You're welcome, and if you should feel like contributing articles for the website, please let me know.
Exactly, and I was expecting that to happen, but you recognizing it so quickly is encouraging.
Actually, sort of, but not necessarily. Scientific credentials don't necessarily make one better equipped to study and evaluate the UFO phenomenon. In fact brilliant scientists ( like Edward Condon ) have done more damage to ufology than most of the tin-foil hat wearers combined. I've also seen well informed ufologists with no scientific credentials do a better job of discussing the issues than any scientist without a ufology background. So what I'm saying is that well informed ufologists ( who may or may not also be scientists ), should be the ones to lay down the foundations for ufology as a field of interest and study ( not as a science ), and when real science can to be done, then have real scientists apply their professional expertise to the evidence.
Good point. As I said at the outset, we were coming at this from the shallow end of the pool, so I was anticipating ( and hoping ) you would bring these issues up, thus providing an opportunity to elaborate. The wide spectrum of subject matter covered by ufology is only one factor that sets it apart from hard science, but let's consider it in some further detail. The vast majority of work published within the bounds of ufology consists of non-scientific collections of stories, documentaries, cultural works, and unscientific ( but interesting ) theories based on mythology and/or pop-science.
On the other hand, hard science is based largely on hard evidence for which the scientific method can be readily applied. So the fact that hard science also has a historical and social facet becomes secondary. The Geologist has a ready supply of rocks to slice and perform experiments on that fall completely within the bounds of the scientific method. The astronomer has a sky full of stars and other objects to train their telescopes on night after night after night. Contrast that with ufology, the evidence for which is some sort of elusive and transient phenomena accounted for in reports substantiated largely by questionable evidence. Last but not least there is no foundation for "scientific ufology" that is accepted by the scientific establishment, therefore it's simply a fact that ufology is not a science and the work it produces isn't recognized as science.
So the next question is: "Should ufology be considered a science?" The answer is, "No." and the reason ( in addition to the above ) is that apart from its status now, the very nature of the subject matter doesn't lend itself to the scientific method, and this gets us into the subject of how the words "UFO" and "ufology" are defined. There has been a lot of debate on this issue and for some background I once again refer you to the links in my initial response. To put the problem in a nutshell: The word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft, and ufology is the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. So how do we apply the scientific method to the full array of subject matter and activities that makeup the total of ufology as a field? We can't.
None of the above prevents science from being done within the field as a whole, but the fact is that the field as a whole is defined not by the science that is done within it, but by the experience of the phenomena itself, which is of some sort of alien craft coming into our range of perception and/or detection. The "scientific study of UFOs" is like saying, "The scientific study of the Lunar Lander", and those studying it should be called Lunar Landerists, and they should have a science all their own, but in the case of ufology, we don't even have any "Lunar Lander" to study. At best the scientific study of UFOs is a pursuit, and if sufficient evidence should be secured that real science can be applied to, then it won't be ufologists we need, but specialists like spectrographic analysts, engineers, physicists, chemists, and so on; people who are real scientists, and preferably at arms length from ufology to eliminate bias.
Right. However as I attempted to illustrate above, such science would take place within the broader scope of ufology and be performed by scientists within their respective fields of expertise, preferably at arms length from the influence of ufology organizations and politics. This could be difficult since such scientists might be employed by ufologists to handle the studies, but they should be as independent as possible. The resulting scientific reports would then be filed in our ufology library under Ufology Studies ( as opposed to cultural activities ), then under the sub-headings of Investigation > Case Studies > Evidence > Scientific Evidence.
There will always be detractors who make unfounded proclamations for the purpose of marginalizing their target of choice. The question is how defensible is our position compared to theirs, and the position that ufology isn't a science and shouldn't be considered a science unto itself is highly defensible. It basically takes the wind out of any pseudoscience argument leveled by skeptics, because in essence we're agreeing with their position. However being too broad a field to be jammed into a scientific paradigm doesn't necessarily make it unworthy of academic pursuit, and by working with real scientists when possible rather than trying to compete with them for a share of their spotlight, I think we'll actually earn more respect from them.
