UFO Fact vs. UFO Theory
There has always been an argument between Ufologists and fundamentalist skeptics about the existence of UFOs. This simple dichotomy hides a thorny ontological bramble of loaded terms and ideas. The first question usually asked of anyone who is interested in the subject is “Do you believe in UFOs?” My answer is “I believe that as-yet unexplained things are occasionally seen in the sky.”
There are a variety of responses to this answer. Our culture demands certainty, even if it is based on flawed reasoning, so many are vaguely frustrated by this response. Any interest in the subject is almost automatically translated into belief in aliens from other planets. The transformation of this image of Ufology may be one of the best goals that our generation can hope to achieve.
Unfortunately, the sound-bite nature of media exposure does not easily allow anyone to explain that there should be a crisis of definition brewing amongst UFO researchers. Many of those who appear on TV and in print articles don’t even point out that the “U” stands for “unidentified.” Unidentified does not mean aliens. Who is going to produce the definitive documentary with that title? Perhaps Paul Kimball could take a shot at it. The “UFO” acronym does a disservice to many other aspects of the phenomenon, such as abductions, altered states of mind, MIBs and intentional manifestations.
There are very few facts associated with the study of UFOs, at least facts that can be proven in the way most people will accept them. We have no control over when or where witnesses will see strange lights in the sky or experience other anomalous episodes associated with them. This places Ufology outside of the discipline of classic science, which demands controlled repeatability. Perhaps the word “Ufology” should be trashed! A more inclusive designation might be “Theoretical Anomalistics,” but unfortunately, we are stuck with “UFO,” for better or worse.
Those with an interest in the subject should realize that just about everything associated with the study of UFOs is a theory. Until anyone can experience a sighting or abduction on demand, it will remain so. In the bigger picture, everything we perceive is ultimately a theory, it just happens that some are more reliable than others.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, April 28th, 2007 at 12:03 am and is filed under Wake Up Down There, Close Encounters, Evidence, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- A New Reason To Consider The ETH »
- I Feel A Disturbance In The Force »
- UFOs: Us or Them? »
- Roswell Experiments »
- UFO Researchers and the U.S. Government »
|
Apr 28 2007 
April 28th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Greg:
The only way I could produce a documentary that focused on “unidentified” would be with my own money, or private backing. The networks want aliens, by and large.
Best Evidence might come closest, as we more or less stay away from the ETH, or any other “H”, although it slips in every now and then - largely because most American ufologists can’t go five minutes without mentioning the ETH in one way, shape or another.
Paul
April 28th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Greg:
I have come to believe that UFOs are just a part of one much larger phenomenon that encompasses just about everything we view as paranormal. If this is true then Ufologist are only studying a fraction of the problem. This reminds me of the parable of the blind men who are brought to an elephant. Each one grabs a different part of the elephant, i.e. the trunk, a leg, an ear and the tail. Each one then describes the elephant differently. To the blind man who touched the leg, the elephant was like a tree. To the one who touched the trunk, the elephant was like a snake. A fan and a worm are the descriptions of an elephant given by the blind men who touched the ear and the tail. If ghost, Bigfoot, UFOs and all the other anomalies that plague us are all part of a larger whole, then the people who are studying each will, like the blind men, fail to accurately interpret this phenomenon. That is why they insist that UFOs = aliens, Ghost = the dead, Bigfoot & Chupacabra = undiscovered animals, apparitions = angels, and so on. Until Ufologist abandon the ETH and view UFOs as a small part of a much bigger mystery, I am afraid we will never get any closer to an answer then we already have. If and when Ufologist and other paranormal researchers unite their fields of study, a new group of researchers will be born. They will study all aspects of the paranormal as coming from one phenomenon. I can not think of a better name for this new field of study then Greg’s Theoretical Anomalistics.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I would like to add something to one Paul’s comments the networks want ET’s who have come from where ever to use humans like lab rats for reproductive and waste elimination biological experiments. Nothing like playing on most people’s worst fears.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:21 am
In regards to study being resistant to the repeatability demanded by the natural sciences I am reminded of Vallee’s antecdote of a “Major Murphy” who stated, “…the study of it doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in Intelligence.” It seems to me that while he does have a point I think it is indisputable that at least some aspects of the phenomena continually challenge a number of specific scientific issues.
Who, even outside ufology, has seriously pondered the problem of how science should approach the study of an intelligence that may vastly smarter than the scientist and may not be particularly interested in being studied? What name would you give a discipline that required equal parts spycraft, scientifically rigorous analysis and fantastic imagination?
April 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Paul,
Some of us need to start petitioning for grants or backing for these sorts of projects, but the pressure to look into other areas may have to be brought to bear on media and academia first. Newspeople may be best bet to crack the nut.
When do we get to see “Best Evidence?” Can I arrange a private screening in L.A.?
April 29th, 2007 at 4:05 am
Greg:
Re: private screening - sure, as soon as we have some DVDs made.
Paul
April 29th, 2007 at 8:12 am
“seein’” (I forgot your name, sorry)
That group of researchers already exists! We have mentioned their names on the site. People like Greg Little, Kenneth Ring, Jacques Vallee, Michael Talbot, and John Keel–but who ever sees them in UFO documentaries? Paul is right: they have to toe the line on the ETH, or no coverage is given.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:16 am
“not anonymous,”
I’d call it what I mentioned in the post. What you are describing also sounds like a science fiction/ fantasy writer. I believe that there are such people around. One that comes to mind is Mac Tonnies.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Greg:
To be fair to the networks, I specifically invited Vallee to contribute to and appear in Best Evidence, after being recommended to him by a mutual friend (i.e. told I was a good and serious guy), but he politely declined.
Paul
April 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Paul,
Vallee is officially out of the UFO biz (or as he told me “I wasn’t learning anything anymore.”) That doesn’t mean that there aren’t more researchers who wouldn’t appear. I hope.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I was looking on Amazon the other day and unless I’m misinterpreting, every last one of Vallee’s ufo books are now out of print. Plenty of used copies out there of course but the only new books Amazon is selling are his fiction and his finance stuff. So sad.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:39 am
not_anonymous,
Vallee’s information technology textbooks are excellent and I lobbied my local college to at least add them to the reference library.
Jess