1997 08 00 Social Studies of Science - Vol 7 No 3 - Ron Westrum

Magazine Overview

Title: Social Studies of Science
Issue: Vol.7 (1977) 271-302
Date: 1977
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Country: United Kingdom
Language: English

This issue features the article "Social Intelligence About Anomalies: The Case of UFOs" by Ron Westrum.

Social Intelligence About Anomalies: The Case of UFOs

Introduction and Scientific Stance

The article begins by noting the considerable public interest in anomalies such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), which has coincided with a revival of interest in the occult and fringe scientific theories. Scientists are often approached to validate or debunk these claims. However, scientists, alarmed by the rise of such interests, have generally adopted a debunking posture, attempting to deny legitimacy to these claims. This posture is so natural that scientists who become anomaly advocates appear anomalous themselves.

The author posits that this general debunking posture requires explanation beyond simply assuming scientists are arbiters of truth. The explanation is sought in two sets of factors: 'the interests of the scientific community' and 'the logic of scientific belief'. The former relates to how the popularity of beliefs conflicting with scientific consensus threatens the scientific community's claim to a monopoly on true descriptions of the world and its prestige. The latter involves 'internal' motives stemming from current scientific paradigms, theories, established facts, and the nature of evidence supporting anomalies. There are theoretical and evidential reasons for disbelieving anomalies, arguing that 'everything we know' militates against their existence, and that the evidence for them is weak or involves misrepresentation and error.

The Role of Social Intelligence in Anomaly Reports

The paper aims to explore how scientists obtain the evidence that leads them to reject anomalies. It examines the social system that intervenes between those who have anomaly experiences and the scientists who make decisions about their reality. This system is referred to as 'social intelligence,' which transmits reports of anomaly experiences to the public and scientists. The article will consider how these transmitted reports influence scientists' decisions to investigate anomalies, specifically how this system has discouraged the investigation of UFO experiences.

However, the function of anomaly reports is not always negative. Sometimes, they can focus scientific attention and motivate research. The controversy over meteorites is cited as an example, where a significant fall of stones in l'Aigle, France, in 1803, led to an investigation by Jean-Baptiste Biot, whose convincing report settled the matter and ended scientific questioning of falling stones.

UFOs as a Case Study

The author chooses Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) as a primary example to examine the system of social intelligence transmitting anomaly reports, while also conducting similar examinations of sea-serpents and meteorites. UFOs are presented as a typical case, with social phenomena paralleling those of sea-serpent and meteorite reports in their pre-scientific-acceptance state. While acknowledging differences, such as early scientific support for sea-serpents not extended to UFOs, the case of UFO reports effectively illustrates the dynamics of anomaly information transmission.

The focus will be on two aspects: the nature of the anomaly experience itself and how experiences are transformed into reports and transmitted through social channels. The reliability of decisions made based on this information will also be considered.

The Ontological Status of UFOs

Before delving into social intelligence processes, the author addresses the ontological status of UFOs, acknowledging that the reader might question whether these objects are real or imaginary. The term 'Unidentified Flying Objects' was adopted to be more agnostic than 'flying saucers'. However, even 'UFO' poses difficulties, as Menzel suggests it implies material reality, which he disputes. The term 'flying' also assumes propulsion, and some manifestations are seen on the ground. The challenge is to delimit this amorphous class of objects or events, which the author suggests can be approached by suspending judgment on their reality and focusing on psychological and social events.

Instead of 'a person who has sighted a UFO,' the focus is on 'a person who has had a UFO experience.' This person may then make a 'report,' though some reports may be hoaxes, and some experiences may not be publicly reported. The interest lies in how experiences are transformed into reports, which then become 'data' for scientists' decisions about UFO reality.

The UFO Experience

The article explores how an individual decides they are having a UFO experience. This is critical for communicating the experience and comparing it to others. Initially, an individual might not label the experience as 'UFO' but rather as anomalous. Before the term 'flying saucers' became common in 1947, those with such experiences could only describe them in specific terms. After the social category 'UFO' emerged, it became possible to anticipate such events and recognize perceptual cues. Some individuals may have a psychological set towards perceiving ambiguous stimuli as UFOs.

