(working) thesis title:
"The UFO/ET Debate: Science, Pseudoscience, and Argument"
(working) thesis:
The case against the idea that extraterrestrials have ever, or are currently, visiting our planet can be understood as falling generally in line with institutionalized scientific knowledge. By looking at the ways in which various academic disciplines treat the topic of UFOs/ETs, we can see how established disciplinary perspectives shape the arguments of "disbelievers" as well as how they contribute to the perception of "believers" as making irrational and unscientific claims. The case for the idea that the earth has been visited by extraterrestrials rests on arguments that are largely considered invalid by disciplinary/scientific standards; however, these arguments (and the evidence underlying them) may actually represent significant challenges to the very framework that rejects them. I will argue that it is the threat posed by the case for the reality of UFOs to our contemporary scientific understanding of the universe which accounts for its regular dismissal from the realm of "serious" scientific inquiry (as well as the realm of what most people are willing to believe), rather than the intrinsic scientific value of the arguments and evidence which comprise the case itself.
Or: how is it that evidence of UFO & ET-related phenomena comes to be dismissed before it is even considered? How is it that so many people refuse in principle to entertain the arguments advanced by the "believers?"
types of research, gathering data:
gather information from books and internet sources in order to accurately represent the arguments of both sides; extensively search journal databases to determine how the UFO/ET question is approached from disciplinary perspectives (i.e., Psychology/Sociology attempting to explain "abduction" as a mass delusion, Physics attempting to prove/disprove the possibility of interstellar travel, "paradigm shifts" in the Philosophy of Science, etc.); gather philosophical sources on scientific method, empiricism, and the treatment of anomalous evidence; gather philosophical/sociological sources on the relationship between scientific discourse and public opinion, the relationship between expert and common knowledge, etc.
-----------------------
hmmm...i still need to clarify this a bit. i need an outline and a finalized thesis statement. that's first on my timeline--let's say, by the end of this week.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
proposal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Doug,
This sounds like a really cool topic. I like how you have chosen to incorporate some of the social sciences into your study. (My main area of academic interest lies in the social sciences, so I am a bit biased!)
Sounds like you have a very good thesis too. Hope things are going well!
Doug,
As we discussed last week, this is a totally acceptable topic, especially since you are framing it in terms of the types of discourse in which the sides engage.
As soon as you can, develop a more detailed time line in order to establish bench mark goals (to use a phrase that Stan Aeschleman likes) to know you are on track.
Doug, you asked if I could write your thesis. I WISH I COULD!! i think it's something only you can do. You're gonna do great. I can't wait to read it. by the way, I think UFOs are real, but they're not what we think they are. They are as real as anything else outside our visible spectrum of light, but sometimes pass into the visible spectrum. Humans can only process a certain amount of the spectrum of waves, which explains how there can be stuff in the air we can't see. Ever walk into a room and feel immediately depressed? I believe our emotions can travel, too. Anyways, great idea! I hope you find out the truth, if that's what you're looking for!
_Harry
doug!
this thesis is exciting.
ive watched numerous shows on this sort of thing; wondering if youve heard the theories of 'sleep paralysis' and how they choose to rationalize these 'abduction' stories in other cultures.
good luck!
martha
Post a Comment