Background.
Question everything you read, hear and see about the UFO phenomena (hereafter, "the phenomena"). Including the content on this blog. Trust no one. Not necessarily because people are untrustworthy, but because no one can claim to know with certainty what the truth is about the phenomena or what is not true about the phenomena. That ignorance includes me.
That is why this post is describing "the standards of reasoning" (below the "Background" part), mentioned briefly in a previous post, and why they are important (according to me) to the discourse of the phenomena. But, before that, some more background.
The terms "ufology" and "ufologist", are problematic. Because they imply some systematic method and theory underlying the study of the phenomena. There is not. Which is a problem that Jacques Vallée has pointed out in several of his books and in various interviews through the years.
The main reason for the lack of such a shared theoretical and practical framework to study the phenomena is probably the elusive and complex nature of the phenomena itself. Most people knowledgeable about the phenomena know the phenomena require a multidisciplinary approach. Neither the STEM sciences nor the humanities/social sciences can, on their own, expand our knowledge and further our understanding of the phenomena.
So what can a curious layperson do to become a more trustworthy thinker on the phenomena?
In one of my previous posts, I briefly mentioned some "standards of reasoning" to make the stigmatized UFO subject into a more legitimate subject to be openly interested in and publicly talk about. That is, if one is seriously interested in and cares about the truth behind the phenomena, then one can start with examining how one is thinking, writing and talking about the phenomena.
I can, for instance, ask myself; Do the way I communicate about the phenomena to the outside world give a clear picture of the phenomena's profound existential and scientific implications?
Or, am I thinking and communicating about the phenomena in a factual and nuanced way?
Or, how is my way of representing the phenomena, influencing other people's perception about it? Am I adding to the social stigma of the ufo subject, or am I contributing to reducing the stigma?
I wanted to write this post mainly because I care about and think it is crucial that the UFO phenomena/subject goes fully mainstream. I think it is crucial to get the unbiased and unfiltered truth of the phenomena into the public domain. If the ufo subject would become mainstream, then the disclosure process would become by, for and of the people. Citizens, politicians, lawmakers, academics, scientists, and journalists would together create a force strong enough to break down the walls of the secrecy surrounding the phenomena.
But for such a force or pressure on our governments to manifest at all, I believe the public first has to become receptive to reliable data on the phenomena.
What I am trying to say is that from the public's perspective, the ufo subject has to go from a tinfoil hat subject to a serious subject. Thanksto,
So my idea with the previous post about "the standards of reasoning", and with this post, is that anyone currently interested in and following the ufo subject can reduce the social stigma of the phenomena by practising some basic thinking skills. The purpose of practising those basic skills is to raise the quality of the discourse on the phenomena, and in that way, hopefully, also improve the perception of the ufo subject among people currently unfamiliar with ufo subject and/or ignorant of the UFO phenomena's profound and significant implications for the future of humanity and our home, the Earth.
Since I only mentioned "the standards of reasoning" briefly in that previous post, I thought I should describe those standards in a bit more detail. So, that comes next.
The standards are nothing new. What I call and describe here as "the standards of reasoning" are good old techniques from philosophy: Socratic questioning and critical thinking skills. They are, in theory, easy to learn but harder to stay true to and apply in real life. Why is that?
Because the "soul" of the standards of reasoning is a genuine curiosity, and genuine intent, to expand one's knowledge and deepen one's understanding of a subject, an aspect of a subject, a problem, a question, and of fellow humans - their point of view, values, etc. The aim of Socratic questioning is to gain a deeper understanding of one's self and the world.
That genuine curiosity and intent are what should drive and sustain one's search for (a) truth.
If a genuine curiosity about something/someone and genuine intent to understand that same something/someone are not present, then one is not staying true to and practising the standards of reasoning.
The standards of reasoning (or, for short, "the standards") are as much about one's approach/attitude as they are about technical skills. The approach one should internalize is that of a willingness to understand something or someone. To understand something or someone, one should practice the noble skill of listening. If one genuinely wants to understand something or someone, one will listen with presence, concentration, respect and in a nonjudgmental way. And, of course, listen with curiosity and intending to understand.
