• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Understanding the dogmatic skeptic - a first hand account from a former skeptic

Free episodes:

First, let me give my appreciation for the thought and work that's you've put into this. Once things are hashed out a bit, I'd like to see this widely circulated. There's one thing at the moment though, that I think needs another look.

They are not unjustified in considering them together, because it is our fault for having shoved them in the same basket to begin with. Some UFO promoters, particularly those of the showman type, package all sorts of weirdness together, just like flavor varieties in the counter at an ice cream shop. Fate Magazine, for example, has a long history of featuring flying saucers side by side with ghosts, shrunken heads, psychics, bigfoot and reincarnation. Fate is by no means alone, the audience often shares those varied interests. MUFON, for instance has featured lectures on topics such as crop circles and remote viewing, and many sites, authors and conferences just lump them together under the broad category of the "paranormal."

What I'm trying to say, is the skeptics are right, and that a large segment of those interested in those topics are just lapping up the weird tales without requiring supporting evidence. That's a fundamental issue. UFOlogy for many people is just entertainment, and to them, what's most important is the constant delivery of new stories. Real science can't work that way. We have to do better first, by quitting the circus.

Thank you Sentry for your comments.

I agree with your above remarks. They reveal to me a distinction that I hadn't properly draw in my original post between things as they currently happen to be in a fair amount of ufology and much of the paranormal field in general--for the reasons you cite--and how things inherently could be in UFO studies if we (quoting you) "do better first, by quitting the circus."
 
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.
 
Skeptics don't control what science pursues. Science is messy and wild and uncontrolled but it always pursues good leads.

I've been neglecting work this morning so I'll just focus on unpacking the following sentence, as it might give some insight into the kind of skepticism of which we should be wary.

"Science is messy and wild and uncontrolled but it always pursues good leads."

I'd like to put this bluntly, but in doing so it's not my intent to offend or provoke. Please try to approach it in that regard.

That sentence--specifically the claim that science "always pursues good leads," expresses a kind of scientistic faith, an absolutism, an ideological belief that we're dealing with, not an all-too-human enterprise, but a crystal ball of unerring perfection.

("But in the same sentence I just wrote about science being messsy and wild..." Yes, but what the conjoining of these two mutually contradictory statements--"mess and wild and uncontrolled" and "always"--suggests to me is that internal contradictions that have yet to be surfaced. "So, why the harping on this one word?" Because it is in the details of meaning construction that our understanding so often gets thrown off. I'm as subject to it as anyone.)

Always implies complete knowledge, does it not? It suggests an almost super-human range of knowledge about the history of science. Archeology, psychology, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, evolution, going back 10, 20, 50, 80 years--there are no cases in the history of science in which promising leads were never followed up on, or ignored for a long period of time?

Of course there are.

What I'm detecting in that sentence I may have missed if I hadn't already spent many years as a skeptic debating and discussing paranormal and religious claims. Whether or not you actually subscribe to the following fallacy at some level of awareness is unknown to me, but it nevertheless it prompts me to add another entry into the dictionary of skeptic fallacies: Believing that science is more perfectly rational than it actually is; exaggerating and overestimating its various powers of self-correction, observation, etc.

Is this a case of conflating the idealized model of scientific rationality with reality?

Two more points:

1) Science is also not separate from its culture. The politics of funding, department politics, the inherent conservatism of the field, etc. all mitigate against perfect rationality. I assume you know this.

2) Saying "science...always pursues good leads" fall prey to a near or actual paradox. One way you might put this paradox: If a good lead isn't pursued this means that research is not done and hence not published. This begs the question of how you'd know about it in the first place. It's not impossible to discover unpursued leads, but the idea that anyone knows so much about science as to be able to say with the kind of self-assurance you did that "science...always pursues good leads" is not particularly credible.

Again, why all this analysis over one sentence? Your post's tone is so self-confident in its knowing, so absolute and decisive, that has the contrary effect to the one intended--it raises doubts.

