Misplaced Pages

Ufology: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:04, 12 May 2006 editGeektacular (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,707 edits →External links← Previous edit Revision as of 14:12, 14 May 2006 edit undoThe Sausage Knight (talk | contribs)9 editsm →Sky Critter Hypothesis: updating sky creature informationNext edit →
Line 55: Line 55:
===Sky Critter Hypothesis=== ===Sky Critter Hypothesis===


The theory of ] (a.k.a. Trevor James) speculated that UFO sightings involve the sighting of exotic unknown life otherwise known as ''']''' or '''Rods'''. The theory of ] (a.k.a. Trevor James) speculated that UFO sightings involve the sighting of exotic unknown life otherwise known as ''']''', creatures similar or identical to ] or ], a theory also held by ] ].


==UFOs as perception or illusion== ==UFOs as perception or illusion==

Revision as of 14:12, 14 May 2006

Ufology is the study of unidentified flying object (UFO) reports, sightings, alleged physical evidence, and other related phenomena.

Background and legitimacy

While many ufologists strive for legitimacy, and some are respected scientists in other fields, ufology has never been fully embraced by the scientific community, for a number of reasons. Despite involvement of some respected scientists, the field has seen very little attention from mainstream science. Most critics still consider ufology a pseudoscience or a protoscience.

(For more on applications of science to UFO phenomena, see "Science and UFOs" in Unidentified Flying Objects.)

One cannot obtain a "ufology" degree from any college or university, though there have been a few college or university courses on the subject, often from a folklore perspective. Many ufologists are amateurs (or alternatively, individuals in search of fame and fortune), and however well intentioned, are often unfamiliar with generally accepted research standards, thus often rendering their own research useless even to sympathetic mainstream experts. Many amateur ufologists have been criticised for accepting as true stories or tales without demanding supporting evidence or conducting even cursory research.

Ufologists embrace a wide spectrum of approaches, beliefs, and attitudes, from those regarded by some as quacks (e.g. David Icke); to respected mainstream scientists like Peter A. Sturrock, J. Allen Hynek, James E. McDonald, or Auguste Meessen, some of whom argue that UFO reports are as worthy of study as any topic, and deserve case-by-case analysis using the scientific method. Debunkers (such as Philip Klass or Dr. Donald Menzel) have offered their opinions on UFOs, and though their conclusions have been disputed, they too represent an influential perspective in UFO studies.

However, this classification (sometimes presented as "skeptics" vs. "believers") is something of a false dichotomy, as there are other opinions on the subject: Dr. Carl Sagan, for example, was quite skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO question, but in 1969, he co-organised a symposium on the subject, thinking that science had unfairly neglected the UFO question.

Overall, Ufology might be seen as an interdisciplinary field, as people have examined UFO reports from a number of perspectives. In her critique of the Condon Report, Diana Palmer Hoyt notes that "The UFO problem seems to bear a closer resemblance to problems in meteorology than in physics. The phenomena are observed, occur episodically, are not reproducible, and in large part, are identified by statistical gathering of data for possible organization into patterns. They are not experiments that can be replicated at will at the laboratory bench under controlled conditions." (see external links below)

Along these lines, Peter Sturrock suggests that UFO studies should be compartmentalized — as are most scientific endeavors — into at least "the following distinct activities:

  1. Field investigations leading to case documentation and the measurement or retrieval of physical evidence;
  2. Laboratory analysis of physical evidence;
  3. The systematic compilation of data (descriptive and physical) to look for patterns and so extact significant facts;
  4. The analysis of compilations of data (descriptive and physical) to look for patterns and so extract significant facts;
  5. The development of theories and the evaluation of those theories on the basis of facts.” (Sturrock, 163)

Study of UFO sightings has yielded results applicable to other fields, such as in weather phenomena (see Hessdalen) and in human perception, such as the study lead by the SOBEPS for the Belgian flap in 1989-'90 or the studies of the GEPAN/SEPRA in France.