An example is given of someone who wanted to see a UFO, actively signaled with a flashlight, and experienced an anomalous event, possibly triggered by the re-entry of the Russian satellite Zond IV. The article notes that not all UFO perceptions are immediate. Often, the perception of a UFO occurs after other non-anomalous hypotheses have been considered and found wanting. The failure to fit the stimulus into conventional explanations leads to the perception of an anomaly.

Another case describes a merchant and his daughter who initially mistook an object for an airliner, then a helicopter, before realizing it was a silent, disc-shaped object with portholes, approximately 150 feet wide and 800 feet off the ground. This 'escalation of hypotheses,' as described by Hynek, is a typical feature of anomaly sightings, reflecting the human perceptual apparatus's attempt to match stimuli with known categories.

Critical reactions to perceptions can also indicate the subject is correctly perceiving an anomalous object. Drawing on studies of the Welles' 'Invasion from Mars' broadcast, the author notes that 'critical ability'—the capacity to make effective checks about authenticity—is crucial. In UFO experiences, witnesses may perform critical checks, such as asking others if they see the object or returning to the sighting location. The certainty of having seen something anomalous is enhanced by such checks, but confidence in discriminating between anomalous and non-anomalous stimuli is also necessary.

A survey indicated that a significant reason for not reporting UFO experiences was the belief that it was 'probably something normal that just looked funny.' The article suggests that while much more could be said about the internal constitution of anomaly experiences, this summary provides a feeling for the nature of UFO experiences.

The Social Distribution of UFO Experiences

This section addresses how UFO experiences are distributed in society, focusing primarily on the United States due to available random-sample public polls. The key question asked in these surveys is 'Have you ever seen a UFO?'. Polls from 1966, 1968, and 1973 show a rise in self-reported UFO experiences, with 5% in 1966 and 11% in 1973, suggesting approximately sixteen million American adults had such experiences by 1973.

A commonsense hypothesis suggests that anomaly perception might stem from pathological conditions, leading to the expectation that UFO experiencers would be mentally ill or socially marginal. However, analysis of the 1973 Gallup poll suggests that UFO experiencers are not significantly different from the general population in terms of occupation, education, religion, and political attitudes. Key demographic differences include young people being more likely than older people to have had UFO experiences, males more likely than females (especially black males vs. black females), and a tendency to reside in smaller towns (10,000-25,000 people).

Research by Warren on the 1966 Gallup poll data explored the relationship between UFO experiences and status consistency. Warren argued that status inconsistents (those with differing ranks in income, occupation, and education) were more likely to be UFO experiencers. However, his data only qualifiedly supported this, and the majority of experiencers were not status inconsistents. Later studies by Warren indicated that general status level, rather than inconsistency, was positively correlated with UFO experiences, failing to support the idea of the experiencer as a status-inconsistent, marginal individual.

The article notes that survey data like the Gallup polls may be too insensitive to relevant variables. Field studies, though often conducted by UFO advocates, provide more detailed individual information but may lack representativeness. Studies of French and Spanish UFO cases suggest that low-level UFO experiences tend to occur during routine activities and involve individuals who are respected in their communities and hold steady jobs, reinforcing the image of UFO experiencers as non-deviants.

Psychopathology and UFO Experiences

The question of psychopathology in UFO experiencers is persistent. Psychiatrist Schwarz discussed UFO experiences of neurotic patients, suggesting that while pathologies may not cause the experiences, the difficulty in relating these experiences to others can make societal integration harder. The author encourages psychiatrists to investigate UFO cases rather than theorizing about 'hallucinations' or 'delusions' a priori.

Saunders compiled a large catalogue of UFO reports and analyzed demographic features. He found correlations between higher sighting rates and counties with more land, population, and higher educational levels. However, these 'ecological' correlations present interpretation challenges, such as whether higher education leads to more experiences or better reporting.

A general problem in studying UFO experiences is the gap between random-sample studies and field studies. Random-sample studies offer insights into the experiencer's relation to the general population but are insensitive to personal characteristics. Field studies provide more individual detail but may lack representativeness. Reporters are not a random sample of experiencers, often concentrating on spectacular cases.

