The Science of UFOs: Fact vs. Skepticism

Find me a scientist at Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, or Stanford that will call evolution a "fact" instead of a theory. They will say that it is the only possible means and highly probable, however, they will not call it a fact because they cannot recreate it in a test environment and because it still requires an alteration of existing principles. Only laypeople will do that. Scientists, real ones, are far more careful than the average person.

Now, that is not to say that we did not evolve. What we are talking about here is not "evolution" but honest skepticism versus debunking.

You can debunk evolution, but honest skepticism will allow you to look at the theory and say "highly probable". You still have to make a few leaps here and there, and (snicker) go on faith, but it is still highly probable.

The same is true for UFO-logy. People are trying to debunk it, not be truly skeptical. Skepsis is questioning for the purpose of understanding a subject better. Debunking is an attempt to disprove.

No evolutionary scientist minds skepticism. Skepticism helps them get to the truth quicker. They do mind "debunkers".

Here is the difference.

Debunker: Scientists are not in consensus on evolution, therefore you cannot call it "fact" until you gain consensus. You do not have 100% certainty. You are talking about something that happened a few billion years ago. Recreate it in a laboratory and then I will believe you!

Note: a conclusion is made that it cannot be true without 100% consensus. It also requires the Randi mantra that "extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof".

Skeptic: You say that "chance" is only one of the two key players of evolution, that the other, "natural selection", is decidedly not random and easily proven. Please explain further how there is an evolutionary pathway composed of small iterative steps that can be accepted or rejected by natural selection. Isn't the problem parallel simultaneous change? That is, several changes must be made at the same time to make a new useful structure. How many genes have to change in coordination at the same time? The odds of simultaneous change is a conditional probability calculation where the probability goes as (1/P(i))**N where P(i) is the probability of event i happening and N is the number of genes.

Note: If I were the scientist hearing that, it would give me food for thought. They are not stating that you are wrong, they are asking you specific questions.

So...in my analogy here is how it happens in the UFO-logy world.

Debunker: (paraphrasing Bill Nye in response to a video from the 60's showing something using a beam of light to destroy a missile then darting off) Snark tone in effect Okay, well, that's something, but to call it a UFO is a huge leap.

Note: Doesn't UFO mean "unidentified"? Notice he doesn't ask questions he just declares and uses snark.

Skeptic: Were there any other military tests occurring on that same night? What was the speed of the film? Do we know from FOIA about technologies in test during that period of time?

Note: Questions are being asked, no conclusions are being made.

Debunker: (again, paraphrasing Bill Nye about the Phoenix lights) Well, but we know the military put up flares that night. That must be it.

Note: Conclusion being made. The military's version was taken at face value and hundreds of individual accounts of people who saw a "craft" were discounted.

Skeptic: Did people see a craft or just lights? Do we have any pictures that show an outline of a craft, or are the pictures all lights in the sky?

Note: Questions are being asked, no conclusions are being made.

My point, and I keep hammering this home...it hurts NOTHING to leave a subject open-ended, and everything to jump the gun on what is "fact". It hurts no one to keep researching evolution. It hurts no one to keep researching UFOs. It hurts everyone if scientific discovery is hampered to make people feel "safe".

I hope you see what I mean. I am not arguing for "Creationism". Personally, I am not invested in "how" we got here. I'm more concerned with what we're doing with our lives now. It's fascinating to watch on television and I loved my geology classes, but what interests me is that period of time between 4000 BCE and 100 CE. Evolutionists and Creationists can fight it out without me caring about their outcome either way.

However, I want research to continue in every single field of science. Discovery is fun and the process of discovery helps everyone in every field. As we refine our studies and experiments all of the research community benefits.

reply to post by Rintendo

---

This kinda' off topic....but, you really need to post more often. That was a well put piece of text.

It also continues to wrongly describe Evolution...



Scientists know the differences between laws and theories, you apparently do not. Laws describe things, theories try to explain them.

There is the law of gravity. Gravity occurs, it's observable and has been proven. The same applies to Evolution in the sense of genetic variation and adaptation along the generations. This is not a hunch or a guess, it is a proven fact.

