From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program

[DROBNJAK]

Then:

These are two diametrically opposed suggestions: if ufology is to be studied scientifically, then it's a science, not some branch of the humanities (which makes zero sense to me).

We're trying to understand advanced physical technology that operates in our airspace from time to time - that's a scientific issue, which merits proper scientific study (just like tornadoes, ball lightning, meteors, sprites, and everything else that happens in the atmosphere). For god's sake leave the philosophers and the contrarians and the shoe-gazers out of it. We know how to go about understanding anomalous physical enigmas, and the AATIP went about it properly, as far as I can tell from what little we've heard so far: data collection and analysis, and even trace evidence analysis whenever possible. That's how to define the parameters of the subject, and begin to formulate viable phenomenological explanations. Once we've scientifically established that we are in fact being visited by alien devices, and have a theoretical understanding of the physics involved, then the philosophers and sociologists and psychologists and historians can write about the meaning of it all until the cow's come home. But for now, when the proper scientific methodology has yet to be applied, and reached an analytical conclusion, all those folks are doing is muddying the water and making the whole topic so unsavory and contentious that the scientific community is mostly appalled with the whole subject. Right now ufology is its own worst enemy.

I think the right way to go about this would be the formation of new and reputable scientific journal dedicated to this topic, so that quality scientific analyses can be peer-reviewed and published just like any other scientific subject. There's an Astrobiology journal; there needs to be an Astrotechnology journal, or something along those lines, for the study of advanced technology in our skies.

The major problem with this is simple: we don't have access to the technology required to study this subject, and therefore, scientists can't analyze it effectively. That's why I favor the crowd-funded national passive radar network concept - it would be the first scientific technology that can actually collect precise publicly available data on anomalous events in the sky, and scientists could analyze that data and write papers about their findings. And perhaps we could launch a network of CubeSats to collect additional data in other spectra. But the thing that would really put us on target for settling the issue, requires a small fleet of custom-outfitted jet interceptors armed to the gills with a wide array of scientific instrumentation, so that in those rare cases like the Nimitz case, we could get up there and collect volumes of diverse precision data from these objects at a minimum distance. Unfortunately I can only see the military as the right partner for a project like that, and I think it would take a Congressional order to get them on board with it. In theory, that shouldn't be a big deal. But in practice, Congress hasn't represented the will of the American people for decades, if ever.

Yeah, that sounds more like $10M - $20M in funding. Covering whole country size of US with passive radars and other sensors. Its question weather passive radars work in remote areas, because there is no EM transmitters there. And we all know how much UFOs like to turn up deep in woods and mountains.

Besides, rightfully so, US military would want to keep tabs on this project, because effectively, this project would monitor all the airspace traffic inside US and make data publicly available. Chinese and Russians would laugh their heads off because project would do all their work for them, scot-free.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Yeah, that sounds more like $10M - $20M in funding. Covering whole country size of US with passive radars and other sensors.

I don't know what the budget would be, but most of it would have to go into the advanced custom programming and dedicated servers. But the antennas are cheap. We could design a simple kit that anyone can put together and mount an antenna on their roof, with a converter box to send the data into a USB port and upload it to the online server.

For a $50 minimum buy-in, we could send a donor such a kit and probably have $25 left over to fund the software development. Perhaps we could offer the raw data of any given event, and/or additional precision or functionality, to annual subscribers.

Its question weather passive radars work in remote areas, because there is no EM transmitters there. And we all know how much UFOs like to turn up deep in woods and mountains.

The terrific thing about a system like this is that it's scalable. At first we'd only get enough donors to cover the cities and suburbs. But as the system grew, we'd cover more and more remote rural areas as well. We wouldn't have to cover every single area in the country, but in time we could probably get pretty close.

Besides, rightfully so, US military would want to keep tabs on this project, because effectively this project would monitor all the airspace traffic inside US. Chinese would laugh their heads off because project would do all their work for them, free of charge.

