The Skeptics Dilemma

reply to post by nablator


Great cartoon Nablator-i suspect you are like me, an open minded skeptic. There are lots of explanations for what professional doubters call the lack of UFO evidence. The most obvious is that it's very hard to hunt something when you don't know what it is.

In history, UFO's have been reported as skyships-literally, sailing ships in the sky, and then airships, and then flying saucers. Aliens too have evolved, from many forms to the standard gray, and the people who were taken by the fairies have been replaced with abductees.

What this suggests to me is a phenomenon so far beyond our everyday experience that our minds try to fit it into the groove of what we can understand.

I don't know what UFO's are, but i am pretty sure they are not ALL weather balloons or mass hysteria.

Originally posted by lawman27
I don't know what UFO's are, but i am pretty sure they are not ALL weather balloons or mass hysteria.

I'd have to agree with you there - there exists a percentage of UFO/OVNI/USO cases which remain truly
perplexing (and completely inexplicable).
Theres an interesting link below which addressess some of the popular misconceptions and assumptions about the subject.


UFO Definition.

"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.

Common misconceptions and assumptions:

Myth: Very few people have really seen a UFO...
Fact: According to a Roper poll conducted in 2002 for the SciFi channel, one in seven Americans say they or someone they know has had an experience involving a UFO...


Myth: Airline pilots never see UFOs, so they must not be real...
Fact: There have been many cases of pilot sightings ever since the 1940s...


Myth: UFOs are only reported by uneducated farmers in places you've never heard of...
Fact: A study by the U.S. Air Force showed that the most puzzling UFO reports came from people who had the best technical backgrounds. They are reported from everyplace where there are people, though fewer are seen from big cities because less of the sky is visible.


Myth:The U. S. Air Force investigated UFOs and concluded there was nothing to them...
Fact: The Air Force had an official UFO investigation from 1948 to 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book), and collected more than 12,500 reports. It claims to have explained all but about 701 of them, but the facts of most of those reports strongly suggest that something important was seen.


Myth:UFOs are only seen by Americans...
Fact: UFOs have been seen wherever there are people. Every continent has had its share, as has almost every country, though local interest plays a role in the apparent level of activity. Wherever there is someone interested in searching out UFO reports, they will be found, but that doesn't mean the investigator lives in a center of activity.


Myth:UFOs have only been seen since 1947...
Fact: There are UFO reports in newspapers and literature dating back to 1865 and even earlier...

More at:
www.mufon.com...

Cheers.

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

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The idea that our physical aircraft are only capable of a limited set of speeds and motions is not unknow to us right.? Correct? Therefore, if we have evidence a physical aircraft that defies our speeds and motions, one can only conclude that it is NOT our aircraf. The next inference is it must be using a different kind of technology.

I see what you mean, that's the kind of reasoning that convinced me, until I studied the evidence and logic in depth, and became much more careful as a result. Let me point the differences between my and your understanding. While your demonstration looks correct at first glance, actually there is not a single part of it I can agree with. I'll try to explain why.

First part: they're not ours.
You are assuming UFO sighting reports correctly and accurately describe a physical reality. This is wrong in almost all cases, because subjective eyewitness reports is all we have in most cases. In a few cases there may be some impressive speeds recorded with reasonable accuracy (MUFON's report about the UFOs in Stephensville for example, even though I'm not a radar expert and cannot comment). How do you deduce they are not ours? Do you have access to Black Projects? Are you certain that no disinformation campaign exists to prepare for a mass fake UFO invasion as some ATS members claim?

Second part: a different technology
We can't put a UFO on a workbench and take it apart to see what makes it tick. We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.

In short:
1. Failure to critically assess evidence.
2. Failure of logic. What you call an inference is actually an hypothesis that you don't even try to validate.
3. Failure of imagination.

b]First part: they're not ours.
You are assuming UFO sighting reports correctly and accurately describe a physical reality. This is wrong in almost all cases, because subjective eyewitness reports is all we have in most cases. In a few cases there may be some impressive speeds recorded with reasonable accuracy (MUFON's report about the UFOs in Stephensville for example, even though I'm not a radar expert and cannot comment). How do you deduce they are not ours? Do you have access to Black Projects? Are you certain that no disinformation campaign exists to prepare for a mass fake UFO invasion as some ATS members claim?

I aware of all alternative hypothesis. As I was saying to the other guy, the best explanation for some cases is ETH. Other hypothesis: underwater civilisations, underground civilisations, time travellers, secret government projects are unnecessary multiplications and purely speculative. On the latter, the fact that this UFO phenomena is pre-modern, with similar decriptions to ones reported today occuring in the far past, means that while some UFO's may well be secret government projects, ET UFO's are still the most lilkey explanation.