The thing is, perhaps your overall assessment of the UFO field is correct. I still hold out that possibility. But I'm here to learn and grow in my knowledge and correct what are no doubt any number of errors in my own thinking on this subject.

[Edits were made on this to correct minor typos.]
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the easiest route to take in the topic of UFOs is the skeptics position. When the trail of evidence runs dry there's that point of victory where the skeptic can say aha! What's discouraging is the basis of the approach to the subject, to win, be right and therefore be king of the mountain. It reminds me of the "cold files" issue. People die a mysterious death, police, detectives all investigate. The file slowly moves to the back of the room because evidence has dried up. Then along comes DNA and suddenly cases reopen, new leads open, hell, sometimes people are released from prison for wrongly being accused. All because of this new science called DNA.
To say that the government has stopped looking for UFO's is a giant statement to make. We don't know. They may have come to the same conclusion that ufologist teeter on , that the available data is insufficient to continue it's efforts. They may have transfered that effort to NASA , using their scopes to locate potential home bases in a proactive action versus reactive response here on our planet. I find the whole notion of dismissal by the government "extreme thinking" considering our efforts in Defense and our constant vigilance in radar detection.
 
EricTheRed, I admire your passionate commitment to airing the evidence of what some ufologists refer to as 'trufos' for the benefit of the public at large. I personally doubt that people who have found comfort and shelter (from thought and reality) in skepticism will be interested in new attempts to change their minds. I immersed myself in reading the quality ufo research (mostly in books, shelves full) soon after the Phoenix Lights events in 1997. I began with the earliest books and continued up to the present, for years, well after I'd become persuaded that only successions of sightings of, and interactions with, actual anomalous craft (not ours) in the skies around the planet could account for the history assembled by the quality researchers. But no subject in the history of earth has been so managed, manipulated, and covered-up as this subject. The history of the coverup itself is among the most persuasive evidence that the phenomenon has been real and persistent. But I've given up on the effort to persuade other people about it, because only an investment of great quantitities of time actually reading the research can overcome the resistance of most people to this subject. And most people, especially these days, do not want to make that effort. The PTB -- US government, military, military-industrial complex, and security agencies, and their black-budget control and investigation of crashed ufos -- widely supported by the organized skeptics in the peanut galleries, and aided by the internet and youtube trivializations of the subject in blogs and hoaxed videos have succeeded in finally neutralizing the ufo subject matter, at least for the present.

Richard Dolan, in his recent book A.D. (After Disclosure) discusses the problem the PTB will have if/when disclosure is forced from outside (i.e., ET self-disclosure). I wondered along with him about how the PTB's mass media arm is going to summarize the history of ufos since the 1930s and the US government's own actions, non-actions, disinformation, and suppression of information? I offered a question for Dolan when he was a Paracast guest recently about whether he's been asked to consult by any government insiders in the determination of what must be presented and how to present it, but the question wasn't used, or perhaps he wasn't willing to answer it. He does speculate in A.D. that when that point comes it will be the career ufologists with numerous studies and books under their belts who will have to be relied upon to focus and present much of the historical information the public will demand. I think such a presentation of the history of the phenomenon, in this country and elsewhere, would require many weeks, even months, of nightly preempted broadcasting to satisfy public demand for an explanation of what's gone on over the last 65+ years, and to somehow justify its being hidden. It's almost fun to speculate on how one would break it all down if one were tasked with the scripting. A detailed chronological development would be necessary. Extensive visuals would be essential (and no doubt there are many of them we haven't yet seen). Do you think we'd finally get a look at all that 'gun-camera footage' referred to in FOIA-recovered documents from the first few decades? I hope it happens in my lifetime.

I think nothing will change in the current public discourse about this subject until there is a forced disclosure (intentional or accidental), and that might not happen for years or decades. But it is inevitable.

