Jul 22 2008
|
|
Scientist Defends UFO Phenomenon
Over at a blog called “Brane Space” pseudonymous writer and apparent astronomer “Copernicus” makes a good argument in favor of true skpeticism, while dissecting the recent appearance of Stanton Friedman and pseudoskpetic Bill Nye on Larry King Live.
The piece, called “The Mugging Of Stanton Friedman,” points out that in spite of pundits, sloppy researchers, and fundamentalist skeptics, the UFO subject is worthy of scientific scrutiny. There have been complaints that Friedman did nothing much except try to get his new book on camera as many times as possible, but I didn’t see the show, so I must stand mute about this subject.
Selected excerpts:
A common misperception is that UFOs are “flying saucers” or space ships. However, this is actually only one possible hypothesis among several. The main thrust of Hynek’s definition is one must not automatically jump to any conclusion that conflates the UFO with an extraterrestrial craft.
…
Vallee himself has also taken Sagan to task [...] proposing a scientific process: getting extraordinary evidence first, before forming a hypothesis on the basis of existing investigations and doing an extraordinary investigation. Nowhere else in science, or its possible objects of inquiry, are we expected to start with extraordinary evidence (which usually isn’t available yet) then go to the process.
I always thought that the “extraordinary evidence” argument was not only unfair, but unscientific as well. The extraordinary evidence may have been staring us in the face for the last 60 years, but since it doesn’t fit in the protocols we have established for learning about the world and universe around us, perhaps the protocols need to be evolved. Maybe this is what “Copernicus” is asking for.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 pm and is filed under Astronomy/Space, Breaking News, UFOlogists, UFOlogy, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Vallee & UFOs: Great News! »
- Oh, Man »
- Flying Saucers and Science »
- UFOs, The Paranormal, and Multi-Dimensions »
- Canadian UFO Stats »
- Friedman: New UFO Book »
- See? There Isn’t Any Evidence! »
- Greg’s Occasional Pic of the Moment #8 »
- Kid Trapped In Flying Saucer Balloon Over Colorado (not) »
- Google Sets Sights on “Unexplained Phenomenon” »
|
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I only caught 10 minutes or so*, but every time Stan talked he seemed to hold his book up to the camera. Wasn’t the best impression - sort of got the feeling he was there more to sell copy than to argue on behalf of ufology. Though his Amazon stats for ‘Flying Saucers and Science’ have improved considerably over the past few days, so I guess it worked okay for him.
Stan’s presentation also isn’t helped by his constant statements about being a nuclear physicist, and working on high security programs. When someone keeps stating their credentials over and over, my immediate reaction is to start doubting them.
(* I only watched 10 minutes because I would have had to gouge my eyes out and rip off my ears if I sat there any longer. Each person seemed to get off 1 sentence before someone else talked over them (most often, Larry King himself) - so painful. And to accompany them, they keep showing bogus UFO and crop circle footage over the top. Now there’s a way to reinforce the scientific side of ufology!)
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 am
This seems to be the reason why this scientist is open to the UFO subject:
“The difficulty in formulating UFO hypotheses, and interpreting UFO reports, is a first-hand experience for me. Not only have I investigated other people’s reports and published the results but I’ve observed a “UFO”myself. [emphasis mine] The incident occurred in March of 1962 while at the opening of a shopping center in Carol City, Florida. While awaiting the start of festivities I happened to look up at the night sky, being the amateur astronomer that I was. Amazingly, I witnessed a brilliant orange disc, at least the same diameter as a full Moon, moving rapidly from north to south.”
Luck even Stanton hasn’t had
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Greg,
Sounds like another vote for “fiasco.” I certainly hope that Paul Kimball can get his UFO/ Anomalies debate program idea off the ground. Over at the UFO Updates list, he’s just had an exchange with Friedman about the new book .
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
RPJ,
I thought I’d let people discover that for themselves, but you’re right to point this out. If he hadn’t seen something anomalous with his own eyes, he might be another fundamentalist, or at least not interested.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Greg, I asked “Copernicus” if his openness towards UFOs might have been different if he hadn’t had that UFO sighting. Check out his ‘Comments’ section for the response. Pretty honest IMO.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Seeing is believing, a scientist who couldn’t debunk his own sighting,
I wonder how he would fare on the Larry King Show?