The Social Intelligence System and Beliefs

The social intelligence system is influenced by societal beliefs about who has UFO experiences. If categories of individuals considered reliable witnesses (like astronomers) do not report UFO experiences, these reports are processed differently. An informal poll of astronomers in 1953 revealed that six out of forty-five had seen unexplained phenomena, yet R.V. Jones in 1968 still suggested UFO experiences were rare among scientists. Societal and scientific beliefs about UFO experiencers are critical to how their reports are treated.

The Contagion of Experiences

Another explanation for UFO experiences is 'suggestion' or 'hysterical contagion,' linked to mass media reporting UFO experiences in 'flaps' or batches, suggesting imitative behavior. The article proposes that the 'flap' phenomenon might have another explanation: a publicized report changing the parameters of the reporting process, making it an artifact of the social intelligence system rather than true contagion. Even if the media perfectly mirrored social events, 'hysterical contagion' is deemed an inappropriate concept.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the sociology of science, the nature of belief, and the social construction of knowledge, particularly concerning anomalous phenomena like UFOs. The editorial stance, as presented by Ron Westrum, is one of critical inquiry into how anomalous claims are processed within society and the scientific community. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the social mechanisms, biases, and belief systems that shape our perception and investigation of the unexplained, rather than simply accepting or rejecting the phenomena themselves.

This document, titled 'Westrum: Social Intelligence About Anomalies,' is an excerpt from the journal 'Social Studies of Science,' with page numbers ranging from 281 to 290. It delves into the sociological aspects of UFO experiences, framing them as phenomena influenced by social intelligence, perception, and reporting mechanisms rather than solely as objective events.

Perceptual Epidemics and Ambiguous Stimuli

The article begins by discussing how the concept of 'UFO' acts as a convenient label for ambiguous stimuli, leading to what the author terms a 'perceptual epidemic.' This is compared to the 'Seattle Windshield Pitting Epidemic,' where previously unnoticed stimuli (pits on windshields) began to be widely reported and interpreted differently after a new interpretation was suggested. The author posits that many UFO experiences arise from the misinterpretation of common, ambiguous stimuli such as moving lights, distant birds, or unfamiliar astronomical phenomena.

However, the article acknowledges that some experiences may be veridical, where the stimulus is clear, and the perception is unlikely to be an error. In such cases, the concept of 'UFO' extends beyond human experience to include physical evidence like photographs, ground traces (indentations, broken tree limbs), and radar blips. A conversation with a military radar operator illustrates how ambiguous radar signals, previously interpreted as 'radar angels,' can be reinterpreted as UFOs, highlighting the transmissible nature of this interpretation.

The Contagion of UFO Experiences

UFO experiences are presented as contagious, meaning one person's perception is influenced by the reports of others. The willingness of the public to 'see' UFOs is evidenced by the large number of natural objects and phenomena that are later identified as the stimuli in reported cases. The article suggests that many stimuli that would have been perceived differently are now interpreted as UFOs due to this social influence.

The Reporting of Experiences

Two key aspects of the social intelligence system concerning UFOs are identified: reporting and social data-processing. Reporting is defined as publicly making witness or entering a claim of an anomalous experience to a public agency or authority. The process after a report is made involves social data-processing, where the information is transmitted through intermediaries before reaching an 'expert.' This communication chain involves decision-makers who evaluate and potentially alter the information.

The decision to report is driven by a mix of individual and social motives, and it carries risks such as ridicule or social sanctions. Uncertainty about how a report will be received leads to many experiences going unreported. The University of Colorado UFO Project found that only thirteen percent of individuals who reported a UFO experience had done so publicly.

Experiencers who do report are often motivated by a sense of civic duty to report strange objects or a strong personal desire to understand and legitimize their experience by having it explained in 'rational' terms or accepted as real by society. The primary group's interpretation of the experience can also influence whether a report is made.