Nevertheless I commend your energy and intentions in attempting to make a difference that, unfortunately, many career ufologists have attempted to make through their well-researched publications in the past without success. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
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?
My 1975 UFO sighting is outlined here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/u-f-o-poll.14245/page-4#post-178325
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.
The distinction is one of context. Ufology is the subject matter in general ( the field as a whole ), and contains too many facets that science ( hard science ) isn't applicable to. On the other hand, the core subject matter is UFOs ( alien craft ), and hypothetically, assuming we could get one into a lab, there's nothing preventing the scientific study of one of those by hard science. However as I was saying before, if that happens, the science being applied will be that of established scientific disciplines ( engineers, chemists, physicists etc. ). There's no need to rebrand those scientists as "ufologists" simply because they're applying their respective fields of expertise to UFOs. In fact I think it would be a mistake to try, and that giving them as much independence as possible would be advantageous.
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.
It's likely that the boundaries of established science are still a matter of debate, so I take a position that is well on one side of the fence, and that is that science happens when and where the scientific method is applied that conform to standards recognized by the scientific community ( accredited educational institutions and established associations affiliated with professional scientists ). Outside that, opinions on what should or shouldn't count as science aren't going to change the status of a field.
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.
It seems you're actually saying the same thing as I am. We're both describing how established science might be applied to different facets of the field as opposed to calling the field as a whole a science unto itself. To quote from the USI article: "The study of ufology is an independent field of inquiry that is multidisciplinary in its approach, utilizing elements of science, history, religion, mythology, philosophy and anything else that can advance an understanding of the phenomenon."
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.
Not exactly. I'm referring more to established methods, which may or may not include the application of knowledge already obtained from such methods.
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?
The only reason not to try to study UFOs scientifically is the absence of sufficient scientifically valid evidence.
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.
The point is: Simply labeling a subject that isn't recognized by the scientific community as science, isn't going to gain it any scientific credibility. I'm not sure I can explain it any simpler or clearer than that. But if you still aren't clear, then please point out what about it ( specifically ) you find unclear.
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.
In the example above, the discipline being applied would be child psychology. To try to insist to a child psychologist that because the child was using crayons that Crayolaology should become some new branch of science unto itself is absurd. This kind of rationale will not garner any respect for ufology from the scientific community. What will garner respect among scientists for ufology is for to ufologists to show respect for scientists and acquire some valid scientific evidence. Why do I feel like it's me playing the part of the skeptic here?
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?
Agreed. Even encouraged, and preferably at arms length from ufology itself in order to minimize bias as much as possible.
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.
As I said at the start, agreeing to disagree rarely happens when discussing an issue with me. A rationale that addresses the issues and the reasons sufficiently enough to demonstrate my reasoning is faulty needs to be presented, otherwise your position is simply unsubstantiated. However I would be agreeable to tabling the discussion pending further reflection and perhaps pick it up again in the future.
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.
Basically correct, but as we've discussed, simply applying science to some specific aspect of a wider field doesn't suddenly turn the whole field into science, I trust we don't have to recycle all the reasons for that again.
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.
It would be a mistake to call UFOs themselves pseudoscience. Pseudoscience isn't about the what; it's about the how.
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.
While I share your sentiment, the reality is that there is a specific definition for pseudoscience and I firmly believe that providing ufology with a defensible position against that marginalizing label can only benefit the field. I also suspect that there will come a time when you find that this approach will serve you well. Imagine the next time you're discussing UFOs, and someone calls it a pseudoscience. You can immediately dispute it by saying:

"Actually, that's a misnomer, a pseudoscience is something that claims to be science but fails to meet accepted scientific standards, however the fact is, ufology makes no claim to being science, and therefore the definition of pseudoscience isn't applicable to the field."
Assuming they can find some specific example of someone claiming ufology is science, you can reply:

"Isolated examples of pseudoscience within a field do not suddenly turn a whole field into pseudoscience, otherwise medicine would be front and center on the chopping block."​

You might get a response asking how you know ufology doesn't consider itself to be science, after all it has no establishment from which a consensus can be obtained, and you can say:

"The Ufology Society International is a UFO interest group that has been around over 20 years, has over 2000 members in 22 countries, and does not claim ufology is a science, in fact it makes a point of making that absolutely clear. However it does advocate critical thinking and the use of recognized mainstream science where and when it's applicable.​

Take a little time to reflect on the strength ( and truth ) in taking this position. It requires no compromise of scientific standards when and where it can be applied, yet when hard science cannot be applied, it leaves the door open to serious academic pursuit by way of critical analysis and investigation, plus ( perhaps best of all ) it doesn't shut out the participation of the average person, many of whom are the experiencers themselves.
 
