Article/Document:
What Kind of Science Is The Study Of Unidentified Flying Objects?
Mark Cashman, The Temporal Doorway
original source | fair use notice
Summary: One of the complaints frequently raised by those who are skeptical of the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) as an objective physical phenomenon is the nature of UFO data and the method by which UFOs are investigated. These complaints are based on a specific view of science and its data which is not necessarily appropriate to phenomena like UFOs. This is not to suggest, in any way, that UFOs are not amenable to scientific study. It simply means that the methods which work in one field of science are not necessarily appropriate to another.
Introduction
One of the complaints frequently raised by those who are skeptical of the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) as an objective physical phenomenon is the nature of UFO data and the method by which UFOs are investigated. These complaints are based on a specific view of science and its data which is not necessarily appropriate to phenomena like UFOs. This is not to suggest, in any way, that UFOs are not amenable to scientific study. It simply means that the methods which work in one field of science are not necessarily appropriate to another.
Science is an error-correcting method for developing knowledge. Unlike mysticism, which accepts intuition and revelation without comparison to real events or real objects, science rigorously requires such ties. Generally, the ideal scientific process follows a procedure:
Observe something which needs explaining (the observation).
Formulate a mechanism which explains it (the hypothesis).
Determine characteristics which differentiate an observation consistent with the hypothesis from one which is inconsistent with the hypothesis (the discriminator).
Formulate an experiment or an observation which will identify if the discriminator is present.
Perform the experiment or observation.
Record and publish the results for comment and attempted reproduction by others. If the discriminator is confirmed, then the hypothesis may be considered correct, otherwise it is considered incorrect.
The self-correcting nature of science comes from step 6, which allows others to comment on the entire process, or attempt to reproduce the results of step 5, and then publish their own results.
Obviously, there is nothing in this procedure which prevents its applications to UFOs or any other phenomenon.
The Dispute
There are those who claim that UFOs do not exist as an objective and distinct physical phenomenon, and that reports of UFOs cannot be considered as evidence for UFO existence, or as information about the properties of a UFO phenomenon. Generally, they assert that all UFO reports are the result of misperception, hallucination and hoax (the MHH hypothesis).
This is the hypothesis. The observation which leads to it is the reporting of UFOs. What are UFOs? According to the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former astronomical consultant to the Air Force on UFOs, and founder of the Center for UFO Studies,
"[the] UFO Report [is] a statement by a person or persons judged responsible and psychologically normal by commonly accepted standards, describing a personal visual or instrumentally aided perception of an object or light in the sky or on the ground and / or its assumed physical effects, that does not specify any known physical event, object, or process or any psychological event or process [even after examination by qualified persons]..."[footnote 1]
This implies that there are reports which do not survive the specified filter - these are termed IFO (Identified Flying Object) reports. Prior to applying the filter, we have reports of an indeterminate nature (they may be UFOs or IFOs), which I refer to as "initial reports". The hypothesis which states that UFO reports are the result of an objectively existent physical phenomenon is what I call the OEH (Objective Existence Hypothesis).
The statement of the criteria for defining something as a UFO to some extent makes it impossible to subsequently claim the MHH hypothesis in its original form, since the purpose of the filter is to eliminate reports which meet the MHH criteria. And there is indeed a significant universe of reports which survive the filter - between 5 and 30% depending on the study, and the category of the observation with regard to angular size, apparent proximity, physical effects, etc.
Scientifically, one could normally claim that these consistent results refute the MHH. However, MHH proponents then go on to make another layer of claims against the OEH.
UFO reports are typically anecdotal. Anecdotes are not scientific data. Therefore, the study of UFOs is not scientific.
UFO observations are non-repeatable. Only repeatable observations are amenable to scientific study. Therefore the study of UFOs is not scientific.
UFOs are investigated by non-professional investigators without funding. Scientific research requires professional researchers, therefore the study of UFOs is not scientific.
