Scientist Explains Why UFO's Are Not Investigated

[boomerang]

If we're dealing strictly in scientific terms, then the above is true in some sense. However science isn't the only measure by which we determine what is reasonable to believe, and those who are stuck in that mode are arbitrarily dismissing the reality of many things that are essential for a meaningful human existence. For example science doesn't explain our sense of appreciation or satisfaction. For that matter science hasn't yet figured out exactly how our perceptions give rise to intelligence, consciousness and self-awareness, without which, this discussion would be devoid of purpose. There is no question that science is a powerful tool, but it's also highly specialized, so when it doesn't fit the problem, sometimes it's helpful to have another equally legitimate tool available to get the job done. I've mentioned critical thinking many times. It's the multi-tool of rational analysis. Here's the link again: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861

I completely agree. But this brings us somewhat full circle in terms of the never ending quest for effective funding applied to serious scientific investigation. By which most people in the UFO community seem to mean hard as opposed to social science. So how might we bring hard science, with its cause and effect experimental protocols and demand for repeatability, to the study of the UFO ? This is why is I posted a thread a while back asking how UFO research funding (we can dream, right ?) would be spent in concrete terms. I agree that much of the scientific community turns a blind eye to this mystery. But I think a lack of specific blueprints regarding how traditional research might begin is, unfortunately, part of the ammunition used against our need to be taken seriously. Even if most scientists would afford the study of UFOs as much (public) respect as to be this specific in their objections.

The most obvious proposal is an array of detection devices that work in the electromagnetic spectrum on an unprecedented scale: wide field telescopes, radars, EMF detectors and more. But history suggests this phenomenon is not amenable to such approaches. At least, not on our terms. And much of this is already out there, albeit not in the private sector. (We have swerved yet again into the subject of governmental secrecy) The only other area of hard scientific study that comes to mind is a targeted look at the mind body interface, such as is done with real time brain scans, etc. I have no idea how this might be aimed at the UFO question.

The closest thing to a "nuts and bolts" proposal I have heard in a while is Peter Davenport's passive radar proposal. My limited technical opinion is that it would wind up producing more noise than signal and more questions than answers. But it's worth a try.

I am being more than facetious. Seriously, how might resources be applied to opening so much as a crack in the door to shed light on this mystery ? The Suggestion Box has been open since at least 1947, but not much has fallen into it.

 

[Burnt State]

If we're dealing strictly in scientific terms, then the above is true in some sense. However science isn't the only measure by which we determine what is reasonable to believe, and those who are stuck in that mode are arbitrarily dismissing the reality of many things that are essential for a meaningful human existence...Or they may have unverifiable knowledge from firsthand experience.

Unfortunately, those soft science models do little in the way of convincing the masses. Our civilized conditioning is one that has turned off both our critical literacy faculties and any collective participation in the pursuit of knowledge. We are mostly a society of absentees when it comes to the new languages of contemporary knowledge (medical science, robotics, quantum mechanics etc.) and so we wait passively for the 'experts' to tell us what's what.

Consequently, the small pockets of people that try to invent some sort of 'ufological science' will include everything from contactee channeling alien wisdom, the tinfoil hat crew, the critical thinking folk and those trying/pretending to use hard science. It's understandable why this garbled lot has traditionally been marginalized and laughed at. So I can take my witnessed experienc and believe in a UFO reality that is probably alien in nature but that only lumps me in the above morass.

I favour a much more restricted, narrow pursuit by some type of professionally recognized body that is not motivated by power, ego or popularity but pursues the mystery for the sheer sake of it. There are few individuals in the field that qualify, even fewer that don't argue and insult each other. As for establishing resources for this field - that's more of a kickstarter pipe dream. Who in the field currently qualifies as a selfless, progress making researcher and why have they not already collected together to make real headway? Are they too busy writing books, hoarding the reports in garages? It seems that the nature of the phenomenon itself demands that it be kept in both the grey box of 'science' and social acceptability. It doesn't matter what the piles say people believe but how hard the reporter on tv giggles when dismissing it for the masses.

 

[Randall]

Unfortunately, those soft science models do little in the way of convincing the masses. Our civilized conditioning is one that has turned off both our critical literacy faculties and any collective participation in the pursuit of knowledge. We are mostly a society of absentees when it comes to the new languages of contemporary knowledge (medical science, robotics, quantum mechanics etc.) and so we wait passively for the 'experts' to tell us what's what.

