1969 11 00 Icarus - Vol 11 No 3 - Peter M Millman

Magazine Overview

This document contains two book reviews from a publication titled "BOOK REVIEWS," issue number 439. The reviews cover a book on continental drift and a symposium report on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). The publication date associated with the UFO symposium is July 29, 1968, and the publisher of the second review is the National Research Council of Canada.

Book Review: Continental Drift

The first review discusses a book that presents evidence supporting continental drift and sea floor spreading. It notes that the book includes discussions on the fit between South America and Africa, the matching ages of rocks in these regions, and evidence for the fit between the Maritime Appalachians of Canada and the British Caledonides. A significant portion of the review is dedicated to paleomagnetism, particularly the polar wandering paths derived from it, and the correlation between paleoclimatic evidence and paleomagnetic evidence. The review highlights the discovery by F. J. Vine and D. H. Matthews of the correlation between striped magnetic anomaly patterns parallel to oceanic ridges and reversals of the Earth's magnetic field. Evidence for time reversals of the Earth's magnetic field is also mentioned. The magnetic anomaly patterns are described as strong supporting evidence for sea floor spreading. Seismic evidence for this hypothesis is summarized, including evidence for transform faults and horizontal motions forming the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of California. The review notes that the most widely accepted mechanism for large-scale continental movements is cellular convection in a viscous mantle, with discussions on mantle viscosity and possible physical mechanisms for a viscous mantle. While detailed discussions of mantle convection are not included, the review mentions problems of convection models, such as the possible migration of oceanic ridges and associated convection cells, and the chemical composition of the upper mantle.

The reviewer, D. L. Turcotte from Cornell University, commends the high quality of the papers and the publishers' outstanding job at a modest price.

Book Review: Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects

The second review covers the "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects" hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, held on July 29, 1968. The report includes testimony and written reports from six scientists who appeared in person and six additional scientists who submitted written papers. The symposium was chaired by Hon. J. Edward Roush.

A key motivation for the symposium appears to be dissatisfaction with the operation of Project Blue Book and the public relations issues surrounding the University of Colorado's UFO investigation under Dr. Edward U. Condon. It was emphasized that the symposium should not discuss these specific projects.

The six scientists who testified in person were Dr. J. Allen Hynek (astronomer), Dr. James E. McDonald (physicist), Dr. Carl Sagan (astronomer), Dr. Robert L. Hall (sociologist), Dr. James A. Harder (engineer), and Dr. Robert M. L. Baker Jr. (engineer). The reviewer notes that this group was heavily weighted in favor of those advocating for more aggressive government action in UFO study, with Dr. Sagan being the only one to express reservations about the scientific value of such studies.

The reviewer, Peter M. Millman of the National Research Council of Canada, felt that two important points were often missed during the hearings: the subjective nature of the experience of seeing, including psychological effects of training and conditioning, and the diverse nature of unexplained events. The reviewer cautions against lumping all unexplained events together and emphasizes the need to understand why certain hypotheses are suggested by specific events.

Millman expresses skepticism about the idea that an expensively mounted scientific program will automatically produce adequate evidence for a solution, noting that even Dr. McDonald acknowledges the scarcity of valid UFO photos and the inexplicable nature of sonic booms in certain contexts. The reviewer also speculates about the role of rare, image-forming mechanisms in the atmosphere.

Following the official hearings, written reports from six additional scientists were tabled. These included Dr. Donald H. Menzel, who concluded that UFO sightings do not require the assumption of extraterrestrial intelligences; Dr. Leo Sprinkle, who expressed interest in the psychological study of the field; Dr. Garry C. Henderson, who advocated for expanded scientific investigation; Mr. Stanton T. Friedman, who strongly believed in extraterrestrial visitation; Dr. Roger N. Shepard, who wrote on the psychological aspects of interviewing observers and data analysis; and Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, who reviewed sighting types and explanations.

Millman states that it is time to remove the subject from ridicule and treat it as an unemotional recording of interesting phenomena, urging scientists to keep an open mind. He warns against assuming simple explanations or believing that large sums of money will automatically ensure a satisfactory solution.

Review of The University of Colorado Report on Unidentified Flying Objects

This section is a review of the University of Colorado Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences, published in 1969. The panel was appointed in late October and early November 1968.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The reviews collectively advocate for a rigorous, evidence-based, and unemotional approach to scientific inquiry, whether examining geological phenomena like continental drift or the more controversial subject of UFOs. There is a clear emphasis on the importance of scientific methodology, the acknowledgment of limitations in current understanding, and a caution against premature conclusions or the over-reliance on financial investment to solve complex problems. The reviewer for the UFO symposium, in particular, stresses the need to treat the subject with scientific objectivity, free from both ridicule and excessive enthusiasm, and to analyze data impartially.