2005-02-24

UFOs

This evening, my wife and I watched a fun documentary regarding UFOs. At first, I anticipated a shallow production full of fast editing, overly dramatic music, and a pro-UFO enthusiast slant. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the producers (a) gave a lot of air time to UFO skeptics and (b) delved a little deeper into some of the epistemological [there's that word again] questions. Here are what I see as some of the issues that tangle up this debate:





  1. Generally, when people hear "UFO," they automatically associate the term with extraterrestrials, forgetting the literal definition (Unidentified Flying Object), which does not have to refer to aliens at all.


  2. UFO enthusiasts often claim that the sheer number of sightings suggests that something extraterrestrial must be happening. However, that of course is not necessarily the case. A large number of witnesses does not guarantee that a phenomenon is true; for example, an Elvis impersonator can convince 50 different people that "The King" is alive and well — that doesn't mean he is.


  3. The most interesting aspects of the documentary were the interviews with skeptical scientists. While they did not believe that Earth had been visited by extraterrestrial life forms, many were very willing to accept the hypothesis that such life forms existed somewhere in the universe. Their rationale? Well, the sheer size of the universe would suggest that there had to be someone else "out there." Ironically, this supposition was similar to the faulty reasoning of the UFO enthusiasts. After all, if a large number of witnesses does not necessitate that a phenomenon is true, then the large size of the universe does not necessitate that alien life forms exist; it is not logically impossible that we humans are the first material life forms.


  4. Some of the scientists made a big deal of dismissing UFO enthusiasts' reliance on eyewitness accounts, arguing that such accounts were often incomplete and/or inaccurate. However, they conveniently forgot that the scientific method ultimately relies on sense perception and that we have to assume that our senses are not deceiving us. Ultimately—though many scientists would be loathe to admit it—science rests on a certain degree of faith.


  5. The main advantage that the scientists have over the UFO enthusiasts is the fact that they have a method at all. Even though science relies on (possibly flawed) sense perception, it at least is systematic and invites replication. UFO enthusiasts, on the other hand, have the distinct disadvantage of having to wait around until their object of study shows up and then relying largely on eyewitness testimony regarding said object — that's a pretty scattered method. If UFO enthusiasts said that they "had faith" in their object of study and reflection, then that would be a different story; science can neither prove nor disprove matters of faith. However, since UFO enthusiasts want their discipline to be regarded as "scientific," they end up inviting derision from mainstream researchers.




I hope that my brief comments help to clear up some of the confusion regarding this fascinating debate. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I highly recommend that you experience an aesthetic interpretation of these questions by watching Mulder and Scully Fight the Future.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home