1977 00 00 Social Studies of Science - The case of UFOs - Westrum

Magazine Overview

Title: Social Studies of Science
Issue: Vol. 7, No. 3
Date: August, 1977
Publisher: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue features the article "Social Intelligence about Anomalies: The Case of UFOs" by Ron Westrum, published by Sage Publications, Ltd. The article delves into the social dynamics surrounding the reporting and investigation of anomalous phenomena, with a particular focus on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

Social Intelligence and Anomalies

The article begins by noting the public's recent interest in controversial anomalies such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and UFOs, which has coincided with a revival of interest in the occult and fringe scientific theories. Scientists, alarmed by this trend, often adopt a debunking posture towards these claims. Westrum suggests that this posture requires explanation, stemming from both 'the interests of the scientific community' and 'the logic of scientific belief'. The former relates to the threat anomalies pose to science's claim of a monopoly on truth and its public prestige. The latter involves theoretical and evidential reasons for disbelief, arguing that existing knowledge militates against anomalies and that evidence for them is often weak or based on misrepresentation.

The paper aims to explore how scientists gather evidence for their rejection of anomalies and examines the social system that mediates between those who have anomalous experiences and the scientists who make judgments about their reality. This system, termed 'social intelligence', transmits reports of anomaly experiences and influences scientists' decisions, often discouraging the investigation of UFO experiences.

However, anomaly reports can also stimulate scientific research. The article cites the historical controversy over meteorites, which was resolved through research motivated by reports of a significant fall of stones near l'Aigle, France, in 1803. The investigation by Jean-Baptiste Biot confirmed the event, solidifying the scientific acceptance of meteorites.

UFOs as a Case Study

Westrum chooses UFO reports as a primary example to examine the system of social intelligence, drawing parallels with reports of sea-serpents and meteorites in their pre-scientific-acceptance state. While acknowledging differences in social reaction (e.g., sea-serpent reports initially received scientific support, unlike UFOs), the case of UFOs effectively illustrates the dynamics of anomaly information transmission.

The article focuses on two aspects: the nature of the anomaly experience itself and how experiences are transformed into reports that pass through social channels. The reliability of decisions made based on these social processes is also considered.

The Ontological Status of UFOs

The author addresses the potential concern about the reality of UFOs, noting that the term 'Unidentified Flying Objects' was adopted to be more agnostic than 'flying saucers'. However, even 'UFO' poses difficulties, as Menzel argues it implies material reality, which he disputes. The term 'flying' also assumes propulsion, and some manifestations are observed on the ground. The challenge lies in defining this amorphous class of objects or events, which Westrum suggests can be addressed through taxonomic and epistemological solutions.

The UFO Experience

Westrum discusses how individuals decide if they have had a UFO experience, noting that it is a critical question often defined by comparing the experience to others and by the 'anomalous' nature of the event, which doesn't fit conventional cultural categories. The perception of a UFO can occur some time after the event, especially when discussed with others. Conversely, the existence of the social category 'UFO' can lead individuals to interpret ambiguous stimuli as such, sometimes influenced by a strong psychological set.

An example is given of an individual who wanted to see a UFO and interpreted an experience, possibly related to the re-entry of the Russian satellite Zond IV, as a UFO sighting, noting high-frequency sound and his dog's fear. The article also describes how the perception of a UFO often arises after other, more conventional hypotheses (like a parachute, airliner, or helicopter) are ruled out. This process is termed 'escalation of hypotheses' by Hynek, where the perceptual apparatus attempts to match the stimulus with common ideas first.

Critical reactions to a perception can indicate its anomalous nature. The 'Invasion from Mars' broadcast study by Cantril showed that 'critical ability' (making effective checks) distinguished believers from non-believers. Similarly, UFO witnesses may perform critical checks, such as asking others if they see the object or returning to the location to verify its presence.

The Social Distribution of UFO Experiences

The article then explores how UFO experiences are distributed in society, focusing on data from the United States. Random-sample polls reveal that by 1973, approximately sixteen million adults believed they had had UFO experiences. Contrary to a common hypothesis that experiencers might be mentally ill or socially marginal, analysis of the 1973 Gallup poll suggests that UFO experiencers are generally not very different from the population in terms of occupation, education, religion, and political attitudes. However, young people and males are more likely to report such experiences, and they tend to reside in smaller towns.