Newton had a theory of gravity, then came along Einstein and his Theory of Relativity which did a better job at explaining gravity. Just because Newton's theory was somewhat incorrect and couldn't account for things Einstein's Theory of Relativity can, doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.

Moreover, there are many things the Theory of Relativity doesn't correctly address. Does that mean gravity doesn't exist? The same applies to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the best theory we have at an explanation of Evolution (the genetic variation and adaptation along generations).

I'm making this comparison because it is the same thing. Evolution happens, we know it to be a fact, and anyone who says it is not a fact clearly doesn't understand Evolution, science or what laws and theories are.





Are you sure you know what debunking means? It means exposing something as false, by proving it to be false. You can debunk Evolution? OK, I will love to see you try and prove Evolution does not occur.





Debunking is disproving. If someone simply claims something is false and does not prove it, then he is not a debunker, period. Also, I believe the term you are looking to describe the people you are referring to is pseudoskeptics:







I certainly won't argue with you on that regarding either subject, but if you think Evolution is not a fact, you can't see the double standard you are employing.

To say Evolution is not a fact, is like saying UFOs are not a fact. UFOs exist, people have seen them, have photographed them, they have been observed, they are a fact... we just don't know what they are.

In other words, we can't explain them, or, we don't have a (scientific) theory for them.

I can understand the thrust and parry of who's belief
is stronger here...
the Scientists, who can show through logic, that the
world ISN'T being flooded with flying saucers from another
planet...
and the guy who wants more in his/her life, wants to be
safe in their heads that the Grays are sneaking up the
unaware Earthlings and through the gossip of the internet,
dodgy pics and weird sites, their yearnings are reinforced.

It's a crock... and it's for the young.

reply to post by Fastwalker81

---

Fantastic post Fastwalker81,

Star for you.

I always believed that the triangles are ours, but as you said, if they are, then we've had that tech for over 30 years. I still believe that they are ours, but if that technology is released, the oil industry goes bust, because the tech for those vehicles would likely render oil nearly useless, and that money talks and bulls**t walks. Follow the money, that's where we find what we're looking for.

Until we get the the Star Trek times where money is no longer in use, they will keep important technologies from us. Greed is the word.

Yes good point, 'some' UFOs still remain completely inexplicable to science,particularly those captured and plotted on radar travelling at unheard of speeds.
If you've not seen it before theres some very intruiging radar testimony from USAF,NORAD and NATO officials on these two videos-its also worth pointing out that people have been 'executed by government' for far less credible circumstantial evidence than this:

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

I'm sorry to have to break this to you but you CANNOT prove a negative. Please enlighten me how science can "show through logic" that aliens are not visiting us.



So according to you scientists have experimented under controlled conditions and have shown through this testing that the alien hypotheses is false. These things make me chuckle.

and the guy who wants more in his/her life, wants to be
safe in their heads that the Grays are sneaking up the
unaware Earthlings and through the gossip of the internet,
dodgy pics and weird sites, their yearnings are reinforced.

So after explaining science to us mere mortals you also seem to have the ability to look into believer's heads and have discovered their motives. I applaud you.

It's a crock... and it's for the young.

Thanks for letting us know your opinion, I respect that. But before you pass your above comment off as fact, can you please provide us with proof that this is a crock and more specificly why it is for the young?

Someone with your knowledge of science should have little problem with this.

Thanks I will be waiting.

reply to post by Fastwalker81

---

Very well, I'm wrong.
I ain't gettin' bogged down in semantics.

Now I'm waiting!

Without going into 'he said/she said' what I'll ask
is have you read some of the threads here?
Some people belong to the Glalactic Fed! some channel
their thoughts to spiritual beings that pass back information
that turns out to be not-so-factual.

The whole idea of aliens and flying saucers are mainly
a joke in the main-stream media... is it because 'they're
all in on it?'
So we rely on blurred images, eyewitness accounts and
the supposed whistle-blower from the Government, and what
do we have?
A vague idea that either there's lots of visitors that keep
secrets from the majority of earth's inhabitants, or a species
that has us tagged, watched and probed.
I may be cynical, but my time is running out and it's still the
same as it was back in the 60's.

reply to post by converge

---

Jeebus!