It seems to me that it's not so much the masses that are the problem, but a minority of skeptics and media people. The general population is fairly open minded about many controversial topics, and UFOs are among the most reasonable of the bunch. An objective look appears to reveal that the ufology community is as responsible ( or more so ) for perpetuating the image as the few outsiders who are actually doing the ridiculing. I can't count the number of times I've seen some ufology personality on some video reinforcing the idea that the ridicule factor is a huge concern. Maybe it would be less of a concern if we stopped whining about it all the time. Remove the whole topic of the ridicule factor from the scene list and put in something that will reinforce taking it seriously instead of reinforcing the fear.

Consequently, the small pockets of people that try to invent some sort of 'ufological science' will include everything from contactee channeling alien wisdom, the tinfoil hat crew, the critical thinking folk and those trying/pretending to use hard science. It's understandable why this garbled lot has traditionally been marginalized and laughed at. So I can take my witnessed experienc and believe in a UFO reality that is probably alien in nature but that only lumps me in the above morass.

I favour a much more restricted, narrow pursuit by some type of professionally recognized body that is not motivated by power, ego or popularity but pursues the mystery for the sheer sake of it. There are few individuals in the field that qualify, even fewer that don't argue and insult each other. As for establishing resources for this field - that's more of a kickstarter pipe dream. Who in the field currently qualifies as a selfless, progress making researcher and why have they not already collected together to make real headway? Are they too busy writing books, hoarding the reports in garages? It seems that the nature of the phenomenon itself demands that it be kept in both the grey box of 'science' and social acceptability. It doesn't matter what the piles say people believe but how hard the reporter on tv giggles when dismissing it for the masses.

There you go. You've identified the perception that its not what "people believe but how hard the reporter on TV giggles when dismissing it for the masses", when in fact it's really easy to turn that around and say, "What's important isn't how hard the reporter on TV giggles, but how many people actually believe." The negative perception is pure attitude, and the ufology community should stop feeding into it because they're unwittingly helping to perpetuate it, to the point where it seems the whole field has this persecution complex. It's time to kick that to the curb.

 

[pickles]

IMHO the real reason that members of the scientific community will not speak about the UFO topic in public is several fold. Most scientists are funded by government grants. In many cases that money is their life. Government has made it perfectly clear that UFOs are persona-non-grata, period. Most scientists are timid. They fear that if they rock the boat, in a manner of speaking, they will be tossed out of the boat. In other words they will reap the whirlwind by their peers, they will be ostracised from their peer group. Look at how James MacDonald suffered, how Hynek acted while in the employ of the Air Force. Only a very few exceptions to this rule can be traced back in UFO history. Peter Sturrock is one, Bruce Maccabee is an even stranger exception but normally UFOs and science simply do not co-exist. IMHO.

Pretty much. Science in most cases likes to perpetuate scenarios where hypotheses have a real chance at being proven. It creates a cycle where you can write your own ticket. UFOs are, at present, "unscientific" specifically because scientists -- not science -- don't want to spin their wheels and not be funded and lauded by their peers.

 

[Randall]

Pretty much. Science in most cases likes to perpetuate scenarios where hypotheses have a real chance at being proven ...

Or where through the use of technobabble, shiny new equipment, and promises to reveal the secrets of the universe, they can make people believe some hypothesis has a real chance of being proven. Don't get me wrong, science is cool, but there was once a saying among particle physicists that went something like this: "we can define the atom as the smallest piece of matter that's infinitely divisible ( provided we have enough money )".

 

[Artyom]

The thing is that we do not know for sure if it's natural phenomena, at least part of it, or it's unnatural phenomena.
There are phenomena that impossible to predict but science still studies them. I'm taping about earthquakes, sun flairs and other natural phenomena that we can't predict or repeat.
Luckily we have people like Ray Stanford who does study the phenomena and doesn't care if it's natural or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Randall]

The thing is that we do not know for sure if it's natural phenomena, at least part of it, or it's unnatural phenomena.

UFOs ( alien craft ) aren't a "natural phenomenon". So that's not the problem. The problem is that the kind of evidence that scientists need isn't available to them. If it were, and somebody paid them to look at it, then they'd probably be more than happy to study it.