Second part: a different technology
We can't put a UFO on a workbench and take it apart to see what makes it tick. We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.

The clear difference between your argument and mine, is yours is from possibility and mine is from inference. Yep, they could be some unknown physical phenomenon, some manifestation from a quantum level, perhaps some kind of space-time flux, maybe saucers and teapots from a cartoon universe. In the realm of possibility anything can be thought. I am not going to go down that road. All that we need to know is that they are not ours, they do not work using our sciece and technology, and thus the most likely explanation is they are ET. All of these are valid inferences and not a single quantity has been multiplied.


Just a remark on your point about not accepting the evidence as it has been reported. This is really what separates the skeptics from the pseudoskeptics. A pseudoskeptic will argue against the evidence actually being what it is at all e.g., "I saw a UFO the size of several football fields hover over me, it was metallic - "How do you know you saw it" It's a silly question. The pseudoskeptic then ends up either trying to assassinate the character of the witness or to adjust their evidence just so it can fit their explanation. A genuine skeptic will work with the evidence that is available and produce a hypothesis consistent with that.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Very good post.

You said:

Just a remark on your point about not accepting the evidence as it has been reported. This is really what separates the skeptics from the pseudoskeptics. A pseudoskeptic will argue against the evidence actually being what it is at all e.g., "I saw a UFO the size of several football fields hover over me, it was metallic - "How do you know you saw it" It's a silly question. The pseudoskeptic then ends up either trying to assassinate the character of the witness or to adjust their evidence just so it can fit their explanation. A genuine skeptic will work with the evidence that is available and produce a hypothesis.

Your exaclty right and theirs a hypothesis built on what the eyewitness described and then the evidence is weighed in reason.

The pseudoskeptic doesn't want to do this because he/she wants to live in the realm of possibility so they can equate anything to extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings.

So you have an eyewitness account from a credible witness. You have the supporter of the ET hypothesis doing what we do in all walks of life and that's weigh the evidence within reason.

You have the bogus or pseudo skeptic saying it could have been anything and equating that to the eyewitness account.

THAT'S ILLOGICAL

The skeptics opinion is based on nothing except their pre-existing belief and that's evidence that to counter eyewitness accounts?

It's like a police officer saying the victim could have been killed by anyone so there's no need to weigh the evidence.

You can't use "it could have been" as evidence for anything.

Pseudoskeptics act like "it could have been" is evidence to counter eyewitness testimony, mass sightings and more.

The words "it could have been" don't exclude you from thinking and weighing the evidence within reason.

Also, notice the oxymoron. The pseudoskeptic ask for evidence above and beyond the scientific method and then they say they want evidence that follows the scientific method, HUH???

Don't they see how illogical that is?

You ask for extraordinary, 100%, absolute, exclusive evidence when none of these things are required when you are building a hypothesis using the scientific method.

So the pseudoskeptic will say "I want scientific evidence" and then in the next breath ask for extraordinary or exclusive evidence when science doesn't require these things to weigh the evidence within reason and build a hypothesis.

With the ET hypothesis you have empirical evidence and that's all that's needed to build a hypothesis using the scientific method.

Definition of empirical:

From the Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means: 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
wiki.answers.com...

So the ET hypothesis is grounded in the scientific method and the pseudoskeptic is not. The pseudo or bogus skeptic is asking for evidence that science doesn't require to build a hypothesis.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by platosallegory]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I aware of all alternative hypothesis. As I was saying to the other guy, the best explanation for some cases is ETH.

If you start your argument by dismissing any other hypothesis, yes. Objectively other hypothesis are just as good.

All that we need to know is that they are not ours, they do not work using our sciece and technology, and thus the most likely explanation is they are ET. All of these are valid inferences and not a single quantity has been multiplied.

Wrong premise, no logic, wrong conclusion. Did you read what I wrote?

A pseudoskeptic will argue against the evidence actually being what it is at all e.g., "I saw a UFO the size of several football fields hover over me, it was metallic - "How do you know you saw it" It's a silly question.

No. To not ask questions and believe everything without critical analysis is a silly attitude. Even believing your own eyes is stupid. (You've never heard of an optical illusion I suppose.) A football field size and metallic shine mean nothing without a careful examination. Birds & bugs look metallic too. Size and distance are nearly impossible to estimate with unknown objects. This uncritical attitude is what separates gullible people from the rest. If you want to believe blindly, go ahead, but don't say it's logical.

Originally posted by nablator

We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.

I am inclined in this direction.

