1977 08 00 Social Studies of Science - Vol 7 No 3 - Ron Westrum

Magazine Overview

Title: Social Studies of Science
Issue: Vol. 7, No. 3
Date: August 1977
Publisher: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Author: Ron Westrum

Social Intelligence about Anomalies: The Case of UFOs

This article, "Social Intelligence about Anomalies: The Case of UFOs" by Ron Westrum, published in *Social Studies of Science* in August 1977, examines the social and psychological processes involved in the reporting and scientific reception of anomalous phenomena, with a particular focus on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

The Debunking Posture of Science

Westrum begins by noting the significant public interest in anomalies such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and UFOs, which has coincided with a revival of interest in the occult and fringe theories. He observes that scientists often adopt a "debunking posture" towards these claims, attempting to deny their legitimacy. This posture, he argues, is not simply a natural consequence of scientists being arbiters of truth, but rather stems from two sets of factors: the "interests of the scientific community" and the "logic of scientific belief."

The interests of the scientific community are threatened by anomalies because they challenge science's claim to a monopoly on true descriptions of the world and diminish the prestige of established scientific figures. The logic of scientific belief dictates that anomalies are often disbelieved due to existing scientific paradigms, theories, and established facts. Furthermore, the evidence presented for anomalies is often weak and can be dismissed on theoretical grounds or by identifying misrepresentation or error.

The System of Social Intelligence

The paper proposes to explore how scientists acquire the evidence that leads them to reject anomalies. It introduces the concept of a "social intelligence" system, which acts as an intermediary between individuals who have anomalous experiences and the scientists who evaluate these claims. This system transmits reports of experiences to the public and scientists, influencing decisions about whether to investigate. Westrum notes that while anomaly reports can sometimes motivate scientific research (citing the example of meteorites), the social intelligence system concerning UFOs has often discouraged scientific investigation.

The Ontological Status of UFOs

Before delving into the social intelligence processes, Westrum addresses the ontological status of UFOs. He explains that the term "Unidentified Flying Objects" was adopted to be more agnostic than "flying saucers." However, even "UFO" can be problematic, implying material reality and a mode of propulsion. The author advocates for suspending judgment on the reality of UFOs and instead studying them as psychological and social events. The focus shifts from identifying a "person who has sighted a UFO" to a "person who has had a UFO experience," and how these experiences are transformed into reports that form the basis of scientific decisions.

The UFO Experience

Westrum then examines the nature of the UFO experience itself. He notes that an individual might not initially categorize an experience as a "UFO" but rather as an anomalous object. The labeling of an experience as a "UFO experience" often occurs later, after discussions with others or comparison with other reports, when the event is recognized as not fitting conventional cultural categories. Conversely, once the social category "UFO" exists, individuals may be psychologically primed to interpret ambiguous stimuli as UFOs. The article cites an account of someone actively seeking a UFO and interpreting debris from the Russian satellite Zond IV as such.

The process of perceiving a UFO often involves an "escalation of hypotheses," as described by J. Allen Hynek. Witnesses first attempt to fit the stimulus into more common perceptual categories (e.g., parachute, airliner, helicopter). Only when these hypotheses fail does the perception of an anomaly emerge. The article provides examples of witnesses who meticulously ruled out conventional explanations before concluding they were observing a UFO.

Critical checks on perceptions are also a part of the UFO experience. Witnesses may seek validation by asking others if they see the same thing or by returning to the sighting location. The article mentions a study where scientists, concerned about mistaking airplanes for UFOs, had planes fly over their installation to test their perceptions. The author notes that confidence in having seen something anomalous is enhanced by making such critical checks.

The Social Distribution of UFO Experiences

Westrum investigates how UFO experiences are distributed within society, primarily focusing on data from the United States. He presents findings from various Gallup polls and studies, indicating that a significant percentage of the adult population has reported seeing something they thought was a UFO. For instance, a 1973 Gallup poll found that eleven percent of the population claimed to have seen a UFO, implying approximately sixteen million adults had such experiences by that year.

