2003 03 00 Think - Vol 1 No 3 - Law

Magazine Overview

Title: Think
Issue: Volume 1, Issue 03
Date: March 2003
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Country: United Kingdom
Language: English
ISSN: 1477-1756
Editor: Stephen Law

This issue of 'Think' features an article titled 'Thinking tools 3: Flying saucers and open minds' by Stephen Law. The article is part of a regular series that aims to introduce pointers on clear and rigorous thinking. It uses the topic of flying saucers as a cautionary tale to explore the virtues of open-mindedness and critical evaluation of evidence.

Thinking tools 3: Flying saucers and open minds by Stephen Law

The article begins by acknowledging the widespread claims and belief in flying saucers, citing numerous eyewitness reports, film footage, and photographs. It poses the question of whether the sheer quantity of this evidence suggests that there must be something to these claims.

However, the author introduces a critical perspective by focusing on the very first flying saucer report, made in 1947 by American pilot Kenneth Arnold. Arnold was flying in daylight when he spotted nine strange flying objects. Upon returning to the airfield, he described them not as saucers, but as looking like boomerangs that flew in a bouncing manner, as if skipped across a lake. The article points out that this detail was lost in the subsequent reporting, and the press sensationalized his sighting into 'flying saucers'. This event, the article suggests, marked the beginning of regular sightings of these mysterious, saucer-shaped vehicles.

The author posits that it is extraordinarily unlikely that alien visitors would have coincidentally changed their spacecraft's shape from boomerang to saucer immediately after Arnold's sighting. Instead, he proposes a more plausible explanation: that the thousands of reports of flying saucers since 1947 are a result of the power of suggestion. People may have seen distant planes, vague lights, or experienced hallucinations, and because they expected alien craft to be saucer-shaped, they subconsciously interpreted what they saw as such, or perhaps simply lied.

The moral drawn from this is that even a vast amount of witness testimony concerning strange or miraculous events can be mistaken, and individuals are particularly vulnerable to the power of suggestion.

Open-mindedness

The article then delves into the concept of open-mindedness. It acknowledges that people often insist on being open-minded about claims concerning the weird and miraculous. The author agrees that one should not dismiss such claims outright and ignore supporting evidence. However, he cautions against being 'too open-minded,' meaning minds so open that any 'rubbishy old idea' can easily take hold. Examples of such ridiculous beliefs include the Moon being made of concrete, ice being poisonous, or humans having three legs. The author stresses that an overly open mind can become filled with 'junk beliefs'.

Therefore, the article advocates for being open-minded but also for filtering out silly or unreasonable ideas. This filtering process involves thinking hard about arguments and carefully weighing evidence before accepting new beliefs, which increases the chance that many of these beliefs will be true.

The you-can't-prove-it move

The article identifies a common tactic used in discussions about controversial topics, which it terms the 'you-can't-prove-it-move'. This move occurs when people insist on open-mindedness by suggesting that judgment should be suspended on an issue because there is some doubt either way. For instance, someone might admit they cannot prove beyond all doubt that flying saucers exist, but argue that since the existence of flying saucers hasn't been disproven, the reasonable stance is to remain neutral.

The author explains the mistake in this reasoning: even if absolute proof is lacking for one position over another, it does not automatically follow that neutrality is the rational stance. There may be powerful evidence supporting one side. The article uses the analogy of scientific theories and common sense beliefs, noting that even these are open to some degree of doubt. For example, it's 'just possible' that shops at the end of the street have been demolished due to a bizarre plot or conspiracy. However, this possibility does not mean one should suspend judgment on whether the Earth goes around the sun or whether shops still stand at the end of the street.

Illustrations

The illustrations in the article are noted as being by Daniel Postgate and are taken from 'The Outer Limits' by Stephen Law (Orion, July 2003).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme in this article is the importance of critical thinking and the careful evaluation of evidence, particularly when dealing with extraordinary claims. The editorial stance, as presented by Stephen Law, is one of reasoned skepticism. While advocating for open-mindedness, the article strongly emphasizes the need to distinguish between genuine intellectual curiosity and the uncritical acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. It champions a balanced approach where claims are examined rigorously, and the potential for psychological factors like suggestion and bias to influence perception and testimony is acknowledged. The article promotes a philosophical approach that encourages clear thinking and the avoidance of logical fallacies, such as the 'you-can't-prove-it-move'.