Oh The Hypocrisy-Science & UFOs

One of the questions that are often evoked when an abecedarian enters the "UFO fray" is, "where's the science'" Skimming the top of the subject "today" most fledglings will have trouble in locating scientists or scientific investigation, which some of us think is a phenomenon unto itself; however, there exists a "curious thing," on the rare occasion when a person of science does delve into the subject-that is, it seems they lose there "academic training" and toss -scientific method- out the window.

Most recently, a Harvard psychologist, Susan Clancy exemplified this by the publication of her book, "Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens." In it she refutes the declarations made my so-called abductees of their experiences extruded by hypnosis. The written conclusions emanate from a study she and another Harvard psychologist, Richard McNally, gave to self-described abductees conducted in 2002.

She insinuates that because people under hypnosis are highly prone to suggestion that those that are conducting the session can easily input false memories. Moreover, she claims that people who have reluctantly come forward are those who have a pre-existing interest in the paranormal, mystical arts and Ufology. For the most part she claims that abductees are recreating memories from popular movies and television programs etc. It appears that she feels that in proclaiming that abductees actually "believe" what they are saying it might offer some solace to the victims, and show her in a different light'that is one who is not "overtly" condemning the abduction phenomenon in toto.

Personally, I don't have a problem with her opinion, conclusions etc; however, I do have issues on how she got there. To be clear Clancy admittedly "has not," and "did not" spend any time on investigation of the UFO phenomenon; her study of "self-proclaimed abductees," which is an "element" of the entire subject (Ufology), remained solely in the laboratory. Moreover, the source, or subjects of the study, was culled from respondents of ads placed in local newspapers. The method is suspect, introduces a myriad of other possible origins for respective anecdotes, and calls into question the "vetting" process, which apparently there was little of, if any.

From a scientific point of view; one would think that she would have culled her "source group" from established cases, those that have been investigated by experienced researchers, e.g., Bud Hopkins, David Jacobs, John Mack etc. The "vetting" of a "source group" in this instance by experienced researchers seems paramount in my view; moreover, Clancy would have learned that abductees are not eager to talk about their experiences, henceforth, answering a, "Have you been abducted by aliens ad," may have been realized as less then desired protocol for this particular study.

From the gate, Clancy's study is flawed, but omitting that for a moment, she also entered the study with a "fixed notion"; that is "alien abduction" is a "falsehood," so any disclosures, i.e., "false memories" would be in support her preconceived ideologies. Methinks, had this been "any other subject" her peers would have crucified her. Sadly, this is yet another example where "scientific method" can go by the wayside due to it's subject matter.

Prior to Clancy, last year, "Seth Shostak" senior astronomer for SETI made the rounds to voice his skepticism in regards to UFOs and the ETH. (Extraterrestrial Hypotheses). From a debate with Nuclear Physicist and renowned Ufologist, Stanton Friedman, to an appearance on Larry King, as well as penscript by Shostak, he left no question in regards to his feelings on Ufology.

Again, he certainly has a right to his opinion, conclusions etc; however, it must be clear that he didn't get there via "scientific protocol." In the debate with Friedman he acknowledged that he wasn't a "Ufologist" and that he hasn't researched the subject, i.e., examined the evidence; however, he condemned the latter nonetheless.

"Faith based" science isn't what one would expect from someone with Shostak's academic background and position with SETI as senior astronomer; I think it's safe to say that Shostak and SETI as a whole doesn't use that methodology in regards to their own research, given their success at fundraising.

A little irony here is that Shostak shares the idea that there is intelligent life in the universe, but apparently they are stuck at the same level of technological advancement that we humans are, and since "we can't there from here," then obviously the same can be said for our alien counterparts; however, the "speculation" (from SETI) is that they would be using "similar 'human' technologies" which can be detected, and of course is SETI's primary reason for existence.

Until mainstream science can take a look at Ufology with an "unbiased eye," which of course is "science at heart," then the value of theorems posed by those who admit flawed scientific method, and or apathetic queries into the evidence, are worthless. In the interim we'll have to contend with the hypocrisy that "true science" hasn't room for.

see part II