Some argue this rejection by mainstream science is part of the problem: anyone can declare themselves a "UFO researcher", and completely bypass the sorts of consensus building and peer review that otherwise shape and influence scientific paradigms. This has allowed many to stake out territory and disseminate claims, information and analysis of widely varying rigor and quality.

Some ufologists consider the general attitude of mainstream academics as arrogant and dismissive, or bound to a rigid World view that disallows any evidence contrary to previously held notions, despite the fact that the history of science is replete with discarded notions. Others charge that mainstream rejection of UFO evidence is a classic case of pathological science. Astronomer and ufologist J. Allen Hynek's famous comment regarding this subject is, "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method and people should not be taught that it is." Another comment by Hynek regarding the frequent dismissal of UFO reports by astronomers was, "Close questioning revealed they knew nothing of the actual sightings... and therefore cannot be taken seriously. This is characteristic of scientists in general when speaking about subjects which are not in their own immediate field of concern."

The Funding Problem

Astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock suggests that a lack of funding is a major factor in the institutional disinterest in UFO’s: "If the Air Force were to make available, say, $50 million per year for ten years for UFO research, it is quite likely that the subject would look somewhat less disreputable ... however, an agency is unlikely to initiate such a program at any level until scientists are supportive of such an initiative. We see that there is a chicken-and-egg program. It would be more sensible, and more acceptable to the scientific community, if research began at a low level." (Sturrock, 155)

Hypotheses involving the objective existence of UFOs

These hypotheses speculate that the phenomena derives wholly or in part from a phenomena, rather than the mind of the observer.

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

The Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) theorizes that some UFO sightings are alien spacecraft.

A sub-theory, the Staging Hypothesis, prevalent up until the 1980s, speculated that extraterrestrials have "stage-managed" encounters as a deliberate policy to "educate" humanity. This theory has fallen out of favor, as its proponents then moved on to even less literal-minded interpetations.

The advanced human aircraft hypothesis

This is a theory that all or some UFO sightings are advanced, secret or experimental aircraft of earthly origin.

  • During the 1980s, there were reports of "black triangle" UFOs. Some of these were the secret F-117 Nighthawk, which became known to the public in November 1988.
  • Nazi Germany is known to have experimented with circular jet planes using the Coanda effect. At least one of the scientists involved was taken to the USA after WWII. Experiments with these designs and their descendants down the years may explain many sightings of circular UFO's. See Military flying saucers.

There is a theory that the secret groups developing these aircraft in the USA, have been encouraging ufology to follow the "alien spacecraft" line of thought, to cover up for sightings.

The Interdimensional Hypothesis (a.k.a. "Cosmic Trickster", "Ultraterrestrial" Hypothesis)

The Interdimensional Hypothesis has two meanings here. See Interdimensional hypothesis.

Sky Critter Hypothesis

The theory of Trevor James Contable (a.k.a. Trevor James) speculated that UFO sightings involve the sighting of exotic unknown life otherwise known as Sky Critters, creatures similar or identical to Rods or Atmospheric Beasts, a theory also held by cryptozoologist Ivan T. Sanderson.

UFOs as perception or illusion

The natural explanation hypothesis

This is a theory that most UFO sightings are misunderstood phenomena such as ball lightning or by a visual illusions. See Identified Flying Objects (IFOs).

Psychosocial Hypothesis

This is a theory that some UFO sightings are hallucinations or fantasies and are caused by the same mechanism as various occult, paranormal, supernatural. or religious experiences (compare alleged sightings of the Blessed Virgin Mary). See article, Psychosocial Hypothesis.

The hallucination may be a distortion of a real object. Reasons for these wrong perceptions include:

The route followed by these misperceptions can be influenced by the environment that the perceiver was brought up in as a child: fairy stories, or one or other religion, or science fiction, or whatever: for example, one perceiver may see fairies where another sees Greys.

Groups Involved with Ufology

Sources

  • Peter A. Sturrock; The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence; Warner Books, 1999; ISBN 0446525650


See also

External links

Categories:
Ufology: Difference between revisions Add topic