What I was getting at in the quoted sentence above should be coming into focus now, but if not, please identify what part in particular you find unclear.
The difference between hard science and ufology is outlined fairly well enough above; but to make it even more clear, what we're looking at is a balance of scales where science on one side is backed by the weight of verifiable scientifically valid empirical evidence upon which the scientific method can be applied, and ufology on the other which lacks an appreciable amount of such evidence, but includes the weight of so-called "soft science" ( history, culture, journalism etc. ).
To go a step further, we could even take the spirit of your argument and say OK then, if the only criteria for labeling something a science is that it can be studied scientifically, then practically anything could be called some sort of science. We could have the science of Children's Crayolaology, Spaghetti Twirlology, Stupid Pet Trickology, and while we might even be able to create some sort of defensible argument for those things ( I don't know what ), for the reasons already stated, I prefer the approach of employing credible scientists who are already accepted by the scientific community to handle the scientific analysis of evidence at arms length, and I suggest that in a side by side comparison of such studies, the study by independent accredited and recognized scientists is generally going to be considered more convincing than one done by self-proclaimed UFO scientists operating under a pseudoscientific banner of ufology.
You're welcome, and if you should feel like contributing articles for the website, please let me know.
Exactly, and I was expecting that to happen, but you recognizing it so quickly is encouraging.
Actually, sort of, but not necessarily. Scientific credentials don't necessarily make one better equipped to study and evaluate the UFO phenomenon. In fact brilliant scientists ( like Edward Condon ) have done more damage to ufology than most of the tin-foil hat wearers combined. I've also seen well informed ufologists with no scientific credentials do a better job of discussing the issues than any scientist without a ufology background. So what I'm saying is that well informed ufologists ( who may or may not also be scientists ), should be the ones to lay down the foundations for ufology as a field of interest and study ( not as a science ), and when real science can to be done, then have real scientists apply their professional expertise to the evidence.
Good point. As I said at the outset, we were coming at this from the shallow end of the pool, so I was anticipating ( and hoping ) you would bring these issues up, thus providing an opportunity to elaborate. The wide spectrum of subject matter covered by ufology is only one factor that sets it apart from hard science, but let's consider it in some further detail. The vast majority of work published within the bounds of ufology consists of non-scientific collections of stories, documentaries, cultural works, and unscientific ( but interesting ) theories based on mythology and/or pop-science.
On the other hand, hard science is based largely on hard evidence for which the scientific method can be readily applied. So the fact that hard science also has a historical and social facet becomes secondary. The Geologist has a ready supply of rocks to slice and perform experiments on that fall completely within the bounds of the scientific method. The astronomer has a sky full of stars and other objects to train their telescopes on night after night after night. Contrast that with ufology, the evidence for which is some sort of elusive and transient phenomena accounted for in reports substantiated largely by questionable evidence. Last but not least there is no foundation for "scientific ufology" that is accepted by the scientific establishment, therefore it's simply a fact that ufology is not a science and the work it produces isn't recognized as science.
So the next question is: "Should ufology be considered a science?" The answer is, "No." and the reason ( in addition to the above ) is that apart from its status now, the very nature of the subject matter doesn't lend itself to the scientific method, and this gets us into the subject of how the words "UFO" and "ufology" are defined. There has been a lot of debate on this issue and for some background I once again refer you to the links in my initial response. To put the problem in a nutshell: The word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft, and ufology is the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. So how do we apply the scientific method to the full array of subject matter and activities that makeup the total of ufology as a field? We can't.