 

[Michael Allen]

"The problem", to quote a very sassy acquaintance, "is that science in the 'Enlightenment' abandoned it's philosophical underpinnings and instead adopted a 'first past the post' system: if it sounds good, if it looks good, we'll believe it. And because we, as Scientists, are Enlightened Paragons of Logic and Truth, if it looks and sounds and smells good, then as far as we're concerned, it's The Truth."

I've read a post here somewhere that expressed concerns that rigorous discussion can get waylaid by all manner of irrelevancies, like alchemy (among other things). I wish I could find that post again because the alchemists understood something that modern science has forgotten. The result is a divergence that makes nuts-and-bolts science (akin to engineering) acceptable, and anything else is in woo-woo-land. I think the discussion of the paranormal reveals the essence of this problem and the ancient alchemists have something to offer.

Current science, in it's failure to understand the human being, is endlessly stymied by such phenomenon as the paranormal and UFOs. In order to truly grapple with these events - as the alchemists understood - the researcher must be in an advanced state of 'humanness' (in a sense - I'm being indirect). Command of self - command of emotions, clarity of thought, informed by a personal knowledge of the nature of the human being (these are weighty and exalted topics) must be in place with the researcher before any true science (knowing) can occur (according to the alchemists). Significantly, pride must be mastered according to the alchemists, in order for true knowledge to be accessed, which it rarely is in current science of course, as my world-weary friend opines: "It turns out that what passes for 'science' is merely the fad of the moment. Someone's ego got his name in the history books. Someone else's ego replaces it. That's the real game."

Current (paid) science is not a pure realm of unselfish research for the sake of knowledge. That's the ideal - the hope, the sublime illusion. Science has a more grubby reality and a more banal day-in-day-out angst. IMO real science continues to take place with the enthusiast, the 'amateur'. Professional (Paid) Science and Religion are very similar. We want the imprimatur of the scientist before we believe/accept. Like the Pope, the Scientist informs us regarding what avenues of thinking are acceptable.

It's really a complicated subject - but then not so complicated: the Cartesian split did science in, and we are temporarily in a blind because 'facts' are run amok causing chaos, but as always, the alternative streams do proceed. This site is an example of that imo.

Indeed the alchemists were on to something--however muddled or confused their thoughts may have been (I don't think they were the originators). I've spent some time looking for ties to our current understanding of modern physics, particularly in optic, spectroscopy, nuclear fusion and stellar nucleosynthesis. Here's my post on the subject: Emerald Tablet, Alchemy and Stellar Nucleosynthesis | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Tyger]

Indeed the alchemists were on to something--however muddled or confused their thoughts may have been (I don't think they were the originators). I've spent some time looking for ties to our current understanding of modern physics, particularly in optic, spectroscopy, nuclear fusion and stellar nucleosynthesis. Here's my post on the subject: Emerald Tablet, Alchemy and Stellar Nucleosynthesis | The Paracast Community Forums

I've looked at the thread. Thank you for the direct. Great discussion.

 

[Tyger]

Still, perhaps it will be a highly imaginative thinker, who for reasons of personal passion, and if allowed to work in an unfettered manner, that will finally make some headway in this area.

This is, of course, exactly what the history of science is littered with. It's the passionate enthusiast - without the hindrance of 'credentials' - that make the discoveries that turn the wheel of science forward. Think of Benjamin Franklin's passion - the picture of him standing in the rainstorm with his kite and key - but also of him making observational studies on his long sea voyages - and all the other examples of passionate enthusiasts.

I often wonder about the Phoenix Lights - apparently seen over a stretch of time. Where was MUFON? Where was anyone regarding that? Race to the local airport - have a 2-engine crop duster ready and waiting - get airborne - follow that puppy with night vision cameras. In fact, where were the night vision optics from the ground - or was that not yet available back then? If one is serious about this, there is so much one could have ready at hand - make a phone call - get little planes airborne and we have some fun.

