Page Content (OCR)
respect. An established critic and acclaimed expert persisted in his dog- matic views and argued that it was impossible to reproduce neurons as they diminish in number indefinitely, whereas proof had actually been established to the contrary. The problem originated with the measur- ing instrument used and Elizabeth Gould’s young, innovative team. Fifteen years earlier, this researcher had already rejected the works of Michael Kaplan on the same topic. Kaplan described every conde- scending enmity and the resistance he experienced from fellow researchers (including Gould) pushing him to leave the field. This is not an isolated example. Hundreds of others pave the winding road of knowledge. In general, the purpose of proof depends on the amount of indexed data. In the case of paranormal phenomena and UFOs, the mass of data is undoubtedly significant. Of course, we are only consid- ering the fifteen percent” of observations that cannot be explained in a traditional manner. Normally, this would suggest that the data as such constitutes solid proof of the reality of phenomena that may not be explained yet, but the axioms of which are dawning on the horizon. If we had to categorize the proof studied by advanced science based on its solidity, depending on the number of occurrences, then UFOs would probably be one of the world’s most substantiated phenomena. However, by validating this fifteen percent, a considerable number of cases (among the other eighty-five percent) is ignored that may also be explained in the traditional way, but are still left out when the proof is established using classical explanation methods. We allow ourselves to believe that this is true, which is the opposite of the scientific method. Once again, Occam’s razor, the principle according to which the sim- plest explanation is always the best, presents only one side of the story. To end this discussion of proof, the special edition of La Recherche once again comes to the rescue. Historians describe proof as a dynamic object and definitely not as a guillotine that separates true from false. The following principles of establishing proof have been described by historians”: meaning of proof. Numerous cultural interpretation criteria remain implicit and cannot be proven by the scientist involved. The confirmed validity of proof varies constantly and evolves depending on the doubts that arise over time. The effectiveness of proof is forged through personal experience with what is read or heard, assimilated and verbalized in the The proof or the inferno of error 91 1 Arbitrariness caused by the moment of the experience affects the individual’s own words.