From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 14:26:59 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 14:28:18 -0400
Subject: Ufology - Some Things Never Change
The following award winning essay on ufology was written almost
20 years ago. How much of this essay is still apropos today?
Towards the end of the essay it asks where ufology will be in 30
years? Twenty years have past since then. Yet, not much in
ufology as changed since then. Read it and make your own
judgement call. Where will ufology be ten years from now? To
keep ufology as it has been for five decades, you need to simply
follow the lead of its illuminaries in the past and do nothing.
Ed Stewart
----------
From: JamesOberg@aol.com
New Scientist magazine, London, October 11, 1979
The failure of the 'science' of ufology, by James Oberg
The winner of the 1,000 pound 'New Scientist'/Cutty Sark Whisky
essay on unidentified flying objects criticizes UFO believers
for their unscientific approach. Just because scientists cannot
explain every "sighting" does not mean that UFOs exist.
:::::
In the 30 years since the current flying saucer fever began, the
phenomenon has apparently been transformed from the property of
cranks and crackpots to the subject of true scientific study.
The sensational term "flying saucer" became the more
semantically neutral "unidentified flying object", or "UFO". The
study of such reports -- the objects themselves, not being
physically present, cannot be studied -- came to be called
"ufology".
The word has all the appearances of a true science, yet somehow
that particular branch of study has not become accepted as a
science. Can ufology really be considered a true science, or
perhaps an infant science, or possibly an unborn science -- or
is it instead just a hysterical pregnancy? After all the labor,
what has been produced?
Ufology has been shunned by "traditional" science, a rejection
which many participants in the movement see as a knee-jerk
reaction to any new and unconventional idea. Ufologists regale
themselves with anecdotes about Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Louis
Pasteur and Charles Darwin, future science. "How much of
yesterday's heresy is today's science?" they ask knowingly.
The answer, unfortunately, is very, very little. Most scientific
heresies of the past fell by the wayside, forgotten in our
history books, and unnoticed by modern would-be Galileos.
Ufology must have better credentials than simply its rejection
by modern science. After all, in those 30 years since UFOs
appeared, modern science has undergone several generations of
radical revolutions in its comprehension of the Universe, from
the cosmic and macroscopic to the microscopic and subatomic
scales.
The suspicion with which modern "establishment science" regards
the UFO movement appears to be more closely connected with some
disturbing characteristics of "ufology" itself. Although many
negative feelings have, no doubt, been aroused by the crackpot
aura with which the flying saucer movement has long been
associated -- despite the best efforts of a few serious
ufologists -- other criticism has been leveled at the very
philosophical foundations of ufology. The inability of
ufological theorists to come to grips with these objections
represents the most serious roadblock to the acceptance of
ufology as a legitimate branch of modern science.
The criticisms are essentially these: ufology allegedly refuses
to play by the rules of scientific thought, demanding instead
special exemptions from time-tested procedures of data
verification, theory testing, and the burden of proof.
Ufologists assert the existence of some extraordinary stimulus
behind a small fraction of the tens of thousands of UFO reports
on file. The cornerstone of the alleged proof is the undisputed
observation that a small residue of such reports cannot at
present be explained in terms of prosaic (if rare) phenomena.
Yet this claim is invalid: it is clearly not logical to base the
existence of a positive ("true UFOs exist") on the grounds of a
hypothetical negative ("no matter what the effort, some UFO
reports cannot be explained").
Rumors, lies and fraud.
This latter fallacy can be called the "residue fallacy", and it
has been addressed by philosophers of science numerous times in
the past, apparently without effect on ufologists. Writing in
Science magazine in 1969, Hudson Hoagland expressed it as
follows: "The basic difficulty inherent in any investigation of
phenomena such as those of. .. UFOs is that it is impossible for
science ever to prove a universal negative. There will always be
cases which remain unexplained because of lack of data, lack of
repeatability, false reporting, wishful thinking, deluded
observers, rumors, lies, and fraud. A residue of unexplained
cases is not a justification for continuing an investigation
after overwhelming evidence has disposed of hypotheses of
supernormality, such as beings from outer space.... Unexplained
cases are simply unexplained. They can never constitute evidence
for any hypothesis."
It is not necessary to conjure up visions of blind, drunk and
dishonest UFO percipients to cast doubt on UFO reports. The vast
majority of UFO witnesses apparently are honest, sober and
intelligent people faced with an extraordinary perception. Yet
there are amazingly many obvious and subtle ways in which such
perceptions can be understandably generated. And there is bound
to be an artificial residue of unexplained cases, a residue
created purely by bizarre coincidences, by limitations on human
perception and memory, or by rare undocumented natural
occurrences. Additional sources of unexplained sightings could
be human activities which are never publicized due to military
security, to the illegality of the activity, or to plain
ignorance on the part of the human agents of the activity that
they had caused such a fuss. That residue will never be solved,
and no extraordinary stimulus need be referred to.
