that even
one volunteer had been abducted by aliens their IRB should
have asked them to revise their protocol.
Some IRB has allowed for the violation of human rights because they are absolutely certain (without evidence) that no person has ever been abducted.
Allow me to acknowledge the "Hank" poster as I borrow from his warning that: absence of evidence does not equate with evidence of absence. If those
volunteers truly wished to make a case of their treatment and report it to HHS they would be well within their rights.
Human progress through scientific inquiry would never have been successful had every scientist since its nascent beginnings began with the conclusion
and then worked backwards.
I'm not saying that Dr Clancy's work is entirely wrong. It is probably correct about many of the people in her volunteer group, but it is founded
on poor research principles and therefore not "readable" in my opinion.
[edit on 23-11-2008 by Rintendo]