Contrary to a common hypothesis that anomaly perception might be linked to pathological conditions, analysis of survey data suggests that UFO experiencers are generally not mentally ill, socially marginal, or deviant. While young people and males are more likely to report UFO experiences, and they tend to reside in smaller towns, their occupation, education, religion, and political attitudes do not significantly differ from the general population. Studies by Warren on status consistency also failed to establish a strong link between UFO experiences and marginality.

Further field studies by Vallée and Vallée, and Vallée and Olmos, on French and Spanish UFO cases, respectively, suggest that experiencers are often non-deviants, living in rural areas, respected in their communities, and holding steady jobs. These experiences often occur during routine activities and frequently involve multiple witnesses.

Psychopathology and UFO Experiencers

The question of psychopathology among UFO experiencers is addressed, with reference to a psychiatrist who studied UFO experiences of neurotic patients. The psychiatrist concluded that these pathologies were not related to the UFO experiences themselves, although the experiences could make it harder for individuals to relate to society. The article encourages psychiatrists to investigate UFO cases rather than theorizing about them a priori.

Challenges in Research

Saunders' compilation of over 80,000 UFO reports and his analysis of demographic features of countries with high sighting rates are mentioned. However, the article notes the limitations of "ecological" correlations and the need for case-study data. A general problem in understanding the relationship between UFO experiences and experiencers is the gap between broad random-sample studies and more detailed field studies, which often lack representativeness.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article include the sociology of anomalous phenomena, the scientific community's response to unexplained events, the process of information transmission (social intelligence), and the psychological and social characteristics of witnesses. The editorial stance appears to be one of objective inquiry, seeking to understand the social and psychological dynamics of UFO reports rather than validating or debunking the phenomena themselves. The article emphasizes the importance of studying the social processes surrounding anomalies as a means of understanding belief and perception.

This document consists of pages 280-289 from the journal "Social Studies of Science," featuring an article titled "Social Intelligence About Anomalies" by Westrum. The content delves into the sociological aspects of UFO experiences and reporting.

The Social Intelligence System and UFO Experiences

The article begins by discussing how reporters are not a random sample of experiencers, often focusing on spectacular cases. The social intelligence system, influenced by societal beliefs about who has UFO experiences (e.g., astronomers), plays a critical role in how these reports are processed. An informal poll in 1953 revealed that six out of forty-five astronomers had unexplained experiences, yet as late as 1968, R.V. Jones suggested UFO experiences were rare among scientifically trained individuals, implying UFOs are not real objects like ball lightning.

The Contagion of Experiences

An alternative explanation for UFO experiences is 'suggestion' or 'hysterical contagion,' where mass media reports of UFOs in batches ('flaps') create an impression of imitative behavior. However, the author proposes that the 'flap' phenomenon might be an artifact of the social intelligence system, where publicized reports change reporting parameters rather than reflecting actual contagious experiences. The concept of 'UFO' provides a convenient label for ambiguous stimuli, and its semi-legitimacy can lead to its diffusion through society, causing previously interpreted stimuli to be reinterpreted as UFOs. The 'Seattle Windshield Pitting Epidemic' is cited as an example of perceptual contagion, where existing stimuli (pits) were suddenly interpreted differently after a suggestion (atomic radiation).

The article distinguishes between unambiguous interpretations of ambiguous stimuli and cases where perception might be veridical, suggesting insanity or dishonesty might be suspected if no other explanation exists. UFO experiences can also involve interaction with the non-human physical environment, such as photographs, physical traces, or radar blips, which can be interpreted as UFO activity. A conversation with a military radar operator illustrates how ambiguous radar stimuli ('angels') can be interpreted as UFOs once the concept becomes more prevalent.

The Reporting of Experiences

The social intelligence system has two aspects: reporting (making a public claim of an anomalous experience) and social data-processing (what happens after a report is made). Reports are typically not made directly to experts but pass through intermediary links. The decision to report is complex, involving individual and social motives, and carries risks like ridicule or disbelief. The University of Colorado UFO Project found that only thirteen percent of experiencers reported their experiences publicly. Motivations for reporting include a sense of civic duty and a desire to 'square' the experience with society, seeking rational explanations or validation.

