Monday, June 12, 2006
I got a friendly email from researcher Lloyd Pye today. I was aware of his work with the so-called Starchild skull, but didn't realize he has a great website dealing with other matters. Or maybe it just slid past my perceptual filter because the subject matter didn't seem applicable at the time. In any case, Lloyd's site looks like a potentially valuable resource for aspiring "cryptoterrestriologists." Take a look.
3 comments:
Highly recommended for everyone who doesn't buy into dogmatic Darwinism (in its own way, every bit as unreal as dogmatic creationism or dogmatic I.D.) Par example:
DOING THE DOGMA SHUFFLE
...Keep in mind, when any critic of Darwinist dogma makes a suggestion that similarly can't be proved, it's automatically dismissed, because "lack of provability" is a death sentence outside their fraternity. Inside their fraternity, consensus is adequate because the collective agreement of so many "experts" should be accepted as gospel....
Personally, I think Pye needs an intensive study course in William of Occam (he of the famous "Occam's Razor") since he multiplies "interventionist events" without number. Otherwise, he's very refreshing. However, there's no reason why the "Cultivators" (my own term for extraterrestrial planetary life-seeders) could not have combined a FEW discrete "interventions" with allowing the planet to follow laws of evolutionary development up to a point. (Pye has them dumping new loads of more complex life on Earth at every tick of the geological clock.) Still, this is a great discovery and a great intellectual resource for all us (non-dogmatic) anomalists.
Am all-too-frequent mistake among paranormalists/anomalists is that nonhuman intervention and Darwinian evolution must somehow be mutually exclusive. Not true!
And one valid criticism academics make of non-academics speaks just to this whole point of lacking a truly critical perspective, I think. On the other hand, many of Pye's observations about how academic consensus rather than facts and proof constitutes the way that positions (such as dogmatic Darwinism) are arrived at is dead on. So much of anomalistics points up the intellectual bankruptcy of orthodox science, I just wish more anomalists had the requisite academic training (or self-education -- just as good if not better in some ways) to make a better case for their POVs.
(A classic case is Immanuel Velikovsky of Worlds in Colliosion fame whose physics was demonstrably fallacious -- egregiously so. And it really does no good in cases like this to appeal to principles such as "a different physics was in opration," etc. To point up another well-known example, these kinds of errors also make it difficult for many people to take Hoagland seriously either. Me, I take what I can use and discard the bad physics, fallacious logic, or whatever, but this is not the typical academic's mode of procedure when confronted with unorthodox thinking that doesn't play by the rules.)