In a similar fashion, the existence of unsolved crimes , unfound
missing persons, unexplained aircraft or automobile accidents,
and similar all-too-familiar manifestations of our
less-than-perfect knowledge of events cannot be taken to prove
the need for the existence of some extraordinary criminals, some
extraordinary kidnappers, or some extraordinary traffic
saboteurs. "Unexplained cases are simply unexplained," to repeat
Hoagland's perceptive assertion. "They can never constitute
evidence for any hypothesis."
To dedicated ufologists, such a line of reasoning is denounced
as a confusion between IFOs ("identifiable flying objects") and
true UFOs. According to Dr J. Alien Hynek, whose Center for UFO
Studies in Evanston, Illinois, finds that at least 95 per cent
of all UFOs reported to it are in fact IFOs: "Experienced
investigators quickly recognize IFOs for what they are ... but
sometimes it takes hard work to unmask the masquerader."
Skeptics such as aviation journalist Philip J. Klass take
exception to Hynek's confidence and point to cases published by
his own center, cases which were solved only by strokes of
unexpected luck on the part of researchers. All too often, these
skeptics claim, the "hard work" prescribed by Hynek is absent --
and the "sheer luck" which allowed the unmasking of some tricky
IFOs masquerading as UFOs is not available. The result is that
many (if not, as skeptics claim, all) of the official UFOs on
the list of unsolved cases are still camouflaged IFOs.
Such a hazy line between IFOs (which provide only data about the
limitations of the reliability of eyewitness testimony) and UFOs
(which are alleged by ufologists to mark a potential
breakthrough in human science) is an appallingly weak basis for
the foundation of the new would-be science of ufology. That
weakness is accentuated by another highly suspicious and
non-scientific feature of ufology, an extremely cavalier
attitude towards verification of data.
Advertising tricks.
Ufology is still struggling to achieve scientific and popular
respectability, so it is perhaps understandable that public
pronouncements of ufologists would be primarily in the
persuasive rather than expository vein. It can thus be observed
that all the traditional tricks of the Madison Avenue
advertising executive's trade are followed: appeals to authority
("Jimmy Carter saw a UFO"; "our heroic astronauts have seen
UFOs"); assertions of the consequent ("the Universe is so large
that other civilizations must exist out there!"); the bandwagon
appeal ("Most Americans now believe in UFOs''); the
conspiratorial appeal ("The government knows all about it but is
hiding the truth"); and the salvation appeal ("The people from
space will come to bail us out of our self-indicted miseries").
It is not necessary at first to examine the actual validity of
such statements. What is important is to recognise them for what
they are: tactics of illogical persuasion.
At the same time, most of what is commonly published about
ufology is undeniably nonsense. UFO proponents such as Hynek are
as adamant in the criticism of the media exploitation of UFO
stories as any skeptic could be. For the publishing industry and
the news media, UFO stories are good business; they combine
human interest, comic relief, scary stories, and swipes at
government cover-ups and know-it-all scientists. It is based on
such misinformation (and not a little disinformation) that the
vast majority of the public has formed its attitudes about UFOs.
To say, then, that "most Americans believe in UFOs" is to
testify not to the scientific credentials of ufology but to the
effectiveness of the media mythmakers.
Few choose to look behind the myths. The much-touted "Jimmy
Carter UFO", for example, was never investigated by any of the
ufologists who flaunted it or by any of the newsmen who
advertised it -- they simply passed it on as a good story, a
useful anecdote. Yet when one skeptical young investigator named
Robert Sheaffer tracked the case down, he uncovered gross
inaccuracies in Carter's four-year-old recollections of the date
and location of the event, and also came up with testimony from
other witnesses which helped determine an entirely prosaic
solution to the account. Nevertheless, the "Jimmy Carter UFO" is
still constantly being referred to by UFO spokesmen who, due to
an unconscious media blackout of skeptical work such as
Sheaffer's, probably do not even know or care that it has been
investigated and "solved".
Another glaring example of the total disregard for authenticity
of evidence by most ufologists is the oft-repeated assertion
that "astronauts have seen them too". Dozens of accounts have
been collected of space pilots seeing and photographing UFOs;
more than 20 such stories were featured in Hynek's Edge of
Reality, a book which was billed as a "progress report" on the
state of ufology. Yet not one of these cases has any relevance
to "true UFOs", as they are for the most part frauds and hoaxes
conjured up by unscrupulous writers and UFO buffs (several
blatant photographic forgeries have been identified in these
stories), or misunderstandings by citizens concerning the
meaning of ordinary space jargon, or in a few cases, reports of
passing satellites which in no way appear to be extraordinary.
Yet with selective omission of explanatory data, with
exaggeration, misquotation, or even fabrication of alleged
"voice transcripts", and with deliberate accusations of
"government cover-up", such stories form a major pillar of the
public's "belief" in UFOs.
Hynek visited NASA's Houston space center in July 1976 and was
shown the original films and tapes involved in the most
publicized space UFO stories. He later told colleagues that he
deeply regretted including the UFO stories in his book without
verifying them, and that he was satisfied that no "true UFOs"
were among them. Referring to the astronaut-UFO stories in an
interview with Playboy in January 1978, Hynek testified that, "I
went to Houston and saw the photographs, and I must confess that
I was not impressed".
