UFOs & Why People Don't Trust Science

Tweet

“I have thought all the known quantities over in the case of these objects and arrive at a not too unreasonable answer. The answer is that these objects are unknown, definitely and positively.”

Julie Beck www.theatlantic.com 2-18-16

So said a U.S. Air Force sergeant in 1953, trying to explain to investigators (and, I suspect, to himself), what he had seen, standing on a roof on an August night, watching three well-lit, color-changing objects fly by. His statement, which can be read on Project Blue Book Archive, a site devoted to supporting “serious UFO research,” gets at a fundamental misunderstanding of the people who believe in UFOs—that they are anti-science.

In a recent paper published in Public Understanding of Science, Greg Eghigian, an associate professor of modern history at Penn State University, traces the history of ufology and its relationship with mainstream science, arguing that the mistrust between the two was not because ufologists were ignorant about science.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

Did the UFO Debate Make Us Distrust Scientists?

Science and UFOs: Part 1—The Condon Committee Con Job

Launch of a New UFO Science – (Very) Local SETI

Pseudo-Science of Anti-Ufology

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Did the UFO Debate Make Us Distrust Scientists?

The obsession in the United States with unidentified flying saucers from the 1940s up until the end of the Cold War may help explain how science communication is tied to current denials and conspiracy theories about climate change and immunizations.

Matthew Swayne Penn State 2-15-16 CC 4.0

Scientists, military officials, and amateur unidentified flying object investigators—often called ufologists—have clashed almost since the start of the modern flying saucer era, which began in 1947 when aviator Kenneth Arnold spotted what he claimed were nine silver flying discs in the Cascade Mountains of Washington.

“From that event, this very quickly explodes and becomes a focus of media attention, but the question for me as a historian is why haven’t historians been more curious about what took place and what has been going on for some time now,” says Greg Eghigian, associate professor of modern history at Penn State and author of a study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science.

“It’s had clear impact on the way people think about science, the way people think about technology, and the way they think about government and authority.”

The UFO phenomenon has ebbed and flowed since the late 1940s, but has recently died down from its height, something Eghigian attributes to the end of the Cold War.

[Why is science fiction so obessed with Mars?]

“I think there is evidence that it’s not the same phenomenon that it once was, at least as a mass movement that people are mesmerized by,” he says. “It was Cold War anxieties—but also Cold War enthusiasms and passions—that had a direct impact on this.”

In a sample of 25 newspapers, the number of headlines mentioning UFOs or flying saucers has fallen to less than 20 headlines each year in the post-Cold War era. Prior to the 1990s, there tended to be more than 40 headlines about the phenomena annually.

“The United States is coming out of World War II, so the country is concerned about national security and still has a war-like mentality,” Eghigian says. “It’s a world that is rife with secrecy and preserving secrecy, so this helps inform both how governments and militaries deal with evidence.”

Mainstream scientists were almost immediately dismissive of the UFO movement, and the ufologists’ response to that dismissal, in many ways, mimics current debates on climate change and vaccination.

Distrust in scientists, not science

“One of the things that marks the long history of this movement is the question of mistrust, and I see this as part and parcel of some of the skepticism we see out there today,” Eghigian says. “Although there are some differences, the UFO debate was kind of the granddaddy of them all and could be a model for looking at some of these other controversies.”

Scholars and scientists tend to believe that when lay people disagree with scientific findings, they are either biased or that they are ignorant about science. However, ufology does not easily fit that framework.

“My experience with the UFO phenomena and the history of ufology is that these amateur investigators have not at all been ignorant of science,” Eghigian says. “This goes with other theories that it’s less that people distrust science than that they distrust scientists and scientific institutions—that is the disconnect that needs to be explained.”

[Nearly all scientists believe climate change is real]

In many cases, after being shut out of mainstream scientific research, amateur UFO investigators formed separate groups that emulated scientific method and tried to copy it in their own studies.

“Ufologists didn’t try to take over scientific fields or institutions,” Eghigian says. “What they did was to create parallel institutions and mimic what academics did, create organizations, hold conferences and do research and investigations.”

The over-reliance on the UFO community’s own research, however, only further bolstered academics’ mistrust in the research results of these enthusiasts.

“The study really isn’t meant to weigh in on the question of whether UFOs are possibly extraterrestrial in origin,” Eghigian says. “I think the bigger point is how scientists, officials, and ufologists have attempted to understand each other.”

The American Philosophical Society supported this work.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

Science and UFOs: Part 1—The Condon Committee Con Job

Launch of a New UFO Science – (Very) Local SETI

Pseudo-Science of Anti-Ufology

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Conversations with Dr Frank Drake:The Evidentiary Hypocrisy With UFOs Exhibited By Mainstream Science

By Frank Warren
The UFO Chronicles
© 2005-2009

In November I sent the following correspondence to Frank Drake:

Dear Dr. Drake,

Back in July a colleague of yours, Seth Shostak, debated a colleague of mine, Stanton Friedman, on the idea that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft; Friedman took the "pro position" and Shostak of course opposed the notion.

