The UFO Problem: Science, Social Movements, and Theory of Knowledge

The aim of science, as is generally accepted today, is to organize knowledge gleaned from what we observe in nature. We take what we observe, and we structure it by using testable explanations, which thereby help us make future predictions about new things we may eventually learn about our universe. Hence, with regard to our study of nature and the cosmos, a good question that comes to mind from time to time is this one: What criteria would define a subject that science does not seek to address?

When we ask what things science doesn’t aim to study in our broader quest for knowledge, should that necessarily mean that these kinds of things, esoteric though they may seem, cannot be “known” or studied at all? This has long been among the questions that philosophers have asked; after all, in the modern sense of the study of things around us, such issues surrounding concepts that fall “beyond” the scope of the physical sciences generally are left out altogether, if not left to the philosophers among us.

One might argue that, when it comes to the study of the unexplained, one way of seeking to understand certain “paranormal” subjects would be to subject them to some degree of logical philosophical thought, particularly in areas where science has either dismissed them (i.e. these aforementioned subjects that science does not address), or where there is not enough physical data that a proper scientific assessment can be rendered.

This brings us to epistemology, which, defined roughly, involves the “theory of knowledge”, or study of how we know what we know (more broadly, it is an assessment of what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the study of limitations on how knowledge pertinent to a particular subject can be acquired). Recently, Michael, a reader and listener of my weekly podcast, wrote to me with a question about epistemology, and how our philosophical theories of knowledge might relate to the study of the unexplained.

Michael writes, and takes us “down the rabbit hole”, thusly:

What I would like to get your opinion on is a matter of epistemology, and how one who is exposed to such a myriad of ideas and thoughts, often times conflicting ones, can come to know the truth. I reject rigid relativism and subjectivism in favor that there is objective truth. It’s quite possible for there to be objective truth and due to our human limitations we simply cannot know or ever be certain (the skeptics position), but one cannot assume that because something is yet to be verified or unverifiable empirically it is untrue. I find the latter to be an irrational position, but therein lies the problem. What method or means can we rely on outside of sensory experience to give us truth?

Without the dogmatism that science holds today, the ancients may have trusted some other means of truth finding that we have either dismissed or lost. You might think this other method would need some verification process like science has with experimentation, but isn’t that just a scientific bias creeping through? True things, especially events, can certainly be unique instances and unrepeatable. What then is to be said of truth dependent on verification and verified by what means? Divorcing empiricism and verification from truth can obviously lead to a number of errors, so it’s unwise to dismiss these methods entirely and in all cases.

What I am proposing is that outside the realm of things which lend themselves to be subject to science, there is truth to be realized and possibly a way to arrive at it. I know you’ve addressed this kind of issue a number of times, but I think it is worth reiterating and revisiting from time to time because it really underpins nearly all conspiracy and paranormal related topics.

Michael’s discussion of epistemology here is esoteric indeed by today’s standards (and especially as it relates to the “popular” study of the unexplained). Deep though it is, his observations, I feel, may bear fruit for those patients enough to pose similar contemplation; they also mirror, in many ways, my own notions and perceptions about certain alleged “paranormal” phenomenon.

This is particularly the case with UFOs, and I feel that this subject, while representative of something that is also a very tangible mystery, has similarly been deemed “outside the area of questions that science seeks to answer”, as physicists like Stephen Hawking might phrase it.

For me, such matters that science will not (or cannot, at present) address likely should enter the realm of philosophy. The problem, however, is that in many cases, the modern scientist views philosophy as being “dead”, and having not kept up with the progress of science, especially since the time Einstein arrived on the scene with his revolutionary theory of general relativity. Therefore, if philosophy is dead in the minds of some scientists, then those things relegated to philosophy are thus unimportant (or “dead”, as it were) as well.

Hey, even Einstein enjoyed reading the philosophy of Kant.

This ongoing debate over which things are “dead” or otherwise unimportant in relation to the schism between science and philosophy is an interesting logical conundrum unto itself, in my view. However, as far as Michael’s line of thought expressed in his question above, in which things resting “outside of science” may still be knowable in some manner, I do believe that part of understanding this problem involves understanding the nature of individual specialization.