Are you not getting my point????? Debunking is not scientific. Anyone can debunk anything at any time? It doesn't make it "valid".

Skepticism and debunking are two different things. There is no room for debunkers in science. Science is very liberal, very open, and allows for questioning.

Debunking is having an idea: IE, God created the world in six days, then attacking with limited facts just to "win" a limited argument and shut people up.

Skepticism is asking informed questions that you actually want to know the answers to.

I used evolution because it would get attention. I'm not trying to "debunk" it. I'm saying that anyone can debunk anything. Debunking is unhealthy and unscientific.

Am I speaking in a foreign language? Does no one else see my point? I attacked a sacred cow of science to prove a point to the people who would debunk (and yet call themselves "skeptics") the work of people like Stanton Friedman.

ARGH!

Heheh.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Rintendo]

No, I'm getting your point, and my point is that you are using the wrong terms.



Debunking is disproving something, and you can only disprove something by demonstrating it is wrong. In that sense debunking is scientific.

If someone claims something is false but doesn't prove it that's not debunking that's just an opinion, and obviously unscientific.




Yes they are different things. Skepticism is a position on how to approach a problem or question, debunking is the act of disproving something.




No, that's pseudoskepticism and that's why I quoted it's definition in my previous post. I suggest you read it and see if it doesn't fit your description of 'debunking' better.




No, you're just using the wrong terms.

reply to post by converge

---

Okay, yes and no. Or, no and yes.

No, I did mean "debunk".

I do believe that debunkers are out to "disprove"/take the bunk out. That means that they already have the "answer" in their head. That is the opposite of real scientific research. That whole, if we knew what we were doing we wouldn't call it research, is funny but true--or ought to be true. You cannot limit the playing field by ruling out "the impossible". The possible changes every hundred years.


And, yes, pseudoskepticism is the bird, and the bird is the word, yeh?

Sorry. Tylenol PM humor.

I just hate debunkers. I don't think we should ever limit the scope of possibility because when the field is open it allows for the type of querying and brainstorming that can narrow the field more accurately.

Besides, with enough snark aimed at the right person...anything can be "debunked" in a verbal exchange. It doesn't make it true, tho.

I think we'll just have to agree on disagreeing, because I continue to disagree with your definition of debunking

In my understanding the only way you can disprove something is through some scientific method, or through deductive logic but which in this case I think we can agree it doesn't help us to prove UFOs have an alien (or some other) explanation.



Also I think people should recognize, particularly people that consider themselves 'believers', that there is in fact a lot of bunk in the UFO field. There are things that truly deserved to be debunked, to be proven as false, hoaxes, lies etc.

From that perspective I don't see debunking as something damaging to the field, on the contrary! I see it has something imperative if we're ever gonna get figure out what is fake and what isn't, what is true and what's false.

So I guess I agree with your characterization of the position, actions and attitudes of some people but I disagree with the terminology.

To me those people you talk about are pseudoskeptics not debunkers, because they don't really prove (or disprove) anything, they just make claims and those are as unsubstantiated as the ones "UFO charlatans" make.

I think this quotes worth stating again as many 'cynical scoffers' who just pour derision and scorn onto the subject and profess to have an opinion (albeit a cynical,dismissive one) have never even lifted a finger to objectively educate themselves about it.



Relying on news media to reinforce their preconceived,stereotypical notions/conditioned responses (UFO = NUT) instead of actualy looking into the subject via comprehensive literature;authenticated government documents;military case history reports;quotes from high ranking,prominent people;objective,informed presentations or even just being aware of the many credible cases is telling and predictable.
Whilst objective research does not prove anything,it does go a long way to show the UFO subject is not 'just a lot of silly nonsense' as some individuals would have us beleive.

This is an interesting presentation showing how UFO incidents and the UFO subject in general is misrepresented,misconstrued,manipulated and suppressed by the corporate news media:

Google Video Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by converge

---

Okay, we can disagree on terminology. There. We've agreed on something.



