2015 12 06 Public Understanding of Science - Vol 26 No 5 - Greg Eghigian

Magazine Overview

This document is a theoretical/research article titled "Making UFOs make sense: Ufology, science, and the history of their mutual mistrust," authored by Greg Eghigian of Penn State University. It was published in "Public Understanding of Science" (Volume 1-15) in 2015 by SAGE.

Historical Context of UFOs and Mistrust

The article begins by noting that reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and alien encounters, starting in 1946/1947, have fueled amateur research (ufology), government investigations, and popular interest. However, scientists have historically met this topic with skepticism, often dismissing ufology as pseudoscience and believers as irrational. Conversely, believers have questioned the accuracy of academic science, leading to a mutual mistrust. The study aims to examine the historical roots of this mistrust, demonstrating that it stems from the differing research practices and relationships between ufology, science, and government bodies, rather than from a lack of scientific understanding among ufologists.

Interest in UFOs has been generally waning since the 1990s, but remains present, with media outlets providing sympathetic coverage. Public curiosity about extraterrestrial visitation contrasts sharply with the views of most academic researchers, who have categorized ufology and related claims as misguided. This has led to a form of "social stigmatization" of the topic within academia.

Ufologists, aware of their marginalized status, have often viewed academic and political authorities as narrow-minded or deliberately hiding information. This isolation has pushed enthusiasts to communicate their views through mass media or to establish their own parallel institutions, such as journals and conferences, to publish their findings and theories.

The article notes that the presence of conspiracy theories and paranormal beliefs within the UFO community has reinforced the impression of the movement being shrouded in paranoia and mysticism, which is antithetical to the ideals of scientific objectivity.

Explaining Science Doubters

The article touches upon the broader phenomenon of science doubt and denial, which has become more pronounced since the "science wars" of the 1990s. Surveys indicate that while there is general support for science, a significant percentage of individuals are dubious about the benefits of modern science outweighing its harms, with some believing too much faith is placed in science over feelings and faith.

Scholars in science and technology studies have examined this disconnection, with attention directed at how prominent figures and lobbyists have promoted doubts about scientific findings that might harm business interests. The article suggests that doubts about science can result from ignorance, bias, or both. However, it also advocates for moving beyond knowledge-deficit explanations to consider how scientists and scientific institutions interact with the public, using case studies to examine how scientists engage in "boundary work" that can contribute to reciprocal distrust. The example of Cumbrian sheep farmers' reactions to the Chernobyl disaster is cited, illustrating how the presentation of science can lead to feelings of being ensnared by an alien system.

Personal Experiences and Reporting

The UFO and alien contact phenomenon is rooted in personal human experiences. Archival records contain numerous accounts of individuals encountering extraordinary aerial phenomena. Examples include a man in San Francisco tracking silvery, oval objects in 1949 and a Mississippi woman observing two oval objects fastened together in 1949. These experiences often left witnesses perplexed, with some concluding the objects were "Unknown." The awareness that others might doubt their experiences is a common theme among witnesses.

Reporting these experiences to authorities was not the norm; a 1968 survey found that 87% of UFO sighters reported their experiences only to family or friends, with reasons for not reporting including the belief that it was something normal or fear of ridicule. For sightings to become part of UFO folklore, they need to be communicated and recorded by someone with authority or media access. This reporting process is a translation that alters the original experience, involving witnesses' attempts to communicate and listeners' decisions on how to elicit and document information.

Government and Ufologist Investigations

Government officials, particularly in the context of national security, were interested in refining how UFO reports were made. Early efforts, like those by Project Sign in 1949, involved analyzing incidents and looking for patterns. Project Blue Book, starting in 1952, aimed for greater scientific rigor by standardizing data collection and analysis.

Amateur ufologists also committed themselves to collecting, storing, and analyzing sighting information. However, government access to data was uneven, with the US, USSR, and UK being more restrictive than France and Sweden. This led many ufologists to view government authorities as unreliable and to pressure for disclosure of classified information. Ufologists used newsletters and journals to campaign against state secrecy.

