|
Academia and UFOs by Stanton T. Friedman
I have had an unusually good opportunity to observe the reaction of the academic community to UFOs, having lectured on the topic 'Flying Saucers ARE Real' at more than 600 colleges and over 100 professional groups, such as management clubs, in all 50 states and 9 Provinces.
Not only has there always been a question and answer session after each lecture, but there have been classroom visits and seminars. Sometimes I was told to be sure to leave time at the end of a colloquium for commentary.
Clearly, they thought they could show that this UFO stuff was all nonsense. I made sure that in those sessions, often entitled 'Flying saucers and Physics,' that I touched on a number of technical topics about which I thought they would be ignorant: 'You are all familiar with the fusion and fission nuclear rockets, or electromagnetic submarines, or data on maximum acceptable acceleration, etc.? Are any of you aware of these?' Usually none were.
The point was that the students could see that their profs really weren't with it. The best one prof could come up with was, 'How come you haven't published in any physics journals or given a paper at a meeting of the American Physical Society?'
'Didn't you see my letter in Physics Today? Besides, why give a lecture to 50 people at an APS meeting when I can talk to hundreds or thousands and get press coverage to tens of thousands with my lectures?' I was somewhat relieved when that evening there was a packed house with people even sitting on the stage.
I have generally found that while there have been a number of courageous academics such as Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Alvin Lawson, and Dr. Ed Zeller, who have taught classes on UFOs, the general approach of the science profs has been negative. It seems to be based on a number of basic facts:
1. Arrogance: 'If these things were real, it would be important. If it was important, I would know about them. I don't, so they must not be real. Besides any so-called physicist without a PhD and working, God Forbid, in industry, isn't worth listening to anyway.'
Before Dr. J. Allen Hynek would see me, back in the 1960s, he had an associate listen to my lecture at a college in Chicago. Only if I passed muster would we go to Hynek.
One of Allen's first questions was, 'Why didn't you get a Ph.D.?' I told him I was tired of working my way through university as a union waiter, and wanted to get out in the real world.
2. Ignorance of the data. At the beginning of my lecture the focus is on five large-scale scientific studies of UFOs. After a brief review of each, I ask, 'How many have read a copy of this study?' Typically it is less than 2%. If they were going to challenge me, I wanted the audience to know that they hadn't looked at the data.
One physics prof started the question-answer session with a whole bunch of 'You said....' Every one was a gross distortion of what I had said-for example, claiming I had said Betty and Barney Hill were taken to Zeta Reticuli and back in 2 hours!!!
Somebody shouted, 'How about taking some sensible questions?' The skeptic walked out. 'Who was that?' A professor of physics. Obviously he hadn't heard what I said, as opposed to his notions of what a foolish believer would say.
Rather surprising to many people, I have had fewer than 12 hecklers in over 700 lectures. Two were drunk.
3. Appeal to authority. Often academics have read maybe one skeptical book, such as by Donald Menzel of Harvard or heard the late Carl Sagan on TV or in Cosmos, or have heard or read comments by writers such as Phil Klass. 'These people have shown there is nothing to flying saucers, so I need only echo their views.' Certainly they don't feel they need to validate the explanations.
4. Irrational notions of what science is all about. Carl Sagan, during a meeting at his home, stressed reproducibility as the key. I wrote a long response pointing out that there are at least four kinds of science:
A. The experiments in which everything is under the control of the experimenter, and in which the experiment can be repeated by the scientist and anybody else who reads his papers.
B. Those measurements made in circumstances in which the scientist cannot control all the variables, but can predict certain crucial ones, such as the timing and location of eclipses. One cannot create eclipses on demand, and one cannot guarantee good weather at the location, but one can be well prepared to make scientific measurements when they occur.
C. Those situations in which one can neither control nor predict, but can be prepared when something of interest has happened. Earthquakes and solar storms are two examples. Seismographs are located in many places. Particle detectors can signal that a solar storm has occurred.
And finally, D. Those events or activities involving intelligence. These might include murder, rape, aircraft or automobile accidents, or observations of flying saucers It is the approach to data gathering and evaluation which must be scientific. One measures skid marks and blood alcohol levels, and listens to voice recorders.
I can guarantee that more than 30,000 people will be killed in automobile accidents in the USA over the next 12 months, but I can't predict just when or where or who will be involved. In these cases witness testimony is of great importance. Our entire legal system depends upon it. Rarely is DNA crucial in determining guilt.
Fear of public ridicule also plays a major role in keeping academics away from the subject. Hynek would ask an academic to do a test on a soil sample, and the academic would say, 'I will have one of my grad students look at it, but you can’t use my name!' What good is a test without the tester’s name? Besides, one out to go to a commercial testing or forensic laboratory, where secrecy can be maintained and the tester will stand behind his work—normally involving tests which he does often and which results must be able to stand up in court.
|
more posts...