So, I hope by now that it is clear that the standards of reasoning are not about winning, being right, crushing one's opponent in an argument, etc. The standards have nothing to do with one's own ego, needs, worldview, opinions, etc. Or, as far as it is possible, one should put aside one's own ego and one's need to be right.
The standards have everything to do with one's relation to knowledge, understanding, and truth. The standards also have everything to do with self-knowledge or self-awareness, but we are not going into that aspect in this post.
If we can compare the search for knowledge, understanding and truth as a relationship to a person you hold dear and care about, I believe it can be easier to get the approach to the standards. To truly understand someone, put your ego aside and, so to speak, walk in that person's shoes. That may sound strange regarding understanding a subject or a problem, but if you think about it, it is actually not so different. To understand a subject or a problem, you need to put aside your current assumptions, beliefs, and so on. At least for a while. You need to create an opening and space for new information to flow with as little resistance as possible.
And as most people know, curiosity, intent, understanding, and listening have at least one foundational thing in common: They all begin with an essential question. Essential or relevant questions is the beginning, the birth of progress and development in all academic disciplines, and in all kinds of quests for the truth. Most important in this case, the development and progress of our own way of thinking and communication about the UFO phenomena/subject.
That is why the foundational skill in the standards of reasoning is asking essential questions.
The following content is mainly inspired by The Thinker's Guide to The Art of Socratic Questioning. Based on Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools, by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, and Critical Thinking: an introduction to the basic skills (3rd edition), by William Hughes. I have taken some ideas and models from those two books, and so to speak, made them into my own.
First, notice the term "the art" of Socratic questioning. Yes, it is indeed an art, or a craft, to ask the essential question at the right moment, to the right person, and in the right situation. It is as much about feeling/intuition/creativity, as intellect and logic. It is about being fully present and focused, but in a relaxed manner. You should not be in a freeze-fight-or-flight state of mind (threat, defence, avoid, attack etc.). Instead, you should be in a rest-digest state of mind (peace, safety, openness, receptivity, etc.).
Second, both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions to search for meaning and truth. Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential or relevant to searching for meaning and truth.
In the following, we are going to look at two critical thinking concepts; 1) the components of reasoning /thinking (analyzing thought), and 2) the quality of thought (assessing thought). We use those two concepts to identify essential questions that, hopefully, will raise our thinking to higher levels of understanding and quality. And in the end, take us as close to the truth as possible.
To ask an essential or relevant question, you need to identify and focus on the right component of reasoning. I think the following model of "universal components of thought" can help identify the relevant component of reasoning to match with your question:
1) Whenever we think, we think for a PURPOSE 2) within a POINT OF VIEW 3) based on ASSUMPTIONS 4) leading to IMPLICATIONS and CONSEQUENCES. 5) We use DATA, FACTS, and EXPERIENCES 6) to make INFERENCESand JUDGEMENTS
Before I give some guidelines and examples of essential questions to each of those 7 (nr . 8 is a goal) components of reasoning, I should mention that I am mainly concerned about applying critical thinking and Socratic questioning on "one-system" questions and "conflicting-system" question, because these are the most relevant in the search for to truth about the UFO phenomena.
One-system questions require evidence and reasoning within a system. They have a correct answer = Knowledge. With one-system questions, there is an established procedure or method for finding an answer. They are prominent in mathematics, as well as in physics and biology.
Conflicting-system questions require evidence and reasoning within conflicting systems. They have a better and worse answer, but rarely no verifiable correct answer = Judgement. With conflicting-system questions, there are multiple competing viewpoints from which, and within which, one might reasonably pursue an answer to the question. These questions are predominant in academic disciplines as, for example, history, philosophy, religion, sociology, and economics.
I believe most people interested in the phenomena, and in the truth about the phenomena, probably wish we would have more answers to the one-system questions. I know, I do.