Lay UFO researchers also exploited alternative sources, such as newspaper and magazine clippings. Austrian ufologist Luis Schönherr meticulously organized his collection of clippings and ufology literature to create a card catalog of UFO cases. By the 1960s, UFO groups began taking a more directive role in obtaining eyewitness accounts and conducting their own sightings. Organizations formed to coordinate investigations, train investigators, and evaluate reports. Local branches organized "sky-watches," and by the 1970s and 1980s, organizations were directly receiving reports and sending teams to conduct fieldwork.

Standardization and Methodology

Many ufologists sought to transform their field into a recognized science by standardizing information. The rise of computer technology in the mid-1970s enabled the development of codes for recording information, with many relying on David Saunders' UFOCAT Codebook. This system collected data from newspapers, ufological experts, and literature, growing significantly over time.

While some ufologists focused on statistical analysis, others, like Cynthia Hind, specialized in clinical casework, investigating individual contact and abduction cases. Hind's work involved detailed interviews, drawings, and even suggesting regressive hypnosis, connecting witnesses with experts like Dr. John Mack of Harvard University.

Ufologists often played multiple roles: investigator, reporter, advisor, and counselor. The field developed a canon of classical cases like Kenneth Arnold, Roswell, and the Hills, which became subjects of perpetual discussion and debate. Ufology's emphasis on storytelling is seen as an expression of a widespread perception among enthusiasts that narratives better respect the integrity of UFO experiences than aggregate data or categorical dismissals.

Government investigators focused on national security and relied on conventional intelligence gathering, aiming to evaluate information reliability. With the release of classified documents showing a lack of indisputable UFO artifacts, governments increasingly turned to statistical research. Ufologists, motivated by a desire to prove extraterrestrial origins, supplemented official information with testimonial, press, and fieldwork sources, often discriminating little between them. They considered their work serious research, conducted outside prescribed professional channels.

From Science of UFOs to Science of True Believers

For the first two decades after 1947, academic scholarship was largely silent on UFOs. While some scientists dismissed claims as mistaken identification or hoax, organizations like the Soviet Academy of Sciences rejected the study outright. Physicist Edward Condon suggested that UFO phenomena did not offer a fruitful field for major scientific discoveries.

However, from the early 1950s to the 1970s, some academics, including astronomers, physicists, computer scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, did engage with ufologists. These included figures like J. Allen Hynek, Donald Menzel, Carl Sagan, Jacques Vallee, and David Saunders. Opinions within this group varied widely regarding the nature and origin of UFOs.

The perception that American academia considered the study of UFOs illegitimate was seemingly confirmed by the 1968 Condon report, which concluded that UFO study had not contributed to scientific knowledge. Following this, the US Air Force ended its investigations, and natural sciences largely divested from UFO study, except for SETI. The focus shifted to the human sciences, with sociologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists beginning to study UFO witnesses and believers, examining their backgrounds, personalities, and belief systems.

This shift was influenced by the nature of the phenomenon itself, which was seen as fleeting and immaterial, leading scientists to doubt the ontological reality of the objects. Condon, like Vallee, pointed research towards studying the witnesses and believers rather than the objects. By the 1970s, research in the human sciences often adopted a critical stance, viewing subjects with dubiety and focusing on uncovering the sources of human self-deception.

Academic research on UFOs and alien contact since 1970 has generally clustered around six lines of investigation: sociological surveys of public attitudes, psychometric personality assessments, studies of psychophysics and memory related to UFO experiences, ethnographic studies of UFO groups, studies of how UFO reports are communicated, and narrative analysis of popular works and conspiracy theories.

Outside of folklorists and some ethnographers, research in the behavioral and cultural sciences has generally treated UFO-related beliefs and believers as anomalies requiring explanation. Academic studies often adopted a social deviance approach, pathologizing believers or casting them as ideological fanatics. These representations have not gone unnoticed by ufologists and contactees.

Conclusion

The article concludes that its historical analysis aims not to determine the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs, but to show that scientific skepticism regarding UFOs and alien contact is not solely based on the merits of the scientific evidence but is also shaped by the historical interactions and practices of both scientists and ufologists.