None of the above prevents science from being done within the field as a whole, but the fact is that the field as a whole is defined not by the science that is done within it, but by the experience of the phenomena itself, which is of some sort of alien craft coming into our range of perception and/or detection. The "scientific study of UFOs" is like saying, "The scientific study of the Lunar Lander", and those studying it should be called Lunar Landerists, and they should have a science all their own, but in the case of ufology, we don't even have any "Lunar Lander" to study. At best the scientific study of UFOs is a pursuit, and if sufficient evidence should be secured that real science can be applied to, then it won't be ufologists we need, but specialists like spectrographic analysts, engineers, physicists, chemists, and so on; people who are real scientists, and preferably at arms length from ufology to eliminate bias.
Right. However as I attempted to illustrate above, such science would take place within the broader scope of ufology and be performed by scientists within their respective fields of expertise, preferably at arms length from the influence of ufology organizations and politics. This could be difficult since such scientists might be employed by ufologists to handle the studies, but they should be as independent as possible. The resulting scientific reports would then be filed in our ufology library under Ufology Studies ( as opposed to cultural activities ), then under the sub-headings of Investigation > Case Studies > Evidence > Scientific Evidence.
There will always be detractors who make unfounded proclamations for the purpose of marginalizing their target of choice. The question is how defensible is our position compared to theirs, and the position that ufology isn't a science and shouldn't be considered a science unto itself is highly defensible. It basically takes the wind out of any pseudoscience argument leveled by skeptics, because in essence we're agreeing with their position. However being too broad a field to be jammed into a scientific paradigm doesn't necessarily make it unworthy of academic pursuit, and by working with real scientists when possible rather than trying to compete with them for a share of their spotlight, I think we'll actually earn more respect from them.
What I was getting at in the quoted sentence above should be coming into focus now, but if not, please identify what part in particular you find unclear.
The difference between hard science and ufology is outlined fairly well enough above; but to make it even more clear, what we're looking at is a balance of scales where science on one side is backed by the weight of verifiable scientifically valid empirical evidence upon which the scientific method can be applied, and ufology on the other which lacks an appreciable amount of such evidence, but includes the weight of so-called "soft science" ( history, culture, journalism etc. ).
To go a step further, we could even take the spirit of your argument and say OK then, if the only criteria for labeling something a science is that it can be studied scientifically, then practically anything could be called some sort of science. We could have the science of Children's Crayolaology, Spaghetti Twirlology, Stupid Pet Trickology, and while we might even be able to create some sort of defensible argument for those things ( I don't know what ), for the reasons already stated, I prefer the approach of employing credible scientists who are already accepted by the scientific community to handle the scientific analysis of evidence at arms length, and I suggest that in a side by side comparison of such studies, the study by independent accredited and recognized scientists is generally going to be considered more convincing than one done by self-proclaimed UFO scientists operating under a pseudoscientific banner of ufology.
You had mentioned your own encounter in a previous post. I'd like to know more about it. Have you previously posted your account to the paracast forums?
The issue we're dancing around is the general relationship between science and the study of UFOs, and more specifically whether UFOs can be studied scientifically, and, whether UFO studies could be its own specialization in science. I see little functional difference between the latter two questions.
After reflecting on our discussion and reading Heidi's helpful posts, I'm now of the view that there's no basis for claiming that UFOs can't be studied scientifically. My initial impression that they could be studied follows from the simplest possible basis: Natural phenomena can be studied scientifically. UFOs are natural phenomena (even though there might be a complex interplay at times between human psychology and exterior manifestations of the UFO phenomena). Ergo, they can be studied scientifically. I see no reason why this basic scheme is in any way undermined by anything I've learned thus far.
Any disagreements on this issue appear to come down to secondary issues of how
well science might be able to study UFOs. Related questions include who should be studying UFOs, how we might improve methods in UFO study, and whether improvements will help achieve our ultimate goal of understanding the true nature of this mystery.
You did make several points that I'd like to address because in doing so I think it might clear the air of some misconceptions.
