The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

By Brian Zeiler Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation because of

the implications it raises and because of the questions it begs. But should the integrity of the

determination rely on the implications of a positive classification? Or should the classification of

true or false be assessed in isolation of the implications? Which is worse -- a false positive,

meaning ruling in favor of the UFO as a unique phenomenon when in fact it does not exist, or a

false negative, meaning ruling against it and missing out on its true existence? The answer, of course, lies in the incentive structure of the analyst. An equally intelligent

non-scientist has no incentive nor predisposition to favor one type of error over the other, but

scientists do. For scientists, it would open a whole new confounding problem domain, and it

would make them look incompetent in the public's eyes for missing out on this fact for 50 years.

That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept

alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof. Their

incentive structure prohibits them from making any such inference unless it is unavoidable, and

they will strain the boundaries of logic and reason to no end to dismiss all evidence other than

physical proof, no matter how powerful it may be. This scientific predisposition toward disbelief,

rooted not in science and logic but rather in dogma and paradigm, brings us to the logical

trickery of the scientific UFO debunker. What Exactly is "Extraordinary"? First, the scientific debunker will say that because alien visitation is an extraordinary claim, it thus

demands extraordinary proof. Therefore, no evidence is suggestive of alien visitation unless it is

accompanied by irrefutable physical proof -- even if the observations directly indicate, within

normal scientific evidential standards, the presence of a solid object under intelligent control with

propulsion technology beyond human understanding. No matter how directly the observations

indicate an anomalous vehicle of nonhuman origin, skeptics maintain that a prosaic explanation

must be adopted unless physical proof is obtained. But such a stance, rigid beyond the normal

standards of scientific methodology, is a direct product of the incentive structure, not of logic, as

indicated above. Normal standards of science would require meeting the evidential threshold for

each of the above conditions necessary to establish extraterrestrial origin; yet the same degree of

evidence for physical substance is rejected for anomalous vehicles when it would otherwise be

accepted for observations of more conventional vehicles. Thus, the debunkers have failed to define the boundary of extraordinariness, which renders the

declaration logically specious due to its wholly arbitrary implementation that is easily

contaminated by individual and collective incentives. They exploit the arbitrary classification of

"extraordinary" by applying absurdly rigid evidential boundaries to cases that clearly feature

anomalous, physical vehicles that humans could not have built. Instead of assessing the case for

physical substance on its own merits with the radar-visual observations, they merely apply a

priori probabilities of nearly zero to the detection of anomalous vehicles, with no logical

defensibility in the face of insufficient information to estimate the a priori probability, and

therefore give themselves license to reject all evidence of any quality unless a physical specimen

is obtained. For instance, if SETI receives an anomalous repeating signal with intelligent content such as a

mathematical constant, and rules out all known causes of terrestrial and deep-space interference,

do they need a chunk of the alien radio dish or a dead alien to attribute it to alien origin? It would

be just as easy to apply UFO-skeptic logic and insist that the signal is nothing more than

anomalous until we obtain physical proof of aliens; after all, why ascribe a radio signal to alien

origin before we have physical proof of the existence of aliens? After all, we cannot rule out

malfunction, fraud, or human error with 100% certainty, so the simplest explanation is an

undetected flaw, not an alien message. Right? Or is it really just the case that the a priori probability assumed by scientists of alien radio

detection is higher than that assumed for atmospheric detection? Is this a priori probability

differential between radio versus atmospheric detection logically defensible? Or do we lack

sufficient information to make anything but a wild guess, a guess contaminated by incentive,

dogma, and mere habit? Why do so many scientists, including Tipler and Fermi, argue that

interstellar travel would be feasible for advanced civilizations whose productivity growth has

created such vast wealth that journeys are less expensive than they would be for us humans?

Do we know what alien energy resource stocks are? Even right now, we have the technology

to mount a journey at 10% of the speed of light and arrive at the nearest star in 40 years. How

"extraordinary" is it to consider that, several billion years ago, one culture might have mounted

a gradual expedition that took them to our solar system and many others? We sure don't know

whether this is "extraordinary" or the natural outcome of technological advancement, but many

scientists wish to believe, simply due to heavily entrenched ideologies with absolutely no basis in

logic nor fact, that such interstellar expansions are far less likely than the human interception of

alien radio signals. So just what is "extraordinary", aside from a word referring to a claim for which extremely low

a priori probabilities of truth are applied? I consider extraordinary a claim which undermines

fundamental precepts of physics. Alien visitation does not do this. And no matter the difficulty

as we perceive it, interstellar travel does not violate the laws of physics. Neither do aliens.