Last edited:
Lance, that was really great up to this part:
So a skeptic, (a real skeptic, many believers now follow a silly trend of identifying themselves as skeptics when they are not--I see some of that above), cannot say that UFO's are absolutely prosaic. But he can say that the evidence for UFO's as something non-prosaic is so weak as be laughable. I can't say that there is a zero percent chance that flying saucers are real but the chance appears to be vanishingly close to that.
You may believe that eyewitness accounts and non-scientific documentation may deserve to be laughed off as irrelevant, but that's strictly an opinion, and a short sighted one at that.
 
Last edited:
Skeptics don't control what science pursues....

In the entire canon of UFO "evidence" (99% or which is just witness testimony and this is AFTER throwing out the approx. 95% that even the believers admit is not worth anything) is there anything about which the average scientist (except maybe a historian, anthropologist, sociologist or some other field related to folklore) might say, "Hey, that looks promising...I'm gonna devote a bunch of time to that!"

It would take some new evidence unlike any of the wretched stuff thus far accumulated to get any traction there.
...
In a recent look I had at a classic case, the Tremonton film, I instantly found in just a casual first look at the file that most of what UFO believers say to sell the case is just plain wrong (I may do a blog entry on this). In many ways, the enthusiastic but piously flawed work of amateur UFO buffs has done more harm to the reputation of UFO's as a serious topic than any skeptic could ever do.

Ok, let's look at the Tremonton case then and explore this issue of tone at the same time.

Your absolute, confident dismissiveness is equal to the tone of the believer, in case you didn't realize that. You seem to be painting just as much a distorted picture of events as those who want so desperately to believe. That type of skepticism is non-productive, that whole "Phil Klass, I'm gonna mess with your career and prove you are wasting the gov't's odd dollars in Australia" type of attack, has not been a balanced approach. Should we be busy damning the scientist like McDonald just because they want to study the good leads?

Historically, that rabid skepticism for the sake of skepticism has made actual study near impossible, like with the Condon report where the fix was in before the study began. I don't see any science or practical, investigative thinking here. I see people desperately trying to assert their version of reality first, before investigation starts.

Consequently, I'm really curious about what is so obvious about the Trementon film? The film's provenance is good, as the man who shot the film certainly was able to tell the difference between birds and what, in his opinion, were anomalous objects performing maneuvers in the sky. When I look at the film I first think, 'birds'. But when these objects were first seen near Newhouse's car by family they were much closer than in the film and were described as rotating saucers - like two pie pans put together. And apparently the real 'science' you were referencing earlier saw this film as 'a good lead', invested a significant amount of time in the footage and reported back: anomalous objects flying in the sky.
The film was studied at the US Navy's photo lab at Anacostia (NPIC). Navy film experts made a frame-by-frame analysis that took over one thousand man-hours. They studied the motions of the objects, their relation to each other in the formation, the lighting of the objects, and every other piece of data they could find on the film. It was also studied for three months at the Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory of the Air Force Intelligence in 1952. The analysis, then classified Top Secret, stated:

This film could not be duplicated under simulated conditions. The objects appear to be a light source rather than reflected light. All the objects appear to be the same size and circular in shape. At a distance of five miles, with the movement perpendicular to the line of sight, the average velocity is 653.5 mph. Likewise, at 2.5 miles the average speed is 326.75 mph. The movement in flight appears to follow an elliptical or circular pattern, within the group.
While the objects are unidentified, the following possibilities have been eliminated:

1. Balloons
2. Aircraft
3. Birds

The image structure and maneuvers eliminates any type of aircraft. Microscopic examinations show that the objects are in focus and 1/6th to 1/10 the size of the full moon with the naked eye. Photogrammetric experiments have shown that the images cannot be associated with any type of bird observation at any distance.
ufo - UFOS at close sight: the Tremonton, Utah, UFO Color Film of July 2, 1952

I'm sure your familiar with these features of the file, along with the Roberston panel's forced dismissal of the file, despite evidence to the contrary. In fact the file is very complex including accusations of the gov't extracting key frames from the footage to make it appear more mundane. So what, in your cursory glance, was so obvious that all those wasted 1,000 man hours did not see right away, that intrigued Hynek, the military etc.? What's your take on this film?
 