Reluctance to Report and Scientific Community

Accounts of experiences can circulate informally within professional groups, where they might be more readily credited. However, professional norms, particularly in the scientific community, can impede the transmission of anomaly experiences. Scientists often face a strong emphasis on collegial recognition, leading to reluctance to publicize UFO experiences. The article cites examples of scientists who had UFO sightings but kept them secret and did not allow their names to be used in publications. Scientific journals are also noted as being reluctant to publish articles dealing with UFOs, even by astronomers, contributing to the scientific community's potential unawareness of UFO experiences among its members.

Reluctance to report can extend to the concealment of research projects. Examples are given of scientists at an Atomic Energy Commission laboratory noticing a correlation between high radiation and UFO sightings, and a military installation finding high radiation in areas where UFOs were seen, yet no official reports were made.

Behavior of Official Agencies

The behavior of official agencies, specifically the news media and the Air Force, significantly influences UFO reporting. The media's treatment of experiences, whether positive or negative, can elicit or discourage reports. The 'contagion' hypothesis is supported by the phenomenon of 'flaps' or batches of reports, which may be an artifact of media behavior rather than an actual increase in experiences. The publication of a single report can prompt the release of many more, raising the question of whether the propensity to have an experience or the propensity to report changes.

The article highlights the 'report release' phenomenon, where reports pre-dating a publicized sighting are released afterward, suggesting that not all 'flaps' are directly stimulated by a trigger report. The initial report of UFOs that raised the possibility of them being spaceships occurred on June 24, 1947, when Kenneth Arnold reported sighting nine discs near Mount Rainier, Washington, coining the term 'flying saucer.' Bloecher's study of the 1947 'flap' indicated that many experiences occurred before Arnold's sighting was publicized.

UFO reporting is strongly conditioned by social expectations. If the press prints UFO reports, more are reported; if not, fewer are. The press's policies reinforce its attitudes toward UFOs. The U.S. Air Force's intelligence operations face similar issues. The reactions of the Air Force to reports determine the flow of information. This is particularly acute for government agencies that have repeated experiences with UFOs, as their initial reports influence subsequent reporting.

Locals vs. Centrals and Communication Breakdown

A major problem arises from the different social contexts of reporters ('locals') and evaluators ('centrals'). Locals are on the scene and feel confident in their ability to discriminate anomalous from non-anomalous events. Centrals, often in political capitals, evaluate reports based on 'the big picture.' When locals attempt to report anomalous events to centrals, communication breaks down. Reports from locals are often written, with contextual facts and emotional ambiance removed. Centrals may dismiss these reports as jokes or attribute them to equipment errors, leading to the cessation of reporting. Local Air Force officers, not having witnessed the sightings themselves, may tailor their reports to match superiors' expectations to avoid unpleasant suggestions.

Air Force officers interpret their duty differently; some avoid submitting reports, while others submit 'easy' ones to increase the percentage of explained UFO reports. Higher echelons within agencies can influence information flow, sometimes leading to hypotheses like 'UFOs don't exist' to simplify explanations. This can result in reports being quickly dismissed as 'balloons' rather than being thoroughly investigated.

Project Blue Book and the Robertson Panel

During the period of 1947-1953, evidence regarding UFOs was often looked into, reported, or destroyed based on the perceived desires of higher Air Force echelons. Project Blue Book, established to investigate UFO reports, was sensitive to these desires. The Air Force also issued public statements to discourage reporting, and the Robertson Panel, convened in 1953, recommended a public debunking campaign to remove the 'mystery' from UFOs. The intention was to filter out 'poor' quality reports to focus on 'good' ones, which might represent Soviet military actions. However, such a campaign could also decrease the propensity to report.

An Air Force 'public education' campaign in 1949, intended to quell public interest, may have paradoxically stimulated it by making the Air Force appear less than candid. This illustrates an 'irony' where concealment can arouse interest.

Scale of Reporting and Amateur Investigation

Of the estimated 3.75 million people who claimed seeing UFOs before 1968, only thirteen percent (about 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 claimed experiences. These reports are not necessarily a random sample, as important sightings might reach officials by coincidence or through informal channels.

