Pseudo-science of anti-Ufology

[UM-Bot]

Image credit: Stanton Friedman MSc

In his latest article UFOlogist Stanton Friedman talks about those who attack the notion that UFOs are of alien origin. Friedman maintains that people need to take a close look at the available evidence and investigate in full before criticising this view.

"There have been a number of remarks by people calling themselves scientists attacking the notion that any flying saucers are of alien origin. The arguments aren’t scientific, but rather represent research by proclamation rather than investigation. We can learn a lot about how to deal with these attacks by focusing on the claims that are made and what is irrational or illogical or just plain wrong about them. "

View: Full Article | Source: UFO Chronicles

[karl 12]

Umbot -interesting post, I certainly think some UFO debunkers have a 'psychological need' to debunk cases - irrespective of any facts that might get in the way.

I've also noticed that many are loathe to address certain incidents -instead preferring to just concentrate on the vague 'easy to explain away ' ones.

I suspect the mindset of the UFO cynic is far more dogmatic then pragamtic - perhaps they've got more in common with 'people who beleive everything is a UFO' than they like to think.

[Lt_Ripley]

Umbot -interesting post, I certainly think some UFO debunkers have a 'psychological need' to debunk cases - irrespective of any facts that might get in the way.

I've also noticed that many are loathe to address certain incidents -instead preferring to just concentrate on the vague 'easy to explain away ' ones.

I suspect the mindset of the UFO cynic is far more dogmatic then pragamtic - perhaps they've got more in common with 'people who beleive everything is a UFO' than they like to think.

agreed.

[S2F]

There is one thing that UFOlogy has to consider however. The speculative leap from UFO to alien vessel. We have neither proof of aliens or their ships so seeking a "terrestrial" or mundane explanation first is paramount. Anyone seeking the truth (and not pushing a pet theory) would agree.

[Lt_Ripley]

There is one thing that UFOlogy has to consider however. The speculative leap from UFO to alien vessel. We have neither proof of aliens or their ships so seeking a "terrestrial" or mundane explanation first is paramount. Anyone seeking the truth (and not pushing a pet theory) would agree.

and when the mundane earthly explanations clearly don't fit ? you assume that we have no proof. many others in better positions than you have said we do.

in saying that. I believe we've been to the moon . many say we haven't. but do a bunch of rocks prove we have been ? video ? pictures ?

as many who claim that everything is a UFO or alien is just as bad as thinking what has been seen couldn't possibly be. Why is it skeptics gloss over the really extraodinary accounts , film or photos pre things like photo shop ?

anyone seeing the truth and not an agenda would agree.

[S2F]

as many who claim that everything is a UFO or alien is just as bad as thinking what has been seen couldn't possibly be. Why is it skeptics gloss over the really extraodinary accounts , film or photos pre things like photo shop ?

I can't speak for all skeptics but I try not to make assumptions about what I don't know about. Could some of the footage be ET? Maybe. Could it be a hoax or misidentification? Maybe as well. I am skeptical of the proposed "proof" however. If it were solid proof then the entire scientific community would be all over it like vultures on a carcass. Nor do I believe in some agenda or conspiracy to keep a lid on things, too many people would want the truth to come out. Especially considering the subject matter could be the biggest discovery in the history of humanity. That's just how I see it.

Edit to add:

and when the mundane earthly explanations clearly don't fit ?

This assumes we know all there is to know about things "mundane". I have my doubts about that. There is clearly more room for further investigation but personally I would put aliens at the bottom of the list.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Slave2Fate

[Space Commander Travis]

I think that any scientist who says outright that UFOs are not alien spacecraft is, yes, being unscientific, so I do agree with ol'Stanton there, but there's á big difference between saying that and saying that there's no evidence yet to prove absolutely that some of them are, and I wonder if Stanton is rather making an assumption by saying that people who say that are wanting to debunk the whole thing.

[Paranormalcy]

I personally think that while he makes good points here and there in all the interviews, etc. and is probably one of the most knowledgeable people from the "hard science" end of things, that Stanton has definitely developed (if he didn't already have) a.. shall we say "zeal", which can at least look like a fanatical, dogmatic attitude. I agree also that, true evidence wise, there is a vast gulf separating "UFO" from "alien", a similar gulf existing between "UFO" and "crop circle" or "UFO" and "cattle mutilation" - there may be circumstantial evidence and hearsay or even unusual/unexplained physical trace or effects, but none that concretely or conclusively ties any of these subjects to another - correlation is not causation.

[Siara]

Part of the problem is that the two sides in the argument are so polarized. One group of people think we've NEVER had any alien contact at all- even on a meteor containing extra-terrestrial bacteria. The other camp thinks that we are under continuous surveillance by thousands of UFO's, our ancient civilizations were started by UFO's, there are inhabited rogue planets in our solar system undetected by any science that suddenly "pop" into view, etc. It's sort of like a religious argument with radical believers in one of two separate camps.