Therefore, alien visitation does not violate the laws of physics, and nor does it require a straining

of credible probabilistic expectations. We simply don't know how likely it is. And that is hardly a

strong case for considering alien visitation an "extraordinary claim." Nevertheless, skeptics will insist on applying to alien visitation an a priori probability of nearly

zero for some strange reason. Interestingly, many scientists such as Fermi and Tipler were

skeptical of both UFOs and of alien life in general; they contended that interstellar travel would

be easy for advanced civilizations, so the lack of overt contact disproved alien existence. Yet

most UFO skeptics do believe alien life exists out in the universe -- just not here. So they defend

the near impossibility of interstellar travel, which contradicts a considerable portion of the

scientific community. This a priori probability allows them to reject evidence arbitrarily that would otherwise confirm

the presence of a solid object under intelligent control with propulsion irreproducible by human

technology. For instance, when a certain degree of corroboration of physical substance for an

airplane is obtained for an unconventional disk-shaped vehicle, this degree of evidence is

accepted for the airplane but rejected for the anomalous vehicle. The only way to do this is to

apply a priori probabilities of nearly zero to the detection of such an anomalous object. The

problem, of course, is that first of all, we don't have enough information to defend a low a priori

probability, and second of all, this approach guarantees automatic rejection of normal avenues of

evidence. Effectively, what the skeptics are saying is that radar evidence is too "ordinary" to

suffice for an "extraordinary" claim. They succeed in eliminating from review all types of indirect

and direct evidence, except for physical proof. This type of logic can be successfully applied to any claim. For instance, let's declare that

dinosaurs are an extraordinary claim. This declaration requires no logical substantiation, just the

way skeptics use their nearly zero a priori probability of extraterrestrial visitation to declare the

claim extraordinary with no logical defense whatsoever, given the insufficient information to

determine this probability. So, we have declared dinosaurs to be an extraordinary claim. The

next step is to reject all fossil evidence for dinosaurs, since fossils are only acceptable for

ordinary claims such as woolly mammoths; for extraordinary dinosaur claims, fossils are

worthless. What we need, as dinosaur skeptics, is physical proof of an intact dinosaur. And, to

make it even more similar to the skeptic approach, we don't need to defend the rationale of the

demand for physical proof of dinosaurs; the fact that it is an extraordinary claim allows us to

demand the very upper boundary of conceptually feasible modes of proof -- but conceptual

feasibility does not translate into practical feasibility. Sure, I can demand physical proof, but

will I get it? Is it worth ignoring fossil evidence in my wait for physical proof? We could extend the analogy further by applying more skeptic logical tricks. For instance,

dinosaur articles are published in journals which already believe in dinosaurs; therefore, it is

biased and one-sided, and hardly representative of truly critical peer review. We could assert

that all fossils are best explained as hoaxes, misidentifications of known and unknown geological

processes, and hallucinations and/or misinterpretations by overzealous paleontologists imposing

their belief system on an anomalous rock. This, I can contend, is the "simplest explanation", and I

don't have to worry about using over strenuous logic because, in an absence of physical proof of

dinosaurs, any explanation is simpler, no matter how contrived and convoluted! This is the

essence of the scientific rejection of the UFO evidence: an overwhelming need to disbelieve

coupled with a shameful lack of research into the actual evidence. The Demand for Physical Proof If aliens were visiting, I find the expectation of physical proof quite illogical, since it's going to be

hard to obtain. In fact, it may even be impossible. But the skeptics don't mind, since they have

already decided to disbelieve until they obtain the highest conceivable level of proof. In the

above discussion, it was noted that anybody can apply this logic by insisting that dinosaurs

should not be accepted until we find an intact, frozen, preserved dinosaur with the flesh still on

the bones, and if that's impossible -- well, too bad. Is it rational to reject fossils the way skeptics

reject radar-visual cases and ground-trace cases and then demand a preserved dinosaur

specimen the way skeptics demand an alien and/or vehicle specimen? I contend that physical

proof is an unattainable evidential boundary which guarantees rejection of the hypothesis of

extraterrestrial origin. Despite the table-pounding insistence by skeptics on physical proof, they have simply not been

able to defend this demand, one which is far beyond the scientific rigor that standard scientific

methodology would require. The UFO evidence has satisfied the evidential threshold of normal

scientific protocols; unfortunately, the evidence has been rejected by the dogmatic, specious

demands for physical proof. For all these demands for physical proof, the skeptics have not

been able to meet any of the following logical criteria necessary to defend the imposition of this

arbitrary evidential threshold: How can one declare a claim to be extraordinary without sufficient information to defend

a low a priori probability?

Are there degrees of extraordinariness?

How does one relate a degree of extraordinariness to a fair and reasonable evidential

threshold?