Huh? What's interesting about the air traffic over the US? Airlines, helicopters, some military jets on training exercises - I don't see a big security problem here. Sure, the military needs areas to test out new aircraft, but those areas are already highly secure - I forget how many square miles around Area 51 has been blocked off, but it's a lot - obviously we'd never be able to get a passive radar antenna anywhere near those kinds of installations. And even if we could pick up signals that far away, we could simply mask those areas off so nobody could see into them, like Google Earth does with classified military installations. Keep the government out of it to the fullest extent possible. After all, meteorologists have their own radar systems for tracking weather systems; this isn't much different.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Priority would be to find UFO hot spots and place sensors there.

Yeah, and Area 51 and nuclear facilities seemingly are where most of UFO action is going on .

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Priority would be to find UFO hot spots and place sensors there.

I like that idea too - they're far from mutually exclusive. We'd be psyched if we had a passive radar network -and- Chris' SLV Camera Observatory covering the area at the same time. In fact the radar readings could help direct his cameras - passive radar is ridiculously sensitive, and you don't need a permit to deploy it because it's passive.

Yeah, and Area 51 and nuclear facilities seemingly are where most of UFO action is going on .

Oh come on - blanking out a few test ranges like Area 51 isn't such a big deal. And we're only talking about airspace here, not satellite imagery of the ground. There's no reason we couldn't cover the airspace over nuclear power plants and nuclear launch facilities - there's no significant classified military air traffic happening over those areas (and we don;t even know where most of them are exactly. And the Chinese and the Russians probably already have live hi-rez spy satellite imagery of our entire country, and detection systems ready to pick up the blast signature of any ICBM missile launch.

Just imagine how differently 9/11 might've played out if a few people in the Twin Towers could've gotten an alert on their smart phones that some large aircraft without transponder signals were heading their way, and people could've tracked them on the website. Thousands of lives could've been saved with this system - and perhaps still could be.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Issue with 'humanities' is that they take precedence over science each time, because they are dirt cheap and have much bigger bang for a buck. A simple smear campaign can cost few hours of journalistic work and it can destroy $10M science project in a matter of days.

Whole UFO science thing would depend on insulating it from media.

Re: UFO Hotspots, according to relatively recent interview on YouTube (lost reference) a popular beach resort in North Carolina is a UFO hot spot. But then, there would be a lot of drunk tourists there

 

[Randall]

But ufology isn't an art in any sense of the word:

Actually there's a lot of art in ufology including graphic arts, music, and film making. Close Encounters has been deemed culturally significant by the Library of Congress. So let's just get the misconception that art has nothing to do with ufology out of the way.

... we're dealing with a physical phenomenon, and trying to understand it. There's nothing "humanities" about that.

As mentioned, creating glazes for ceramics, pigments for paint, film processing, and digital photography are also dealing with physical phenomenon and trying to understand it. The Humanities is filled with examples where science plays a role in advancing our understanding or expression.

It involves chemistry ...

Again, so does ceramics, painting, and film photography

We're dealing with physics ...

So does Art: Where Physics Meets Art,

astrobiology ...

Sagan the icon of astrobiology wrote the science fiction story Contact

the dynamics and prevalence of technological alien civilizations ...

Ufologists have been writing about alien civilizations for decades in a non-scientific manner.

, and as-yet-unformed new disciplines like xenotechnology. All of that stuff is scientific.

All that stuff can have as much a cultural, creative, and artistic element to it as a purely science based element. It's not mutually exclusive. The difference is that when real science is being done it should be done by real scientists.

I can't see anything useful that the humanities could offer ufology at this point.

Then you lack imagination. The Humanities includes, History, Philosophy, and Religion. All those things are wrapped up into ufology in various ways.

Greg Bishop and Burnt State want to make this into a psychological subject, but I think that's totally wrong-headed and counterproductive

Psychology is a legitimate aspect of the field. Ignoring the psychological facets of a UFO experience or the impact it has on culture from a psychological perspective would be arbitrarily dismissing some important evidence and research. Mind you, I do think that it cannot be all relegated to a psychological phenomenon or we'd be dismissing the objective reality. That sort of attitude does really irk me.