One thing the two men agreed upon was that they both adhered to the concept of “intelligent life existing in the universe.” As the debate progressed Shostak took issue with the evidence that Ufologists in general present for their theorem—this brings me to my question:

It would seem that most of the ideologies presented today from “mainstream Astronomers” e.g., extra-solar planets, rogue planets, black holes etc., are based on “circumstantial evidence”; for example, the idea of “extra-solar planets” is deduced by a “star’s wobble”; my observation, as well as the question, is why the guidelines for Astronomers in regards to evidence is acceptable in “their field” but they won’t apply the same rules to Ufology.

I would certainly appreciate your thoughts on the “evidence or data methodologies” used in Astronomy, and why said methodologies don’t seem to be adequate for Ufology.

Thank You,
Respectfully,
Frank Warren

He kindly responded:

Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query.

However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same.In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

Frank Drake

I replied:

FW: Dear Mr. Drake, Thank you for you for your expeditious reply to my inquiry.

FD: Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query. Actually I was looking forward to a "detailed explanation." However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on your affirmation of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and Ufology.

FD: All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

FW: To be clear, (from a layman's [me] point of view) since we have "empirical evidence" of our own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the "same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc. Since the "wobble" is directly proportional to the "mass of a planet" (at least it appears to be here, in our solar system) we can determine the mass of said planet by mathematical equation.

In addition to the wobble of a distant star, going on the assumption that it is indeed a planet's gravity causing the wobble, one could assume that if said planet were to cross between the earth and the star being observed, the light from the star would be measurably diminished.

You finally, state, that "there is no doubt here." I take that to mean that this is going "beyond theory" and is accepted as fact . . . interesting.

First I'd like to state that the "circumstantial (indirect) evidence" put on the table for "extra-solar planets" is more then enough "for me," for validation of their existence; however, playing "Devil's Advocate":

1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces" in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic the pull" caused by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could another "space borne" object of the same mass cause the wobble?

2). Are there other actions that could affect "Doppler Shift," or any other form of detection in the same manner that "star wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?

3). Given the fact that the most detection methods of "extra-solar planets" is relatively new, (with technology expanding by leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e., ("Barnard's Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of 51 Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could surface, or the interpretation of the data may change, and affect the current conclusions?

IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions is "unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some" doubt, albeit little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar planets based on the current methodologies used for their reality; that said, what we're left with is strong "circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-solar planets."

FD: Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

FW: Agreed.

FD: When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

FW: Here I have to respectfully disagree; you stated that the criterion for the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for:

1). Well-observed, calibrated data.

2). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.

3). Multiple observers.

First let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over the last 60 years after thorough investigation, can be attributed to more conventional explanations, e.g., known aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressed
here are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a conventional manner.

The ones I speak of are of an "unknown airborne craft" that exhibit characteristics beyond man-made technologies. It is true, that this phenomena can't for the most part be repeated "on demand" it is a "transient uncontrollable unpredictable event"; however, it certainly does repeat, and observations are to numerous to count. It of course isn't the same as observing a "fixed celestial body" and doesn't have the same obvious advantages for scientific research. It does/has re-occurred, often, and can/has been recorded in a number of ways to allow for scientific investigation; for example:

1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.

2). The craft "occupies space."

3). It moves as time passes.

4). It emits "thermal effects."

5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.

6). It effects the atmosphere.

7). It can be photographed.

8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence etc.

9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.

10). It has been tracked by radar

The list goes on . . .

You've stated that none (UFOs) have been "definitively recorded." This is inaccurate. UFOs, in this instance "unknown craft" have been photographed, video taped, tracked by radar, and those readings recorded. In addition, they have been pursued by "our aircraft," and those of other countries.

Finally, "all" the criterion you cite for evidence have been met for Ufology with one more addition, "eye witnesses." One only need to look at the data. This is not to say that all the questions have been answered; in fact, it evokes this one—"why doesn't Ufology receive that attention it deserves from mainstream science?"

You quoted one of Carl Sagan's often used statements; I might add that he also said, "In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."

But back to the quote you mention, "grand claims require grand evidence." Is what Ufologists suggest so grand, so far out? By your own device, ("Drake's Equation") you suggest the number of planets in our galaxy with intelligent, technological civilizations. Is it so far out that one of these civilizations is far more advanced then we, and have mastered space travel; or travel in ways beyond our comprehension. Using our own technological advancement as a baseline we have progressed in a few generations to what only our ancestors could describe as "magic" given some examples; think what might and most assuredly would happen in thousands of years, or more! I've always found it odd that intelligent people admit to advance ETI, yet believe that when it comes to traveling to earth--they (ET) "played hooky" from that class!

Omitting the evidence, the data, for a moment (regarding Ufology) and agreeing on the common point(s) that there is "abundant intelligent life in the universe," the question is not "are they here," but "why wouldn't they be?"

I would like to hear your thoughts on what I've presented, as well as my last question if you would be so kind.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Frank Warren

Dr. Drake hasn't responded to date.

See Also:

What’s Good for SETI’s Goose Apparently Isn’t Good for Ufology’s Gander!

Do Extra-Solar Planets Really Exist?

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE


HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE

ABOUT DONATIONS

↑ Grab this Headline Animator