The Science of UFOs: Fact vs. Skepticism

I think it is a normal response to be skeptical if someone states there is an alien base somewhere in New Mexico. Skepticism is needed, as that is a major claim. That does not mean to immediately dismiss the claim, but to ask the person making the claim as to what evidence they may have, either physical or a witness who claims to have been there. If it is only a witness, then questions need to be asked and the full claim heard. It should not be immediately believed, but the testimony should be kept until other information came up to verify such claims.

That is what skepticism is intended to do, and that is get all the information from any such claim. The information needs to be evaluated, and if there is not enough to state whether it is true or not, then it should be kept until further information is gathered or found. Skepticism should be used as a tool for gathering the evidence, not immediately stating it is not true before anything can be evaluated.

reply to post by kidflash2008


Good point, I totaly agree with your comments but I think theres a big difference between cynical debunkery and true,open minded scepticism.

Starting out with a preconceived explanation and then proceeding to shoehorn it in irrespective of any contradictory evidence,glaring discrepencies or factual innacurracies that get in the way is a common debunker tactic and to,my mind,about as far from objective,
free enquiry as a person can get.

Theres some good points made in this article by Dr Allen J Hyneck:
'What is the responsibility of the scientist?'
www.nicap.org...

And theres also some other pertinent points raised about 'Occam's Razor here:

The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they
understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying
complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should
be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest
hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.

But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the
part regarding explaining all of the observations.
What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher
the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse
of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the
observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "if
we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the
solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was
not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and
then declare that it was really Venus."

But that's okay for the skeptics to do because it's an "extraordinary claim" being made that
deserves to be explained away in a Machiavellian fashion as rapidly as possible with the urgent
zeal of a religious missionary. Now, to alter observations to force conformance with the
preferred hypothesis -- is that science? Or is that dogma? The answer, of course, is dogma. This
practice is extremely poor science, and the approach undermines the very spirit of scientific
inquiry. It is simply unacceptable to alter the observations that refuse to conform with the
predetermined, favored explanation.

www.nicap.org...

Cheers.

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

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...





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

"Skeptics who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a
so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown."
Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist.



"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."
Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist.

www.spi.com.sg...

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

I have a question to those knowledgeable:

I am skeptical of the official explanations of UFOs being natural phenomena or products of imagination.

Does that make me a Skeptic?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I have a question to those knowledgeable:

I am skeptical of the official explanations of UFOs being natural phenomena or products of imagination.

Does that make me a Skeptic?

Thats a very good question and,whatever that makes you,I'm one as well.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I am skeptical of the official explanations of UFOs being natural phenomena or products of imagination. Does that make me a Skeptic?

You'd be a better skeptic if you were skeptical of all "explanations" of UFOs no matter where they come from. Even if you personally see a UFO, you should be skeptical of your own perceptions. If you've ever been to a magic show, you know why. We all have our built-in preconceptions, beliefs, and expectations. It takes a real skeptic to recognize those things and try to see past them.

I don't believe anybody. Why should I? I don't believe the government. I don't believe individuals. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but nothing more without good, solid evidence. I don't even believe my own two eyes, because I know how easily I can be fooled and how often I can be wrong.

So keep working at it. Maybe after a few decades, you'll get where I am.

Good MUFON webpage with some interesting links and information on cynical UFO debunking:


A Guide to Debunking:
www.oregonmufon.com...:a-guide-to-debunking-and-extreme-skepticism&catid=46pinion&Itemid=78