To return to Hawking again, the great physicist has often said that serious advances in the sciences are now relegated to specialists in the field, unlike the old days when many “untrained” individuals who proceeded logically could render new discoveries. Here, I would argue instead that the latter is actually still the case as well, although the specialization Hawking refers to allows new kinds of discoveries, as a result of the deep thought, scientific training, and complex systems that are employed. Such things might have been “knowable” much earlier, had the tools and practices that allow for their study today already been in place at an earlier time. This does not mean, however, that all things are “unknowable” without the use of such tools, training, and practice that the modern specialist employs. Indeed, I think the right non-specialist, looking at the right subject, may indeed stumble onto discoveries in the everyday that are scientifically meaningful.

As an interesting parallel, Hawking’s own specialization illustrates, at times, some of his own logical shortcomings, such as in cases where he begins to apply his thoughts and perspectives to other fields of interest beyond his “specialty” in the area of physics. Hawking, for instance, while not an A.I. researcher himself, seems pretty convinced that the creation of artificial intelligence would be a bad thing for humanity.

Elsewhere, his remarks about philosophy itself have generally been quite dismissive (as have his statements pertaining to UFOs, which we’ll return to in a moment). One could argue that Hawking does not possess the required “specialization” to be able to recognize the shortcomings of his own thought processes, as evidenced not only by his “philosophy is dead” remarks, but also by his observations about philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s assessment of language being “the only subject left for philosophy”, as related by Hawking in the final pages of A Brief History of Time. (Personally, I am amazed that there aren’t far more philosophers who have come along and challenged Hawking’s views on Wittgenstein, or A.I., or UFOs, or philosophy in general… but I digress).

I feel that discerning those things which science deems “unknowable” must require a bit more than specialization, and in fact, at times may also require multi-disciplinary efforts. For example, putting on our physicist or astronomy cap, we may look out into space for answers about things like UFOs, but would doing so really help us find any more answers than we have already managed to glean thus far? Furthermore, are there other areas of study that might help us solve the problem too, from “the ground up”, so to speak?

An interesting observation to be made has to do with the attitudes among those studying UFOs — the scientists, and believers alike — which will typically reveal one simple reality: that both “approaches” to study are actually quite dogmatic, and representative of belief-based biases that are built around, or perhaps grow from within, what are obviously social movements.

To put it another way, belief in an “alien” reality underlying UFOs is as much a social movement as modern skepticism and its “I think, therefore it is not!” approach. This is because those of similar mind on a subject will likely gather together, and when allowed to run to their illogical extremes, run the unfortunate risk of producing a very dogmatic, faith-based approach to the study of a given subject. At its worst, this bears promise for a lack of objectivity, and an approach that is generally unscientific, despite any attempts to the contrary.

Philip Klass, widely considered an “arch debunker” of UFOs, and at times even unscientifically so

Thus, a range of new phenomena begin to emerge. Within the skeptic camp, the result has often been a move toward more “debunking” by individuals whose minds are already made up about the subjects they study at the outset of their “investigations”. This, rather famously, led sociologist and skeptic Marcello Truzzi to leave the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, now known as CSI) shortly after it was formed in 1976, due to the uncompromising stances of his fellow members. On the other side of the fence, from within the ranks of the “believer” camp, we find more and more reformed UFO advocates and “born again skeptics”, as I like to call them, who (like myself) have had to accept a vast change in our attitudes and perception about so-called UFO research, after spending many years of (frustrating) examination of data that, often times, is spurious at best.

That’s not to say that either side — belief (or advocacy, as some may prefer), or skepticism — is the way to absolute truth. I actually prefer a more agnostic, middle-of-the-road stance, in an effort not to be dismissive of good evidence that may be put forth by either position. However, straying too far in one direction or the other often leads to bias, just as well.

Thus, while making a good case for what a UFO is (or is not) remains difficult, we could certainly employ science of sociology to make a strong case that belief systems can, and have influenced (perhaps negatively) the serious attempts at applying science to certain subjects. In this case, the subject would be UFOs, and although this observation is fundamental, it is my belief that it is important, on a much broader scale, and not just in terms of sociological studies, but in applying a bit of philosophical logic to the breakdown between people’s thoughts and attitudes. In other words, in the epistemological sense that Michael had suggested earlier, we’re asking “how we know what we think we know.”

This is the great role of philosophy: while some will continue to proclaim that it is a “dead” practice, its proponents and practitioners view it as an important system of “checks and balances”, that if not providing new discoveries itself, might at least help guide future scientific inquiry in positive ways.

Indeed, perhaps our predicament with things “outside” science has more to do with understanding why those things are deemed unknowable through science; and asking “why” is the fundamental job of the philosopher.