- we didn't learn anything about tornadoes or ball lightning by studying the minds of the people who reported them - they're physical phenomena.

Persinger might argue that point with you. His studies suggest that naturally occurring EM fields caused by geological processes can influence the brain and cause luminous discharges called Earthlights.

This has nothing to do with psychology or the humanities; it's a scientific matter, at least at this point.

That's just an opinionated proclamation. On the other hand it is plain to see that I've given enough examples to show that major parts of ufology easily fall into the humanities and therefore could be studied academically. I've also stated that when real science is useful in helping to illuminate some specific part of the field, then that's fine. There's nothing that prevents science from being applied simply because ufology has more to do with culture than with hard science.

Once a scientific consensus has been reached that we're actually observing alien technology in our skies, then we can talk about first contact protocols and the sociological ramifications and so forth.

If we're dealing with sociological ramifications then we're back into the Humanities. Therefore it would seem prudent to involve them right from the start. Let's just face the facts. The field of ufology is filled with literally millions of titles comprising an array of books, papers, website content, films, art, music etc. very few of which were created as science for scientists. The largest portion of ufology is cultural and historical. The part that has to do with anything approaching real science is very small. This is the way that is, not how we'd personally like it to be, so there's no point in denying it or trying to downplay the significance of it.

This is in no way to suggest that there shouldn't be a serious scientific aspect to the field as well, but like I say, lets leave the serious science to serious scientists at arms length from the field, and learn to work with them instead of trying to compete with them as scientists. Ufology is not and cannot be a science unto itself. It's simply too broad in scope for the largest part of it to fit inside the narrow confines of scientific method. Look at this site. The Paracast isn't doing science. It's an informal forum with a radio talk-show. 99.9% of ufology is cultural and historical, not science. What should I do, go down to my library and take all my books outside and light a bonfire?

Don't answer that last question ... lol. It's not like I don't get the spirit of your post. I do. It would be nice to have something scientific that is that focused. But trying to jam ufology into the science faculty won't work. Humanities is the best suited to handle all of it, including liaising with real scientists when they are needed. Think how much easier that would be than trying to fight with them out here on the streets.

 

[Randall]

There's no denying this isn't science.
There's also no denying it's part of ufology culture, and therefore part of ufology.
Ufology is 99.9% cultural and historical and 0.01% science.



Also check out this thread: Ufology Culture Clips and Comics​

 

[Realm]

Sure, there are all sorts of aspects of the Nimitz case that can be considered separate from whatever science might be applied. There's the sociopolitical ramifications of disclosure ( just for a start ). There's also the cultural associations. Psychology is a bit of a crossover where sciences are concerned, but it's a factor as well. Then there's the media, and that in-turn involves journalism, arts, and so on. That's all part of ufology. Ufology has a much larger scope than just the study of scientifically relevant evidence. Even the pilot testimony isn't "hard science".

You are basically just listing fields of social sciences and so on, and aspects that can be part of pretty much anything. Speculations about disclosure is a good example of sidetracks (and making hasty jumps to them from a single case under investigation) that could be avoided by sticking to the scientific principles.

I thought we were talking about this:

Ufology is the study of reports, visual records, physical evidence, and other phenomena related to unidentified flying objects (UFO).
...
The term derives from UFO, which is pronounced as an acronym, and the suffix -logy, which comes from the Ancient Greek λογία (logiā). An early appearance of this term in print can be found in the article "An Introduction to Ufology" by Ivan T. Sanderson, found in Fantastic Universe magazine's February 1957 issue (Vol. 7, No. 2), which closes with this direct plea: "What we need, in fact, is the immediate establishment of a respectable new science named Ufology."

Ufology - Wikipedia

But it seems to me you are talking about a subculture.

There's no denying this isn't science.
There's also no denying it's part of ufology culture, and therefore part of ufology.
Ufology is 99.9% cultural and historical and 0.01% science.

