Discussion
Watch the video and read the discussions on UFOs. Go to our University Library and read
Allen Hynek – UFOs: Its Time for a Scientific Approach
EU Condon – UFOs I Have Loved and Lost
Compare and contrast the arguments of Condon and Hynek, regarding the existence of UFOs. Evaluate the conclusion that each person draws and the evidence that each uses to support his conclusion. Which person do you think makes the best argument? Why?
Responses
Trevor Holland
Both articles were great reads. They were both certainly refreshing perspectives from what we commonly hear about UFO’s and their possible origins. I am, admittedly, a bit biased going into those reads as I am typically heavily skeptical on the discussion of extraterrestrial origins of things that we are uncertain of their identity or things zipping around the sky that we are unfamiliar with. In my opinion, Condon highlighted a more psychological view of the state of minds for those folks who were convinced that it was in fact of extra terrestrial origin, and challenged that based on other commonly accepted things which most people cannot begin to explain scientifically. Hyneck to me seemed to focus his writing more on offering the idea that there are more likely explanations than extraterrestrial ones for what people see, or think they see. I found Hyneck’s argument more compelling, though I agreed with of their stances for the most part. I found Hyneck’s to feel more professionally written, which tends to make me feel less compelled to challenge what is being said. I also tend to agree with the idea that people want it to be aliens because that is a significantly more fun and interesting scenario than “The government is running flight tests on something we just don’t know about yet”. In general, I would have to agree that in most cases, things identified as alien UFOs are overwhelmingly likely something that has originated from a population here on Earth, and the witnesses simply are not familiar with it, and we simply have not seen these things before.
Chad Humphries
For years now, the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) has been a controversial issue. Some people dismiss such sightings as hoaxes, while others believe that they have the potential to reveal alien life. J. Allen Hynek and Edward Condon, two prominent individuals in the field, have varying opinions.
This post aims to analyze and contrast the arguments presented by each side. It will also investigate the supporting evidence that they use.
During the 1960s, physicist Edward Condon conducted a report on the subject. He stated that UFOs were not worth the scientific investigation despite the number of sightings. He claimed that natural phenomena or misidentification could explain most of them.
According to Condon, the simplest explanation is the correct one. He also stated that blaming extraterrestrial visitors for UFO sightings is unreasonable and lacks empirical proof.
As an astronomer, J. Allen Hynek put forth a more scientific approach to investigating UFOs. He categorized them into three categories: identified, possible, and unidentified. Although initially skeptical of the phenomenon, he eventually began to question the dismissals of numerous reports. He coined “close encounter” and proposed a more systematic and rigorous approach to investigating the matter.
Proponents of alien life immediately criticized Condon’s report, which was allegedly biased and aimed at debunking UFO claims since the Air Force stopped its investigations. Also, Condon’s claims about Occam’s razor only served to simplify the complex nature of the phenomenon and the possibility of alien life.
Unlike Condon, Hynek believed that the scientific method could not explain every sighting of UFOs. He noted that some cases require further investigation. He also thought that extraterrestrial visitors could be responsible for some reports. As a result, he established a classification system for UFOs that included the unidentified category.
It is reasonable to assume that Hynek has a stronger case than Condon due to the arguments presented by both parties. His approach to investigating UFOs is scientific, allowing for a more objective assessment of reports. Although Condon’s skepticism is not unjustified, his reliance on Occam’s razor as the sole criterion for classifying UFOs limits the scope of scientific inquiry.
The contrasting perspectives presented by Condon and Hynek regarding the subject matter demonstrate the varying viewpoints held by different scientific groups. For instance, Condon believes that the sightings are not worth investigating due to mundane explanations. On the other hand, Hynek advocates for a more scientific approach to examining the matter.
Considering the various arguments presented by both parties, it can be concluded that Hynek’s stance is more balanced and robust. Acknowledging unexplained events and his willingness to explore new theories provide a more objective assessment.
In my opinion UFO’s and aliens are real.
References:
Condon, E. U., & Gillmor, D. S. (1968). The scientific study of unidentified flying objects: Condon report. Bantam Books.
Hynek, J. A. (1972). The UFO experience: A scientific inquiry. Henry Regnery Company.
Maccabee, B. (1996). The UFO/FBI Connection: The secret history of the Government’s cover-up. Llewellyn Publications.
V/r,
Larry Ermakovich
Both the articles by Allen Hynek and EU Cordon have nominal skepticism of the UFO phenomenon. Both advise further research into the phenomenon and to parse out the outlandish claims of being abducted to Venus or Mars. However. That is roughly were the similarities end.
Allen Hynek takes a more moderate approach to his skepticism and tone of writing. Allen advocates for more research based on the question that, is this phenomenon an extraterrestrial feat or a meta terrestrial reality. He also concedes that the entire field of study is often “dismissed” due to the paranormal aspects of the phenomenon. Allen further concludes that the dismissal of a field of study based solely on its seemingly outlandish nature is scientifically irresponsible.
While EU Cordon is seemingly open to further study of the UFO phenomenon, stating “any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported”, He takes a much harsher tone in his writing. In a sardonic tone befitting a teenager having been told to do their chores states, “Perhaps we need a National Magic Agency” in regard to the further study of the phenomenon. Which is clearly contrary to what he expressed earlier. It can be extrapolated that Cordon does not truly believe that there should be further research into the phenomenon and that those who teach it as truth should be “publicly horsewhipped.” This is in stark contrast to Allen Hynek’s more moderate approach to his skepticism.