At government laboratories - where not only scientists but scads of Masters and Phd students labor away - they sign away all personal rights to any discoveries they may make (at least they did a decade or more ago and I don't see why that would have changed). Massive amounts of science gets squirreled away under mindless cloaks of secrecy for no other reasons other than such discoveries might be interesting for this or that military application or whatever. The tentacles reach far - even in what I call corporate science. This has everything to do with scientific research needing to be free - and goes to the issues discussed on another thread - the 'economy fail' thread - and my favorite love: the Basic Income Grant. If everyone was genuinely free - economically as well as in every other way that matters - they could spend their time as they see fit and scientists would not be beholden to the monied interests.

Until that time...the history of the curtain of laughter precludes anyone scientifically engaging it in an open public study.

Absolutely - and social stigma. Needing to be seen as a serious scientist means a high level of social control operates. I know a man who has high placed connections - all the way to Biden 'and beyond' . I recently approached him about asking him to query his contacts about UFOs. The reaction was immediate - 'Tyger, there are crazy people out there.' He would lose all credibility with his pals were he to broach this subject and it was clear he would not do so. So then I asked him to introduce me to one of them if the opportunity ever presented itself - and I'd do the asking. He could introduce me as his 'crazy but lovable old friend' . He gave me the quintessential put-off to my entreaties: 'I'll think about it.'

 

[Randall]

... Absolutely - and social stigma. Needing to be seen as a serious scientist means a high level of social control operates. I know a man who has high placed connections - all the way to Biden 'and beyond' . I recently approached him about asking him to query his contacts about UFOs. The reaction was immediate - 'Tyger, there are crazy people out there.'

Actually, the social stigma over UFOs is over hyped and peculiar to a small cross-section of society, mostly skeptics and the uninformed. Most people are actually willing to discuss the subject, and when the ice is broken in a group, it's not uncommon to see people suddenly join in. I know because I've been doing this since I was a kid and I've talked with many people over the last few decades. Also the ufology community is also responsible for helping to perpetuate the situation by constantly harping on about it. It's like the kid in the schoolyard who is called a nerd by one other kid and who then goes around telling everyone else that someone called him a nerd. Soon everyone thinks, there's that nerd kid. That may not be the perfect analogy, but hopefully it got the point across.

 

[Tyger]

Actually, the social stigma over UFOs is over hyped and peculiar to a small cross-section of society, mostly skeptics and the uninformed. Most people are actually willing to discuss the subject, and when the ice is broken in a group, it's not uncommon to see people suddenly join in. I know because I've been doing this since I was a kid and I've talked with many people over the last few decades. Also the ufology community is also responsible for helping to perpetuate the situation by constantly harping on about it. It's like the kid in the schoolyard who is called a nerd by one other kid and who then goes around telling everyone else that someone called him a nerd. Soon everyone thinks, there's that nerd kid. That may not be the perfect analogy, but hopefully it got the point across.

Maybe, Ufology. But when the situation is high stakes - like high clearances and such - credibility is not a minor matter. How one is perceived - how one's intellect is viewed - one's very stability - can be crucial. JMO.

 

[Randall]

Maybe, Ufology. But when the situation is high stakes - like high clearances and such - credibility is not a minor matter. How one is perceived - how one's intellect is viewed - one's very stability - can be crucial. JMO.

There were people in the USAF with Top Secret clearances who were paid to investigate UFOs. So they know what's going on. The only reason they'd refuse a clearance to someone for having an interest in UFOs is if they didn't want them poking around someplace they're not supposed to be in order to find out the truth. But even then, once again, we're talking about a minority of the population.

 

[Tyger]

There were people in the USAF with Top Secret clearances who were paid to investigate UFOs. So they know what's going on. The only reason they'd refuse a clearance to someone for having an interest in UFOs is if they didn't want them poking around someplace they're not supposed to be in order to find out the truth. But even then, once again, we're talking about a minority of the population.

"The only reason..." Hmmm....you are so sure? Why?

 

[Randall]

"The only reason..." Hmmm....you are so sure? Why?

You caught me doing what I caution others not to do, and that is make absolutist statements, well done . It's certainly possible that it's not the only reason .