Good, so there's little overlap to what I'm talking about, so let me rephrase what I said earlier:

it would rather need at least some group that would really try to make it a matter of science and make a clean break from all that's not ufology.

They could use that above poster to show all the stuff they have absolutely nothing to do with, which literally includes those little green men, which are sort of a symbol for all the ridicule and what scientists don't want to be associated with.

 

[Realm]

Whole UFO science thing would depend on insulating it from media.

Exactly the opposite, media plays a key role. What is actually needed is the sort of scientific investigation that happens openly and can be taken seriously by the media, and hence the wider audience. Which also enables people like Fravor to talk about it publicly, without which there's not much data to investigate in the first place. If you have to fear the media, you are probably doing something wrong.

Re: UFO Hotspots, according to relatively recent interview on YouTube (lost reference) a popular beach resort in North Carolina is a UFO hot spot. But then, there would be a lot of drunk tourists there

You didn't name your top 3 UFO cases of Nimitz quality yet. Isn't it premature to talk about hot spots and general trends, when it's difficult to list even a few of the best cases for which aliens would seem to be the most likely explanation? We all know at least most of the reported cases are something mundane, so we know at least most of the data is noise, so the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty horrible, so shouldn't the focus be on trying to figure out if there's any signal there at all, instead of trying to analyze a signal that might not even be there?

 

[Randall]

You are basically just listing fields of social sciences and so on, and aspects that can be part of pretty much anything. Speculations about disclosure is a good example of sidetracks (and making hasty jumps to them from a single case under investigation) that could be avoided by sticking to the scientific principles. I thought we were talking about this: Ufology - Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article is constantly under revision by various people including the Guerilla Skeptics. I've contributed to the Ufology article and the UFO article several times only to have it overwritten. That's part of why we have our own definition, interpretation, and word history on the USI site where it cannot be changed by just anyone. You can view that link from my signature line. Without quoting it all here, what I will say is that the Wikipedia definition is far too narrow for the full array of interests and activities that are part of the field. The cultural aspects are huge and cannot be as easily hand waved as you suggest. The USI page also deals with the issue of science and ufology.

Put some real thought into it instead of quoting Wikipedia's superficial viewpoint. You'll come to the same conclusion. It was one of the first ones I had to wrestle with in my intense debates with the skeptics over ufology as a pseudoscience. It was also that debate that ultimately led to the loss of the debate for the skeptics on precisely the grounds I'm talking about. If ufology doesn't claim to be a science unto itself and the field as a whole cannot be subjected to the scientific method, then it simply doesn't fit the definition of pseudoscience. However when real science is done by real scientists at arms length from the field, ufology can still benefit while still avoiding the pseudoscience label.

It's a win-win either way for ufology, and gaining academic status in a non-scientific area such as the humanities would still garner respect for the subject. That is the most sensible path given the reality of the situation. Pushing for ufology to be considered a science unto itself just means whoever is doing that hasn't thought it through. It's not that their hearts aren't in the right place. We all want the field to be taken seriously. That's just not the way to make it happen.

That's why MUFON gets laughed out of scientific circles even though it has as its motto "The scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity". All MUFON is doing with that is handing the skeptics exactly what they want on a silver platter. Fortunately the rest of us can just consider MUFONs motto as expressing the sentiment that we'd like to see real science being done rather than in any way endorsing MUFON as a "scientific" body.

But it seems to me you are talking about a subculture. Good, so there's little overlap to what I'm talking about, so let me rephrase what I said earlier: They could use that above poster to show all the stuff they have absolutely nothing to do with, which literally includes those little green men, which are sort of a symbol for all the ridicule and what scientists don't want to be associated with.

Yes the subculture you refer to is ufology subculture. Most of the field is some form of this, not science, and as you suggest, I completely agree that real science related to the field should be done at arms length from the field by real scientists. That doesn't mean ufology cannot be studied academically, or that when real science related to the field is done, that it cannot be reported on by ufologists.