Last edited:
Oh, i definitely agree with the cut and paste argument you make, as that's exactly what the Robertson Panel and Condon Comm. did as well - cut and paste what they wanted, excluded what was relevant, and held tight and fast to the main objective: dismiss, keep the public happy, ignore - paint over the whole damn thing as just seagulls. In the interview that Rupelt does with Newhouse after all was said and done, he definitely asserts that Newhouse was much closer to the objects and they were certainly not birds. All of UFO history, like reading the news, or going through your history text books, is a cut and paste event. There is no total, verifiable history, just the material recorded and whoever cherry picks it to create their version of events, as you do. As for changing information from interview to interview all we have to go in is what was recorded vs. what was dismissed by the interviewer.

I agree that witnesses get things wrong all the time. In this case there seems to be more than just any old witness. While I know that we can skeptically compare the observation of the pilot to the grade 2 kid, i also think that this type of thinking is also screwy to begin with. Yes, nothing may be as it appears, but when you have a recording, why on earth would it take 1000 hours to determine they weren't birds, were emitting light etc.? You are saying that science got the measurements wrong - jeez, that crappy science, it's all to blame for that 1% of evidence left over that we can't stamp out. So is science also irrelevant in this discussion when we can't use it to hammer the evidence down? I know that they went to the site and repeatedly shot seagulls and confirmed for themselves that they must have been gulls riding thermals. I can't say i've seen a lot of gulls ride thermals in such a manner as the Trementon material shows them, but then maybe i need to look more closely.

To be honest, i don't really have a belief system oriented around whatever the UFO phenomenon is, and that's even after seeing two up close saucers spinning in the sky above me and others, just a couple of telephone poles' height up in the sky. I can even doubt that when they zapped up into the starfield a few minutes later that they came from 'outer space.' I'm open minded, and open to possibilities. There's a lot of things i categorically will reject, but i do think that there's enough material and reports that are of such a nature, because of who the witness is, ground trace elements, radar, etc. that there's something there worth investigating and worth keeping an open mind about. I don't think that applying the term "believer" or "crackpot" etc. to witnesses, or those who seriously investigate and consider the phenomenon, does any good to the examination of it to determine what it is one way or the other. That's the tone part of the discussion. And it's that uber-skeptical, "UFO's Can Not Exist" approach that has actually thwarted any serious investigation over the course of its history, and that's a shame. It's a good thing we didn't keep dismissing microbes as existing isn't it?

Of great use is Randle's blog - your discussion there along with Randle's assemblage of the timeline and other commentators is pretty thorough material so i can thank you for that. I wish that there was more correcting of the record as well, or at least a clearing house to define more accurate histories. I'll go wade through that content, but it seems, that in the assemblage all we have confirmation of is strange film footage, reported witness testimony at various points which of course will differ based on the editor and the teller, and everyone looking backwards trying to piece it all together. No, it's not a great case. i can say that much. And if we start to dismiss those 99% witness reports then, you are right, there's nothing here to look at all, "moooove along ladies and germs - nothin' here to see at all." It's really a wonder it's talked about so much after all these decades, panels and committees.
 
ok, so while you are on this topic, aside from the class RB-47 that gets repeated every other podcast, what other cases are there that should be looked at more closely? Doesn't McMinnville get contested by the other photos on the film role with the ladder being suggestive of a possible hoax?

