How To Study UFOs
Scientific Necessity Requires Exploring the Unexplained Cases
As the globe endures a flap of UFO sightings, a review of the attitudes toward and methods in which scientific minds regard the phenomenon will advance our knowledge.
The conventional wisdom about unidentified flying objects and those who report them is, essentially, one of dismissal and outright mockery. While it is understandable that official organizations should not waste time and resources exploring frivolities, credible sightings of strange phenomena in the sky continue worldwide, and they have been steadily increasing. According to the U.S-based National UFO Reporting Center, there were 3,809 reported sightings in 2007 alone. Even if 75% of them turned out to be bogus or explainable claims, that still leaves about 952 cases that are unexplained. Moreover, this only includes investigated cases: the majority of UFO reports made to authorities are not even explored!
Recently, a wave of sightings in Stephenville, Texas has made headlines, and the topic once again finds itself prominent in the media. It presents us with an opportunity to critically review our own attitudes towards the UFO phenomenon by examining some of the assumptions we make about such sightings.
Deductive Methods Rule Out Most Alternative Theories
According to one French government-sponsored UFO study, 13% of the reports it studied were “highly detailed”, but could not be explained as civilian or military aircraft, or as natural phenomena such as stars, Venus, or meteorites. This is the case for many civilian and government-sponsored investigations, which raises the question: what do we make of those unexplained cases?
Given that many of those inexplicable cases are extremely strange - such as the 1988 Glenrock Incident in which an entire Wyoming town endured an unusual UFO encounter – it seems incumbent upon the serious scientist to consider new frameworks where existing models fail.
Currently, scientific investigation into UFOs proceeds from a deductive basis: that is, taking established premises about physical reality and measuring individual cases up against them. The idea is to rule out all possible explanations within our existing view of the world before we consider alternative theories. If data from the cases fits a conventional explanation – that an odd “light” was the planet Venus, or the result of a deliberate hoax – then the case is considered closed.
Synthesizing New Theories from New Data
Deduction, however, fails as a model of inquiry if none of the data from the specific cases match the general premises. The logical action, then, is to discard the premises and begin from scratch. The history of scientific progress is replete with instances where existing models of thought fail to support new data, and are subsequently discarded by scientists. With the UFO phenomenon, the reverse occurs. Whitley Strieber, author of Communion, believes that there is a tendency to disregard new evidence in UFO cases to protect existing theories and beliefs about the nature of the physical reality. The idea that scientists operate in such a dogmatic fashion has clout, given the distinctly “unscientific” fashion with which established scientific organizations dismiss the phenomenon without serious study.
As investigations continue into the Stephenville sightings and other incidents worldwide, it is evident that what is needed is an inductive approach to that small portion of inexplicable cases. When current models fail, investigators should assess the new data from specific samples and synthesize new empirical theories. Short of a single, massive worldwide sighting witnessed by millions of people, this is likely the best way that human understanding of the UFO phenomenon can expand beyond the current approach of dismissal and scientific dogmatism.
Sources: National UFO Reporting Centre, Whitley Strieber “Communion” and “Breakthrough” ,Yahoo! News, Wikipedia.
