Week 10/15: Ch. 4 Question 2

Condon argues that the study of UFO reports will not lead to scientific productivity. He mentions how nothing regarding UFOs has been discovered in the past 21 years, suggesting that scientists therefore cannot go forward with their studies. He also says how some “may have expected in the way of psychiatric problems” when they find “UFO” craft, and this would advance the social and behavioral sciences instead. He also mentions how the government isn’t in secrecy concerning UFO reports. 

Hynek argues that “investigations…have sought to disprove” the rigorous scientific studying of UFO reports which is why nothing has been really proven yet. He states how the reports can be managed by looking at the statistics by comparing “large groups of sightings of a particular category with a much larger population of the same category,” and by the thorough examination of “individual multiple-witness cases.” He mentions how UFO reports are global, suggesting that it’s not just the people of this country that have “witnessed” UFOs. 

I think Paynter makes the best argument. He argues that so far we really don’t know if UFOs are real, because we don’t have physical evidence. Nobody has really found legitimate evidence and so until someone does, we can’t be sure that aliens are real but according to Hynek, it’s still acceptable to believe in them. His article was also the easiest for me to grasp because he states his opinions simply and straightforwardly. It’s brief, but it’s the most powerful out of the three.