This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page
In my limited dealings with some proponents of the ET hypothesis (the notion that some UFOs are alien space ships) I have been dismayed by a lack of understanding of, and lack of respect for, the scientific method. It is particularly astonishing to find counter-scientific attitudes present among the so-called "field investigators" of MUFON, ostensibly the premier organization in North American UFOlogy.
The one axe I have to grind about UFOlogy is this: that it should adopt properly scientific methods and criteria of proof. It is my belief that UFOlogy has gone precisely nowhere in the 50 years since Kenneth Arnold took his fateful flight past Mount Rainier because it has developed a counter-scientific culture.
Science is not what you find in the text books and encyclopedias - that is knowledge, the product of science. Science is a METHOD for the acquisition of knowledge. The main difference between the scientific method and other procedures for generating knowledge (such as "channeling") is that science says that
YOU HAVE TO PROVE
The scientific method has a set procedure for going about this. It can be summarized in a series of steps:
1) Observation
2) Deduction of a hypothesis
3) Formulation of a theory
4) Testing of the theory
5) Adoption of the theory or back to (2) if it fails the test
Let us discuss the steps individually.
(1) A series of observations is made and a phenomenon noted. An obvious case in point are the claims made of the observation of unidentified flying objects. To the observer, the UFO is the phenomenon, but to the investigator, who is not present during the direct observation of the UFO, the real phenomenon is the claim itself. What gives rise to these claims?
(2) A mechanism for the phenomenon is postulated. In the case of the claims of UFOs, one might hypothesize that they arise because the claimants have witnessed an alien space ship (the ET hypothesis.) One might also hypothesize that a given claim arose because of the misapprehension of a mundane phenomenon, such as an airplane or a meteor. Another hypothesis that springs to mind is that the claimant simply imagined that he saw something.
(3) The most crucial step in the scientific method is the formation of a theory. A theory is a falsifiable hypothesis. That is to say, we must couch our idea in such a way that if it is wrong, it will be possible to show that it is wrong. Suppose my hypothesis is that a given UFO report arose from a misidentification of Venus. This would imply that Venus would have had to have been in the part of the sky in question at the time of the claimed observation, something I can check from astronomical tables. If Venus was not there, then my theory is obviously wrong.
It is with this step, the formulation of a falsifiable theory, that the ET hypothesis has the most trouble, in my opinion. It is generally postulated that although aliens are visiting the Earth, no evidence of their presence can ever be found, because of a world-wide conspiracy. That is to say, a world visited by aliens looks identical to one not being visited by aliens. Clearly, in this form, the ET hypothesis constitutes a non-falsifiable hypothesis, and is inconsistent with the scientific method.
(4) The theory must be put to the test. We must design an experiment or define a set of observations that we will take as proof that our theory is wrong. For example, we might say that we would expect to find some demonstrably alien artefact left behind as a result of all the alien visits, and crashes of flying saucers. If we cannot find anything, then we must be prepared to go on to the next step
(5) in which we admit that there is no evidence that our theory is correct, and go back to the drawing board.
There are theories that can be easily proved if they are true. For example, if I theorize that there are pixies at the bottom of my garden, I can prove my theory by clearly defining what I mean by "pixie" and then simply capturing one at the bottom of my garden. But most theories are more subtle and cannot really be "proved" in such a definitive manner.
For example, the theory of gravity, that all objects, when dropped, fall "down". We could spend our entire lives dropping objects and even if every one falls "down", can we ever be really certain that EVERY object will ALWAYS fall down? No, but we can eventually get to the point where we feel very confident that they will, and we say that the theory is "proved" to all intents and purposes.
But if it can never really be proved, is the theory of gravity a proper theory in the scientific sense? Well, yes, because it is falsifiable. We know what would prove it wrong - to drop something that falls "up".
This is the crucial point about theories - even if we can never really prove them right with metaphysical certitude, we have to be able to prove them wrong if they are wrong. I submit that the ET hypothesis, combined with a conspiracy theory, is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, because it does not admit to any criteria by which it could be proved wrong.
Worse, any evidence that it is wrong is simply incorporated into the conspiracy "theory" as "dis-information". In effect, any evidence at all, one way or the other, is interpreted in such a way as to confirm the prejudice that aliens are visiting the Earth under the protection of a global cover-up. As an example one could point to the MJ-12 documents, which although discredited, have been incorporated into the "cover-up" scenario as an example of government dis-information.
Another important point I want to make about "proof" is that science says that you have to prove what you claim. UFOlogy, in my experience, tends to claim one thing and try to prove another.