But, since the modern era of "ufology", we have been, and still are, mostly trying to answer conflicting-system questions because of the lack of substantial data that is possible to verify or refute with certainty through established procedures and methods. We do not know if but can suspect such substantial data exists. It is yet to be made public. Until it becomes public, we have to make the best of the situation of finding ourselves struggling with finding more or less well-supported answers to questions with more than one possible answer.
Hence, in my mind, the importance of basic skills in "standards of reasoning."
Ok, back to "questioning the components of reasoning" or thinking. As you formulate questions, consider the following guidelines and sample questions:
1. Questioning Purposes and Goals. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the purpose/goal/agenda behind it. Some of the many questions that focus on the purpose component of reasoning include:
2. Questioning the quality of reasoning.
"Quality" of thought, or reasoning, is a matter of degree in clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. Imagine writing an article, a book, a blog post, or a comment on social media. Before publishing, you need to evaluate the quality of your reasoning:
1. Questioning Clarity.
Take care!
In one of my previous posts, I briefly mentioned some "standards of reasoning" to make the stigmatized UFO subject into a more legitimate subject to be openly interested in and publicly talk about. That is, if one is seriously interested in and cares about the truth behind the phenomena, then one can start with examining how one is thinking, writing and talking about the phenomena.
I can, for instance, ask myself; Do the way I communicate about the phenomena to the outside world give a clear picture of the phenomena's profound existential and scientific implications?
Or, am I thinking and communicating about the phenomena in a factual and nuanced way?
Or, how is my way of representing the phenomena, influencing other people's perception about it? Am I adding to the social stigma of the ufo subject, or am I contributing to reducing the stigma?
I wanted to write this post mainly because I care about and think it is crucial that the UFO phenomena/subject goes fully mainstream. I think it is crucial to get the unbiased and unfiltered truth of the phenomena into the public domain. If the ufo subject would become mainstream, then the disclosure process would become by, for and of the people. Citizens, politicians, lawmakers, academics, scientists, and journalists would together create a force strong enough to break down the walls of the secrecy surrounding the phenomena.
But for such a force or pressure on our governments to manifest at all, I believe the public first has to become receptive to reliable data on the phenomena.
What I am trying to say is that from the public's perspective, the ufo subject has to go from a tinfoil hat subject to a serious subject. Thanks
So my idea with the previous post about "the standards of reasoning", and with this post, is that anyone currently interested in and following the ufo subject can reduce the social stigma of the phenomena by practising some basic thinking skills. The purpose of practising those basic skills is to raise the quality of the discourse on the phenomena, and in that way, hopefully, also improve the perception of the ufo subject among people currently unfamiliar with ufo subject and/or ignorant of the UFO phenomena's profound and significant implications for the future of humanity and our home, the Earth.
Since I only mentioned "the standards of reasoning" briefly in that previous post, I thought I should describe those standards in a bit more detail. So, that comes next.
What are the standards of reasoning?
The standards are nothing new. What I call and describe here as "the standards of reasoning" are good old techniques from philosophy: Socratic questioning and critical thinking skills. They are, in theory, easy to learn but harder to stay true to and apply in real life. Why is that?
Because the "soul" of the standards of reasoning is a genuine curiosity, and genuine intent, to expand one's knowledge and deepen one's understanding of a subject, an aspect of a subject, a problem, a question, and of fellow humans - their point of view, values, etc. The aim of Socratic questioning is to gain a deeper understanding of one's self and the world.
That genuine curiosity and intent are what should drive and sustain one's search for (a) truth.
If a genuine curiosity about something/someone and genuine intent to understand that same something/someone are not present, then one is not staying true to and practising the standards of reasoning.
The standards of reasoning (or, for short, "the standards") are as much about one's approach/attitude as they are about technical skills. The approach one should internalize is that of a willingness to understand something or someone. To understand something or someone, one should practice the noble skill of listening. If one genuinely wants to understand something or someone, one will listen with presence, concentration, respect and in a nonjudgmental way. And, of course, listen with curiosity and intending to understand.
