The Unsorted BBS Collection/thegreatunsorted.tar/thegreatunsorted/texts/txtfiles_misc/debunk.ufo

Text File | 1990-04-30 | 13KB | 215 lines

THE FAILURE OF THE "SCIENCE"
OF UFO-DEBUNKING

by I. Scott

Reprinted from the International
UFO Reporter_ by permission of The
J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO
Studies

----------------------------------


An article in the Fall 1986 issue of _The Skeptical Inquirer_ asserts that
some CSICOP members "have argued persuasively that the study of Unidentified
Flying Objects is not a science."

Is this correct? How does one establish whether or not something is a
science?

Science is defined as a branch of study concerned with the observation and
classification of facts. It is divided into major and minor branches
depending on the amount of information contained in the subject. For
example, the study of physical phenomena is physics. The study of the
respiratory system of a parasite species would not be a major branch of
science. Nonetheless data about it could be published in scientific journals
under various subjects such as parasitology. Thus, since its study is
accepted in the scientific literature, it can be considered a minor
scientific branch and is a science.

A criterion that determines whether a subject is scientifically accepted is
whether original, reviewed research papers on it exist in scientific
journals (the scientific literature). In the case of UFO study, the paper
would also need to indicate the possibility that not all UFOs are IFOs. A
general guide to what constitutes the scientific literature could be those
publications listed in the _Science Citation Source Index_.

To test the hypothesis that study of the UFO phenomenon is not a science, I
submitted one original research article and two abstracts on aspects of the
UFO phenomenon to scientific societies. All were readily accepted.

Thus, study of the UFO phenomenon has been accepted in the scientific
literature and is a science. Further confirmation of this is Peter
Sturrock's 1976 poll of the American Astronomical Society showing that 80
percent of the members agreed that the UFO phenomenon deserves scientific
attention.

A different view is taken by UFO debunkers. An example of their argument is
expressed in a 1979 _New Scientist_ essay, "The Failure of the `Science' of
Ufology," by James Oberg. Oberg writes that "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...Ufology 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."

Oberg refers to the "residue fallacy." He says, "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 the
hypothesis of supernormality..."

Oberg's reasoning is wrong on several counts. Although some residues may not
have much usefulness, from other residues have arisen such concepts as a
spherical earth, heliocentric solar system, Einstein's theories, the quantum
theory, evolution theory, sanitation and immunology. "Out of sight, out of
mind" is not an appropriate scientific response to unexplained data. A
recent view of scientific advancement is expressed: "...anomalies
accumulate; these can be ignored, but only for a while. At this point,
someone may find a different method of attack..." (_Encyclopaedia
Britannica_). Also, empirical observation is accepted scientifically. For
example, meteors were described before scientists believed that rocks could
fall from the sky. Even if all UFOs are IFOs, it is critical, in view of the
recently acquired human ability for self-destruction, to examine why such
widespread phenomena occur.

Oberg's article contends that the evidence that UFOs can be explained
prosaically is "overwhelming." But the index of the government-financed
Condon study showed that 23 of the 59 cases the committee examined were
unexplained. This is underwhelming support for Oberg's supposition,
especially when it appears that some explanations were vague and some cases
easily solved. In addition, in _Project Blue Book Special Report #14_,
commissioned by the Air Force to the Batelle Memorial Institute, it appears
that over 20 percent of the reports the Air Force investigated from mid-1947
to 1952 were classified as unknowns.

Another Oberg allegation is that "in the most devastating departure from
scientific methodology Ufologists reject the concept of `falsifiability' of
scientific theories." Yet the idea of hypothesis falsifiability itself is
questionable, for example: "Falsification was a rational but, in its crudest
form, an untenable alternative...of the concept of a crucial experiment..."
(For a discussion see the Encyclopaedia Britannica). In addition, although
people have been exposed to the UFO concept for only about 40 years and it
has taken tens of thousands of years for humanity to accept such concepts as
the heliocentric solar system, and although we may have less understanding
of the possible UFO phenomenon than an amoeba has of the Big Bang, and
although there may be more than one kind of unexplainable UFO, it is,
nevertheless, possible to test hypotheses.

For example, one might hypothesize that those who believe in UFOs would be
more likely to see them than nonbelievers would be, because the believers
think UFOs exist (termed wishful thinking in the Oberg article). From this
hypothesis one would predict that UFO observers would statistically come
from the population of believers.