Studies using Gallup poll data have examined the relationship between UFO experiences and status consistency. While one study suggested status-inconsistent individuals were more likely to be UFO experiencers, this was only qualifiedly supported, and the majority of experiencers were not status-inconsistent. Later research indicated that general status level, rather than inconsistency, was positively correlated with UFO experiences.

Field studies, often conducted by UFO advocates, offer more detailed insights. A French study found that those reporting low-level 'objects' tended to live in rural areas, be respected in their communities, and hold steady jobs. Most experiences involved multiple witnesses. Similar findings emerged from a study of Spanish cases, suggesting low-level UFO experiences occur during routine activities, reinforcing the image of experiencers as non-deviants.

The question of psychopathology among UFO experiencers is addressed, with a psychiatrist noting that pathologies do not seem related to the experiences themselves, though the difficulty in relating these experiences to others can impact social integration. Other approaches, like Saunders' compilation of over 80,000 sighting reports, analyze demographic features. While counties with more land and population, and higher educational levels, show more sightings, these 'ecological' correlations require further interpretation.

A general challenge in understanding UFO experiencers is the gap between broad random-sample studies and more in-depth field studies. While surveys provide population-level data, field studies offer richer individual information but may lack representativeness. The social intelligence system is crucial in how this information is processed and disseminated.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article revolve around the sociology of anomalous phenomena, particularly UFOs. It examines how societal structures, belief systems, and the scientific community's response shape the understanding and investigation of such experiences. The article adopts a neutral, analytical stance, focusing on the social processes involved in reporting and interpreting anomalies rather than asserting the objective reality of UFOs. It highlights the importance of 'social intelligence' in mediating between experience and scientific acceptance, and suggests that UFO experiencers are not necessarily deviant but are part of a complex social phenomenon.

This document, from "Social Studies of Science," pages 280-288, delves into the complex social dynamics surrounding the reporting and perception of UFO experiences. It argues that UFO reports are not merely objective accounts but are heavily influenced by social filtering mechanisms, societal beliefs, and the behavior of media and official agencies.

The Social Intelligence System and UFO Experiences

The article begins by discussing how reporters are not a random sample of experiencers and how social filtering mechanisms favor 'credible' cases. It highlights that societal beliefs about who experiences UFOs (e.g., reliable witnesses vs. others) affect how these experiences are processed. An informal poll of astronomers in 1953 revealed that some had unexplained sightings, yet as late as 1968, it was still suggested that UFO experiences were rare among scientifically trained individuals. This discrepancy underscores the critical role of societal and scientific perception in how UFO reports are treated.

The Contagion of Experiences

An alternative explanation for UFO experiences is proposed: 'suggestion' or 'hysterical contagion.' The article notes that media reports often occur in batches or 'flaps,' creating an impression of imitative behavior. However, it suggests that this 'flap' phenomenon might be an artifact of the social intelligence system, specifically media behavior, rather than genuine contagion. The concept of 'UFO' is presented as a convenient label for ambiguous stimuli, making their interpretation as UFOs more likely and potentially triggering similar experiences in others. The 'Seattle Windshield Pitting Epidemic' is cited as an example of perceptual contagion, where pre-existing stimuli were reinterpreted due to a new suggestion.

The article posits that many UFO experiences stem from the misinterpretation of ambiguous stimuli, such as moving lights, distant birds, or astronomical phenomena. However, it acknowledges that some cases may involve veridical perception of genuinely anomalous events, where no perceptual error or dishonesty can be identified. The concept of 'UFO' also extends to physical evidence like photographs, ground traces, and radar blips, which can be interpreted as manifestations of UFO activity. A conversation with a military radar operator illustrates how ambiguous radar signals ('angels') can be interpreted as UFOs within a specific social context.

The Reporting of Experiences

The social intelligence system is analyzed through two aspects: reporting (publicly making witness) and social data-processing. Reporting involves making claims to public agencies or authorities. The decision to report is influenced by a complex mix of individual and social motives, with risks of ridicule or social sanctions. The University of Colorado UFO Project found that only thirteen percent of those who had UFO experiences reported them publicly. Motivations for reporting include a sense of civic duty and a desire to understand or legitimize one's experience. The individual's primary group plays a crucial role in assigning meaning to experiences, and skepticism within these groups can influence whether a report is made.