We should look at ourselves today as people at a relatively similar level of knowledge that we were in previous centuries. Only beginning to get a handle on what was happening in space, in our own atmosphere, and how our senses and minds worked.

The unknown was interpreted back then as religious occurrences because the meme of interplanetary visitations was not firmly established.

Many of us now are like those in the past convinced ghosts or angels are watching are visiting us. Our anthrocentricity produces an expectation that whatever is responsible for the unexplained phenomena must be humanoid with variations - larger head and eyes, thinner bodies, etc.

Even if alien intelligences are responsible, we shouldn't be locked into a notion that they need to fly here in metallic ships and maneuver through our atmosphere, just because that's the level of transportation we are at now. In more primitive time what was up in the sky was thought to be gods in chariots.

We only recently began to explore the complexities of our universe and quantum mechanics. Similarly there are areas we are only slightly aware of but do not comprehend.

Maybe someone on an Einstein level will some day pull it all together for us.
We can start by thinking about new models rather than imposing our present ones on what we can't comprehend.

Mike







[edit on 24-3-2009 by mmiichael]

If youou start your argument by dismissing any other hypothesis, yes. Objectively other hypothesis are just as good.

I am not rejecting any hypthesis. One should not begin any investigation with any prejudices, so I leave all hypothesis and possibilities open.
Some hypothesis, however, are an unnecessary multiplcation of quantites, such as underwater civilisations as mentioned earlier by the other guy. This is on the same level as saying cartoon universe. Yes, both are logical possibilities, but merely argument from possibility is not enough.

It maybe that a UFO that we explain as ET UFO is actually from an underwater civilisation, but still we are going to have use an explanation that can best explain all available data and which is rational.

There is nothing irrational about ET, because the the probability of life occuring in the universe is 100%. There is life on Earth, loads of it, and it appeared immediately on Earth. This means life on planets is a known phenomenon of the universe. To say life on planets exists is not an argument from possibility, but an empirical observation. Yes, you could turn around and say to me, "But how do you know life on other planets exist, all you have is one sample, and you cannot generalise from one sample" This is as silly as asking, "Well how can I know that others have minds, all I have is one sample of mind" its stupid skepticism and pointless.

If we go down that slippery slope we might as well conclude we cannot ever know anything and become vegetables. We do know things, even if what we know is only a temporal truth. I cannot say for certain what a UFO is and making any kind of positive claim is not tenable. However, what I can do is form a hypothesis that is the most likely explanation for the UFO and all the data available.

I will reiterate again for some UFO's the only explanation that works is ETH. Such as the LA one I discussed earlier, which you have interestingly gone quiet on.

Wrong premise, no logic, wrong conclusion. Did you read what I wrote?

Yes I did, and obviously I rejected it because the argument was not sound.
If you think my logic is flawed, then please point out the flaws and the offending premise.

No. To not ask questions and believe everything without critical analysis is a silly attitude. Even believing your own eyes is stupid. (You've never heard of an optical illusion I suppose.) A football field size and metallic shine mean nothing without a careful examination. Birds & bugs look metallic too. Size and distance are nearly impossible to estimate with unknown objects. This uncritical attitude is what separates gullible people from the rest. If you want to believe blindly, go ahead, but don't say it's logical.

I am not certainly saying one should not ask questions about the data. Indeed its the skeptics job to ask questions, "Where did you see it, how far was it from you, were you under any alocholic influence at the time, was there anyone around" Of course these questions have to be asked. The Skeptic needs to ask as many questions as possible to collect as much data as possible. The problem comes when the skeptic does not listen to the answers, but actually influences the answers with leading questions, rhetoric and debunking attempt. I will give an example:

UFO witness: I saw it as clear as I can see you right now. It was metallic, it was emitting a bright orange glow and it hovered right above me on the road. You know like that film Independence day, the mothership just hovers above. It was just like that. It wasn't only me who saw it, but my girlfriend as well.
I am not lying I swear. I never beleived in this stuff before, but I guess seeing is believing.

Skeptic: You said it was on the road, how do you know that it was not just the headlight of a car or truck?

UFO witness: Dude, I know what the headlight of a car or truck looks like. I've been driving on the road for 20 years. This was not headlight.

Skeptic: How can you be sure. If you were the road and a very bright headline shines in your face, it is hard to see anything clearly and then its easy to imagine that there is something large in front of you. Are you telling me it is impossible that you are not mistaken?

UFO witness: No, I am not saying that. Its always possible that one can be mistaken, but is it possible that both me and my girlfriend are mistaken.

Skeptic: Yes, loads of people may all agree they see a ghost, only to later find out it was a lighthouse. Shared delusions are possible.