For example, let us take the claim that aliens are mutilating cattle. It is not enough to prove that cattle are being mutilated. It is not enough to argue that the mutilations could not have been accomplished by buzzards. It is not even enough to try to prove that the incisions were made by lasers. It has to be proved that aliens are doing it.
Another popular claim is of the observation of alien space ships. Again it is not enough to prove that the UFO was not a plane. It is not enough to show that it accelerated at 100g. It is not enough to argue that it was "not one of ours." What has to be proved is that the object was (1) a space ship and (2) alien. I reject the notion that these two conclusions are somehow inevitable consequences of the other facts claimed.
There are other examples of UFOlogists claiming one thing and proving another. With respect to the Cydonia "Face on Mars" it has been proved to my satisfaction that the hill looks like a face. However, it is claimed that only aliens could have made it (and, furthermore, aliens that evolved independently on Mars to look just like us). But to me, "looks like a face" does not mean "built by aliens". If I see a cloud in the sky that looks like a face must I conclude that aliens made it? Proof of alien manufacture, surely, can only be forthcoming in high-resolution imaging of the feature - if it is seen to be constructed from quarried blocks of stone then I shall be convinced.
With respect to the "alien autopsy" film, there has been much discussion about the curly telephone chord, the date of manufacture of the celluloid, and so on. These discussions may be useful in proving the film to be a hoax, but what the "believers" need to show is that the thing on the table is an alien life form. Surely, only something like DNA analysis would be unambiguous proof of that claim.
UFOlogy has to prove .
So what is to be done? What if aliens really are visiting the Earth under the protection of an air-tight global cover-up? Well then, I am afraid that we are screwed. There is nothing we can do to study the phenomenon and so I suggest we get on with our lives.
But suppose somebody (such as an "abductee") manages to recover what he claims to be a genuine alien artefact? How should science be brought to bear?
We have to prove what we claim - that the thing was made by aliens. I have a proposal to make:
A materials analysis by means of high-resolution (time-of-flight) secondary ion mass spectrometry. I think that if it is discovered that the isotope ratios for each element in the object are sufficiently different from terrestrial norms, then we will have to consider the possibility that the material from which the object is made originates from an alien star system.
If aliens really are visiting the Earth (or if they have done so in the past as others have claimed) then it ought not be too difficult to prove it. Any demonstrably alien artefact would do, such as an alien, an alien space ship, even an alien ash tray - provided that the artefact is analyzed in accordance with the scientific method and the results subjected to the rigors of scientific proof.
Again, in my dealings with proponents of the ET hypothesis, I have been offered a limited set of arguments against the application of the scientific method in UFOlogy:
Then why do they bother going to work in the morning? Science is a method for the discovery of new knowledge, and if somebody thought that he knew everything, why would he bother to do science? Of course scientists do not think that they know everything - and that is why they do science - to discover new stuff.
Agreed, but that does not mean that what science does know is WRONG. In fact, as I explained above, science advances by trying to prove itself wrong, and so that knowledge that has been around for any length of time is most probably RIGHT.
IMHO the history of scientific knowledge boils down to the acquisition of better and better data, and so it is natural that theories need to be modified or abandoned altogether in order to explain the newer and more precise data as it is acquired. However, those of us that have had to struggle through trigonometry are studying knowledge first derived by the classical greeks more than 2,000 years ago. And yet, this knowledge is just as right today as it was then.
The same goes for the science of statics. The knowlege acquired by the ancient greeks about how bodies at rest behave (such as the displacement of volume - Eureka and all that) is still as good today as it ever was, and there is no indication that it is, or ever will be, wrong. Of course, there are still intriguing holes in scientific knowledge, including the question of the existence of extraterrestrial life, but this does not mean that what we already know about the way the universe works is necessarily wrong. And IMHO the proper way to fill those gaps in what we know is by the application of the scientific method.
The argument here is that if aliens are visiting the Earth and covering it up in a way that cannot be detected by scientific means, then science is of no use in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon.
I am not sure that this is necessarily the case even given the predicates of the objection. It so happens that science is of enormous benefit to those investigating phenomena caused by parties with a deep interest in covering up their activities, for example spies and criminals.
But it seems to me that explaining the complete lack of scientific evidence for alien visitations by such a conspiracy is a display of a determination to believe at all costs. A rule of thumb in science is to prefer the simplest explanation that accounts for all of the data - a principle known as Occam's Razor . What we mean by "simple" here is that we look for the explanation which introduces the least number of new variables or phenomena. Now, if we have to explain the total absence of properly scientific evidence that aliens are visiting the Earth, it seems to me that the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence is that ALIENS ARE NOT VISITING THE EARTH, not that there is some kind of elaborate international conspiracy.
Get your own Free Home Page