 TAGS: epistemology, Philosophy, ufo, unexplained phenomena

Taken With the Night: UFO Abductions and the Human Factor

Admitting you’re active in the field of UFO research, in all likelihood, will not serve you well as a pickup line when visiting a bar. After all, anytime a subject like alien abduction lands on the table during a conversation with someone you’re just getting to know, you’re bound to get a few strange looks… and if you’re lucky, you might even get a few strange stories, also.

To put it simply, I got lucky last night. But before I have to drag your mind back out of the gutter, I should make it clear what I mean: I was lucky enough to be able to share a conversation with someone who, rather than getting squeamish when the conversation drifted to the subject of alien abduction, responded by calmly saying that, “oh yeah, well that happened to a family member of mine.” The details that followed were incredibly interesting… and perhaps even a bit unsettling.

The conversation took place during a break between sets at a pub I visit once a week near the North Carolina/Georgia border, where my acoustic group is the house band on Wednesday evenings. My friend Amy had stopped in to watch us play, and since she was waiting for a few of her friends to arrive, I started chatting with her at the bar after she came over and told me “she had seen a wolf” on her way into town earlier that evening.

“A wolf,” I said, admitting a bit of skepticism. “Are you sure that wasn’t a coyote?”

She argued that coyotes she had seen were always more scrawny and physically smaller, and soon, a couple of the locals had chimed in with information about wildlife programs where Timber Wolves had been reintroduced in certain areas throughout the region. From this point, the conversation went on to sightings of weird or unusual animals, and before long, a full-on discussion of the unexplained had been initiated. When I admitted my primary area of interest dealt with UFOs, Amy told me something I had hardly expected.

“Well, I believe there’s evidence for that sort of thing. My dad’s mother actually said she was abducted by a UFO back in the 1970s.”

“Oh really?” I replied with genuine interest, though I’ve grown accustomed to people telling these kinds of stories by now.

“Yeah, but they say she’s a little crazy. And the weird thing about it was that she said that when they took her on board, they did all these tests on her… but they weren’t aliens or anything,” Amy told me, grasping for words a bit. “She said they were people on board that thing.”

“Wait, you said people? You meanhumans?”

“That’s right,” Amy said. “She lives in Florida now, but if she’s ever in town, I’ll try and bring her by to speak to you.”

“I may just want to speak to her before then, if it could be arranged!” I told her. While there are a plethora of interesting reports of alleged alien abduction, the more seldom reports where people have claimed that there is a human connection to the entire UFO mystery have always intrigued me. Such reports are often connected with stories of underground bases, secret military projects, and a number of other conspiracy theories; but also of interest are studies that have emerged over the years which seem to suggest altered states of consciousness might be capable of inducing strong hallucinatory experiences where an individual might misinterpret things about their environment (such as with the research of Dr. Rick Strassman, outlined in his bookDMT: The Spirit Molecule). Could it be even a remote possibility that some accounts of “alien abduction” involve something far more terrestrial going on, as perceived by abductees who filter their experience through the distortions some kind of altered state might present? Furthermore, what could be the reason for such an altered state (which could lend itself to the reasons for “dreamlike” experiences reported by many abductees)? Is there a chance they could be the result of some variety of hallucinagens that victims of abduction scenarios might be introduced to in some way?

While this is all mere speculation (and stemming from a conversation this author had with a friend at the pub), it does remind me of the countless other experiences reported by abductees that seem to bear these sorts of characteristics. What could be the real story behind the abduction phenomenon, and might certain aspects of the mystery remain far closer to home than most of us are willing to accept or realize otherwise?

 TAGS: abduction, timber wolf, ufo

Military Called to Deal With Another UFO at Indian Airport

What’s happening at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi? Specifically, why are so many UFOs being reported there? This week, reports of a fish-shaped UFO over the airport prompted calls to the government security force responsible for the facility to deal with it. What was it and why is this airport attracting so many UFOs?

According to Indian media, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) working in an airport watchtower issued an alarm on March 30th after seeing an unidentified flying object over the apron area where airplanes are parked for boarding and unloading.

It looked like a dark-colored balloon floating above the apron area.

Specifically, a fish-shaped object. CISF is required to notify both the Indian Air Force and National Security Guards before taking action against UFOs. A so-called “quick-response” team was dispatched to “shoot down” the fish-shaped UFO, but it was gone by the time they arrived and nothing more appeared on air traffic control radar over that area or adjoining aprons.