UFO witness: Look, I see what you are saying, but I believe 100% that I saw a UFO. I have never had an experience like this ever in my entire life.

Skeptic: Then you agree it is just a belief you saw the UFO. Then my job is done. Case dismissed.

The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.

Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:

1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negative the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The Skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using argument from possibility - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"

These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming", Radar reports - "It is possible the equipment malfunctioned" Ancient UFO paintings, "Post-hoc reading"

I would like to alert the "believers" to these common fallacies used frequently by many so-called skeptics on this forum. Namely:

1: Slippery Slope Fallacy
2: Argument from possibility fallacy

Other fallacies you should keep an eye out for: appeal to authority fallacy(not peer reviewed etc) and adhominem and strawman fallacy.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

If you are confident that there is intelligent life - not just life, but intelligent life, on other planets, and that they have superior technology to ours - but not superior enough to avoid detection, or else their psychology and motivations are so "alien" to us that we can't understand them - and are choosing to repeatedly visit planet Earth without ever declaring themselves officially or publicly, and making themselves known to a few select individuals in such a way that those individuals are later presumed to be wacko nutjobs instead of the ETs giving them anything which might help them prove their story .... (and I haven't even yet mentioned crop circles, livestock mutilations, buzzing airplanes close enough to cause accidents, scaring people, etc.)

You just go right ahead. More power.

However, I would greatly appreciate it if you (collectively) would stop calling me/us names like "closed-minded, narrow-minded, debunker, pseudo-skeptic, and bogus skeptic" and/or accusing us of being "cowards, shills, disinfo agents, or stupid" because what I just posted above DOES NOT make sense to me and does not appear to me to be the BEST POSSIBLE explanation for UFO sightings.

Thank you.

A race of truly superior intelligence and technology would not be handling the situation the way that "UFOs" are.

1. If we were like animals to them (insignificant or unintelligent), they wouldn't ever try to hide from us, erase memories, or avoid being seen by using stealth/cloaking technologies. They'd be buzzing around our largest cities in broad daylight, totally unconcerned about what we might do or see.

2. If we're an experiment and they're trying not to affect the results, they wouldn't allow us to get any hint whatsover of their presence. We would have no clue they are here.

3. If they think we're too "primitive" or "immature" and are waiting for us to
"grow up" before they make contact, they wouldn't be abducting people and giving contactees conflicting stories. A non-intervention rule would prevent them from doing many of the things they've been reported to do.

4. If their intent is malicious, such as conquest or extermination, then what the HECK are they waiting for all these hundreds of years?

5. If they think we're "equals" who just haven't managed the leap to their mode of travel, their treatment of us is VERY shoddy.

No theory I have ever heard reasonably fits their behavior and actions. If no hypothesis of why ETs would act like they do and do the things they do makes sense, then it makes it, in my opinion, considerably LESS likely that the ETH is the correct answer.

When you find correct answers, the puzzle usually makes MORE sense.

ETH causes UFO sightings, abductions, contactees, and other types of reports to make LESS sense. Therefore it is likely not the correct answer.

It's like putting pieces into a jigsaw puzzle and discovering that the resulting picture is not a coherent whole but instead looks to be parts of 3 or 4 different pictures. I would conclude that I had used wrong pieces somewhere, and that is exactly what happens when I plug the ETH hypothesis into the body of UFO evidence. It doesn't make any kind of coherent or sensible picture!

Now perhaps you will say that there is probably more than one species/race visiting us, and you will STILL try to claim that that is LESS of a scientific or belief stretch than some of the other hypotheses.

In all the vastness of space, it's fairly improbable that ONE race/species found us, took the time and trouble and expense to visit us, and yet chooses to handle the situation very bizarrely from our point of view, let alone that TWO OR MORE of them have found us and come here and ALL of them choose to act in ways that would cause us to suspect humans of insanity (or perhaps gross immaturity) if they acted the way these supposed ET's are acting towards Earth and humanity.

You can start now with all the what ifs, but the more what ifs and crazy theories you have to throw out to try to explain your ETs' behavior, the more YOU are violating the Occam's razor principle and unecessarily multiplying the possible answers.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am not rejecting any hypthesis. One should not begin any investigation with any prejudices, so I leave all hypothesis and possibilities open.

Good.

There is nothing irrational about ET, because the the probability of life occuring in the universe is 100%. There is life on Earth, loads of it, and it appeared immediately on Earth. This means life on planets is a known phenomenon of the universe. To say life on planets exists is not an argument from possibility, but an empirical observation. Yes, you could turn around and say to me, "But how do you know life on other planets exist, all you have is one sample, and you cannot generalise from one sample" This is as silly as asking, "Well how can I know that others have minds, all I have is one sample of mind" its stupid skepticism and pointless.