It also doesn't mean that ufologists cannot be in any way involved with activities that might furnish data or valuable insights for scientists. So for example, if some alien were to volunteer a piece of alien technology for our study, there's no reason a ufologist investigating the report cannot document the incident, and then turn over the sample to real scientists at the appropriate time so that it can be analyzed by real physicists, engineers, and so on in independent labs.

Where ufology runs into trouble is in trying to do it's own science and doing it badly. If bad science is going to be done on ufology, let it be done by scientists outside the field. That way they can only blame themselves rather than the field, and nobody can say we're trying to call the field as a whole science when it's not. We have to accept this reality otherwise we're just deluding ourselves. If science is to be done, let it be done properly by people who are unbiased or even somewhat skeptical. Let them prove it to themselves on their own turf, and if the results are negative, let them reveal the uncomfortable truth to us, and instead of crying conspiracy, then let's accept that and move on.

Unless of course there really is a conspiracy .

 

[Randall]

Questions ?
Worth considering IMO

 

[Realm]

The Wikipedia article is constantly under revision by various people including the Guerilla Skeptics. I've contributed to the Ufology article and the UFO article several times only to have it overwritten. That's part of why we have our own definition, interpretation, and word history on the USI site where it cannot be changed by just anyone. You can view that link from my signature line. Without quoting it all here, what I will say is that the Wikipedia definition is far too narrow for the full array of interests and activities that are part of the field. The cultural aspects are huge and cannot be as easily hand waved as you suggest. The USI page also deals with the issue of science and ufology.

You make it clear that you are talking about a subculture, not a field or study of certain subject, which is what the -logy suffix usually signifies.

Let's consider another phenomenon as a comparison: dark matter. There are a number of hints it exists, and we can investigate those scientifically, and we have built detectors for finding it "visiting" us, yet so far we don't have conclusive evidence, and "skeptics" suggest it doesn't actually exist and the observations can be explained with theories of modified gravity and so on.

Now, let's consider we want to have a separate field of science for investigating just that, for example because we feel there's not enough research in other fields, or that it's so important it deserves one on its own. Let's call it dark matterology.

What is that field then? Quite obviously all that research that's now done under fields of different names. That's analogous to what Wikipedia states ufology is, study of certain observed phenomena.

So, let's extend dark matterology in a similar way you have done to ufology. Now we have a dark matter subculture. It's not anymore just about researchers who investigate dark matter, but research that investigates those researchers, their psychology etc. So now it also competes with social sciences. But it's not just research, but entertainment as well, fictitious stories involving dark matter etc. So if you buy a book about dark matterology, it might be either facts or fiction, who knows. If someone claims to be a dark matterologist, it might mean either a professional physicist researching dark matter, or a kid reading comics about it.

Something's horribly wrong with that picture. What was a field of research became a mess. It's not a field of research anymore, but some sort of disorderly interest group. Somewhere inside it is still the research and researchers that originally formed the field. The field is embedded within that culture, not vice versa, and it just lost focus, credibility and meaning because of that.

Put some real thought into it instead of quoting Wikipedia's superficial viewpoint. You'll come to the same conclusion.

I just did, and it's even more obvious now that Wikipedia and similar dictionary definitions etc. got it right.

If ufology doesn't claim to be a science

It doesn't need to be or claim to be science, it just needs to follow the same sort of principles. Which are mostly just common sense and rational thinking, and avoiding that which is not.

It should basically be a more focused version of CSICOP, which used to be known as [Committee for the] Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. It should be about gathering and analyzing data and claiming only what the data can support. It should be its own skeptic. That's what scientific investigation is, you either find supporting evidence, or disproof. Either way it's a result. That's the real win-win and the only way to gain credibility. SETI does that, and it works. It doesn't really matter much that some also say it's not really science, because it isn't falsifiable. One positive result, and that's not a problem.

If ufology was like that, and we actually found irrefutable proof of aliens at some point, it would similarly become science overnight, as it would already fill the other requirements apart from having a subject that was known to actually exist.