1) You write both that "...the very nature of the subject matter doesn't lend itself to the scientific method" and "None of the above prevents science from being done within the field as a whole..." You seem to make qualifications around these two statements, but I'm nevertheless left with the impression of a direct contradiction. I'm all ears if you care to enlighten me as to what I've missed.
2) I'm not sure what relevance your example of the lunar lander has to whether we can study UFOs scientifically. One needn't have a sample literally in hand to study it with scientific means. Empiricism in science doesn't mean "being able to touch." It refers to how reality "out there" is a check on our descriptions, modeling, and theories of it. That reality can be apprehended through all senses and through intermediaries of instrumentation.
3) You define ufology as "the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs." From this you conclude, without providing a reason that I can see, that we can't apply scientific methods to it. On its face this is puzzling since, for example, any gathering of ufologists can be studied by sociologists. Abduction accounts can be studied by psychologists. Whereas mythology and religion can be studied by scholars of religion. Whether we call this latter research and analysis science is less important than the point that rational methods can be applied for the purpose of understanding, which is ultimately our goal here.
4) Regarding your paragraph beginning with "The difference between hard science and ufology..." I suggest that you're comparing apples and oranges to some extent, and to some extent not. In that paragraph you reference "verifiable" and "valid empirical evidence." You're referring here to the body of knowledge in science of course. The body of knowledge in UFO studies (to be clear, by "UFO studies" I'm referring to the study of ufo objects themselves, whatever they are) is, as you know, on less certain ground. Its data is muddier for sure. However, science is not just a body of established knowledge. It's a method for acquiring knowledge of the unknown. And in this sense both the UFO phenom. shares will all other scientific unknowns the characteristics of, well, being unknown, of having varying degrees of knowability, of being investigated and understood to various degrees. No doubt the UFO question is harder than many others in science. But is that a reason to not try?
5) "To go a step further, we could even take the spirit of your argument and say OK then, if the only criteria for labeling something a science is that it can be studied scientifically, then practically anything could be called some sort of science." I'm not clear what your point is here. We could indeed study these things scientifically if we wanted to. Description, theory, observation, data collection--how these couldn't be applied in these cases is not clear. They may or may not be trivial exercises. It depends on the hypothesis and theory involved. If all one is doing is counting the number of times a child uses a blue crayon as opposed to a red and trying to explain why, this might not be an earth shattering bit of understanding. If on the other hand you're asking questions about child development and color and complexity and content of shape, frequency of drawing, emotional response to drawing, etc--this could be a substantial undertaking with potentially very interesting results. More puzzling in your examples is the implication that the seemingly small or trivial things are of dubious value. On the contrary, much of science works in hyper-specializations.
6) "Last but not least there is no foundation for "scientific ufology" that is accepted by the scientific establishment, therefore it's simply a fact that ufology is not a science and the work it produces isn't recognized as science."
Whether the scientific establishment doesn't recognize the study of UFOs as a science is irrelevant to the question of whether science might actually be used to study UFOs. Agreed?
7) Lastly, I appreciate your desire to get around some of the problems of the study of UFOs by proposing that UFO study not even be labeled as scientific in order to avoid the label of pseudoscience. I don't find this convincing though for multiple reasons. This may indeed have to be a case of agreeing to disagree.
Here's probably my final take on it, unless you can introduce new reasons or evidence.
If scientific, rational, and critical thinking methods are used, then the demoting label of pseudoscience can't logically be applied to the
method.
If UFOs, the object of study themselves, no matter how they are studied, are viewed as a pseudoscience, then no study of any type or labeling or avoidance of labeling will change that. And if our goal anyway is achieving understanding, then this shouldn't concern us.
I'm certain there's a faction of skepticism that is open to the scientific study of UFOs and would see no point in labeling such study pseudoscience. Skepticism is not monolithic. (I hope I haven't contributed to this misperception.)
Conclusion, it's time we cleaned house in ufology.
