Saturday, May 13, 2017

Skeptical Desconstructionism Regarding UFO Claims

My last post, I mentioned the term "deconstructionism" in the context of a skeptical approach to looking at the subjects of UFOs.  If this is to be the name of my approach, then I'm obligated to define the term, or if you will this personal "philosophy."

I must also freely admit that this term may have already been coined by someone else, as I've come to believe that original thinking is somewhat rare nowadays.  Or, I may be describing something that has been well established, but I'm providing a different label.  This is not unusual, the history of psychology is a good example of relabeling or repackaging a discipline to fit the current times.

Deconstruction does exist in the philosophical realm as it was proposed by the French philosopher Jacque Derrida.  Derrida developed the use of deconstruction as a critical outlook over the relationship between text and meaning.

Looking at Derrida's work, I'm not too far off the beaten path, but Derrida was not involved with the subject matter covered in this blog. 

Deconstructionism [my variation] is not limited to the subjects of UFOs, but can be adequately used as a process to look at any questionable claims...ghost hauntings, government conspiracy (pick your choice on this one) and the like.

Deconstructionism is the process(es) of initially viewing a claim as a completed jigsaw puzzle, yet somehow the puzzle appears disjointed or distorted usually minutely in its presentation.  The viewer sees the completed puzzle as a mental picture, but his/her mind consciously brushes over slight imperfections that go unnoticed.

The claim, the seemingly completed jigsaw puzzle, must be taken apart piece by piece.  Each piece must be individually assessed until the structure of the puzzle is no more.  Then the puzzle is pieced back together. 

Does the reconstructed puzzle still hold the original image?  If it is a different image, then the answer to the perplexing question of "Why?" lies in the independent analysis of the individual puzzle pieces themselves. 

Simple, right?  Not necessarily as the process of deconstruction requires time and effort that many are unwilling to invest.  Thus, the original claim is then held as acceptable and goes forth as the truth and the inherent flaws remain hidden from view.

If you take the time to peruse this blog and look at the UFO cases presented, you will see that each case took months, and in certain cases, well over a year to analyze.  Hence even for me briefly succumbing to the "burnout" factor.

Coming up next:  The use of objective and subjective criteria for UFO analysis.  Yes, I've harped on this before, but I will preach this gospel yet again!

To the family of Jacques Derrida, my apologies for linking, even subtly, deconstruction to UFO claims...I could call my approach Hebertism, but then I would be acting like an egocentric asshat and God knows that there are many of those who write on this subject.  

No comments:

Post a Comment