I was responding to Sagan's remark, not to others' elucidations. He doesn't mention "kilter" or "crackpot realism". He's presenting his comment as two sides of a coin in reference to human perspective which I find rather closed minded.
I will say this is a lecture quote. Personally, I have a slightly different criteria for this than something written and published as far as formalities and technicalities go.
Yes, it is two sides of a coin. What is it lacking that you wish was included?
Yes, it is two sides of a coin. What is it lacking that you wish was included?
Agreed, using COVID vaccines just as an example, I've seen reports that the Chinese vaccine sometimes will blacken the recipients arm all the way down to the hand! I'd have to think twice about taking that vaccine. Similarly the vaccines in the USA have sometimes caused bad reactions in very young people. But if one has kept up with the cumulative statistics of our vaccines in healthy adult populations those vaccines are very successful. They are on par or better than the smallpox and polio vaccines I grew up with and which people didn't think twice about or object to being required to have. Even in immuno comprimised populations I haven't seen that the vaccine itself is dangerous. However I've read that nearly all the people that were vaccinated and then died had died because they were immuno comprimised and their body couldn't put up a good response to the virus.
One has to understand these things and not let a crotchety adversity to the "new' stop you from the mental "weighing" of the probabilities. A ton of people in this country are not doing that. A lot of them are then dying needlessly
Yeah, I was riffing on exeric, not bagging on Sagan. At any rate, crackpot realism is a political concept so it has no place here regardless. Should have just went with fallacy of compromise. My apologies.
Well, if he's attributing this "balance" to each individual, he should have started with the line.."Let me state the obvious". OTOH, if to individuals at separate extremes, his comment lacks merit imo. However, as part of a lecture, context is lacking here.
The lecture was titled 'The Burden of Skepticism' in 1987. Delivered to an audience of "debunkers." M. Shermer included it at the front of his book 'Why People Believe Weird Things.'
The obvious isn't always so obvious to some.
For someone at an extreme, the entire lecture was probably wasted breath.
The obvious isn't always so obvious to some.
For someone at an extreme, the entire lecture was probably wasted breath.
"always" is the operative here. The same circumstance can and does result in differing perspectives to all of us.
My favorite quote..."I don't think of the past. The only thing that matters is the everlasting present". - W. Somerset MaughamWhile we are at it, here is a bunch.
However I'd be lying if I said I'm able to put this into practice.
But it is inspiring.
Last edited:
But, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - Spanish philosopher George Santayana (1863 - 1952).There’s a lot to digest in that statement. Optimism is obviously the narrative. He does not suggest forgetting the past.
What is the most efficient shape for a powered vessel operating under water? I don't see submarines with wings.
Is this question related to observations of UFOs underwater, i.e. unidentified submerged objects (USOs)? Objects underwater generally don't need wings like aircraft do. They can operate just like dirigibles in air. Most underwater objects can be made to be lighter than the surrounding medium so do not need anything to act against gravity except their natural buoyancy. For non-USOs operating underwater a pointy shape with low aerodynamic drag is most important. I don't think it's been documented that those are the same requirements for USOs.
Last edited:
You mean hydrodynamic. The shape will be subjected to the same principles as aerodynamics but the structural integrity will have to be stronger. As for the wing / fin, it's only needed for maneuvering in water where as in the air, it's for uplift and maneuvering.
I am referring to a point that was alluded to earlier, but was taken off on some strange tangent to area 51 and nuclear detonations in NM and NV. The event was 100 miles out into the ocean.
It appears that the Nimitz encounter did not happen by chance. Ship radar operators were concerned about multiple contacts and asked for reconnaissance.
The first visual contact was something in the ocean. Every event has a framing context, i.e. beginning, middle and end. The middle part which is only 1/3 of the story has 99% of the focus. We have a reasonable idea of the beginning giving us 2/3 of the story. The end is unknown and is open to conjecture or extrapolation. The complete story is needed before opinions stand a chance of being valid.
Did the aerial object (46 feet in length is the estimate I have read) have stealth that could be switched on at will?
As I understand it, the easiest way to avoid radar is the vertical directions and one direction which is the more effective is down. Stating the obvious, 70% of the earth's surface is water and effective at avoiding radar.
It appears that the Nimitz encounter did not happen by chance. Ship radar operators were concerned about multiple contacts and asked for reconnaissance.
The first visual contact was something in the ocean. Every event has a framing context, i.e. beginning, middle and end. The middle part which is only 1/3 of the story has 99% of the focus. We have a reasonable idea of the beginning giving us 2/3 of the story. The end is unknown and is open to conjecture or extrapolation. The complete story is needed before opinions stand a chance of being valid.
Did the aerial object (46 feet in length is the estimate I have read) have stealth that could be switched on at will?
As I understand it, the easiest way to avoid radar is the vertical directions and one direction which is the more effective is down. Stating the obvious, 70% of the earth's surface is water and effective at avoiding radar.