Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Amateur Astronomers and UFOs (Yes Again!)

By Gregon

I posted last week about attacks by ‘Skeptologists’ Brian Dunning and Phil Plait on ufologists Stanton Friedman and Chris Rutkowski respectively. Plait’s complaint against Rutkowski concerned Chris’s criticisms of the Bad Astronomer’s thoughts about astronomers and UFOs (notably, the apparent lack of sightings reported by amateur astronomers).

In seeking more information about this topic, I came across an article from 1981 which contains actual data regarding the percentage of amateur astronomers who have sighted UFOs. Rather ironically, the article is written by…Chris Rutkowski! I’m reproducing a large part of the article below as it’s quite interesting and very topical to the question of amateur astronomers and UFO sightings:

In his book, “The Promise of Space”, Arthur C. Clarke makes a statement to the effect that amateur astronomers have not reported seeing UFOs. An amateur astronomer named Gert Herb read this and decided to determine if the statement was indeed true. The effort was encouraged by the fact that in January of 1977, Peter Sturrock published his report of a survey of professional astronomers on the subject of UFO’s. Now known as the Sturrock Report (published as the Stanford University Institute for Plasma Research Report Number 681), it received a 52% response rate from 2,611 astronomers surveyed. Only 20% of the respondents thought that UFO’s were not worthy of scientific attention. However, this
included a bias whereby individuals who were strongly opposed to the notion of UFO’s would be inclined to not respond to the survey. (It is obvious, though, that some strongly opponent individuals might be impelled to respond with their negative opinion.) A startling 4½% of the respondents indicated that they had seen UFOs.

… Mr. Herb sent a questionnaire to 8,526 amateurs in the Astronomical League, the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO) and the International Occultation Timing Association (IOTA). The AAVSO was also asked to participate, but it declined. A total of only 1,805 individuals responded to the survey. Of that group, 67% felt that UFO’s “certainly, probably or possibly exist”. Asked whether they had ever seen an object which they could not identify, despite their efforts to do so, 427 of the 1,805 answered to the affirmative. That is 23.7% of the responding group, and 5.2% of the entire sample polled.

Mr. Herb also asked the amateurs about their observing experience, in terms of whether they kept a regular observing log, followed a structured observing program, worked in conjunction with a group like IOTA or ALPO, and their length of active amateur observing. On this basis, he selected 261 “senior” amateurs whom he felt possessed higher-than-average abilities. These were considered as being most familiar with objects in the night sky. Of the 261 selected, 74 had seen objects which “resisted most exhaustive efforts of identification.”

While most sightings were of point- or slightly-extended sources, 24 were of objects observed “at short enough distance as to leave no doubt in the observer’s mind that something strange was reported.” Sixty-six were observed through a telescope, and forty objects were observed through binoculars.

Again, a certain bias is evident. Amateurs who had seen a UFO were more likely to have returned the questionnaire, having more motivation. As is usual in surveys of this nature, peer pressure might have served to suppress many sightings, so that these results therefore reflect only the reported sightings, rather than the actual number of sightings made.

… But UFO’s are not extraterrestrial spacecraft, as many people assume. They are merely unidentified objects, and nothing can realistically be said beyond that. No one is able to identify everything he or she sees. This writer has two reports of UFOs from members of the RASC Winnipeg Centre on record, and neither suggest anything resembling an interstellar spaceship. They are just unidentified, and it is even possible that with enough information, they could be explained as mundane objects. Just as easily, however, they can remain unidentified.

The Sturrock and Herb reports show that both professional and amateur astronomers have seen UFOs, bearing out the statement often quoted that all kinds of people have seen UFOs. A large percentage of both groups believe that UFOs deserve attention from the scientific community. This writer also shares that belief. If “UFOs do not exist”, then a very unusual sociological mechanism is at work, affecting large numbers of people by causing them to report UFOs. This would indicate that a study of this phenomenon is definitely warranted. If “UFOs do exist”, then they deserve serious study in that regard as well. Note that this has no bearing whatsoever on the question of extraterrestrial life. Although ET life may or may not be involved, UFOs are, at present, a terrestrial human problem.

As I mentioned previously, in a further irony, Chris also has a new book out in which he discusses this very topic (is Phil Plait doing some viral marketing on his behalf?!): A World of UFOs (Amazon US and UK).

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

3 Comments

  1. False Sciences
    As a professional scientist* I am dismayed and embarrassed that people abuse the name of rational inquiry unwittingly, or as it often seems half-wittingly and half intentionally.

