Ufology and science

The discussions of this paper have argued for the following:

1. There are billions of proper suns, planetary systems, and life-bearing worlds in our galaxy.
2. It is extremely probable that many of these systems evolved intelligent life-forms, some much earlier than our own.
3. It is extremely probable that some of these civilizations still exist, and possible that all of them still do.
4. It is extremely probable that some, if not all, of these life forms are based upon a physical structural format similar (though not precisely identical) to our own.
5. It is extremely probable that some, if not all, of these advanced civilizations have the means, albeit with difficulty, of traversing interstellar space.
6. And, it is essentially a certainty that these advanced life forms have several instincts/motivators/behaviors in common with Homo sapiens, one of which (curiosity) may be particularly germane to such journeys.

If there are scholars who do not agree with the arguments upon which the above conclusions are made, they should at least agree that each of the points is possible, not inconsistent or forbidden by scientific information as we know it. A perfectly congenial scientific working hypothesis might be: advanced extraterrestrial visitors have reached our solar system and may still be here. Though not identical, they have much in common biologically and psychologically with our species. They are partly motivated by curiosity and (scientific) exploration.

This is the classical "ET hypothesis" from ufology. When stated simply without the extensive previous discussion, it is often disregarded ah hoc or even derided. However, we have seen that it is an eminently defensible and scientifically respectable beginning hypothesis. We see its respectability in the growing interests of scientists in closely related research. There is the large upsurge in interest and programs for detecting ETI by radiotelescopy by the Drake-Sagan school of explorers. Other astronomers have suggested than an intensive exploration of the asteroid belt, looking for space colony-dwelling ETI, is in order s1Papagiannis 1983. The famous "Face on Mars" and the "Pyramids of Elysium" are intriguing s2DiPietro and Molenaar 1982. Some established scientists have mused that they are probably natural but just maybe not s3Sagan 1980. Another researcher has scanned the Earth-Moon Lagrangian gravity-well points for possible alien artifacts s4Freitas 1983ab s5Valdes & Freitas 1983. No true scientist disapproves of these investigations as being outrageous, laughable, or beneath scientific dignity. Nearby stars, the asteroid belt, Mars, the Lagrangian points: how much closer does "respectable science" have to come to Earth itself before UFO research is accorded equal dignity?

The supposition that we are alone in the solar system is based essentially on the assumption that if others were here they would have made contact with us, or at least we would have become aware of their existence. Neither of these assumptions, however, is true, though it is possible that some of the thousands of UFO sightings might deserve some further consideration s6Michael Papagiannis, University of Boston, 1978a.

The ET hypothesis is an acceptable concept to be weighed alongside others in the analysis of UFO phenomena, like any other natural (physical, biological, psychological, etc.) events, are acceptable subject materials for research. The only question can be: is this research being pursued properly?

As J. Allen Hynek was fond of saying, the science of ufology is the analysis of UFO reports (and any attendant artifacts or other remanent features). As in any fledgling science, the primary duties of researchers have been data-gathering, data-clarification, and pattern-finding. These are the classical first steps of the scientific method and much of the effort in ufology has been directed properly to just this work. Many patterns were found (e.g., times of sightings, population density relationships, witness numbers and types) s7Hynek 1972. Some patterned subsets were discovered. Some of these led to known but somewhat unsuspected phenomena (e.g., rocket booster re-entries). Some of these led to rare or possible new natural phenomena s8Persinger, Michael & Lafreni�re 1977. And some led to intriguing unsolved puzzles (e.g., motor vehicle engine interferences s9Rodeghier 1981 and ground markings s10Phillips 1981).

Beyond the pattern-finding step, scientific methodology requires testing or at least some form of pro-active observation to proceed further. However, as in many non-laboratory sciences, variables were difficult to control and replication was not possible, in general. Occasionally, as in photographic analysis work, labwork has been possible, and has often been pursued with high standards s11Maccabee 1988. Scientific deductions based upon the available patterns are possible in part, but as the phenomenon is idiosyncratic regarding time of appearance (and as no one seems to be able to produce the phenomenon on demand) only the crudest predictions can be made and checked (see s12Persinger 1981 for a creative attempt at this).

On the other side of scientific methodology (researching causal agencies, rather than patterned behaviors or "laws of nature"), hypotheses for "why" the experiences are as they are obviously can and have been made. The ET hypothesis has been one of many hypotheses weighed in the pursuit of explanations. "Lying," "misperceptions," "confabulation," "psychiatric problems," and "unknown natural phenomena" are several of the other hypotheses always taken seriously by the better UFO researchers; a fact proven by the vast majority of UFO reports being explained by those same researchers. True control of variables is not possible in all of the hypotheses (especially the more extraordinary ones such as the ET hypothesis). As such, testing and scientific deduction aimed precisely at these possibilities has not yet been fertile. However, in any given case, all of the hypotheses are theoretically falsifiable, and, in each explained case, all but one has been falsified. And this is not a trivial point in a fledgling science wherein one case bears no necessary relationship to any other. Science must permit piecemeal testing of cases or no new field of science could begin.

Beyond this, some cases have resisted explanation by the array of "mundane" or "ordinary" hypotheses, and yet are consistent with extraordinary ones like the ET hypothesis. They do not prove the hypothesis, as "hard," unambiguous lab-testable evidence does not exist for any such case. Such cases, therefore, present the scientist with flaws. By definition, since they are unexplained, they lack sufficient data. They may lack data because the data was not able to be uncovered, or because the witness or the researcher were not clever enough to uncover it, or because the methodology used in the case has somehow clouded the data. Certainly all of these situations exist in the vast numbers of cases in the field. But the conclusion of a scientist should be this: if cases exist, flawed or not, which resist explanation in ordinary ways, and which are consistent with extraordinarily interesting alternatives, these reports constitute an area worthy of scientific research. Even if all of the reports and all of the past researches are flawed in some form or another, this statement still stands. Ufology is, after all, a difficult field to "surround," and thereby difficult to research. It is eminently interdisciplinary, and taxing for the narrowly trained investigator. Its complexity should be recognized and approached with proper humility by the skeptical commentator as well. But the difficulty of the field is not a reason to abandon the field or to oppose the reasonable work of those who choose to pursue it.

Comparing the scientific approach of J. Allen Hynek to the scientific charade of the so-called Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects headed by Edward U. Condon s13Hynek 1972 s14Condon 1969, an outstanding U.S. scientist wrote in Science (the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science):

On balance, Hynek's defense of UFOs as a valid, if speculative, scientific topic is more credible than Condon's attempt to mock them out of existence. The fact that Hynek was granted no NASA or NSF support at all for study of UFO's can be regarded as a rather dismal symptom of the authoritarian structure of establishement science. It is also disappointing that Science, which has earned the respect of U.S. scientists and occasionally the enmity of U.S. bureaucrats by providing an independent forum for controversial views, failed to publish a responsible rebuttal to the Condon report, treating it instead as a news item. As a result, the susbtantial criticisms raised by Hynek now were not adequatly aired then. Thus, from this juror's point of view at least, Hynek has won a reprieve for UFO's with his many pages of provocative unexplained reports and his articulate challenge to his colleagues to tolerate the study of something they cannot understand s15Bruce C. Murray, Califorinia Institute of Technology, 1972.

In the view of this current author, this situation has not appreciably changed. Hynek's articulate wisdom and his cases remain, the public attitude of official science has remained cool to hostile, and Dr. Murray's enlightened tolerance has not been followed by his peers.