UFO anecdotes are corrupted by non-professional investigators who are biased toward finding that the OEH hypothesis is confirmed, and that the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) or paranormal hypothesis (PNH) accounts for the data better than the MHH. Scientific research requires unbiased investigators, therefore the study of UFOs is not scientific.
UFO investigators are not familiar with, experienced with or trained in methods for uncovering hoaxes, hallucinations, and misperceptions. Only "skeptical" investigators [read: "debunkers"] have this knowledge and attitude. Since this is required for the scientific study of UFOs, the study of UFOs is not scientific.
Since these claims allow us to further investigate the nature of the study of UFOs as a science, they will be considered in turn...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFO reports are typically anecdotal. Anecdotes are not scientific data. Therefore, the study of UFOs is not scientific.
OEH proponents usually focus on the existence of non-anecdotal UFO data, such as physical and medical effects. Indeed, there is a substantial amount of such data, which includes radar traces, photographs, ground markings, radiation effects on plants and humans, radiation and magnetic field measurements or indications in the presence of UFOs and reports of temperature variations, force effects, etc. However, I believe the core question is whether anecdotal data is appropriate for scientific use.
The study of UFOs is far from the only science where some, most, or all of the primary data is anecdotal. Early efforts in psychology almost entirely relied on anecdotal evidence, and remains heavily dependent on such information. Natural environment animal behavior studies, sociology of primitive societies, and criminology often rely on such evidence.
To some extent, it can be argued that all scientific evidence is anecdotal, in the sense that the scientist, in publishing a work which describes observation or experiment, is simply telling us about the results of their work (providing an anecdote). It is then up to us to confirm or refute the reported results through either examining the original source of the data (i.e. gathering the same data with the same or different tools), or attempting to reproduce the experiment / observation and confirming the results.
However, it is even more interesting to ask why the observations of UFOs are anecdotal.
What is the Nature of the UFO Observation?
Unlike many physical phenomena, UFO observations are not available at the convenience of the scientist. The UFO observation is a transient event which transpires in front of unprepared witnesses at unpredictable times, typically for durations between a minute and fifteen minutes in length (though some have been both longer and shorter). In this sense, the observation of the UFO is much more like the witnessing of a crime than it is like any classical scientific observation. Thus, the discomfort of the physical scientist.
In many cases, little quantitative data - even reliable size estimates - can be derived. Qualitative data, however, such as color, movement, lighting patterns, geometry, etc. are readily available.
In some cases, quantitative data is available - size, distance, speed and acceleration based on triangulation or radar observation; energy output levels based on observation of the effects of UFO lighting on lighting of known strength, instrumented observations with compass and radiation detection equipment, or even photographs; and weight derived from ground traces.
In addition, once the filtering process has been applied, statistical information is available, including comparisons between IFO and UFO observations and witnesses.
UFO investigators are well aware of the need to discriminate between UFOs and IFOs. One test for field investigators[footnote 2] consists of over one hundred questions in a variety of fields, many of which are directed toward knowledge the investigator must have to determine if an observation falls into the MHH or UFO category. Most books and articles on the subject contain sections which either discuss the issue directly, or in the context of specific cases which were found to not be UFOs.
Are Anecdotes Invalid Scientific Data?
There seems insufficient justification to reject UFO reports simply because they are anecdotes.
To summarize:
Initial reports are the result of the observation of a phenomenon by a witness who is typically in a normal context, recognized by that witness as being unusual, and which is then reported to some authority. In this sense, the UFO observation is similar to the observation of a crime being committed, and forensic procedures are appropriate for determining the truth, falsity, and accuracy of the account. Such techniques include testing with leading questions for ease with which the witness incorporates spurious data into an account, validation of witness visual and auditory acuity via standard tests, validation of witness accuracy via comparison with accounts from other (preferably independent) witnesses, and measurement of any physical results of the incident. Where possible, qualitative information must be supplemented by quantitative information.
The UFO filter must be applied to the resulting account, and only if it passes that test, is it admissible as UFO data.
Anecdotal, qualitative and quantitative data are admissible as scientific data, as can be seen in criminology, natural environment animal behavioral studies, etc. The study of UFOs is not physics or chemistry - it is more like intelligence gathering, forensics, or sociology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFO observations are non-repeatable. Only repeatable observations are amenable to scientific study. Therefore the study of UFOs is not scientific.
Obviously, this is not entirely true. For instance, one could cite any reliable multiple witness observation as, in essence, a repetition of the observation. One could also cite those cases of objects of similar descriptions being reported at different times and locations as repetitions of the original observation.
But the key point being made by critics of UFO study is that the UFO will not perform on demand, and that therefore no conclusions can ever be drawn from a study of essentially unrepeatable events. Since hard sciences like physics and chemistry can perform repeatable experiments on demand, UFO research can never be a science like physics or chemistry.
In essence, this is a straw man.
First, UFO photographs, landing traces and medical effects are amenable to laboratory analysis by a variety of workers.
Second, potentially valid and testable hypotheses can be arrived at by examining the universe of UFO reports, as Vallee did in his examination of the "psychosis" hypothesis for UFO observations. This is not dissimilar to how astronomers derived concepts of stellar and galactic evolution. Stellar and galactic evolution are not directly observable, but a number of objects at various stages of evolution are. Thus, careful examination of the characteristics of these objects for similarities and differences, can, in conjunction with known laws of physics, provide hypotheses as to the process of stellar or galactic evolution. By the same token, the observation of similarities and differences between reliable UFO reports can yield testable hypotheses as to energy output, flight characteristics, landing trace characteristics, occupant appearance and behavior, etc.
Thirdly, the study of UFOs does not have to be a repeatable laboratory exercise like chemistry and physics to be scientific. As mentioned above, psychology, sociology, natural behavior of animals, and astronomy are all sciences which have extremely limited components of repeatable laboratory science. Does this make progress more difficult? Yes. Impossible? No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFOs are investigated by non-professional investigators without funding. Scientific research requires professional researchers, therefore the study of UFOs is not scientific.
Many fields of science such as physics, electrical science, biology, etc, were begun by the efforts of dedicated amateurs working in their own time at their own pace.
Science, as defined at the beginning of this paper, does not require professionals. It is a process.
The gathering of data requires a careful and thorough approach. Often, even professional scientists are not up this. One has only to see the original and recent criticisms of the work of Kinsey in human sexuality, or criticisms of the attribution of medical effects to low level EM fields, or criticisms leveled at "cold fusion" researchers, to see that professional status is no guarantee of accuracy or unbiased sampling. But one also sees thereby how scientific data and theories are validated or invalidated.
As long as the method used to gather data is openly discussed and the discriminators used in confirming or denying a hypothesis are presented, the self-correcting nature of science ensures that errors will eventually be found and purged. Those who fail to meet these criteria will find their work is not supported in the scientific community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFO anecdotes are corrupted by non-professional investigators who are biased toward finding that the OEH hypothesis is confirmed, and that the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) or paranormal hypothesis (PNH) accounts for the data better than the MHH. Scientific research requires unbiased investigators, therefore the study of UFOs is not scientific.
The myth of the "disinterested scientist" is one which seems to persist, despite the obvious fact that no one spends enormous time and effort on a subject which they find inherently uninteresting and unimportant. However, the nature of the process of science is such that the publication and critiques or attempted reproduction of results are an inbuilt bias correction mechanism. This mechanism clearly operates within the study of UFOs, where members of the field frequently debate the IFO/UFO classification of specific cases, the validity or accuracy of specific evidence, and the validity of hypotheses such as ETH, PNH, etc.