Reluctance to report is particularly marked in the scientific community due to an emphasis on collegial recognition. Scientists who have had UFO experiences may keep them private or swear colleagues to secrecy. Scientific journals are often reluctant to publish articles on UFOs, even those by astronomers, leading to a lack of awareness within the scientific community about its members' experiences. The article also mentions intentional concealment of research projects, such as those linking UFOs to high atmospheric radiation, suggesting that official agencies may actively suppress information.

Behavior of Official Agencies

The article examines the role of the news media and the Air Force in influencing UFO reporting. Media coverage, both positive and negative, affects reporting rates. The 'flap' phenomenon is again linked to media behavior, with the publication of a single report potentially triggering the release of many older, previously unreported experiences. This 'report release' phenomenon, rather than a true increase in experiences, is seen as a key factor in UFO flaps. The initial report of Kenneth Arnold in 1947 and the subsequent 'flap' are discussed, noting that many experiences predated Arnold's public sighting but were released afterward.

The intelligence operations of the U.S. Air Force are also analyzed. The reactions of the Air Force to reports influence the information it receives. This is particularly true for government agencies where repeated experiences might occur. The feedback received for initial reports can determine whether further reports are made. A significant problem arises from the different contexts of 'locals' (experiencers) and 'centrals' (evaluators in headquarters), leading to misunderstandings and the dismissal of reports. Locals, familiar with their environment, may be dismissed as joking or having equipment issues by centrals who lack direct context.

Air Force officers might tailor their reports to match superiors' expectations, or even take delight in explaining away sightings to increase the percentage of 'identified' cases. The article quotes an internal perspective suggesting that the hypothesis 'UFOs don't exist' was easier to prove and gain recognition, leading to quick explanations like 'It was a balloon.'

Project Blue Book and the Robertson Panel

For several months, the belief that Project Blue Book was taking a negative stance and that UFOs might be interplanetary spaceships was discussed privately in the Pentagon. Evidence was often looked into, reported, or destroyed based on the desires of higher Air Force echelons. Project Blue Book's orientation was strongly influenced by these desires. The Air Force also issued public statements to discourage reporting, and the Robertson Panel in 1953 recommended a public debunking campaign to remove the 'mystery' from UFOs. The panel's intention was to filter out 'poor' quality reports to focus on 'good' quality ones, which they felt might represent Soviet military actions. The article suggests this could have decreased the propensity to report.

An Air Force 'public education' campaign in 1949, similar to the Robertson Panel's recommendations, did not quell public interest and may have even stimulated it by suggesting the Air Force was being less than candid. The article notes this as an 'irony' where concealment can arouse interest.

It is estimated that out of 3.75 million people who claimed seeing UFOs before 1968, only thirteen percent reported their sightings. Between 1950 and 1969, the Air Force received about 12,000 reports, meaning one report in Air Force files for every 312 claimed experiences. These reports are not necessarily a random sample, as important sightings might be missed due to haphazard communication channels.

Amateur UFO Investigation

A third aspect of the social intelligence system is the transmission of reports by amateur UFO investigators. These individuals, often part of organizations like the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, investigate UFO experiences with a bias opposite to that of the Air Force. The quality of these investigations varies widely.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document revolve around the social construction of UFO phenomena. The article emphasizes that UFO experiences and their reporting are not purely objective events but are deeply embedded in social processes, media influence, and institutional behavior. The editorial stance appears to be analytical and critical, aiming to explain *why* and *how* UFO reports are generated, processed, and perceived within society, rather than focusing on the veracity of the sightings themselves. It highlights the gap between actual events and their public representation, mediated by social intelligence systems.

This document comprises pages 290-299 of the journal 'Social Studies of Science', focusing on the article "Social Intelligence About Anomalies" by Westrum. The content delves into the complex relationship between the scientific community and the study of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), examining how information is processed, perceived, and influences research.

The UFO Research Community

The article describes UFO researchers as forming a large and diffuse intellectual community. These amateurs engage in extensive detective work, including interviewing experiencers, searching for physical traces, collecting historical data, and publishing their findings. While they share a common literature and categories for describing UFO phenomena, commonality largely ends there. The community exhibits wide divergences in formal education, with a small number of scientists involved primarily as an avocation. Organizational feuds are common, and groups vary in their orientation, from 'scientific' to religious. Some researchers even focus on debunking cases.