The individual's primary group can influence whether a report is made. If the individual was alone during the experience, even close kin may not believe the claim, potentially leading the individual to seek validation from wider society. Informal accounts can circulate within occupational groups, where credibility might be higher. However, professional norms, particularly in the scientific community, can impede the transmission of anomaly experiences. The article notes that many scientists who have had UFO experiences may not publicize them or allow their experiences to be used in writings, and scientific journals are reluctant to publish UFO-related articles.

Reluctance to report can extend to the concealment of research. Ruppelt mentions two cases involving exceptionally high atmospheric radiation associated with UFO sightings, where recording apparatus showed increases in radiation levels, but no official reports were made.

Behaviour of Official Agencies

The expected reaction of those to whom reports are made is a key parameter of reporting. In the United States, the news media and the Air Force are significant agencies. The news media's treatment of experiences influences reporting; positive treatment encourages reports, while negative treatment or failure to mention them discourages reporting. The 'flap' phenomenon is often seen as an artifact of media behavior, where the publication of one report triggers the release of many more. The article distinguishes between 'report release' and 'perceptual contagion,' noting that some 'released' experiences pre-date the 'trigger' report, suggesting they were not stimulated by it.

The first report of UFOs that raised the possibility of them being spaceships was by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947, who reported nine discs near Mount Rainier, coining the phrase 'flying saucer.' However, Bloecher's study of the 1947 'flap' indicated about three dozen experiences occurred before Arnold's sighting was publicized, suggesting these were not stimulated by it. Immediately following Arnold's sighting, dozens of other experiences occurred, which could be attributed to perceptual contagion.

UFO reporting is strongly conditioned by social expectations. If the press prints UFO reports, more are reported; if not, fewer are made. The intelligence operations of the U.S. Air Force face similar issues. The reactions of the Air Force to reports determine what reports it receives. This is particularly acute for government agencies with repeated experiences. The 'locals' (those on the scene) and 'centrals' (evaluators in headquarters) have different contexts, leading to difficulties in communication. Locals' reports may be dismissed by centrals as jokes or due to faulty equipment. Air Force officers may tailor their transmissions to match superiors' expectations, and some may even take delight in submitting 'identified' reports to increase the percentage of explained sightings.

Centrals, in turn, consider their superiors. The article quotes an instance where the UFO project team hypothesized that UFOs don't exist to satisfy 'the brass,' making it easier to provide explanations like 'It was a balloon.' This suggests a bias towards explaining away UFO reports.

Agency behavior is often dependent on the perceived wishes of higher echelons. Information reaching higher levels may be partially related to external events. Some agency personnel persist in forwarding reports despite superiors' sentiments, using informal channels when official ones bog down. The belief that Project Blue Book had a negative attitude and that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships was discussed privately in the Pentagon. Evidence from 1947-53 was handled according to the desires of higher Air Force echelons, influencing Project Blue Book's orientation. The Air Force issued public statements discouraging UFOs, and the Robertson Panel recommended a public debunking campaign to remove the 'mystery.' This campaign might have stimulated public interest due to the perceived lack of candor.

Of the estimated 3.75 million people who claimed seeing UFOs before 1968, only about 13 percent (490,000) 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 experiencers. Reports reaching Air Force files are not necessarily a random sample, as important sightings might be communicated by accident or only after intensive search.

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, have a bias opposite to that of the Air Force. Their investigations vary in quality, from casual to prolonged research involving hundreds of man-hours.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the social construction of reality regarding UFO phenomena, the influence of social and institutional factors on the reporting and interpretation of anomalous experiences, and the challenges of objective investigation within societal and governmental frameworks. The editorial stance appears to be analytical and critical, examining UFO phenomena through the lens of social science rather than validating or debunking specific claims. The article emphasizes that the perception and reporting of UFOs are deeply embedded in social processes, media influence, and institutional biases.