If the progress of science depended on the scientist being an unbiased saint, said progress would not occur, since this is not the nature of the scientist. It is not some specific grace associated with the scientist which ensures the validity of their results and the absence of mysticism, it is the harsh application of external criticism, and, in some cases, internally enforced sanctions, which purges science of frauds and unsupported theories.
There is no reason to think that such a process is not or cannot be applied to the study of UFOs. It is certainly true that adherence to this part of the process is at present uneven, and certainly imperfect, but this is a sign of the field's immaturity, not that the field is unable to follow the process of science.
Science, like law, is an adversarial process, and does not work unless there are parties in disagreement during the transition between initially confirmed hypothesis and reliable theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFO investigators are not familiar with, experienced with or trained in methods for uncovering hoaxes, hallucinations, and misperceptions. Only "skeptical" investigators [read: debunkers] have this knowledge and attitude. Since this is required for the scientific study of UFOs, the study of UFOs is not scientific.
This is not consistent with the facts. UFO investigators and organizations have classified many reports as IFOs. However, this contention reflects the belief of skeptics that better knowledge and better investigation will result in the elimination of UFO classifications and will result in all cases being claimed as IFOs. Unfortunately, the record of such "investigators" as Klass and Menzel (neither of whom ever spent much time interviewing witnesses) has not shown that they make better application of the UFO filter than those who are going out into the field from the major UFO organizations, or those who come from outside the field (such as John Fuller). Much of their "investigation" seems to be to find key items of the UFO account which can be distorted or omitted until the result fits an ad hoc hypothesis of misperception or hoax.
Is "skeptical" knowledge required for the scientific study of UFOs? Certainly some forensic knowledge and experience is useful. However statistics from the Air Force Project Blue Book and the Condon committee indicate that only a relatively small percentage of initial reports are proven to be hoaxes. It is believed, but not yet quantified, that the percentage is higher with regard to photographs, and some contend that it is also higher with regard to contact claimants and repeaters, but, again, there has been little quantitative study to demonstrate these propositions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Science of Studying Unidentified Flying Objects
UFO reports represent a transient phenomenon, localized in a narrow slice of time and space, witnessed largely by unspecialized personnel who are unprepared to make quantitiative or qualitative observations. Like it or not, that is the nature of the beast.
Given this, however, it is an unjustified assertion to state either than the phenomenon canot be studied scientifically, or that its existence cannot be demonstrated. It is clear that science can study any subject which allows for its process to be followed, and, as we have seen, one can indeed
Observe something which needs explaining (the UFO report).
Formulate a mechanism which explains it (the hypothesis).
Determine characteristics which differentiate an observation consistent with the hypothesis from one which is inconsistent with the hypothesis (the discriminator).
Formulate an experiment or an observation which will identify if the discriminator is present.
Perform the experiment or observation (on the original report or similar / different reports).
Record and publish the results for comment and attempted reproduction by others. If the discriminator is present, then the hypothesis may be considered correct, otherwise it is considered false.
In fact, in the study of UFOs, this process is followed in at least two layers:
Determining if an initial report is a UFO (the hypothesis is that it is not).
Determining if UFO reports support OEH, MHH, or any other hypothesis as to the generative cause of the report.
Conclusion
From what has been presented, it seems clear that not only can UFOs be studied scientifically, but that they are being studied scientifically. Observations are recorded, hypotheses are formulated, discriminators are isolated, the discriminator is sought in the observation, and the results are published, discussed, validated or invalidated by subsequent followup.
The nature of the UFO filter tends to discount the MHH, since MHH cases are not allowed to be considered UFOs. Additional objections to UFO research on the grounds that the data are not suitable or have been biased in the field have been shown to be unsupportable. The existing research thus so far supports the OEH as the only fundamental alternative to MHH.
Footnotes
1. The UFO Experience, Hynek,
2. MUFON Field Investigator Test, Mutual UFO Network, Seguin, TX
Read more articles on this topic:
Unsorted Documents 1