I think that everyone's read enough quotes from Condon to understand how the incredible push by higher powers to discount the entire phenomenon has always been the crucial objective and science was always secondary. The summative discussion that i remember includes that aside from Condon's overt dismissal, the actual report is more compelling and speaks to the need for more efforts invested into the search than what the formal declaration expounded.

Craig seems to have the answers for everything except RB-47 - is that true?

Do you think it's reasonable, that when we have what appears to be truly baffling events unfolding, reported, recorded that we should be so comfortable when others can assert so easily that they've solved them all? If anything it speaks to the lack of concrete evidence, or how consciousness and perception interact with unique stimuli to produce strange realities, or both, and that does say something on its own.
 
But I've given up on the effort to persuade other people about it, because only an investment of great quantitities of time actually reading the research can overcome the resistance of most people to this subject. And most people, especially these days, do not want to make that effort.

A number of good points in your post.

Fascinating about the Phoenix lights provoking you on a quest to understand more. I wonder how many other share your experience. Did you seem them yourself, or was it the case that that event was the trigger for your subsequent reading?

What among your readings would you say were the most influential for you or the most important for the curious member of the public? Most but not all of my reading about the subject has been online.

Regards,
-Eric
 
The way that UFO proponents reject the Condon study is completely ill-informed or dishonest or both. Condon himself, no doubt having been briefed by the military as to the crappy nature of the evidence, probably did go into the whole thing expecting little. He did treat the subject as beneath him. It probably was.

But the actual scientists doing the work like Hartmann and Craig were trying their best to examine the cases openly and thoroughly. Indeed UFO believers have no trouble bringing up their work when it pertains to the few unknowns that were studied (like RB-47 or the McMinnville photos). All of the work and evidence is there to see along with the conclusions. You rarely hear any discussion of the actual case investigations, only the public relations disaster of how Condon viewed UFO's.

Of course, when all of the Condon cases are laid out in front of you, it is easy to see how the conclusion of the Condon study is reasonable and supportable. Where's the compelling evidence of alien visitation? Which case should have lead to a different conclusion?

If anyone is interested in this topic, I highly recommend the book, UFOs – An Insider’s View of the Official Quest for Evidence, by Roy Craig. Craig's account shows, from my perspective, an honest and open attempt to find something.

Lance

The Condon report is a massive collection of explanations for everything UFOs aren't, and very little regarding what they are.
 
My 1975 UFO sighting is outlined here: U.F.O. poll | Page 4 | The Paracast Community Forums

Thank you for the link. I'll be reading it in a moment.


The distinction is one of context. Ufology is the subject matter in general ( the field as a whole ), and contains too many facets that science ( hard science ) isn't applicable to. On the other hand, the core subject matter is UFOs ( alien craft ), and hypothetically, assuming we could get one into a lab, there's nothing preventing the scientific study of one of those by hard science. However as I was saying before, if that happens, the science being applied will be that of established scientific disciplines ( engineers, chemists, physicists etc. ). There's no need to rebrand those scientists as "ufologists" simply because they're applying their respective fields of expertise to UFOs. In fact I think it would be a mistake to try, and that giving them as much independence as possible would be advantageous.

I think we've been dancing around the semantics of "as a science unto itself," and as result not achieving clarity on the nature or definition of a scientific discipline. Perhaps you'd agree with the following.

How do we determine what is a discipline and what not? (I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here, although historians and philosophers of science might have some good guidelines to help make that judgment.) It seems to me there are 4 components that could help decide the question of "a science unto itself"--assuming you mean by this what we're referring to conventionally when we say 'discipline' in science: 1) subject matter, 2) methods used. 3) the generation of new methods, experiments, questions, hypotheses, models, theories, etc.--i.e. it's knowledge-generating capacity, 4) time (disciplines don't arise overnight).

So, with this framework, I think you're correct in saying the study of UFOs is not at the moment a discipline, a "science unto itself." However, it seems reasonable to me that were certain conditions met like those above, it certainly could be over time. Sound reasonable?


The only reason not to try to study UFOs scientifically is the absence of sufficient scientifically valid evidence.

