Week #9-Question #2: UFO Arguments

Condon states his conclusion that nothing has come from the research of studying the evidence for UFO’s in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Because of this, he says that scientists and onlookers should be putting their energy into different areas of science that have contributed to scientific knowledge and show growth. 

Hynek’s conclusion about UFO’s is that unexplained UFO phenomena are too often dismissed by authorities, therefore have not been studied in a systematic scientific manner. His idea is that if you can establish scientifically that UFO’s are being encountered in different ways, different cultures, and in different countries, and that they have correlated patterns, then the probability that the UFO’s happened by chance as a result of random misperception would be vanishingly small; Therefore, proving that UFO’s are scientifically significant. 

Paynter states that claims about the existence of UFO’s and alien abductions should be conducted “according to the highest standards of scientific inquiry.” Without any physical evidence, Paynter says that we should remain skeptical about these claims. 

My Thoughts for the Best Argument: Personally, I agree with Condon. I think that if UFO’s have not contributed to science in the last 20 years then why would we continue to waste time on them until substantial evidence leads us to believe differently. His argument stands out the most to me and I agree with him about not encouraging children to want to scientifically search out answers for UFO’s and instead challenge those interests into other areas of science. He makes very valid points that appeal to my ideas of UFO’s.