This document is an excerpt from the journal "Public Understanding of Science," Volume 24, Issue 1, published in March 2015. The article, titled "Eghigian," is authored by Greg Eghigian, an Associate Professor of Modern History at Pennsylvania State University. The excerpt focuses on the historical and sociological reasons behind the skepticism and distrust between scientists, officials, and ufologists regarding UFO and alien contact phenomena.

Historical Context and Skepticism

The article posits that the air of suspicion surrounding UFOs and alien sightings is largely self-inflicted by the involved parties. Historically, state authorities and the academic community have maintained a default position of dubiousness regarding the veracity of such claims. This stance is attributed to their perspectives on knowledge gathering and the historical context, particularly the Cold War era, when UFO reports were often folded into intelligence analysis. Analysts were accustomed to questioning information reliability and focusing on national security implications, with public dissemination of results often restricted on a need-to-know basis.

Civilian scientists, while not solely focused on security, found the lack of incontrovertible material evidence for UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation reinforced the notion that the phenomenon belonged more to anthropology, psychology, and sociology than to astronomy and physics. The human sciences, with their long history of researching deception and self-deception, tended to view witnesses and believers as inherently suspect.

Impact on the UFO Community

This academic and official stance had a chronic impact on the UFO community, especially in the United States. Confronted by the perceived furtiveness of officials, the disdain of physical scientists, and the skeptical gaze of behavioral researchers, witnesses and ufologists became more convinced that their experiences were being disparaged and that there was a concerted effort to exclude them from official forums. Consequently, they developed a strong reliance on their own communities and sources of information, which, in turn, only reinforced the academics' conviction that UFO enthusiasts' research was flawed.

The article notes that ufologists are often sensitive to the perception that scientific forms of objectivity are considered ideal and natural, unlike their own methods. However, it argues that most ufologists are not anti-science; rather, their methods of collecting and analyzing information were inspired by academic precedents and can be seen as an expression of respect for science. Their disdain is often reserved for scientists, not science itself. Academicians, however, tend to view ufologists as amateurs "playing at" being scientific researchers.

Personal Experiences and Scientific Relegation

What has been particularly frustrating for UFO and alien contact witnesses is how their personal experiences have been handled by the scientific community. Witnesses often described their encounters as remarkable, uncanny events that punctuated everyday life and were deeply meaningful. However, scientific researchers, dating back to the Condon commission, have consistently attempted to relegate these extraordinary mysteries to the status of mundane puzzles. They do this by turning these experiences into numerical values and fitting them along a continuum of human perception, cognition, and behavior.

When personal experiences are repackaged in scientific terms and values, it is understandable that many ufologists have found storytelling to be a more effective way to communicate the awesome nature of the phenomena they have encountered. The article cites C.G. Jung's (1958) work "Ein moderner Mythus: Von Dingen, die am Himmel gesehen werden" as an example of a meaningful interpretation of such phenomena.

Rise of UFO Belief and Research

The article also touches on the rise of a science of UFO belief, which gained prominence in the latter half of the 1960s. During this period, stories of alien abduction and experimentation proliferated, coinciding with science's increasing treatment of witnesses and believers as research subjects. The author suggests it is not unreasonable to consider how these two developments comment on each other and reflect the differing regards with which some scientists and laymen view the transformation of human beings into scientific objects.

Funding and References

The research for this project was partially funded by a Library Resident Research Fellowship at the American Philosophical Society. The article includes a detailed list of references, citing numerous academic works on UFOs, science, psychology, sociology, and the public's understanding of science. Notably, the references include works by authors such as Jacques Vallée, J. Allen Hynek, and Budd Hopkins, as well as various academic journals and books.

Author Biography

Greg Eghigian is an Associate Professor of Modern History at Pennsylvania State University. His recent book is "The Corrigible and the Incorrigible: Science, Medicine, and the Convict in Twentieth-Century Germany." He is currently writing a book on the global history of the UFO and alien contact phenomenon.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this excerpt are the complex interplay between science and belief, the sociology of knowledge, the historical development of UFO research, and the public's perception of scientific authority. The editorial stance of "Public Understanding of Science" appears to be one that critically examines how scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated, and understood by the public, particularly in controversial or fringe areas like UFO phenomena. The journal aims to explore the social and cultural factors that shape public attitudes towards science and scientific claims.