Control of the Data

One of the generic problems with anomalies like Unidentified Flying Objects and sea-serpents is the intangibility of the phenomena. It is bad enough that the phenomena seem implausible; but added to this problem is the difficulty of checking the data, in making independent observations of the phenomena. For instance, virtually the only evidence for salt-water sea-serpents is eyewitness testimony; no photographs of them exist, and there are no carcasses to examine s1B. Heuvelmans, In the Wake of the Sea Serpents (New York: Hill and Wang, 1968), 435.. Again, with Unidentified Flying Objects there seem to be some photographs and alleged 'landing traces'; but the validity of these in turn rests upon the testimony of the witnesses, at least until something truly exotic in either photographs or 'landing traces' turns up which makes them interesting independent of the witnesses' testimony.

The savants of the eighteenth century had little confidence in the testimony of the witnesses to meteorite falls. They, of course, did not have the knowledge that we do of the psychology of perception, nor the large body of experimental evidence of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. But they did possess enough experience and common sense to be sceptical of eyewitness accounts of anomalies. DeLuc, for instance, believed that optical illusions were to blame for some reports of falls s2DeLuc, op. cit. note 61.. Others blamed superstitious beliefs s3Barthold, loc. cit. note 68..

The real problem, however, was that there was no way of checking what the witnesses had seen, except for the stones themselves. Without some independent proof, acceptance of social intelligence about meteorites would constitute a dangerous precedent. For here would be 'facts' which savants believed, but which they had not personally confirmed. The system of quality control of data could not function if such accounts were admitted into the corpus of science. Some part, however small, of the control of the scientific enterprise would pass into the hands of non-scientists. Should jurists and clergy, to say nothing of ignorant peasants, instruct savants? No: better that such 'facts' be denied, at least until they could be submitted to scientific control.

The meteoric stones provided the possibility for such control. As we have already noted, the first chemical analysis of a meteorite failed to detect its extraterrestrial origin; nor was any use made of the resemblance of meteoric stones to each other. It is important to note in this case that the physical evidence did not speak for itself; it needed to be interpreted. Nearly three decades later, when chemistry had gone through a major revolution and techniques had greatly improved, chemical analysis did show the peculiarities of meteorites, and the similarity of their appearance and composition was then seen as proof of their common origin. The evidence available in 1772 and 1801 was different only in quantity; but the use made of this evidence was much more effective in 1801. For now chemical analysis was seen as a method of data control - as a means of separating true from false meteorites - and the scientist was no longer entirely dependent on the testimony of the witnesses. With control of the data safely in the hands of scientists, meteorites could be accepted into the corpus of science. Research into meteorites could go forward unhindered by doubts and ridicule.