User talk:Not the droid you're looking for

{{Quote box

| width = 50%

| border =

| align = left

| fontsize = 100%

| quoted =

| text = [[File:Registered editor badge with tildes.jpg|frame|

I ≠ COI

Cosmoid Droid
Service Award

]]

File:Information.svg “ I believe in the importance of the mission to collect and analyse raw data using the scientific method to further our understanding of the phenomenon. I'm sure most people who take time out of their day to write about subjects within their domain of interest regard these subjects to be important and noteworthy. That someone with such interests might be motivated to write an article about a notable professor courageous enough to put his public reputation on the line — to brave the risk and raise his head above the parapet, to conduct research and speak out about a subject that has for so long been subject to ridicule — should come as no surprise.

Contemporary data collection and analysis by the United States Department of Defense and the United States Intelligence Community (IC) is now reflected by the official policy and law of the Federal government of the United States. The United States Congress has passed sweeping new statutes — with more radical legislation underway — calling for US agencies to place the highest priority on the topic, from encouraging service personnel to file reports to the central coordination of joint research and investigation. Those involved with these scientific organizations are actually trying to accomplish the essential investigative work to collect and analyse solid, replicable evidence — as opposed to sitting on their arses, pompously yammering on about our inability to hypothesise about the nature of anomalous phenomena precisely due to lack of said reliable evidence.

For the sake of clarity — The United States Government has made official statements backed by formal legislation that confirms the phenomenon is real and should no longer be considered “fringe,” with all the associated stigma that implies. Indeed, this essential point is explicitly at the heart of these initiatives, which are intended to encourage witnesses in professional positions to come forward without fear of adverse career impact or ridicule — from military and intelligence community personnel to civil aviation pilots, to police officers, and so on. Scientists such as Knuth are pursuing what the US Government has explicitly requested of academia: to conduct research into the core of the phenomenon.

The scientific method guides one that no outcome should be assumed prior to collection and analysis of the evidence. No possibilities that fit should be ruled out a priori. Ockham's razor and the appeal to parsimony only applies when evaluating a set of hypotheses that fit the known facts. When tasked with collecting and analysing raw data from an entirely novel, unexplained phenomenon, it would be irresponsible to idly shrug your shoulders in preemptive dismissal and say you won't even bother to look at the data because established wisdom dictates what can and cannot be, ergo you can just cherry-pick whichever ‘facts’ conform to your long-held preconceptions and ignore the rest … particularly if the alternative is uncomfortable or challenges cherished anthropocentric beliefs. That approach is more akin to religion, not science.

The act of investigating the phenomenon in and of itself is no longer “fringe.” The cat is out of the bag. Congress is not going to walk this one back. It has absolutely gone mainstream. It's high time that Wikipedia caught up with [https://www.uap.guide the world as it is today], rather than base its contents around anachronistic sociocultural and political paradigms that should have been left back in the 20^th century.”

— Cosmoid

                    ^{001100110011000100110000001101110011001000110010}

}}