Amateur UFO investigators constitute a significant part of the social intelligence system. Tens of thousands of private individuals and organizations investigate UFO experiences, often with a bias opposite to that of the Air Force. They interview experiencers, search for physical traces, collect literature, and publish their findings. This community is diverse, ranging from those with little formal education to scientists with doctorates. They publish numerous journals and books, often critiquing official pronouncements and engaging in self-critique.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article revolve around the social construction of UFO phenomena, the influence of social intelligence systems on the interpretation and reporting of anomalous experiences, and the role of official agencies and the media in shaping public perception. The author's stance appears to be analytical and sociological, examining UFO experiences as a social phenomenon rather than validating or debunking the existence of UFOs themselves. The article emphasizes that the way UFOs are perceived, reported, and investigated is heavily influenced by social, psychological, and institutional factors.

This document, titled 'Westrum: Social Intelligence About Anomalies,' is an excerpt from the journal 'Social Studies of Science,' published by Sage Publications. The content spans pages 291 to 300 and appears to be from an issue dated June 6, 2015, though the content itself discusses research and events primarily from the 1970s. The article examines the complex relationship between social intelligence, public perception, and scientific engagement with anomalous phenomena, particularly Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

The Influence of Social Intelligence on UFO Research

The article begins by discussing how internal critiques within the UFO research community have spurred more sophisticated research. UFO researchers and organizations have acted as an interest group, lobbying the government and provoking projects like the University of Colorado's study, which resulted in the Condon Report. They also serve as liaisons between experiencers and scientists, facilitating interviews and fostering a sense of community and legitimation for scientists engaging in this 'deviant' line of research.

The core of the article focuses on the influence of social intelligence on scientific opinion and research concerning UFOs. It posits that this influence has been minimal, with notable exceptions. The astronomical community, for instance, is generally skeptical due to the vast distances to stars, focusing instead on detecting electromagnetic signals from extraterrestrial intelligences. They are less enthusiastic about funding UFO research compared to SETI efforts. Reports of extraterrestrial spacecraft must contend with the low a priori probability of such craft reaching Earth.

Scientists are further convinced of the lack of evidence by the 'irrational' and unpredictable behavior attributed to UFOs, the diversity of reported shapes (which suggests a lack of consistent features if they were real), and the inaccessibility of any physical evidence. The article cites the Air Force and mass media's role in shaping a perception that UFO experiences do not align with expectations of actual extraterrestrial life, leading scientists to dismiss such claims as routine phenomena or hoaxes.

Drawing a parallel to David Hume's perspective, the author suggests many scientists would rather believe in the 'knavery and folly of men' than admit a violation of natural laws. Michael Polanyi's rationale for dismissing experimental results that contradict current scientific convictions is also discussed, arguing that it's more efficient to dismiss anomalies unless they are exceptionally strong, especially when dealing with uncontrolled experiences of non-scientists.

Barriers to UFO Research

Researching UFOs is presented as a career risk. Scientists face pressure from their peers, universities, and funding agencies. A 'wrong choice' of research area can jeopardize a career, and colleagues' attitudes can steer researchers away from controversial topics. The article questions what makes scientists who investigate UFOs different from others.

It is observed that scientists currently involved in UFO research were not initially drawn by an interest in extraterrestrial life but rather by idiosyncratic or accidental reasons. Examples include being hired by the government, being contacted by amateur UFO researchers, or having personal UFO experiences. The UFO literature itself was only influential after initial interest was sparked through personal contact or experience.

Conclusion and Postscript

The article concludes that while social intelligence as pure information has not convinced scientists of the value of UFO study, personal contacts and experiences have motivated those who do research in this field. The growth of the amateur UFO community and its literature has indirectly contributed to this interest.

Scientific beliefs about anomalies like UFOs are shaped by external information but also by current scientific doctrine. Reports of extraterrestrial spaceships must overcome the belief in the impracticality of interstellar travel. The evidence presented to scientists has not been convincing and does not fit 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.

