Calling DU Scientists, science buffs, science students....

[OneGrassRoot]

This may be a dupe, and I apologize if so, but I couldn't find a similar thread in a cursory search.

And, rest assured, there is absolutely no intention to start a flame war whatsoever (though I can't speak for what happens by others from here on...the most benign posts can get out of hand in a way I never could have imagined).

There have been many a thread here in the last few days regarding whether or not people believe in the paranormal (I'll use that umbrella term). Many of those with scientific backgrounds interjected their very strong comments that it is dangerous for people to believe in such things - to believe in anything - without scientific proof.

I'm not rehashing that argument.

My question is this: did any of you support DK prior to last night's debate but no longer do after learning (assuming it was indeed news to you) about his UFO experience/sighting?

Is there a particular dem candidate the scientific community tends to support, or the scientific community absolutely does NOT support? I know it isn't fair to lump any group of people, be it due to their profession or otherwise, but I'm simply curious about this. That's all it is...pure curiosity based on observing the other interactions over the last few days.

And I would ask people not to post snarky things in response to anyone within the science community sharing their views here, even if you feel it has been unnecessarily done to you in the past.

Thanks in advance! :hi:

[unpossibles]

1. as there are plenty of religious scientists

I'm not sure... never mind. Let me go get some popcorn....

[Warpy]

2. Well, there are actually two questions, and he answered only one

The first is, "Have you ever seen/do you believe others have seen a UFO?" The answer to that question is an obvious yes for anybody out there. There have been lights in the sky that have had inadequate official explanations. Those are unidentified flying phenomena. The fact that they haven't been explained by the mundane doesn't mean they won't be eventually. It just means they haven't been, as yet.

The second question, the one that wasn't asked, was "Do you believe that some unidentified flying objects are life forms from another planet?" Now that calls into question a belief system, meaning something that can't be proven no matter how hard we might clap our hands to make it true.

The spin machine will undoubtedly act as though the second question had been asked and answered in the affirmative.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. Okay, let me be more specific...

I'm trying to be nice here...I really am. But I have a feeling most of you know to whom I'm posing this question. And I'm posing it not because I want an argument about the subject matter, nor do I want this thread to be a debate about it. I think both sides have explained their views well in the last few days.

I'm simply wondering if any of the contingent of DUers with a scientific background (minus religious belief) who abhor the idea that anyone entertains the idea of UFOs or anything paranormal were affected one way or another by Dennis Kucinich?

Did the fact that Mr. Kucinich not dispute the idea of UFOs disturb you?

Whether it was a gotcha moment or not, it personally did not affect me at all. I think he is a brilliant man. But I don't have such strong opinions about the subject as others.

[Warpy]

6. That there are occasional objects in the sky that defy explanation

is an established fact.

It's the explanations that are in doubt. Those require belief systems that not everyone shares.

And no, it wasn't a "gotcha" moment.

[OneGrassRoot]

8. Thanks. For the record, I meant an attempt by the

moderators for it to be a "gotcha" moment.

[Trajan]

4. I support Dennis Kucinich ....

Because he, along with ALL the Democratic contenders, more or less support those policies I believe is necessary to govern our nation ... I do not agree with ALL aspects of each contenders various beliefs or policies, but on the whole, I have cast my lot with the Democrats, and to wit; with Dennis Kucinich ...

That being said: There are many terrestrial causes that would account for seeing a 'UFO' ... Dennis alluded to this fact last night by explaining (I am paraphrasing) that the object was unidentified, and was flying, and was an object ... He made no specific claim (as far as I know) that the UFO was DEFINITELY of extraterrestrial origin ....

It is important to separate speculation from observation : Seeing an object doesnt prove it came from a supernatural or extraterrestrial source ....

(Oh Hell: 9999 )

[OneGrassRoot]

5. Thank you for the thoughtful response...

I understand what you are saying. I was wondering if some, regardless of how the term UFO is defined, and regardless of how DK responded, would be turned off by the entire aspect.

Certainly it's rare to agree with all beliefs and policies of the contenders, but for many people there are indeed things that come out which turn them off, even if they agree with most other issues.

I would hope he wouldn't lose anyone over this (even though, as you said, he gave a very intelligent reply), but given the heated discussions of late I was simply wondering....

Thanks again

[izquierdista]

7. Still like him

I am a scientist and I have had a UFO experience. I was piloting a small plane at night and saw an unusual light off in the distance. I wasn't the only one to notice it, as other pilots were calling ATC to ask what they were observing. ATC did not verify anything in the vicinity of the light, so it remained unidentified.

However, I will say that there is really no reason to call up the X-files crew to check this one out, as there could be a dozen different normal possibilities for the source of the unusual light without having to delve into the 'paranormal'.

[OneGrassRoot]

9. Thanks for the reply! n/t

[TZ]

10. My opinion of him has not changed

He also has a track record of believing in things *I* as a biologist consider pseudoscientific. I think there are a lot of science based folk who also dislike Kucinich because of his past history. Last night did not change many in the communities minds on that I would think. As for a particular candidate that the science community supports? Not sure there is one, really except in general more science folk I know are strongly Democratic because there is no doubt that the Rupukes and Chimpy are virulently anti-science.
But honestly in my experience, the scientists I know don't care for Kucinich at all, and are split on the rest of the candidates.

[OneGrassRoot]

11. Thank you for sharing that, turtlensue....

much appreciated.

Like I said, I had no reason other than pure curiosity for posting, and your answer enlightened me. :)

Thanks again