What is it about extraterrestrial visitation that implies the availability of physical proof?

How can we obtain physical proof?

How can an evidential threshold be imposed with no logical defensibility nor any rational

expectation of actually meeting such a stringent threshold? Occam's Razor and the Skeptics The UFO skeptics don't understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they

understand it, but they don't. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying

complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should

be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest

hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth. But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the

part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher

the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse

of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the

observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying "if

we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the

solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was

not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and

then declare that it was really Venus." But that's okay for the skeptics to do because it's an "extraordinary claim" being made that

deserves to be explained away in a Machiavellian fashion as rapidly as possible with the urgent

zeal of a religious missionary. Now, to alter observations to force conformance with the

preferred hypothesis -- is that science? Or is that dogma? The answer, of course, is dogma. This

practice is extremely poor science, and the approach undermines the very spirit of scientific

inquiry. It is simply unacceptable to alter the observations that refuse to conform with the

predetermined, favored explanation. The ETH and Falsifiability While a more thorough discussion of the formulation and potential falsification of the ETH can be

found on the ETH page, one particular aspect is worthy of note as another logical trick. The

skeptics complain that the ETH is not falsifiable, which is a condition that violates a necessary

component of hypothesis formulation. This is not true, as explained on the ETH page. However,

even if it were true, the skeptics fail to realize that their beloved SETI hypothesis of alien radio

signal detection can be said to be nonfalsifiable! Does a lack of detection disprove the

hypothesis that aliens are beaming mathematical constants at us? Certainly not, since our

equipment may not be strong enough to detect them. It's been 30 years since SETI's beginnings,

with absolutely no positive results whatsoever, yet the nonfalsifiability allows preservation of the

project with hopes as high as ever. Science versus Skepticism Skeptics are skilled propagandists who appeal to base emotions just like a seasoned politician.

Skeptics like to wrap themselves in the robe of science, declaring that their approach and

conclusions are "scientific", in just the same way that a politician will cloak himself in the mantle

of "family values" and "doing what's right for America." But is skepticism really as scientific as the

skeptics want people to believe? As has been explained throughout this essay, the clear answer is no. Their logical reasoning is rife

with fallacies, from their arbitrary declaration of a claim as being extraordinary to their specious

demand for physical proof to their abuse of Occam's Razor to their erroneous complaints about

hypothesis falsification. So why do they claim that they are the real scientific side? Skeptics are mostly scientists, but that certainly doesn't mean they behave scientifically, as has

been explained. Their behavior stems partially from their distaste for public opinions that

contradict the consensus of the scientific community. When a public consensus does contradict

the scientific opinion, the scientists will mount a public campaign to discredit this opinion,

because such an opinion undermines the role of the scientist in society as the appointed

knowledge-seeker and truth-gatherer. What good are scientists if mankind will only insist on

believing in warm, fuzzy superstitions anyway? So, these scientists who are guilty of the logical

infractions exposed in this essay are so consumed with the presumed validity of their opinions

that, like a zealous religious fanatic, they must convert the masses to the side of truth in order to

salvage their own self-image. The second stimulus of pseudoscientific skepticism is that these scientists, who do not represent

all scientists but rather a rogue band of propagandists, feel that science is about the mastery of

nature. When nature introduces an anomaly -- a violation of expectation -- to science, the

anomaly must be crushed. How dare nature violate science's laws and principles! The anomaly is

supposed to indicate an incomplete framework or incorrect a priori assumptions, yet to the

skeptical propagandists, it indicates misbehavior by nature that cannot be allowed to undermine

their role in society. The anomaly is a threat to the validity of their work, so they must wish it

away, convince themselves through wild logical fallacies that the anomaly does not exist, and

return the public back toward the truths of nature that are approved by the scientific community.

This tendency only changes when it becomes more work to deny the anomaly then to accept it;

sadly, with UFOs, this is not likely to occur, because the scientific community will never deal

with UFO reports. Conclusion The scientific community has vociferously resisted the acceptance of anomalies for centuries,

with the Copernican Revolution being the most notable historical example. They threaten the

paradigm and disturb the equilibrium. They undermine the community's self-perception of

usefulness and value to society by threatening to destroy the assumptions behind their work. For

the purposes of emotional well-being, they will be protested and debunked until they can no

longer be denied; with UFOs, the breaking point will be physical proof. Yet as this essay

demonstrated, the criterion of physical proof is a product of anomaly resistance, rather than a

rational assessment of a priori probabilities or a rational interpretation of evidence. Instead of

applying fallacious reasoning to the evidence, applying normal scientific standards to the UFO

evidence would long ago have enabled the scientific community to embrace the ETH.

