Ufo: Analysis of Various Scientific Perspectives on The Phenomenon

Everyone has heard about people claiming to have seen or been abducted by a U.F.O. how seriously are they taken and more importantly do skeptics believe them. Many skeptics believe the existence of U.F.Os is not real. However, Individuals from different parts of the world claim to have seen a U.F.O and even been abducted. All of these stories share a common story line, seeing bright lights, memories of an operation and then a sudden awakening with an unexplained loss of time. This is a phenomenon that has evaded scientific study. With little evidence, all Scientists have to rely on is anecdotal evidence. Many skeptics from the scientific community argue that the study of U.F.O phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries, because of these views, it is not widely accepted .Skeptics will argue other explanations such as perceptual and social errors in our thinking and even hallucinations can cause these unexplained sighting. Most scientists will argue that there are natural explanations for these phenomena. It is also a fact that while hoaxes, delusion, and misidentification of natural or man-made objects do account for most UFO reports, they do not explain them all. There are those sightings that, despite the best efforts of science and the military to explain away, simply defy explanation and must be looked at more closely.

Both Condon and Paynter views on physical evidence in the existence of U.F.O are alike. Physical evidence is essential to scientific research. In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. This kind of observation generally is expected to be empirical. In the same way, Condon argues that physical evidence is more reliable then on individual’s anecdotal evidence that can be inaccurate; this kind of evidence is usually unsupported and would be of more value to the social and behavioral sciences. Paynte, like Condon, also argues that there is no physical evidence to conclude that aliens are or ever did visit earth. He claims that there is no physical object in existence that was left behind by aliens. Individuals can believe in the existence of U.F.Os in the same way as an individual can believe in a God. With no physical evidence to conclude it is mainly relied on individual’s memories of the account. This form of evidence is unreliable because individuals can exaggerate and distort what they think happened.

On the contrary, what makes these two arguments different is paynter’s believe that without evidence we should be skeptical about such claims, to be opened minded. Evidence can come from different sources some will be more reliable than others and to remain from looking only for evidence that confirms our assumptions. There is not enough evidence to conclude that the existence of U.F.Os is not real. Yet Condon argues that, without any physical evidence then there must be other natural explanations to these phenomena such as weather balloons or aircrafts. He argues that the subject of U.F.Os has been widely misrepresented to the public from the media. Individuals perceptions of the world can be easily manipulate and influence. Our brains filter our perceptions and will fill in missing information, which can cause seeing things that are not real.

Both Condon and Hynek acknowledge that there are phenomena happening and needs to be fully examined. Both wants an effort put forth in the study of these phenomena. Hynek, unlike Condon, argues that there is available data that is already present. He argues U.F.O phenomena are too often dismissed and as a result have not been studied in a systematic manner. He states the Condon report did not put forth efforts for examining the data at hand. The Condon report examined data that was entirely on physical evidence. Whereas Condon, any individual accounts were not of high importance. Unlike Condon, Hynek propose the mass of world U.F.O reports should be handled statistically. A statistical approach would have been more productive. Another method would be to compare larger groups of sightings of particular categories with much larger populations of the same category, while the Condon study did not examine each individual. Instead of examining the data and individual accounts, the attention was place on physical evidence. As for Hynek, the concentration would be place on the close encounter cases especially of the second kind. Those who claim to have been abducted by aliens say they have been implanted, this would be the evidence needed to examine.

The similarly between Hynek and Paynter is how this subject should be approach. The claims of individuals need to be examined in a more scientific way. Data needs to be gathered, hypothesis suggested and observations recorded and questions asked, this should be the first step. They both argue to be skeptical of the claim but not to dismiss them entirely. This is a global phenomenon. Like Hynek, Paynter argues that the demand of physical evidence is unreasonable. Aliens are too intelligent to leave any evidence on earth. Most important, there are too many counts of these sighing being dismissed.

However, Paynter approach on physical evidence is on implants left on individuals. This is the only kind of evidence to examine. Without this evidence, Paynter does not have a lot to rely on. While Hynek argues on the accounts of individuals, this is anecdotal evidence which is not as reliable as physical evidence. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. However, statistical evidence can be more accurate in determining why this phenomenon is currently happening.

U.F.O. sighting have been happening for decades with little help from the scientific community. The reality of the matter is the study of U.F.Os needs to be accepted. Hynek argue for a statistical approach which I feel would be helpful in researching the claims. This is a field not truly explored by the scientific community. The Condon study spent millions on this subject but did not think to use this approach; they have 21 years of study and concluded that nothing was added to scientific knowledge. Data that was collected for 21 years, if processed properly would be enough to take the next step in researching these phenomena. These phenomena are often dismissed by authorities and the military. These reports could possible hold clues to what have been evading scientists from the truth.

Despite the efforts of the military and of science, there are sighting that just cannot be explained. Skeptics will continue to argue the existence of U.F.Os until there is probative physical evidence in which we can examine closely. Until then we have to rely on data that has been collected from these claims and the anecdotal evidence from individuals.