Edit: This looks like a good example what research should be like, and how UFO groups and scientists can collaborate and get actual results when they follow the same principles:
Hessdalen lights - Wikipedia

 

[Erno86]

But ufology isn't an art in any sense of the word: we're dealing with a physical phenomenon, and trying to understand it.

Ufology should be capable of performing the 'art of communicating,' such as the study of interpretation of actual ET alien messages; as in the form of geoglyph carvings, laser holographic images, telepathy and the actual investigation of UAP sightings and landing zones for clues as to their method of propulsion.

 

[Randall]

You make it clear that you are talking about a subculture, not a field or study of certain subject, which is what the -logy suffix usually signifies.

Uh, that's completely opposite to the way it's been defined on our site, which represents the field, not a dictionary or non-field related resource. You are entirely free to adopt whatever definition you think suits yourself, but realize that the definition on the USI site takes into account reality of the complex and wide array of interests and activities that actually go on with ufology, not an idealized version based on wishful thinking about how it's a science. This isn't a point that can be countered simply by proclaiming the opposite of what I actually say. Which for clarification's sake is this:

"Ufology ( pronounced yoo • faw • la • jee ) is loosely defined as the study of UFOs. However this popular definition is somewhat misleading and outdated. Most study involving UFOs is not of UFOs themselves but of UFO reports, and modern ufology embodies a wide range of scientific, cultural, and historical facets. Therefore ufology is more accurately defined as: The title used for the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs." - USI Website

Let's consider another phenomenon as a comparison: dark matter. There are a number of hints it exists, and we can investigate those scientifically, and we have built detectors for finding it "visiting" us, yet so far we don't have conclusive evidence, and "skeptics" suggest it doesn't actually exist and the observations can be explained with theories of modified gravity and so on.

Now, let's consider we want to have a separate field of science for investigating just that, for example because we feel there's not enough research in other fields, or that it's so important it deserves one on its own. Let's call it dark matterology.

What is that field then? Quite obviously all that research that's now done under fields of different names. That's analogous to what Wikipedia states ufology is, study of certain observed phenomena.

So, let's extend dark matterology in a similar way you have done to ufology. Now we have a dark matter subculture. It's not anymore just about researchers who investigate dark matter, but research that investigates those researchers, their psychology etc. So now it also competes with social sciences. But it's not just research, but entertainment as well, fictitious stories involving dark matter etc. So if you buy a book about dark matterology, it might be either facts or fiction, who knows. If someone claims to be a dark matterologist, it might mean either a professional physicist researching dark matter, or a kid reading comics about it.

Something's horribly wrong with that picture. What was a field of research became a mess. It's not a field of research anymore, but some sort of disorderly interest group. Somewhere inside it is still the research and researchers that originally formed the field. The field is embedded within that culture, not vice versa, and it just lost focus, credibility and meaning because of that.

All you've done is create a bad analogy. Also no analogy is perfect, but let me show you how that analogy actually works. I've used the same analogy ( black holes ) to describe why we need a solid definition for the word UFO. That is more fitting because a UFO and a Black Hole are both individual types of things within a larger field. With UFO we mean alien craft, which are the subject matter within a larger field called ufology. With Black Holes we mean a particular kind of collapsed star that is a particular subject matter within a larger field called astronomy. Astronomy has a large core scientific component, and it also has a popular and amateur science component that involves a wide array of activities e.g. Popular Astronomy magazines, astronomy conventions, astronomy photography, etc. Unlike ufology however, astronomy is already an accepted science. Like I said, not all analogies are perfect, but if we're going to use them, let's at least use them correctly.

I just did, and it's even more obvious now that Wikipedia and similar dictionary definitions etc. got it right.