A postscript introduces findings from a P.A. Sturrock report (January 1977) on a survey of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) membership. This survey of 1,356 members indicated that 53% believed the UFO problem 'probably' or 'certainly' deserves scientific study, and 75% wanted more information, preferably in the form of scientific journal articles. Intriguingly, 4.6% of respondents reported witnessing or obtaining an instrumental record of an unidentified event, though attributing these to alien devices had a low average psychological probability (5%).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes revolve around the sociology of anomalous phenomena, the barriers to scientific acceptance of unconventional ideas, and the role of social networks and information dissemination in shaping scientific consensus. The article adopts a neutral, analytical stance, dissecting the social and psychological factors that influence how scientists perceive and engage with topics like UFOs, rather than taking a definitive position on the reality of UFOs themselves. It highlights the contrast between the public's interest and the scientific community's general skepticism, exploring the mechanisms that maintain this divide.

This document is a section from the academic journal 'Social Studies of Science', specifically page 301 and 302 of Volume 8, Issue 3, dated May 1976. The content focuses on 'Social Intelligence About Anomalies', with a significant portion dedicated to listing references and citations related to the study of UFOs and related phenomena. The article appears to be a bibliography or a section of a larger work by an author named Westrum.

UFOs and the Condon Committee

The initial entries (90-92) reference works concerning UFOs and the Condon Committee. This includes 'UFOs? Yes: Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong' by Westrum, P.A. Sturrock's 'Evaluation of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project', and general references to the University of Colorado's UFO Project.

Key Publications and Researchers

Several prominent researchers and their works are cited:

• D. Menzel and L.G. Boyd: 'Flying Saucers' (1953) and 'The World of Flying Saucers' (1963).
• P.J. Klass: 'UFOs Explained' (1974).
• F. Roach: Contributed 'Astronomers' Views on UFOs' to a collection edited by Sagan and Page.
• A.G.W. Cameron (ed.): 'Interstellar Communication' (1963).
• H. Wooster et al.: 'Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence' in IEEE Spectrum (1966).
• Ames Research Center: 'Project Cyclops: A Design Study of a System for Detecting Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life' (1973). The immense cost estimate of Project Cyclops (up to ten billion dollars) is noted, citing Sagan and Drake.
• S. Friedman: His work 'UFOlogy and the Search for ET Intelligent Life' (1973) is referenced, highlighting a discrepancy.
• C. Sagan: His contribution 'UFOs: The Extraterrestrial and Other Hypotheses' is cited.
• Markowitz and Jones are referenced for unspecified works.
• D. Hume: His 'Enquiries' (2nd edition, 1962) is cited.
• M. Polanyi: 'The Growth of Science in Society' (1967) is mentioned.
• J.A. Hynek: His book with J. Vallée, 'The Edge of Reality: A Progress Report on Unidentified Flying Objects' (1975), is discussed, particularly regarding how his career concerns influenced his views on UFOs.
• J.E. McDonald: His presentation 'UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?' (1967) is listed.
• Heuvelmans is also referenced.

Related Phenomena and Scientific Discourse

Beyond UFOs, the text touches upon related scientific and anomalous phenomena:

• Ball Lightning: References to S. Singer's 'The Nature of Ball Lightning' (1971) and E. Garfield's 'When Citation Analysis Strikes Ball Lightning' (1976) are included.
• Meteorite Falls: The successful efforts of H.H. Nininger to encourage the reporting of meteorite falls are detailed. His public education program in the western United States aimed to collect stones that might be meteorites, with some cases involving teenagers hiding stones for fear of ridicule.
• Fiery Meteors: An older reference to J. Pringle's 'Some Remarks upon the Several Accounts of the Fiery Meteor' from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1760) is present.

Social and Scientific Context

The citations also delve into the sociology of science, with references to:

• M.J. Mulkay, G.N. Gilbert, and S. Woolgar's work on 'Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science' (1975).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this excerpt are the scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena, particularly UFOs, and the social and intellectual context surrounding such studies. The extensive list of references suggests a critical and thorough examination of the literature, including both proponents and skeptics of UFO theories. The editorial stance appears to be one of academic inquiry, presenting a comprehensive bibliography that allows readers to explore the multifaceted nature of the UFO phenomenon and its place within scientific discourse. The inclusion of works on the sociology of science and the personal influences on researchers (like Hynek) indicates a broader interest in how scientific knowledge is constructed and disseminated, especially concerning controversial topics.