It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Reading associated with this video:
Martin Heidegger - On the Essense of Truth (14 pp) @
filepedia.org...
New found discoveries unintelligible by previous limitations of technology and scientific method should not be seen as attacks against our sciences, but rather a need to expand our hypotheses of the sciences to account for their place in the bigger picture.
Science at its heart is concerned with finding the truth of what is -- which by its own virtue attempts to leap over our constantly developing subjective hypotheses of the world around us -- calling our discoveries the actual true objective states. In this process, science is forced to take on the appearance that its method is conscious to all the possible phenomena, even those beyond the current potential of our microscopes, methods and exposure of the universes beyond our grasp. When science claims what is the actual objective state of the infinite, science is no longer understood as just a hypothesis created by the knowledge that presupposes the design of its own system. A system that is created by and limited to the current lens and methods of science at the time and is also considered the guidelines for proving what is possible or true. When science is used to claim things as the ultimate possibility of the objective, it conceals the new scientific breakthroughs and discoveries outside of its own limitations and sometimes goes as far as discrediting its possibility prior to investigating the biggest breakthrough's of this century. What a method reveals is important, but what is concealed by our scientific limitations should always be kept in mind when attempting to define the ultimate possible truth of the world around us. History has shown us that time and time again, new discoveries unthought-of by previous principles of science, have created the need for new hypotheses and expansions of scientific methods to account for what our old technology and scientific hypotheses couldn't.
I'd like to clarify however that these tendencies are usually found at a certain level of scientific development which typically includes professors at educating level. They end up limiting their concern with discoveries only existing within the current hypotheses of science -- which claim to reveal everything as objective. This dismisses new verifiable discoveries which require expansions to our current theories, as impossible, or pseudo science. The professors can even feel as if they need not even test out these new discoveries for the sheer fact that their minds potential for conceptualizing what's possible is still limited to the subjective hypotheses based on our current lenses and methods. New ideas that may seem completely alien to a current approach indeed may become the standard of tomorrow
Originally posted by BlasteR
So you mean to tell me that the millions and millions of these people, commercial pilots, military pilots, police officers, astronauts, cosmonauts, teachers, engineers, politicians, physicists and other military members from various backgrounds, are all either jumping to conclusions or suffering from some inexplicable form of mass delusion?
-ChriS
Originally posted by spacevisitor
I am really a bit surprised that Michio Kaku comes forward with such remarks in public now, quite remarkable and important in my opinion.
I admire him as a man in his position for doing that.
Originally posted by Lowneck
And in the meantime Jim clearly has a lot of French homework to do.
Originally posted by kyle43
Wow, a Kaku interview that deals with UFO's
AND
Kepler conference this week? How can people not agree that something is about to be disclosed...
Originally posted by Heliocentric
Originally posted by spacevisitor
I am really a bit surprised that Michio Kaku comes forward with such remarks in public now, quite remarkable and important in my opinion.
I admire him as a man in his position for doing that.
Well, yes and no.
It's true that top scientists must consider what they say publicly, since they risk getting flogged for endorsing controversial theories.
I mean, who wants to end up like John Mack or James Watson?
Originally posted by Heliocentric
There are a lot of things out in the Universe a lot stranger than the possibility of extraterrestial visitation,
Consider spooky-action-at-a-distance, wormholes, multiverses and the possibility of teleportation and time travel, and you might actually reach the same conclusion as Enrico Fermi; they should be visiting us, so where are they?
Originally posted by Heliocentric
Add to the fact that Kaku likes fame, and that his book sales logically peak every time he's on Coast to Coast show talking science vs UFOs,
Originally posted by Heliocentric
I'm not so sure he's sticking his chin out, he might even be playing it safe.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I agree with you, maybe a couple of nuts will panic but I don't think society as a whole will panic just because we got an alien signal on the Allen Telescope array, or any other kind of peaceful contact.
This whole idea about people panicking and what not didn't ever made sense to me . Even if few fundamentals jump out of the window, who cares ?
I think what it would take to make us panic in general would be for a fleet of motherships to surround the Earth like in Independence day and start blasting major cities into piles of rubble. But in that situation disclosure isn't a question and the panic may be justified!
Originally posted by JimOberg
"“The world, it appears, is much bigger, much stranger, and far more complicated than most of us can imagine.” Colm Kelleher."
This is a rewording of the British scientist Haldane's comment, in the 1930s,
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it's queerer than we CAN imagine"
I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine.
Originally posted by spacevisitor
He died in 1964 so I suppose he did experience due the years how right he was with his saying back then.
Isn't that the same SOBEPs report where SOBEPS eventually admitted they were wrong (meaning Jim Oberg is right?). Here is the documentary on that case which says SOBEPs admitted they were wrong about the radar returns representing real objects:
Originally posted by Lowneck
But Jim Oberg is wrong to criticise Kaku and Kean on the 5% (or 2% or whatever) cutoff for 'genuine' ufos. In studies like Hynek et al's Night Siege and the two superb, massive SOBEPS reports on the Belgian wave, by Profs Meessen, Brenig et al. (one thousand pages in professorial French)
Originally posted by Tryptych
Leslie Kean on Colbert (August 23, 2010)
Highly interesting.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
It is the reports from pilots and military peeps, I have always found most interesting. These people are paid and trained to identify the sky and whats in it and should have a better idea than most what constitutes a UFO.