 

[Steve Zalewski]

September 1, 2013

To the Scientist Who Claimed that UFOs are not investigated by scientists. I have a comment to make, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

You apparently have not heard of The Journal of UFO Studies, published by The J. Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies, or The Journal of Scientific Exploration, published by the Society of Scientific Exploration at Stanford University. By the way 4 years before Carl Sagan died, I gave scholarly data on UFOs to Cornell University Space Science. See my posting on the internet titled Shutting Up UFO Debunkers. Go to google, punch the title in the searchfield press google search and it should come up. Unfortunately, the scientific conmunity as usual is NOT well informed about SCHOLARLY UFO research. I will post on this site some examples of papers from peer reviewed journals, on the UFO phenomenon. I also will post information about Dr. W. Reid Thompson of Cornell Space Science who was researching UFOs 4 years before Sagan died.

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

 

[Michael Allen]

September 1, 2013

To the Scientist Who Claimed that UFOs are not investigated by scientists. I have a comment to make, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

You apparently have not heard of The Journal of UFO Studies, published by The J. Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies, or The Journal of Scientific Exploration, published by the Society of Scientific Exploration at Stanford University. By the way 4 years before Carl Sagan died, I gave scholarly data on UFOs to Cornell University Space Science. See my posting on the internet titled Shutting Up UFO Debunkers. Go to google, punch the title in the searchfield press google search and it should come up. Unfortunately, the scientific conmunity as usual is NOT well informed about SCHOLARLY UFO research.

Steve Zalewski,
Syracuse, NY

Skeptics actually do homework?! I thought they were just paid shills, right? Nevermind.

 

[Randall]

Can you cite UFO articles of any value from peer-reviewed scholarly journals ...

I wouldn't mind seeing those myself. The closest I've seen would be the old Battelle Memorial Institute statistical study. Statistics is considered by some to be a science and by others to be a branch of mathematics. However even if we grant that statistics is a science, it is still debatable whether or not reports alone qualify as empirical evidence, which is a primary requirement for the application of the scientific method. Given these uncertainties, I think that statistical study based on reports alone falls outside the realm of science, but not as far down the scale as pseudoscience. I'd label it a form of critical thinking that is worthy of serious consideration, but not necessarily definitive.

 

[Jimi H.]

..

Jimi H, you remain a source of interesting sources. LINK: Jacques Vallée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and LINK: Jacques Vallée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

Thanks! I learned about many of them through the Paracast

In reply to several posts, I think it's important to distinguish between:

1) Theoretical speculation
2) Practical science
3) Experimental science (versus gathering evidence haphazardly)

1) Many scientists are occupied with theoretical speculation on the possibilities of non-terrestrial life, how life came to be etc etc.
This includes looking at extremophiles on Earth, and making assessments about the hardyness and pervasiveness of life, and whether such life could flourish elsewhere in the universe.
2) Practical science which requires something solid for analysis. There are no objects available for scientists, at least not objects that we can say for sure are artificial and not from this Earth. If there are, they are either not available to the public, or I don't know what they are.
3) Experimental science versus gathering evidence more or less haphazardly. I believe that most amateur UFO researchers are occupied with gathering evidence, be it hard or soft data. I also believe that many amateur researchers confuse this search for evidence that has no theoretical framework to fit into (except the general ETH) with experimental science. Scientists won't perform demanding experimental science experiments (like building a particle collider), unless they've got a very strong indication that something should be there.
Otoh., many ex-cops or other pro investigators are busy with this important aspect, gathering evidence, without a theoretical framework. And considering that investigators go through life looking for something, and may never find anything solid, something to give to the practical scientists, it is clear to me that we can't even point scientists to where they should look, to gather data in any predictable fashion, or within any certain time-frame.

The Hessdalen camera setup is a serious attempt at investigating and gathering data, by science-minded people, but terribly little seems to arise from it. Furthermore, the lights we have actually seen appear more like some natural phenomenon to me (yes, literally like swamp gas, lol), and I think that most natural scientists would see them as such. So, they might see those lights as a real phenomenon, but a phenomenon which is essentially a natural phenomenon (like 'Earth-quake lights'), and perhaps so fleeting a phenomenon that working scientists can't be bothered to dedicate their professional lives to it, like waiting for Godot. On the other hand, if the Hessdalen cameras caught something that looked more like actual solid craft, or undeniably sentient, then I think many scientists, and folks in general would be quite drawn to it.
Regardless, it's still a model to go by, and that's something!

 

[Jimi H.]

I just edited my post above a bit, not least to end on a positive note, that Hessdalen is a good start! It's very sober but at the same time unapologetic about it's goals, it's hard to ridicule