This document is an excerpt from the journal "Social Studies of Science," specifically pages 290-299, focusing on the article "Social Intelligence About Anomalies" by Westrum. The content delves into the complex social and scientific landscape surrounding the study of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

The UFO Research Community

The article begins by describing the UFO research community as a large and diffuse intellectual collective. These individuals, often passionate hobbyists, engage in various activities including interviewing witnesses, searching for physical evidence, collecting literature, and publishing their findings. While they share a common interest, the community is characterized by wide divergences in formal education and approaches to the subject. Organizational feuds are common, and organizations range from those with a 'scientific' orientation to those whose research is linked to religious beliefs. Notably, some researchers investigate UFOs to expose weaknesses, while others believe in their existence but disagree on the phenomenon's nature.

The social intelligence functions of this community are considerable, producing a large volume of books, pamphlets, and journals, many with mass-market appeal. While much of this literature is uncritical, some works present original research and systematically arranged catalogues of experiences. This literature also serves to critique official pronouncements, particularly from the Air Force, and includes a degree of self-critique.

Influence on Scientific Opinion and Research

UFO researchers and their organizations act as an interest group, lobbying the government for investigations. Pressure from these groups contributed to the University of Colorado's project, which resulted in the negative Condon Report. They also serve as liaisons between witnesses and scientists. Scientists have participated in UFO congresses, sometimes with reservations, and have been supported by the UFO research community, which provides a form of legitimation for their involvement in what is considered a 'deviant' line of scientific conduct.

The article questions the influence of this social intelligence on scientific opinion and research, concluding it has been minimal with significant exceptions. The astronomical and scientific communities generally view interstellar travel as impractical due to vast distances, focusing instead on detecting electromagnetic signals from extraterrestrial intelligences. There is less enthusiasm for UFO research compared to SETI efforts. Reports of extraterrestrial spacecraft must contend with the presumption of low a priori probability of such craft reaching Earth.

Scientists often find UFO reports lacking 'rational' and 'predictable' behavior, and the diversity of reported shapes is seen as an argument against their reality. The inaccessibility of physical evidence further renders UFOs an unpromising research area. The Air Force and mass media have communicated enough to convince many scientists that UFO experiences do not fit the expected pattern of extraterrestrial visitation, leading them to dismiss such claims as routine causes or errors, echoing David Hume's sentiment about preferring natural explanations over violations of natural laws.

Challenges and Motivations for UFO Research

Michael Polanyi's rationale for dismissing experimental results that violate current scientific convictions is discussed, suggesting that uncontrolled experiences of non-scientists warrant an even stronger approach to dismissal. The fear of ridicule and the potential jeopardy to a scientific career are significant deterrents to UFO research. Scientists typically select research areas based on the possibility of significant scientific advance, and a 'wrong choice' can have negative career implications, influenced by university support, funding agencies, and professional journals.

The article notes that the dozen or so scientists continuously involved in UFO research were not drawn to it by an intellectual interest in extraterrestrial life, but rather by idiosyncratic, accidental reasons. These include being hired by the government, being contacted by amateur researchers, personal experiences, or contact with other UFO researchers. The UFO literature itself was instrumental only after initial interest was aroused.

Conclusion and Future Prospects

Ultimately, what scientists believe about anomalies like UFOs depends on information originating outside the scientific community, as well as current scientific doctrine. Reports of potential extraterrestrial spacecraft must confront the belief that interstellar travel is impractical. The evidence must be exceptionally strong to contradict well-supported principles. The information filtered to scientists about UFO experiences has not been convincing and does not follow a recognized 'logical' pattern for extraterrestrial visitation. The article suggests that if the social intelligence system worked differently, scientists' attitudes toward UFOs might also differ.

The author contrasts viewing UFOs through the 'social intelligence system' with personal investigation. Some meteorologists view the UFO phenomenon as the 'greatest scientific problem of our times,' while the Condon Report concluded further study was not justified. This divergence suggests that resolving the controversy is complex. The article speculates that future studies by UFO advocates might convince scientists, or the controversy might fade like the sea-serpent or continue in limbo like ball lightning.

Processes of social intelligence regarding UFOs are typical of other anomalous events, presenting challenges such as non-random samples, haphazard reporting, concealment of experiences, and low probability of information reaching scientists. However, amateur research subcultures can aid in locating experiencers. Understanding these social intelligence processes is crucial for evaluating the reliability of information about UFOs and similar 'impossible' events. The article concludes by referencing John Pringle's historical belief that meteors never fell to the ground, illustrating how absence of evidence can be mistaken for evidence of absence, and that what anomalies are concerned, the question of how one knows what one knows cannot be ignored.

Postscript

A postscript mentions a recently received document: P.A. Sturrock's "Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem" (January 1977). This survey of 1,356 AAS members indicated that 53% felt the UFO problem deserves scientific study, and 75% desired more information, preferably in scientific journal articles. Additionally, 4.6% reported witnessing or obtaining an instrumental record of an unidentifiable event, though attributing it to alien devices was low (5% probability).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article revolve around the sociology of anomalous phenomena, particularly UFOs. It examines the dynamics of the UFO research community, the challenges of scientific acceptance, the role of social intelligence in shaping perceptions, and the contrast between amateur enthusiasm and mainstream scientific skepticism. The editorial stance appears to be analytical and objective, exploring the social and psychological factors that influence how UFO phenomena are studied and perceived within and outside the scientific community, without taking a definitive stance on the reality of UFOs themselves.

This document appears to be a section from a publication titled "Social Studies of Science," specifically pages 300-302. It primarily consists of a numbered list of citations and references, suggesting it is part of an academic or research paper discussing the phenomenon of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

Citations and References

The content is structured as a bibliography, with each numbered entry pointing to a specific book, article, or report. The references span a wide range of publications, including academic journals, university press books, and conference presentations.

Key Themes and Topics Covered in Citations:

• UFO Research and History: Numerous entries refer to seminal works in UFO research, such as those by Ruppelt, Hynek, and the University of Colorado's UFO project (often referred to as the Condon Report). The history of UFO investigations and the public's perception of UFOs are also touched upon.
• Intelligence Organizations and Secrecy: Several citations, like Wilensky's "Organizational Intelligence," suggest an examination of how intelligence organizations handle information, potentially in relation to UFO phenomena.
• Scientific and Sociological Perspectives: References to authors like R.V. Jones, M. Polanyi, and Mulkay, Gilbert, and Woolgar indicate an engagement with the scientific method, the sociology of science, and the challenges of studying anomalous phenomena.
• Specific UFO Cases and Reports: The citations mention specific reports and books that detail UFO sightings and investigations, including Salisbury's "The Utah UFO Display" and Fowler's "UFOs: Interplanetary Visitors."
• Related Phenomena: The latter part of the citations includes references to research on "Ball Lightning" (Singer, Garfield) and meteorite falls (Nininger), suggesting a broader interest in anomalous atmospheric or celestial events.
• The UFO Community: Jacobs' "The UFO Controversy in America" and references to participant observation in the "amateur UFO community" highlight the social aspects and the community surrounding UFO research.

Notable Mentions:

• M. Bloecher: Cited for his work on UFOs.
• J. Allen Hynek: A prominent figure in UFO research, frequently cited, including his book "The Edge of Reality" co-authored with J. Vallée.
• Jacques Vallée: Also frequently cited, often in conjunction with Hynek, and for his own works on UFOs.
• Carl Sagan: Mentioned in relation to "UFOs: The Extraterrestrial and Other Hypotheses" and the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence."
• H.H. Nininger: Recognized for his efforts in promoting the reporting of meteorite falls.

Contextual Notes:

The introductory sentences on page 300 suggest a discussion about the reliability of UFO reports, mentioning the possibility of hoaxes and the complexity of multiple witness cases. The author also notes the expansion of UFO literature and the difficulty of systematically acquiring all published books in the field.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the academic and scientific study of UFO phenomena, examining it through the lens of social science, intelligence studies, and the sociology of knowledge. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, acknowledging the complexity of the subject, the potential for misinterpretation or deception (hoaxes), and the challenges inherent in researching anomalous events within established scientific frameworks. The extensive referencing suggests a thorough academic approach to the topic.