The Wikipedia definition is shallow and misleading. But go ahead and support that if you want. You haven't given me sufficient reason based on critical thinking about the realities of the field to change my view. It was a good try. Just not good enough. Anyway this debate is taking the thread off in another direction. So if we want to pursue it, maybe we need to do that elsewhere. We talked about some of this stuff way back here: Damage Control - Ufology in Flames

It doesn't need to be or claim to be science, it just needs to follow the same sort of principles. Which are mostly just common sense and rational thinking, and avoiding that which is not.

That definitely should apply to Ufology Studies, and in that regard I'm rather well known 'round these parts for advocating critical thinking, which is an academically accepted way of examining issues, but is not confined strictly to the scientific method.

It should basically be a more focused version of CSICOP, which used to be known as [Committee for the] Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. It should be about gathering and analyzing data and claiming only what the data can support. It should be its own skeptic. That's what scientific investigation is, you either find supporting evidence, or disproof. Either way it's a result. That's the real win-win and the only way to gain credibility. SETI does that, and it works. It doesn't really matter much that some also say it's not really science, because it isn't falsifiable. One positive result, and that's not a problem.

That's how I treat anything I publish on the USI site, but it needs volunteer help. We also try to do that a lot here at The Paracast ( believe it or not ).

If ufology was like that, and we actually found irrefutable proof of aliens at some point, it would similarly become science overnight, as it would already fill the other requirements apart from having a subject that was known to actually exist.
Edit: This looks like a good example what research should be like, and how UFO groups and scientists can collaborate and get actual results when they follow the same principles:
Hessdalen lights - Wikipedia

Yes I brought Hessdalen to the attention of the forum years ago. It's an interesting project and some of the best examples of people making a serious academic effort to study a known phenomenon. But when I asked the skeptics about it, they still called it pseudoscience. It was obvious at that point that nothing could perforate their bias. But it still shows what we're up against if you want to fight the "ufology is science" debate with them. There is no way to win it because they are correct.

As soon as we do that then there are countless examples of pseudoscience in the field, and the field itself falls squarely under the definition. So let's just not go there. Instead lets go a more suitable route, as has already been identified and roughly mapped out. Tell you what. If you want to be really helpful, instead of arguing this with me, why not help me refine it somewhat. I'll create a basic flow chart that we can tweak until we get it as complete as we can. At least consider it okay? I think when you see it you'll get the idea much more clearly and think it's not so crazy after all.

 

[Erno86]

Also no analogy is perfect, but let me show you how that analogy actually works. I've used the same analogy ( black holes ) to describe why we need a solid definition for the word UFO. That is more fitting because a UFO and a Black Hole are both individual types of things within a larger field. With UFO we mean alien craft, which are the subject matter within a larger field called ufology. With Black Holes we mean a particular kind of collapsed star that is a particular subject matter within a larger field called astronomy.

I have hypothesized in the past...that UFO's use micro-mini black hole photon propulsion technology, that can possibly achieve superluminal speed in they're saucer starships.

 

[Constance]

If we both think science should be applied to ufology when it can be done properly by real scientists, then I'm not clear on what it is you disagree with.

What I disagree with is your argument that the term or category 'ufology' should be applied to the whole mishegoss of cultural effects generated by the inability/incapacity of responsible institutions -- governmental, military, and scientific -- to engage openly and rationally with the manifestations of the modern ufo phenomenon since WWII. There have always been informed insiders within those institutions who felt and argued that what was known [despite its ambiguity and the fear factor] should be shared with the public, but those insiders have always been in the minority. The informational vacuum that resulted in the public sphere opened the way for the carnival of ideas, beliefs, and memes that surround the ufo question to this day in popular culture.

It's not so much about what I think ufology ought to be. It's about what it actually is.

What 'ufology' is depends on who you talk to, what you read, and what you express in your own description of it. It seems to me that you resist making a necessary distinction between the long written history of serious inquiry and investigation into what ufos might be (based on many types of evidence) and what various people, for various reasons, have sought to make of the subject matter as a whole (e.g., a subject to be ridiculed, suppressed, or dismissed, or a subject that can be best understood in terms of the paranormal experiences of close-encounter witnesses, or a subject entirely constituted by sociological memes operating in cultures lacking any reliable information about ufos).