The "Carter UFO" and the "astronaut UFOs" underscore a key
problem in the acceptance of ufology as a science: ufologists in
general have not been as willing as Hynek to retract
endorsements of explained cases, and have preferred instead to
continually recirculate and embellish the same stories. The
authenticity of UFO reports, as portrayed in the popular press,
therefore remains highly questionable --and justly so.
Such a problem with the "disproof" of UFO evidence points to yet
another major weakness of the philosophical foundations of
ufology. The burden of proof, which customarily lies with the
claimants of supernormality (or, in a criminal trial, of the
guilt of the accused, who is "innocent until proven guilty"),
has been shifted to the skeptics, who are in the case of UFOs
required to disprove the evidence. In the Carter-UFO and the
astronaut-UFOs, it was the skeptics who investigated and solved
the cases -- while ufologists assumed the cases were authentic
until proven otherwise (and most still believe so).
And yet the rules of science are clear: extraordinary claims
demand extraordinary proof. The thesis of ufology is an
indictment against the ability of contemporary science to
explain the Universe, and it must prove such an indictment as
every other such proponent must prove it: the need for a
modification of our current model of reality must be established
beyond reasonable doubt.
The very foundation of ufology is contrary to this time-tested
procedure. For ufologjsts, the mere existence of unsolvable
cases is allegedly proof of the need to modify modern science.
For ufology, extraordinary reports can be considered to be valid
data until disproved; and, in the most devastating departure
from scientific methodology, ufologists reject the concept of
"falsifiability" of scientific theories.
No theory can be considered scientific until it can be
formulated so as to be disprovable, or falsifiable. That is, the
theory must explain a portion of the Universe in such a way that
further observations or experiments will either fail or conform
to the theory's predictions, or will conform to it (while,
preferably, not conforming to traditional predictions).
Einstein's prediction of the bending of star light observed near
the Sun during a total eclipse is a famous example of such a
procedure.
Yet after three decades of aimless speculation, no scientific
theories worthy of the name have been produced by ufology. It is
thus a sterile "science''. Every wild speculation is touted as a
"new theory", yet none of them makes predictions which would, by
not coming true, discredit the theory. Here again, the
processes of thought which characterize "ufology'' cannot be
classified as "scientific".
The most regrettable aspect of this current unscientific state
for "ufology'' is that it is not a judgment on the actual
validity of many of the published speculations about what might
be behind the "true UFO" sightings (if any exist). Alien
spacecraft could well be visiting Earth, and there are at least
a dozen valid reasons why "they'' might decide not to make overt
contact, while allowing Earthmen to catch glimpses of them. UFOs
might well represent some other phenomenon, such as "psychic
projections", "time machines", a terrestrial but undiscovered
civilization or life form, or many other similarly bizarre
possibilities. The only thing that can he said scientifically is
that none of these suggestions has been even suggested, much
less proved in any rigorous sense.
The pity is that if such eventualities should come to pass, and
the ufologists are proved "right' ', they will in all
probability have impeded rather than accelerated the acceptance
of that phenomenon by traditional science. This is because the
new theories will most likely be championed by those ufologists
already badly discredited by too many cries of "wolf!'', by too
many endorsements of what subsequently turned out to have been
hoaxes, and by too many anti-scientific assertions and claims.
They would be "right" only by accident, not by their own virtue.
What is ufology?
If ufology is not a science, what then is it? It might be
considered as a protest movement against the impersonality and
specialization of modern science, which has all but eliminated
the role of the "citizen-scientist'', the amateur investigator
who in the past contributed substantially to the development of
science through part-time dabbling. Belief in UFOs is also an
undeniably attractive "ego trip", a posturing of inside
information and secret lore, the possession of which puts its
intimates apart from and above the rest of the unimaginative
world. Such speculations demand more scientific attention of
sociologists.
Nor would it be fair to judge ufology by the quality and
quantity of the outright crackpots whom it attracts -- other
fields, such as medicine, religion, education and economics,
have certainly attracted crackpots as well. Yet it cannot be
overlooked that ufology seems to have attracted more than its
fair share of cranks, and that it has failed to police
adequately its own ranks in this regard.
Where is the "ufology" movement likely to be after another 30
years? Perhaps new evidence will finally appear which can stand
up to scientific scrutiny. Perhaps self-styled ufologists will
establish truly scientific standards of evidence, will accept
the burden of proof, will produce "falsifiable" theories, and
will seek to formulate their science on positive rather than
negative logic. Perhaps something significant will come out of
this after all.
Many skeptical observers join ufologists in hoping so, because
if any of the claims of ufology prove valid it would indeed rate
as a major scientific breakthrough, perhaps one of the most
important such events in human history (even if not, the UFO
movement would then "merely" be the most powerful public
delusion of the century, which is in itself well worthy of
sociological and psychological study). But in more cynical
moments, such skeptics fall back upon the famous quotation
attributed by Boswell to Samuel Johnson when he learned of the
news of a friend's second marriage. "Ahh," Johnson is quoted as
saying, "the
triumph of hope over experience.
----------------
James Oberg is a member of the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of claims of the Paranormal
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
Going On! ,>'?'<, |Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) |'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
---------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com