In Part 1, I hoped to establish the basic question that needs to be answered; are the ideologies that surround the general sciences more valuable than the ideologies that surround Ufology?
In order to arrive at an answer, we need to establish what “Ideology” is.
Ideology is separate from objective “base reality”. Mother nature, the universe, base reality, whatever you wish to call it, does not function upon ideologies. Humans form ideologies to make mother nature, the universe, and base reality livable, to make it understandable to our limited minds.
We must be clear here; we do not purposefully and willfully create ideologies- they simply happen without our control. Similar to the heart, one do not consciously force it to beat, it simply does so as a condition of its existence within the human body. Similar to the formation of human social ideologies, we do not force them to occur, they simply do as a condition of our consciousness and existence. Ideologies shift, develop, and change based upon human choices and experience.
Humans are social creatures, so arbitrary rules and constructs have settled into our social world to ensure life isn’t chaotic. This is generally a good thing; humans need these mechanisms in order to survive in groups, otherwise, we tend to murder each other. It stands to reason then that when we try to expand our knowledge, our understanding, and to progress forward, we do so ideologically. Science moves along with society and society moves along with science. Ufology moves along with society and, one could argue that, society does move along with Ufology.
Interestingly, we collectively understand, scientists included, that science does not have all the answers right now. We also understand that future developments will undoubtedly change many of the scientific rules, laws and theories we now “know.” However, science, in some strange ironic twist of ideology, is also able convince people that some ideas are not worth studying, are hokum, or are simple bouts of lunacy. It is a curious ideological phenomenon. Scientists, and people in general, accept the present limitations of the sciences, and its future potential to grow and change, yet in the same breath, they are able to dismiss many ideas as apparent nonsense.
I’m not intending to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We need to function in a rational, reasonable, and logical way. I’m not saying that we should believe the “Flat-Earthers” or warn people that the Moon is actually a Reptilian base from which they launch their black triangle spacecraft. We need science. We need the scientific method. We need the logic and rationality it brings to the table. How then does Ufology exist within this current “catch 22” of ideological constructs?
Stay tuned for Part 3, coming out tomorrow evening!