Her approach was from her experience as an educator. Gather the data and go where it leads.
That's not what all educators do. That's what scientists generally do, but she did not receive a scientific education, or educate toward scientific research. She taught about Old English literature. She spent her whole life reading and telling stories. Surprise, surprise: she found a more lucrative audience for stories.
What she showed was that the aliens were using the belief systems the abductee already had in place...
No, that's what she speculated. Nice and convenient. She still gets to believe in her space aliens, but tips her hat to some prevailing scientific notions then thought to explain some abductee encounters. She completely disregards Occam and postulates a completely foreign, completely unnecessary, and completely unevidence phenomenon to enable her predetermined belief in a cause.
And I keep using the word alien as a meaning of convenience. She also stated there was no proof of alien, interdimensional beings, or some long resident earthly entities.
Hair split. She refused to define alien up front. She then goes on to describe how these aliens must be behaving and acting in order to bring about her symptoms, and speculates on their motives behind that behavior. She doesn't hesitate to use the classic Gray in her illustrations.
It's nice that she admits there's no proof. But she still attributes all her woes and those of the other abductees to that cause for which there is no proof. How is that science?
I find her work significnt because she approached it from a basis free of pre conception.
Where do you get the notion that she is free from preconception? I see little else in her work.
But do believe the implications are significant enough that some clandestine research is likely being conducted somewhere.
Appeal to conspiracy.
|