But a representative sample (1575 people in the 1966 Gallup poll discussed
in the Condon report) showed that sighters did not differ from nonsighters
with respect to education, region of the country, age, or sex; however, age,
sex and education all appeared related to whether UFOs were considered to be
real or imaginary. Thus, the hypothesis that people see UFOs because they
are believers has been statistically falsified. (The percent of sighters
believing that UFOs were real was greater than that of non-sighters;
however, as the Condon reported mentioned, "...causal relations are
unexplored, we do not know whether seeing is believing, or believing is
seeing." These data would need to have been collected before the sightings
to be of use and even then factors such as discussed in Budd Hopkins' works
might cause inaccuracies).

One can mathematically test the "residual fallacy" hypothesis. IF
unexplained UFO sightings are caused by lack of information or inaccurate
perceptions, then with more information and better observers the number of
unexplained sightings should decrease. But the results of _Project Blue Book
Special Report #14_ (3201 reports selected from around 7200) showed that the
highest report category (excellent, E) had a higher percentage (33.3
percent) of unknowns than the poor category (16.6). In addition 38 percent
of the E unknown sightings were by military compared to around 1/4 in the
poor category. Thus, this hypothesis has been falsified by the results of a
large study.

Another common hypothesis is that UFOs are really known but misidentified
objects. Thus, one would expect that, in general, the characteristics of
UFOs would match conventional objects. For example a certain percent of
conventional flying objects are aircraft having a conventional lighting
arrangement and a certain percent are meteors. So, using combined
information, one would expect the frequencies of such characteristics to be
the same in the two groups. This hypothesis was tested in _Project Blue Book
Special Report #14_. Here the frequencies of several UFO/IFO characteristics
were examined using the chi square. In five of six categories there were
significant levels of p<.01, which mathematically falsifies this hypothesis.

Perhaps because the investigators didn't like this conclusion, they next
tried a controversial procedure of excluding the astronomical sightings from
only the knowns class. Still, significant differences existed in five of
these six categories. Although the study had experimental-design
deficiencies, this kind of examination with good reported data could be used
for hypothesis-testing (Maccabee, _Historical Introduction to Project Blue
Book Special Report #14_). Also, research such as the IFO work done by Jenny
Randles provides testable hypotheses.

Another of many factors that provide data for hypothesis testing is sonic
booms. One would hypothesize that if "believers" make up UFOs, they should
also make up sonic booms to accompany them. But the Condon Report states
that "the reported total absence of sonic booms from UFOs in supersonic
flight and undergoing rapid accelerations or intricate maneuvers,
particularly near the earth's surface, cannot be explained on the basis of
current knowledge. On the contrary, intense sonic booms are expected under
such conditions." Thus, this hypothesis has been falsified.

Such hypothesis-testing can indicate areas for further exploration. For
example, in instances of possible truly unexplained phenomena, these data
might be used to examine such characteristics as passage through the air to
investigate whether some UFOs may be holographic projections, or information
that can be transferred into the minds of more than one witness
simultaneously.


Another aspect reported in UFO observations is the absence of an
understandable propulsive system. The hypothesis of an unknown possible
propulsive system could be tested by a statistical comparison with IFOs,
such as of reported sounds. If there are significant differences, additional
hypotheses might be tested with appropriate experimental designs. Theories
might include the possibilities that humans are not sensitive to everything
in their environment; thus, evidence such as the phenomenon's possible
ability to disappear, reappear, and not show a propulsive system might
result from its having the ability to enter and withdraw from human sensory
fields.

In addition, since the physical properties that result in life (atomic
combinations, atoms, sub-atomic particles, waves, energy) are not known and
with quantum theory limitations may not be currently explainable, one should
consider the possibility that forms of life might exist that are extremely
different from earth life and not bound by such factors as gravitation and
air friction.

New theories, logic, methodology, and social changes may be important in UFO
studies. For example, quantum mechanics introduces people to such concepts
as observer-dependent phenomena, an observer-created universe, the idea that
what an observer does in the future defines what happens in the past, the
Bell inequality, faster-than-light signaling, and the questioning of the
idea of cause and effect. All of these ideas may be important to the UFO
phenomenon.

For example, the idea of multiple universes provides the theoretical
possibilities for other life forms. One characteristic of the human form of
life is negative entropy; with an external energy force it can homogenize
rather than disperse. This characteristic might be examined in quantum
experiments. The thesis of an observer-created reality could be used to
hypothesize that UFOs may be created by humans. If the speed of light is not
limiting, it might be possible to transfer information across the universe
instantaneously. Thus the UFO phenomenon might represent a form of
information transfer.

Oberg's _New Scientist_ essay concludes, "...if any of the claims of Ufology
prove valid it would indeed rate as a major scientific breakthrough, perhaps
one of the most important..." True. When the Condon Committee says of one of
the cases it investigated that "all factors...geometric, psychological, and
physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary
flying object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter,
and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses," it is clear
that further scientific study of the UFO phenomenon is warranted.