RU_Insane
Skilled Investigator
Rather, there's no respected peer-reviewed journals for them to seek publication. Here, we encounter the thin-line between pseudoscience and legitimate science. Now, a peer-reviewed journal is an indicator, but not always a hallmark, of good science. There is some leeway for scientists to discuss "legitimate" controversy in journals, but this is limited to the confines of the operative paradigm (e.g. in physics, any such debate around FTL propulsion would implicitly assume Einstein's relativity). There's good reasons for that, but dangerous side-effects, as well.
The standard peer review process mandates, at minimum, that an applicant cite recent research (<5-7 yrs.) in their prospective paper. In fields which are maligned for the reasons you've cited above, the review process is an in-built barrier to honest consideration of enigmas not readily explainable by science. You can't have research if you don't have funding. A one-man operation can only last so long. The annual research output in an obscure, but legitimate science likely dwarfs a "parascience" like UFOlogy.
There are scientific journals (like the Journal of Scientific Exploration) dedicated to the study of enigma like UFOs, but wholly refrain from endorsing a definite hypothesis about the issue one way or another. This is in stark contrast to Christian Intelligent Design "journals", which are in reality thinly-veiled PR (like "Answers") to shoehorn Creationism as a legitimate science. Honest science doesn't claim to have the "answers" to start with! Rule of thumb: you can tell apart a good "parascience" journal from who sits on its editorial board. People with real Masters/PhDs from accredited institutions with previous research in notable journals (Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters, etc.) are credible. They're trained in the scientific method, but are also wary of science's conservative tendency to trivialize conflicting data. These are the open-minded skeptics you should look for.
Since they're trained in science, the peer review process should be very similar to, if not exactly the same, as an established journal. People with no scientific training (in particular those with little/no experience with peer-review process), in contrast won't write the same terse guidelines for publication which define the academic rigor of say, Nature. There is, of course, room for dissent in such journals--I'm not claiming that there's a consensus on the outcome of research; only that the guidelines for publication be relatively consistent. The journal is a moderated forum for the frontiers of knowledge.
I want to emphasize a previous point--peer-review is an indicator of good science. But bad apples can still fall through the cracks. Such authors are mandated to withdraw the offending papers and revoke their credentials. So, what of peer-reviewed "para-science" publications? There's ontologically no difference between Nature and Journal of Scientific Exploration, because the method of inquiry, the publication guidelines, the self-corrective mechanisms, are the same. The only difference is the subject matter they study. On what basis can UFOlogy be pseudoscience? Clue: He's referring to the pop culture notion (i.e. aliens flying around in spaceships)!
Just as the pop culture notion of science is distorted (science doesn't prove things), so too are such maligned areas of research distorted by popular media. Those distortions are internalized by scientists. This is compounded by the fact that parascience is by definition inexplicable to the reigning paradigm, so we aren't pressured to take it seriously. It's not a "legitimate" controversy, like the multiple worlds understanding of quantum mechanics.
I've hinted at another paradox: How can accepted contradictions exist within science (e.g. relativity and QM), and yet have a consensus on what science is ? The basis for some skepticism is that the enigma is inexplicable. But that's nonsensical. Quantum mechanics contradicts relativity, in its descriptions of the same phenomena, and its equations. There are attempts at unification (known as quantum field theory), but so far only two in the field (QED + QCD) have mainstream consideration, the unification of relativity with a quantum description of electromagnetism, and strong nuclear forces, respectively.
General Relativity on gravity: Gravity is the apparent force felt as an observer accelerates through curved space-time.
Quantum Mechanics on gravity: Gravity is the result of virtual exchange quanta (in this case, the graviton) which transmit forces.
Mainstream science has an attitude toward parascience, but it's not an informed consensus. You can use the same scientific method (!) to build models which explain the phenomena in question. It's been done before (Paul Hill, Unconventional Flying Objects). The trick is to have an internally (+ externally) consistent model with great explanatory power. Mainstream science is unaware of the work done to transform UFOlogy, NDEs, etc. to respectable fields of research, so I'm not surprised they label it pseudoscience. By the way, research often starts with a modicum of good data and a bank of anecdotal evidence. If anecdotes were worthless, clinical medicine and psychology would be dead.
The history of science is often romanticized. There are thought to be eternal, strict rules of what governs good science. Experiments must be reproducible, the hypothesis should be clear, the methodology and data should be easily accessible, and work well-cited. But it's not uncommon for ground-breaking work to be lacking at least one of these requirements. Its standardization is in fact a very recent development. Heck, "falsifiability" only became accepted in the 1960s! I don't think fortunate chance is given enough credit for these break-throughs. When it comes to how I think science is conducted, a lot of it is anarchistic, unordered. But we should be careful to distinguish honest curiosity-driven work (para/proto-science) from intentional fraud (intelligent design).
I'm starting to babble now...I'll stop here.
Last edited:
