1979 00 00 Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society - Vol 20 - Kuiper

Magazine Overview

This document is a correspondence section from the *Q. Jl R. astr. Soc.* (Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society), Volume 20, published in 1979. The specific item is a letter to the editor titled 'ON SCIENTIFIC REASONING' by T.B.H. Kuiper of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. The letter, received on November 17, 1978, critiques the standards of scientific discourse and hypothesis evaluation as presented in the journal.

ON SCIENTIFIC REASONING by T.B.H. Kuiper

Kuiper begins by expressing embarrassment at the 'curious juxtaposition' of two articles published in the September 1978 issue of the *Quarterly Journal*. One article, by Papagiannis (1), proposed that alien beings might not only visit but also reside in our solar system. The other, by Wilkinson & Worden (2), asserted that a UFO explosion explanation for the Tunguska event was a 'crackpot' hypothesis requiring no refutation.

Kuiper argues that the term 'crackpot' should only be applied to hypotheses that are in evident contradiction with well-known facts. If the contradictory facts are not widely known, the hypothesis should be termed 'erroneous'. If the contradiction is with widely accepted theory, the most severe qualifier should be 'doubtful'. He contends that using 'crackpot' for a hypothesis that violates neither fact nor theory is resorting to sarcasm instead of reason, which he finds 'truly deplorable for trained scientists'.

His criticism is not limited to the authors of these two articles. He points to another instance in the journal, an article by Hart (3), where the author presented a strong case for expecting visits by extraterrestrial craft but then categorically asserted that UFOs were not such vehicles.

Kuiper concludes by stating that while everyone is entitled to opinions, substituting opinions for facts in professional discourse is a disservice, and potentially an affront, to the scientific community. He asserts that authors, referees, and editors all share the responsibility to prevent such practices from appearing in scientific literature.

References

The correspondence cites three references:

1. Papagiannis, M.D., 1978. 'Are we all alone, or could they be in the asteroid belt?' *Q. Jl R. astr. Soc.*, 19, 277-281.
2. Wilkerson, M.S. & Worden, S.P., 1978. 'On egregious theories - the Tunguska event', *Q. Jl R. astr. Soc.*, 19, 282-289.
3. Hart, M.H., 1975. 'An explanation for the absence of extraterrestrials on Earth', *Q. Jl R. astr. Soc.*, 16, 128-135.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The primary theme of this correspondence is the importance of rigorous scientific reasoning and the proper evaluation of hypotheses. It highlights a concern about the degradation of scientific discourse, where opinions might be presented as facts, and speculative or controversial ideas are dismissed with pejorative labels rather than reasoned critique. The editorial stance, as implied by the publication of this letter, is open to discussion on the standards of scientific communication within the journal's pages. The journal itself, the *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society*, serves as the platform for this debate on scientific methodology and the presentation of evidence and theories related to astronomy and potentially extraterrestrial phenomena.