I would be surprised, and shocked to know that we are alone in the Universe, or even the Galaxy. That said, I don't know, and no one does. Being honest and accepting the limitations of our knowledge is better than deluding outselves with unfounded extrapolations. Pseudo-science convinces lots of people of such claims. People who have trouble seeing the difference between "life is probably common in the universe", (that I agree with) and "life is common in the universe". Many commonly held beliefs turn out to be false. You have the compulsory belief attitude that many people have because they prefer delusion to ignorance. We, as a species, are just starting to explore the Universe, and we are ignorant.

These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming", Radar reports - "It is possible the equipment malfunctioned" Ancient UFO paintings, "Post-hoc reading"

I agree with you about dishonest tactics. But this has nothing to do with scientific skeptimism, this has to do with prejudice. Truth is truth, whether it fits your preconceptions or not. If you don't want to go looking for truth, and prefer to keep your beliefs, you're free to do so. It's easier than studing psychology, physics, (false radar echoes are very common), and the history of art (UFOs in ancient art is bunk).

Ufology is sick of ufologists pushing their agendas, ignoring the evidence that don't fit their delusions and misconceptions.
ufocon.blogspot.com...

reply to post by nablator


Just writing off all radar/sonar evidence as 'false echoes' seems a little irresponsible (and unscientific).
There are some excellent cases of sonar confirmation on the USO thread where individual objects have been captured,plotted and tracked (and visualy corellated) by multiple sonar screens on multiple ships:

I'd have a good read of this thread if you are genuinely interested in the subject.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Navy radar/sonar operator Harry Allen Jordan:
Interview at 0:18
www.youtube.com...

Radar/sonar Incident:

Each of the three radarscopes in the room displayed a different height level in the atmosphere. At approximately 0315 hours, Preston recalled, a stationary "bleep" appeared abruptly on the highest-level scope.
The target's vertical height was approximately 35,000 feet, and it was located somewhat west of the zenith (overhead point) at perhaps 70° elevation. The bleep indicated a seemingly hard, solid object giving off a strong reflection; the size of the target on the screen, according to the witness's best recollection, implied an actual diameter or length for the object of between that of a jet fighter and a 707-- in other words, said Preston, roughly 100 to 120 feet across.
As the target descended, the two sonar operators aimed their pulses in the general direction of the dropping object. Almost immediately in a matter of seconds following loss of radar contact, both sonar operators received audible pings, indicating a strong echo from a fast-moving submerged target at a range of probably 20,000 yards roughly 10 miles.
The underwater target appeared to be traveling in the same general azimuth and at the same descent angle (at least initially) as the airborne object, implying that the two unknowns were one and the same! The target's speed was considerably reduced, "down to hundreds of miles per hour" but "still moving damn fast," remarked Preston, and it was now moving along a zigzag path away from the ship. Sonar first picked up the target at its upward horizon, perhaps 50 feet below the ocean surface, and continued to register an echo from the object as it dropped rapidly into deep water

.
www.waterufo.net...

Evidence evaluator:
www.zuko.com...

There are many other sonar confirmed Naval incidents like this and
each one deserves to be taken on its own merits.
'Blanket debunking' all radar/sonar evidence as
ghost readings and sonar clutter is far from scientific and probably more about people never dispassionately examining evidence or having no real regard for objective truth.

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

Originally posted by karl 12
Just writing off all radar/sonar evidence as 'false echoes' seems a little irresponsible (and unscientific).

True. I hope you're not implying I said anything like that.
There are UFO cases where radar evidence was presented as proof and received world-wide publicity. For example the radar signals recorded on board a F-16 on March 30-31, 1990 in Belgium. Let's talk about who is irresponsible and unscientific.

[edit on 2009-3-25 by nablator]

Things would be a lot better if the actual proof was evaluated instead of the personalities involved. Take the diclosure project, the only thing holding back its credibility is Steven Greer's side buisness where he takes people out to "channel" alien beeings.
Every group has their extremists. Both the extremist UFOligist and skeptik will sound equally insane when they talk. The phoenix lights were a good example, skeptics will say those were military aircraft or flares no matter how many tests are compared based on the light patterns of flares and the flying speed of planes, and how it can't be explained. The extremist UFOlogist will not accept anything besides those being aliens as an answer.
But the burden of proof will always lie on the UFO crowd. Every video is labeled a trick of light or CGI. The skeptic will rarely test their theories, they leave that to the believers and even then they just shoot holes in the testing that was done.