So, I hope by now that it is clear that the standards of reasoning are not about winning, being right, crushing one's opponent in an argument, etc. The standards have nothing to do with one's own ego, needs, worldview, opinions, etc. Or, as far as it is possible, one should put aside one's own ego and one's need to be right.
The standards have everything to do with one's relation to knowledge, understanding, and truth. The standards also have everything to do with self-knowledge or self-awareness, but we are not going into that aspect in this post.
If we can compare the search for knowledge, understanding and truth as a relationship to a person you hold dear and care about, I believe it can be easier to get the approach to the standards. To truly understand someone, put your ego aside and, so to speak, walk in that person's shoes. That may sound strange regarding understanding a subject or a problem, but if you think about it, it is actually not so different. To understand a subject or a problem, you need to put aside your current assumptions, beliefs, and so on. At least for a while. You need to create an opening and space for new information to flow with as little resistance as possible.
And as most people know, curiosity, intent, understanding, and listening have at least one foundational thing in common: They all begin with an essential question. Essential or relevant questions is the beginning, the birth of progress and development in all academic disciplines, and in all kinds of quests for the truth. Most important in this case, the development and progress of our own way of thinking and communication about the UFO phenomena/subject.
That is why the foundational skill in the standards of reasoning is asking essential questions.
Questioning the components of reasoning and questioning the quality of reasoning.
Introduction.
First, notice the term "the art" of Socratic questioning. Yes, it is indeed an art, or a craft, to ask the essential question at the right moment, to the right person, and in the right situation. It is as much about feeling/intuition/creativity, as intellect and logic. It is about being fully present and focused, but in a relaxed manner. You should not be in a freeze-fight-or-flight state of mind (threat, defence, avoid, attack etc.). Instead, you should be in a rest-digest state of mind (peace, safety, openness, receptivity, etc.).
Second, both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions to search for meaning and truth. Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential or relevant to searching for meaning and truth.
In the following, we are going to look at two critical thinking concepts; 1) the components of reasoning /thinking (analyzing thought), and 2) the quality of thought (assessing thought). We use those two concepts to identify essential questions that, hopefully, will raise our thinking to higher levels of understanding and quality. And in the end, take us as close to the truth as possible.
1. Questioning the components of reasoning.
To ask an essential or relevant question, you need to identify and focus on the right component of reasoning. I think the following model of "universal components of thought" can help identify the relevant component of reasoning to match with your question:
1) Whenever we think, we think for a PURPOSE 2) within a POINT OF VIEW 3) based on ASSUMPTIONS 4) leading to IMPLICATIONS and CONSEQUENCES. 5) We use DATA, FACTS, and EXPERIENCES 6) to make INFERENCES
Before I give some guidelines and examples of essential questions to each of those 7 (
One-system questions require evidence and reasoning within a system. They have a correct answer = Knowledge. With one-system questions, there is an established procedure or method for finding an answer. They are prominent in mathematics, as well as in physics and biology.
Conflicting-system questions require evidence and reasoning within conflicting systems. They have a better and worse answer, but rarely no verifiable correct answer = Judgement. With conflicting-system questions, there are multiple competing viewpoints from which, and within which, one might reasonably pursue an answer to the question. These questions are predominant in academic disciplines as, for example, history, philosophy, religion, sociology, and economics.
I believe most people interested in the phenomena, and in the truth about the phenomena, probably wish we would have more answers to the one-system questions. I know, I do.
But, since the modern era of "ufology", we have been, and still are, mostly trying to answer conflicting-system questions because of the lack of substantial data that is possible to verify or refute with certainty through established procedures and methods. We do not know if but can suspect such substantial data exists. It is yet to be made public. Until it becomes public, we have to make the best of the situation of finding ourselves struggling with finding more or less well-supported answers to questions with more than one possible answer.
Hence, in my mind, the importance of basic skills in "standards of reasoning."
Ok, back to "questioning the components of reasoning" or thinking. As you formulate questions, consider the following guidelines and sample questions:
1. Questioning Purposes and Goals. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the purpose/goal/agenda behind it. Some of the many questions that focus on the purpose component of reasoning include:
- What is the purpose/goal of this book, article, chapter, blog post, interview, discussion, etc.?