Shoot it down? Is security at the Indira Gandhi International Airport a little jumpy? Well, CIFS Director General Surender Singh announced at the organization’s last big meeting that 62 UFO sightings were reported at the airport in a four month period. Most airports are still on alert because of the Brussels bombings and the Indian media said that there were a number of recent hoax reports at the airport. However, Indian media also points out that Delhi police have been authorized since January to …

 … shoot down any unacknowledged flying device in the capital’s sky, especially in and around the airport, be they paragliders, drones, hot air balloons or other machines.

Not the “fish-shaped” UFO seen over the New Delhi airport

Yes, it was a “fish-shaped” floating object. That sounds like it might be a balloon, except a balloon would show up on radar, wouldn’t it? Why does this particular airport have so many unresolved UFO reports? Does New Delhi really lead the world in paragliders, drones, hot air balloons or other hard-but-not-impossible-to-identify flying objects? Why is it so difficult for this particular airport to patrol its perimeter when so many other busy airports in heavily populated metropolitan areas seem to be able to do it effectively and without shooting down UFOs?

Or is something else happening at the Indira Gandhi International Airport? Keep watching.

 TAGS: airport, Conspiracy, India, Indian Air Force, Indira Gandhi International Airport, security, technology,ufo, UFOs

{ http://mysteriousuniverse.org/ }

Corroboration For Kenneth Arnold’s Flying Saucers?

In a December 2013 article here at Mysterious Universe titled “Arnold’s Flying Saucers: Were They Saucers at All? Micah Hanks wrote: “Despite the popularity this subject would garner in those golden years after the War, perhaps there is no early UFO incident that has proven to be quite as influential as that of Kenneth Arnold, a civilian pilot who spotted an entire fleet of strange aircraft while flying over Washington state in June of 1947. The strange craft that Arnold observed would spark a flame that grew like wildfire, eventually forming the modern UFO phenomenon, and at the center of it all was the curious staple that became known as the flying saucer.”

Arnold’s encounter occurred on June 24, 1947, around twenty to twenty-five miles from Mt. Rainier, in the Cascade Mountains. Precisely what Arnold saw is something that Ufologists have pondered on for decades. They will likely continue to do so for decades, too. The Arnold affair has become such a staple part of the UFO controversy that, for many, it’s right up there with the Roswell case. However, I’m not here, today, to discuss the merits of the case. Rather, I’m going to share with you a bit of notable data that might provide corroboration for Arnold and his experience.

The story revolves around the testimony of a man named Fred Johnson. He was a prospector who may have seen the very same objects encountered by Arnold. Both military intelligence and the FBI took an interest in what Johnson had to say. It should be noted that the FBI has chosen to black-out Johnson’s name on its paperwork; however, that the military has not means we know who the man was.

“Fred Johnson reported without consulting any records that on June 24, 1947, while prospecting at a point in the Cascade Mountains approximately five thousand feet from sea level, during the afternoon he noticed a reflection, looked up, and saw a disc proceeding in a southeasterly direction. Immediately upon sighting this object he placed his telescope to his eye and observed the disc for approximately forty-five to sixty seconds.”

We’re then told that Johnson “…remarked that it is possible for him to pick up an object at a distance of ten miles with his telescope. At the time the disc was sighted by Mr. Johnson it was banking in the sun, and he observed five or six similar objects but only concentrated on one. He related that they did not fly in any particular formation and that he would estimate their height to be about one thousand feet from where he was standing. He said the object was about thirty feet in diameter and appeared to have a tail. It made no noise.

“According to Johnson he remained in the vicinity of the Cascades for several days and then returned to Portland and noted an article in the local paper which stated in effect that a man in Boise, Idaho, had sighted a similar object but that authorities had disclaimed any knowledge of such an object. He said he communicated with the Army for the sole purpose of attempting to add credence to the story furnished by the man in Boise.”

And, finally, we have this: “Johnson also related that on the occasion of his sighting the objects on June 24, 1947 he had in his possession a combination compass and watch. He noted particularly that immediately before he sighted the disc the compass acted very peculiar, the hand waving from one side to the other, but that this condition corrected itself immediately after the discs had passed out of sight. Informant appeared to be a very reliable individual who advised that he had been a prospector in the states of Montana, Washington and Oregon for the past forty years.”

Fred Johnson: a witness to Kenneth Arnold’s squadron of flying saucers? Don’t bet against it.

Note: you can read the document at the FBI’s website (The Vault) at this link, and by scrolling down to page 27.

 TAGS: FBI, Kenneth Arnold, micah hanks, UFOs

{ http://mysteriousuniverse.org/ }