The social intelligence functions of this community are considerable, producing numerous books, pamphlets, and journals, many with mass-market appeal. The sheer volume of periodical publications makes it difficult for any single researcher to cover them all. While much of this literature is of variable quality, some contains original research, and others offer systematically arranged catalogues of experiences. This literature has been useful in critiquing official pronouncements, particularly from the Air Force, and the community also exhibits self-critique.

Influence on Scientific Opinion and Research

UFO researchers and their organizations also function as an interest group, lobbying the American government for official UFO investigations. Pressure from these groups led to the University of Colorado project, which resulted in the negative Condon Report. These researchers also act as liaisons between experiencers and scientists, facilitating interviews and providing a form of consensual support and legitimation for scientists interested in UFO phenomena, even if it deviates from mainstream scientific conduct.

The influence of these social intelligence systems on scientific opinion and research has been minimal, with significant exceptions. Within the astronomical and general scientific communities, the vast distance to stars makes interstellar travel seem impractical for communication. Attention is thus focused on detecting electromagnetic signals from extraterrestrial intelligences, with less enthusiasm for UFO research. Reports of potential extraterrestrial spacecraft must contend with the presumption of low a priori probability for such craft reaching Earth.

Scientists often expect extraterrestrial life to behave in 'rational' and 'predictable' ways, which UFO reports do not typically exhibit. The diversity of reported UFO shapes also raises doubts, as scientists assume real phenomena would have consistent features. Furthermore, the lack of available UFOs or fragments for study makes the area unpromising. The Air Force and mass media have communicated enough about UFO experiences to convince many scientists that the observed patterns do not align with expectations for extraterrestrial visitation, leading them to dismiss such claims as routine causes, echoing Hume's sentiment about prioritizing natural explanations over violations of natural laws.

Polanyi's rationale for dismissing experimental results that violate current scientific convictions is also relevant. He argues that such results are usually due to undetectable errors, and pursuing them would be a misallocation of scientific effort. This approach is even more strongly applied to uncontrolled experiences from non-scientists.

Barriers to UFO Research

Scientists may avoid UFO research due to the low probability of significant scientific advance and the risk of earning scorn from colleagues. While some argue that ridicule is not the primary issue, the potential for jeopardizing a career is significant. University support, funding, professional journals, and colleagues' attitudes can all influence research choices, steering scientists away from controversial areas like UFOs.

Scientists Involved in UFO Research

The scientists who continuously engage in UFO research are few, making generalization difficult. Their interest typically stems from idiosyncratic, accidental reasons rather than a direct interest in extraterrestrial life. Examples include being hired by the government, being contacted after publishing on related topics, personal UFO experiences, or influence from fellow researchers. The UFO literature becomes instrumental only after their interest is aroused.

Pure social intelligence has convinced scientists that UFOs are not worth studying. However, personal contacts with UFO research and researchers have motivated those who do move into this field. Even elaborate compilations of cases by non-scientists are persuasive only after personal contacts or experiences create a strong interest. The growth of the amateur UFO community, aided by its literature, has indirectly contributed to scientists' interest.

Conclusion

What scientists believe about anomalies like UFOs depends on information originating outside the scientific community, but also on current scientific and engineering doctrine. Reports of potential extraterrestrial spaceships must confront the belief that interstellar travel is impractical. Evidence must be exceptionally strong to contradict well-supported principles. Furthermore, the evidence must fit a 'logical' pattern for extraterrestrial visitation. The evidence that has filtered up to scientists about UFO experiences has not been convincing and does not follow this logical pattern.

The article sketches the workings of the social intelligence system that selectively transmits UFO information to scientists. It questions whether different transmission systems might lead more scientists to believe UFOs are worth researching. The author suggests that considering scientists who have investigated UFOs personally, rather than through the social intelligence system, reveals diverse reactions, with some calling it 'the greatest scientific problem of our times' and others, like the Condon Report, finding further study unjustified.

This divergence indicates that resolving the controversy is not simply about examining the evidence. The article posits that UFO advocacy studies within the scientific community might eventually convince others, or the controversy may fade like that of sea serpents, or persist like ball lightning. The processes of social intelligence regarding UFOs are typical of other anomalous events, like the Loch Ness Monster, involving challenges such as sample bias and reporting issues. However, amateur research subcultures can aid in locating experiencers.