- Why is _
? being said or written at this moment and/or in this context? - Who is the audience?
- What is the central agenda/goal? What other agendas/goals are needed to be considered?
2. Questioning Viewpoints and Perspectives. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the point of view or frame of reference that places it on an intellectual map. Some of the many questions that focus on the point of a view component of reasoning include:
- From what point of view are you looking at this?
- Is there another point of view/perspective we should consider?
- Which of these possible viewpoints/perspectives makes the most sense given the situation?
- What am I looking at, and how do I see it? How can I look at it in another way?
- What exactly are you taking for granted here?
- Why are you assuming that? What other assumptions can be relevant, reasonable in this case?
- What assumptions underlie our point of view? What alternative assumptions might we make?
- Should I explicitly state my assumptions?
- What are you implying when you say _
? or - If we assume this to be true, what is likely to be the implications? Are those implications likely, probable, significant, relevant, etc.?
- Are your implications following your initial assumption? What alternative implications could result from your assumption?
- On what information are you basing that comment/claim/statement?
- What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be distorted?
- How do we know this information is accurate? How could we verify (or refute) it?
- Have we failed to consider any information or data we need to consider?
- What are these data based on? How was the data/information developed? By whom?
- Is our conclusion based on hard facts (knowledge, one correct answer) or soft facts (judgement, more than one possible answer)?
- How did you reach that conclusion?
- Could you explain your reasoning?
- Is there an alternative, plausible conclusion?
- Given all the facts, what is the best possible conclusion?
- What is the main idea you are using in your reasoning? Could you explain that idea?
- Are we using the appropriate concept, or do we need to re-conceptualize the problem?
- Do we need more facts, or do we need to rethink how we are labelling the facts?
- Is your question a
scientific , atheological or an ethical one (fact, preference, judgement?)?
"Quality" of thought, or reasoning, is a matter of degree in clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. Imagine writing an article, a book, a blog post, or a comment on social media. Before publishing, you need to evaluate the quality of your reasoning:
1. Questioning Clarity.
- Am I clear about what I am saying, or is my thinking muddled (vagueness)?
- Have I stated my main idea, then elaborated it?
- Have I provided examples to make my points clear?
- Have I written sentences that can be interpreted in different ways (ambiguity), or have I made my intended meaning clear?
- Have I provided adequate details for the reader to understand precisely what I mean? Do I need to be more specific, precise, detailed?
- Have I made sure that all the information I have presented as factual is so?
- Are my sources of information credible?
- In the article, book, blog post, etc.,
as - Do I wander from the main point?
- In each paragraph, is everything in the paragraph relevant to the main idea in the paragraph?
- Do I clearly understand what makes the issue complex?
- Have I sufficiently detailed those complexities?
- What points of view are relevant to this issue?
- Am I failing to consider this issue from an opposing perspective because I am not open to changing my view?
- Have I entered the opposing views - or all relevant points of view - in a factual, nuanced manner, or only enough to find flaws in them?
- Do all the ideas in my paper fit logically together?
- Do my first paragraph fit with my last?
- Do what I say follow from the evidence?
- Have I made the connections between ideas evident to the reader?
- Do I have any vested interest in this issue?
- Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?
- Have I adopted the principle of charity? According to the principle of charity, whenever two interpretations are possible, you should always adopt the most charitable interpretation, that is, the one that makes your "opponent's" views as reasonable or defensible as possible.
Of course, the above description of the standards of reasoning is not exhaustive. The reason I wrote this post is, again, because I care about how the ufo subject is perceived by people outside the ufo community and how the subject is handled by people in the ufo community. And I truly believe that people in the ufo community can raise the status of the ufo subject and help people unfamiliar with the subject understand its profound existential and scientific implications.
One fairly simple way to erase the social stigma of the phenomena is to start with oneself: to honestly examine if what and how oneself is thinking and communicating about the phenomena is adding to or reducing the social stigma of the UFO phenomena/subject.
Take care!
/Janne
No comments:
Post a Comment