Page Content (OCR)
reference. Sometimes even the problem itself has to do with accuracy. That is why physicists apply perturbative calculus and try to assess the effect of a physical quantity in a certain result. This evidence also depends on the verification conditions. The confirmation of a hypoth- esis depends largely on the protocols chosen for the test, and even these protocols are being questioned. The great difficulty is that representations must not be substi- tuted for concepts and that means of verification must not be sub- ae aoe mm aot e a 1 stituted for representations. These deviations, these substitutions, are called interpretations. Every scientist who expresses himself thus delivers testimony of his own interpretation. I sometimes regret that certain philosophers disregard the frailty of scientific truth and allow themselves to be deluded by a certain form of autocracy. This is quite an obstacle because it actually leads to an impasse, as Maddox 1 : 4 emphasized. Many scientists cannot resist the temptation to satisfy themselves with the outlandish formalism of representations, at the risk of present- ing them as reality in guarded terms, thus keeping the entire discus- sion out of the circle of initiates of this formalism. In essence we must consistently insist on the importance of these concepts to break away from the mountain of interpretations that take us further away from reality, from the pure experience. It is important to understand that this is not about pointless and lengthy talks, on the contrary, it is about attacking the evil that eats away at us — the distortion of the truth to be more precise — first by mistake, then out of interest. Let us return to the debate and apprehend a little more this dichotomy between representation and reality, by staying in the uni- verse of academics for a moment. They are to literature what mathe- maticians are to physics. They define words, groups of words and their grammatical relations that will hopefully bring meaning and enrich our mind. By dissecting the characteristics of an object, by categorizing them, by creating relations between their components, we move away from reality, we divide it, we explain part of it. Therefore, unless we actually bite into an apple — which is the experience itself — this is a thought form of which we, depending on our abilities, succeed in visu- alizing all or part of its characteristics, at the same time or separately (an important differentiation in consequences). What then is the real difference between the object-apple (reality) and the apple-object (rep- resentation)? The electric signals of the brain? The ones it produces or the ones it receives? We should be well aware of the fact that it is 16 The Science of Extraterrestrials: UFOs Explained at Last * Eric Julien