Cashman is Right -- We Need Science
From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:15:50 -0800
|
SUBJECT: Cashman's Right--We Need Science
From: "Sparks, Brad" <BSPARKS@IFEIRVE.BEAV.COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:48:02 -0400
Dear List Members,
I thought I must have written the following remarks by Mark Cashman in
response to the UFO survey, since they follow my thinking so closely:
"The scientific foundations of UFOlogy need to be reestablished. Paranormal
theories of UFOs have done significant damage to our ability to understand
UFOs, and have represented an opportunity for crackpots of every kind.
Focus needs to be shifted from paranormal and abduction research back to
research on physical trace and effects cases, and attempts to bring
mathematics and physics to bear are essential."
I endorse this position almost totally and would like to see if support can
be raised for returning the study of UFO's to a scientific basis. The only
qualifications I would add are that I do believe that the paranormal and
occult are part of the UFO phenomenon, and that "crashed saucers" need to be
included in the list of discrediting subjects. It is foolish to think that
if UFO's are paranormal they therefore must be studied through "paranormal /
occult" means, whatever that might be. Absolutely nothing of scientific
value has ever been developed from "paranormal" methods, such as seances,
regression hypnosis, card reading, etc. The closest anyone has ever come
was with the original regression hypnosis case, the Betty and Barney Hill
case, with Betty's alleged "star map" (and correct me if I'm wrong but I
think Betty drew the map in a waking state, not under hypnosis). The star
map did lead to some interesting scientific work, though it seems now to
have largely fizzled out. But to my knowledge there hasn't been a shred of
any further genuine scientific or technological data obtained from abduction
cases since. It's almost as if we swallowed the bait and now we're hooked.
It is a failure of good judgment to abandon scientific techniques involving
physics, math, chemistry, etc. This is the most pervasive failing of
"UFOlogy" -- lack of good judgment. It seems that even the best of
"scientific" investigators cannot resist believing the wildest nonsense, the
looniest fringe characters, or endorsing the shakiest and most questionable
cases. There is unfortunately a major reason why UFOlogists gravitate
towards sensationalism -- intellectual laziness. It's easy to pick up a
tape recorder and record someone's alleged abduction experience and tall
tale of seeing the crashed saucer and dead aliens. It's harder to make
surveying measurements of the scene of a low or medium-strangeness case, to
take sighting azimuths and elevations, to review astronomical data, check
weather reports, search balloon launching records, examine and preserve
possible ground traces, etc.
We can trace the change in UFOlogy from a semi-authentic scientific effort
to what it is now, back in the early 70's. The Condon Report of Jan. 1969
had a devastating impact on UFO research, and many groups struggled just to
survive (and many didn't, such as NICAP ultimately). The closure of Project
Blue Book in Dec. 1969 surprisingly had a similar damaging effect but in a
more subtle way. Veteran investigators such as Coral Lorenzen welcomed the
departure of the Air Force from the scene because it would enable civilian
researchers to get on with the scientific study of UFO's. But ironically it
had the opposite effect. Once there was no more "father authority figure"
agency such as Blue Book to constantly have to "prove" one's case to, the
pressure was off from doing any diligent, serious scientific investigation
(or to even inquire as to what a "scientific" investigation would entail).
We should be thankful for having skeptical investigators to at least
partially filling the void left by the Air Force in order to keep us on our
toes (even though some of the proffered explanations have been at the nitwit
level and Menzel's were the worst). But it hasn't been enough. UFOlogy
still remains in an incredibly childish, immature state where people at
conventions run around with bullseye-target tee-shirts superimposed over
Philip Klass' face. Grow up and get a life!
In the countercultural atmosphere of the 70's the attitude of many was to
question whether "science" even had any meaning and whether it was
appropriate to apply to UFO's. Instead, there was a strong inclination to
dabble in the occult. Hypnotic regression to interview alleged abductees
started to become popular instead of EM effects and landing traces.
Peddling a new crashed saucer tale was easier to do than diligently
investigate a case. About the only positive new development has been the
use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to pry loose new government
file data, but it is still highly unorganized and un-centralized (it doesn't
necessarily need to be centralized but rapid interchange of info over
Internet would help reduce burdens on government agencies of having to
respond to innumerable overlapping and duplicative requests -- which they
use as an excuse to delay responding to everyone).
To sum up, I would like to hear from those who would join with me in
reorienting UFO research towards the science, as Mark Cashman has so
eloquently urged.
Brad Sparks
Index: Mark Cashman
Created: Sep 30, 1997