This seems confused to me. Isn't it the case that we can only acquire "scientifically valid evidence" by using scientific methods?


The point is: Simply labeling a subject that isn't recognized by the scientific community as science, isn't going to gain it any scientific credibility. I'm not sure I can explain it any simpler or clearer than that. But if you still aren't clear, then please point out what about it ( specifically ) you find unclear.

But I never made the claim that a mere relabeling will do the trick. Please reread my post.


In the example above, the discipline being applied would be child psychology. To try to insist to a child psychologist that because the child was using crayons that Crayolaology should become some new branch of science unto itself is absurd.

I never argued that Crayolaology could be considered a new branch of science. Please reread my post.

"...simply applying science to some specific aspect of a wider field doesn't suddenly turn the whole field into science, I trust we don't have to recycle all the reasons for that again.
While I share your sentiment, the reality is that there is a specific definition for pseudoscience and I firmly believe that providing ufology with a defensible position against that marginalizing label can only benefit the field. I also suspect that there will come a time when you find that this approach will serve you well. Imagine the next time you're discussing UFOs, and someone calls it a pseudoscience. You can immediately dispute it by saying:
"Actually, that's a misnomer, a pseudoscience is something that claims to be science but fails to meet accepted scientific standards, however the fact is, ufology makes no claim to being science, and therefore the definition of pseudoscience isn't applicable to the field."

Your position, as written, is self-refuting. If one is investigating UFOs, but not claiming to do so with scientific methods (i.e., critical thinking, rationality, method, objectivity, etc.), then there's really nothing left that could establish any credibility as a way to do actually conduct research. In other words, if you eschew science either in practice and/or as a label, you're inviting the very label you hope to escape.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to flesh these issues out with me. I'm most appreciative.

-Eric

 
To be honest, i don't really have a belief system oriented around whatever the UFO phenomenon is, and that's even after seeing two up close saucers spinning in the sky above me and others, just a couple of telephone poles' height up in the sky. I can even doubt that when they zapped up into the starfield a few minutes later that they came from 'outer space.' I'm open minded, and open to possibilities.

Have you by chance posted a complete report or description about this somewhere on the paracast? If not, I'd like to ask you about it.
 
from
An Analysis of the Condon Report
on the Colorado UFO Project
P.A. Sturrock
Center for Space Science and Astrophysics,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4025



The facts that Condon and some members of his staff had secret meetings with some members of the Central Intelligence Agency, that the CIA contributed to the work of the Colorado Project, and that these facts are not revealed in the Condon Report, raise troubling questions. If Condon and some members of his staff received secret briefings from the CIA, did they also receive secret briefings from the Air Force and perhaps from other agencies? If they did receive secret briefings from the Air Force, can one accept at face value Condon's statement (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 8) that "The contract provided that the planning, direction and conclusions of the Colorado project were to be conducted wholly independently of the Air Force"? If there were no secret briefings, why was it necessary to arrange Air Force secret clearance for some members of the Project staff? Was there a "hidden agenda" for the Colorado Project? Would knowledge of the hidden agenda, if it existed, help one to understand the gross mismatch between Condon's summary and the work of his own staff? Why did Condon attach so much more weight to the work of Merritt, whom he met through the good offices of the CIA, than he did to the work of Hartmann, who was a member of the staff of the Colorado Project? Finally, given the importance attached by the scientific community to the subsequent review of the Condon Report by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, what is one to make of the presence at a meeting early in the project between Condon and his staff and CIA staff, of a scientist identified in the CIA record as "ex-director of the National Academy of Sciences"?

It is conceivable that these concerns are groundless, that there were no secret meetings other than those already referred to, and that these had no impact whatever on the policy guiding the conduct of the Colorado Project. It may be that the discrepancy between Condon's summary and the work of his own staff was the result of an innocent lack of activity and lack of perception on Condon's part. Nevertheless, to repeat an earlier quotation from Condon, "where secrecy is known to exist, one can never be absolutely sure that he knows the complete truth" (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 522).

Table of Contents for "Analysis of the Condon report"
 
Back
Top