Understanding social intelligence processes about anomalous experiences is crucial for evaluating the reliability of information. Without this, one might wrongly assume absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as was the case with meteors, which were once believed not to fall to the ground.

Postscript

A postscript notes the receipt of a document modifying some conclusions: a survey of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) membership indicated that 53% felt the UFO problem deserves scientific study, and 75% desired more information, preferably in scientific journals. 62 respondents (4.6%) reported witnessing or obtaining an instrumental record of an unidentifiable event possibly related to UFOs. The article suggests this percentage might be lower than in a previous survey due to sample size or randomness issues.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes revolve around the sociology of knowledge, the influence of social networks and information dissemination on scientific belief, and the challenges of investigating anomalous phenomena that fall outside established scientific paradigms. The article maintains a neutral, analytical stance, exploring the mechanisms by which UFO phenomena are perceived and studied (or not studied) by the scientific community, without taking a definitive position on the reality of UFOs themselves. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the 'social intelligence' processes involved in the flow of information about such anomalies.

This document consists of pages 300-302 from the journal 'Social Studies of Science'. It primarily functions as a bibliography and a series of references, discussing various aspects of UFO phenomena, scientific inquiry into anomalies, and related topics. The content is academic in nature, citing numerous studies, reports, and publications.

References and Citations

The pages are filled with numbered references to books, articles, and presentations. These citations cover a wide range of subjects related to UFOs, including:

• Hypotheses and Witness Cases: The text questions the validity of certain UFO hypotheses, particularly in cases involving multiple witnesses, and suggests that hoaxes might account for many reports (reference 65).
• Intelligence Organizations: The behavior of the American press towards UFOs is mentioned (reference 67), and a generic problem with intelligence organizations is noted, referencing H. Wilensky's 'Organizational Intelligence' (reference 68).
• Key UFO Reports and Studies: Numerous studies and reports are cited, including:
• Ruppelt's work (references 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78).
• The University of Colorado's UFO study (references 72, 77, 80, 81, 109).
• Hynek's contributions (references 76, 87, 103, 106).
• The Condon Report and its evaluation (references 90).
• The UFO Evidence compiled by R.H. Hall (reference 88).
• The 'Project Cyclops' design study for detecting extraterrestrial intelligent life (reference 95), noting its high estimated cost.
• Amateur UFO Community: The work of D.M. Jacobs, 'The UFO Controversy in America', is highlighted as a significant history of the UFO phenomenon in the US, based on participant observation within the amateur UFO community (reference 85).
• Related Phenomena: The text also references studies on ball lightning (reference 111) and meteorite falls, including the efforts of H.H. Nininger to promote reporting of meteorite finds (reference 112).
• Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives: Citations include works on the nature of science, irony in scientific affairs, and communication with extraterrestrial intelligence (references 79, 94, 101, 102).

Specific Mentions

• Authors and Researchers: Key figures mentioned or cited include M. Bloecher, Ruppelt, Hynek, D.M. Jacobs, J. Vallée, F.B. Salisbury, R.E. Fowler, R.H. Hall, C. Poher, D.R. Saunders, R.R. Harkins, P.A. Sturrock, D. Menzel, L.G. Boyd, P.J. Klass, F. Roach, A.G.W. Cameron, H. Wooster, C. Sagan, F. Drake, S. Friedman, Markowitz, D. Hume, M. Polanyi, G. Kuiper, M.J. Mulkay, G.N. Gilbert, S. Woolgar, J.E. McDonald, and M. Heuvelmans.
• Institutions: Several universities and research centers are mentioned, including the University of Colorado, Indiana University Press, Ames Research Center, Harvard University Press, Exposition Press, Devin Adair, the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, the Center for UFO Studies, the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and the Royal Society.
• Locations: Various locations are cited in relation to studies and reports, such as Colorado, Bloomington (Indiana), Old Greenwich (Connecticut), Jericho (New York), Washington D.C., Evanson (Illinois), Pasadena (California), and Oxford (UK).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes revolve around the scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena, particularly UFOs. There is a clear emphasis on critical evaluation, referencing studies that question hypotheses and acknowledge the potential for hoaxes. The document highlights the expansion of literature in the UFO field and the challenges faced by researchers in keeping up with it. The overall stance appears to be one of academic rigor, presenting a comprehensive list of sources that inform the study of UFOs and related topics within a social science context.