What I would like to see is a greater academic acceptance of ufology, and the best way I see to gain that acceptance isn't by pushing it as science ( because it's not ), but simply as a field worthy of academic study, perhaps under the umbrella of the Humanities.

You'll be greatly disappointed if you expect most academics in the Humanities to be any more open than academic scientists have been to risking their careers in exploration of the ufo question. In my experience, academics are more conservative and protective of their reputations and livelihoods [established positions and guaranteed incomes] than many people in other walks of life. It's also important to recognize that academics in all disciplines come to their particular subject matter with ingrained presuppositions that limit their openness to and willingness to pursue other disciplines of inquiry and knowledge.

 

[Realm]

Astronomy has a large core scientific component, and it also has a popular and amateur science component that involves a wide array of activities e.g. Popular Astronomy magazines, astronomy conventions, astronomy photography, etc.

Are you saying that popular astronomy magazines and conventions are parts of astronomy (science/field), instead of just having astronomy as a subject matter? That is, they are astronomy instead of about astronomy? If I read such magazine, am I doing astronomy or reading about astronomy?

Are you basically saying that Wikipedia and others are too narrow in the definitions of all scientific fields (among other matters)?

 

[Constance]

I think the right way to go about this would be the formation of new and reputable scientific journal dedicated to this topic, so that quality scientific analyses can be peer-reviewed and published just like any other scientific subject. There's an Astrobiology journal; there needs to be an Astrotechnology journal, or something along those lines, for the study of advanced technology in our skies.

Have you read the articles concerning ufo phenomena published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration? That journal has a long history and is academically sound. There's a great deal to be learned there. You can find the tables of contents of all of its issues online, with links to the papers themselves in pdf form.

Note: search first under <Society for Scientific Exploration> to link to the Journal.

 

[Constance]

But ufology isn't an art in any sense of the word: we're dealing with a physical phenomenon, and trying to understand it. There's nothing "humanities" about that. We're dealing with physics, astrobiology, the dynamics and prevalence of technological alien civilizations, and as-yet-unformed new disciplines like xenotechnology. All of that stuff is scientific. I can't see anything useful that the humanities could offer ufology at this point. Greg Bishop and Burnt State want to make this into a psychological subject, but I think that's totally wrong-headed and counterproductive - we didn't learn anything about tornadoes or ball lightning by studying the minds of the people who reported them - they're physical phenomena. This has nothing to do with psychology or the humanities; it's a scientific matter, at least at this point. Once a scientific consensus has been reached that we're actually observing alien technology in our skies, then we can talk about first contact protocols and the sociological ramifications and so forth.

I have to disagree that investigations of ufo phenomena should be restricted to the hard sciences [though I agree that those sciences are essential to answering the foundational question of whether ufos are 'real', i.e., actual, whether as physical, technological machines or as holographic projections intentionally directed into our lifeworld on earth]. The fact is that ufo phenomena generate a substantial range of physiological, emotional, and even ideational effects on humans and other animals that also need to be investigated if we are to better comprehend the nature of ufos, or at least of those ufos involved in close encounters with species of life on earth.

ETA: Like it or not, ufo close encounters produce paranormal effects in humans (likely also in animals, wild and domesticated), and it remains to be learned whether these effects are the results of EM or other fields of a physical nature or of parapsychological/paranormal influence). Does 'Science' recognize yet the reality of psi phenomena studied by parapsychologists? Decades ago the American Association for the Advancement of Science included parapsychological research within the disciplines it recognizes as scientific. There have been some attempts since then to have parapsychology ousted from the AAAS but that has not happened yet. The AAAS also issued a long statement several years ago urging all scientific specialists to engage in interdisciplinary research where possible, or at least to become informed about research in disciplines other than their own.

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

Priority would be to find UFO hot spots and place sensors there.

Yeah, and Area 51 and nuclear facilities seemingly are where most of UFO action is going on .

How did you come about that quantification?