I was trying to be provocative in my utilization of "evolution" because you believe it absolutely to be "true". Most of the people who call themselves UFO skeptics believe evolution to be "true". Using evolution, I was trying to be provocative in the way that Bill Nye the Science Guy would be...the "I'm a scientist therefore anything I say has authority" and using some scientific terms and a general knowledge of scientific research to pull the tale of the researcher.

True, there are charlatans, but Bill Nye and others like Randi treat people like Stanton Friedman, who has spent the better part of his life researching this topic, as though they have no understanding of scientific method, as if they are making extreme suppositions, and that the mere suggestion of it being a craft from another world is too bizarre and too big a leap to possibly be true!

*sigh*

I have no idea if UFOs are extra terrestrial. I used to firmly be in the camp of them being spook program craft, but now I am "open" to the possibility of them being from another world.

My reason being that the science that people like Bob Lazaar suggested (whether or not you or even Stanton Friedman consider him a BS artists), of non-linear travel, of warping gravity made me think that relatively quick space travel is a possibility worth exploring.

Einstein proved that we can see behind the sun because of its gravitational pull, that the sun bends gravity. So why could intelligent life that perhaps evolved quicker than ours not have come across this discovery and made use of it?

Again, I don't know if they are from the distant stars or man-made craft. I don't want to say they are not however and close the debate. It deserves to be researched.

We spend money on SETI and the probability of their finding life using their current methodology is so impossibly slim...and yet...we still fund them because the idea is a good one.

Anyway...that's my take. Again. Hope we can continue to disagree and yet agree again sometime.

reply to post by Rintendo

---

Stanton Friedman's SETI challenge is an interesting one
www.v-j-enterprises.com...

His UFO challenge is worth a read too:
www.v-j-enterprises.com...

I have great deal of respect for Stanton Friedman and his work. I think sometimes he makes claims or shares his personal beliefs on the matter that he can't really prove, but he's entirely in his right to speak his mind.

Friedman is a scientist and that usually isn't something you just can turn off. Sometimes I suspect that for him to believe so strongly in some of the things he does without having any proof someone must have told or shown him something.

Speaking of Bill Nye, it brings me up to one other point I have frequently seen happen. People who in other areas seem to be serious researchers and scientists, when it comes to discussing the UFO matter seem to forget all their (scientific) integrity and act like religious extremists who are told there is no god.

I think many of these people don't want to give the appearance of believing the UFO phenomena is real and worthy of investigation. Perhaps some are afraid of public ridicule, loss of credibility from their peers, or even loss of funds and grants for investigation. There's also cases of people who publicly were staunch critics of the UFO phenomena, and then turned out to, privately, be very intrigued by it. In any case, it's sad and unfortunate that this still happens.

A good example of this double standard is, as you point out and karl 12 points out Friendman's position on it, the SETI program.

What difference is there from people believing we can hear or communicate with aliens using radio signals, than people believing aliens can travel to Earth?

Yet, SETI seems to be widely accepted as a legitimate scientific program, and UFO investigation gets laughed at and stereotyped as nothing more than crazy people claiming they were abducted by little green men.

reply to post by converge

---

Exactly. Exactly.

That was my point...although I was trying to demonstrate it rather than say it.

I keep coming back to Galileo and Magellan. They were 100% correct. They had a logical hypothesis, could speak to the truth with great eloquence, and no proof because their technology was limited.

When asked for "extraordinary proof" they could not supply it.

Maybe Stanton Friedman and others have not been able to trap an alien and drag their little gray body into Anderson Cooper's studio doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just noticed this...

Awww shucks, thanks!

A good point but several prominent figures who have extensively researched (or been involved with) the UFO subject including Timothy Good,Gordon Creighton,John Greenewald Junior,Edgar Mitchell etc..have speculated that the origins of UFOs may have an underground or undersea explanation.

The subject of USOs (Underwater Submerged Objects) is rarely covered by the corporate media yet has some impressive,well documented case histories and heritage:

YouTube Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]