Yes, I’ve unashamedly purchased Stan Friedman’s latest publication and why not the poor guy couldn’t get a word in edge ways after that verbal slap down by King. All that was left to him was to visually merchandise his Book, fair play to the guy.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’m pretty sure Greg or Nick could have done a whole lot better shutting up Shostak and Nye
BTW, Copernicus’ response to my question was this:
“red pill junkie wrote:”Do you feel your openness towards the possibilities glimpsed around the UFO phenomenon might be different, if you haven’t had that extraordinary experience—the UFO sighting—at such an early age of your life?”
Well, that’s an interesting question! I would like to believe so. I’d surely like to think I would have this openness irrespective of my early experience (which remains indelibly etched in memory). But who can say for certain?
One thing I have found, even with this openness, is that in my experience most (95%) of reported UFOs are really IFOs. This is why I have been so energetic in astronomy education. I suspect if people knew more about the sky and the objects there, they’d make fewer misidentifications. “
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“There have been complaints that Friedman did nothing much except try to get his new book on camera as many times as possible”
LOL! That’s exactly what I thought when watching the interview. I’d love for Larry King to have on Vallee or you Greg or Nick but y’alls outlook tends to be a bit more nuanced and Americans don’t get nuance.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“I always thought that the ‘extraordinary evidence’ argument was not only unfair, but unscientific as well”
Then that is saying it is okay for anybody to make a mountain out of a molehill. People should not tell us they have seen a mountain (radical interpretation) when the only evidence they have is of a molehill (mundane evidence). Instead they should tell us they have seen a molehill but they are dreaming of a mountain. Mundane evidence should only be used to support mundane interpretations and extraordinary evidence should be used to support extraordinary interpretations. In other words, the degree of evidence should match the degree of the interpretation of that evidence and that is the heart and soul of science. Many people may not like it but it works far better than anything else that has ever been devised in the pursuit of truth.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
1. Stanton is not a nuclear physicist, he is an EX-nuclear physicist or, if you prefer, a retired nuclear physicist. Currently he is an author, not a nuclear physicist.
2. The motive for placing extreme emphasis on the title of nuclear physicist is suspect. It is as if someone it trying to promote the logical fallacy that if a Rocket Scientist or Nuclear Physicist says there is a “Cosmic Watergate”, then by golly, there certainly must be a “Cosmic Watergate” because Rocket Scientists or Nuclear Physicists are so damn intelligent that it is physically impossible that they could be wrong or could be suckered (or sucker others) into a UFO cult…right? Out-of-date knowledge of nuclear physics is irrelevant to the topic of UFOs anyway.
3. The United States Air Force defines a U.F.O. as: “Anything that relates to an airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be identified as a familiar object.” (USAF Regulation 200-2).
4. A light is not an object. A reflection is not an object. A refraction is not an object. Can you tell the difference between those three things from a great distance away and without research? No, therefore an unidentified light is properly referred to as a phenomenon, not an object.
5. For a UFO to remain unidentified, one cannot claim it was an ET piloted craft or a flying saucer — that would be identifying it. It would also be an extraordinary claim and to NOT reject such claims would be illogical and unscientific since it would be the equivalent of saying it is okay for anybody to make a mountain out of a molehill. People should not tell us they have seen a mountain (radical interpretation) when the only evidence they have is of a molehill (mundane evidence). Instead they should tell us they have seen a molehill but it looked like a mountain to them. Mundane evidence should only be used to support mundane interpretations and extraordinary evidence should be used to support extraordinary interpretations. In other words, the degree of evidence should match the degree of the interpretation of that evidence and that is the heart and soul of science. Many people may not like it but it works far better than anything else that has ever been devised in the pursuit of truth.
6. The most common logical blunder that people in the scientific community, like Sagan, makes is forgetting that there is nothing to disprove where nothing has been proven in the first place. A report is not evidence of the thing reported and all we have in regards to UFOs are the mere words of a report.
7. Next time you have a chance to hear Stan’s worn out speech on The UFO Challenge, listen very carefully. While he claims that some UFOs are alien spacecraft, he never follows through by telling you which famous UFO sightings fall into that category. You know why? Because Stan is bluffing. Stan is a great entertainer and that is where it ends. Enjoy the show but dismiss it afterwards as nonsense, not science.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
SSTE3PM,
I think everything needs to evolve, especially philosophies and theories, otherwise, we’d still be in caves or wandering about looking for food.