    There is no “ufology”. There is the scientific study of a collection of phenomena, using the tools and techniques of the various fields of science. There are also other means, such as historical data collection and deconstruction of written works. They are valid methods of inquiry, but not science. Interest in, and collection information about, UFOs is not a field of inquiry, it’s a field of collection. A few amateurs have the ability to properly submit data to scientific testing, but most can’t tell the difference between raw data plus assertion, vs. valid analysis. Still, enough can tell the difference and can seek to have such data submitted, that scientific inquiry into phenomena surrounding UFOs is possible. Anything that can be tested scientifically cannot be invalidate by opinion any more than it can be validated by it. There is no “ufology”, but there is astronomy, chemistry, physics, and so forth. To say something is not “scientific” without due attention paid to providing and referencing data showing something doesn’t exist (a supremely difficult task for science, as it’s designed to detect a difference or fail to detect a difference, not show that no difference exists) indicates profound ignorance regarding science, whether honest, uneducated ignorance, or far worse, purposeful, self-serving, attention seeking statements masquerading as science. If scientists do this, they are wrong as a foot ball bat at best, and possibly engaging in scientific misconduct or worse.

    Nor is there a field of “skeptology”. Skepticism is part of science, in which we approach the matter at hand with no (that is “NO”, as in EN OH) preconceptions pro, con or something orthagonal. If assumptions must be made, they must be stated as such. This is common. It is called “operationalizing”. You can disagree with the assumption, but you must read the following science with the understanding that these are what the assumptions are, and then see if the results make sense with respect to those assumptions. (If you’re capable and care enough, you can then replicate with different assumptions and see if your results and conclusions are better).

    Skepticism is a neutral position, not a contrary one. Anyone who continually arrives at a contrary opinion is operating from preconceived notions, not from skepticism. If it were skepticism, as long as there were no positive results, the only truthful answer they could give (if they hold to the tenets of science) is “I/we don’t know.” Many people who continually arrive at such contrary opinions (without any evidence to support their position, or any position for that matter) do so in a fairly flamboyant fashion, and in fact make a name for themselves doing so. We have a name for this kind of person. It’s “entertainer”. If the term that really applied to them were “scientist”, they’d keep skepticism where it belonged, as an internal part of science.

    I will not deny that Randi (just to start with the best at some things and most well known over all) has outed some pretty egregious fraud in his day. When he examines a subject first hand, his reporting is, as best as I can tell, accurate. But often he fills pages with anti-something or other, calling it skepticism when he probably has no (or even directly reported) first hand data. Sadly he has thrown over his strong suit in order to seek notoriety. That’s easy to get because it can be created. True fame is harder, because it’s earned (he earned a great deal; he’s going after something else also now). Worse, many are following his slippage from application of knowledge to application of rhetoric. Worse still, while Randi is a professional magician, many of the others are supposedly professional scientists. Worst of all, some who are not qualified to produce science are being considered qualified as being able to “debunk” it (a term which does NOT apply to science; we have other means and terms).

    If skeptics wish to try to do something like real science, they will start with NO preconceived notions (except the necessary operationalization of variables), apply the specific tools from specific fields to evidence, produce results, write it up, and submit it to peer review. Just because many UFO “believers” do no do so does not mean doing the same is acceptable. Science is the language the skeptic must speak in, or they’re barking into the same wind as the uneducated, the self-biasing “true believer”, the huckster, the hoaxer, and what seems to be the darling of rampant science-via-advertising based media, the anti-anything entertainer.

    If they can’t show you that, between the stated hypothesis and the analysis of the data, they are remaining completely unaligned with ANY potential result or position, they are not skeptics, and should be publicly criticized for misuse of the term if not of science (or if actual scientists who should know better, actual abuse). Criticizing others is no match for producing result. Anyone can criticize, and they do; that’s cheap fare. In science we do so only with evidence or at least a logical argument regarding design. We know far better than to start with an assumption, support it with rhetoric, and conclude with our assumption. Scientists don’t do that, or of they do, it’s either thrown out as worthless or called what it is — opinion. We know better, or we lose our jobs. Sadly, this doesn’t happen to critics, whether music, movie or a field of interest.

    If supportable evidence regarding UFOs is ever forthcoming, it will not come from “ufologists”, who themselves adopt that title with all the fervor of their counterparts. It will come from people who practice the existing fields of science. It will be an uphill battle. But so was the battle from “neurons don’t regenerate; once they’re dead, that’s it”, to “neurons seem to regenerate” to “the brain contains neural stem cells that become neurons” to “stem cells can become any cells” to “any cells can become stem cells and then become other cells”. It went against centuries of “knowledge”. It took only 20 years. But it took scientists.

    Consider: it only took a collection of amateurs who took the time to educate themselves, and to examine the output of people of science and argue data and results rationally, a decade to change things so that a particular devastating disease got the attention it deserved, as well as got the moribund US law changed so that people could get medicines from other countries that weren’t available here yet. They changed the way science is performed when it comes to openness and accountability, and better yet changed the way medicine is practiced. And not a one of them ever had to call themselves HIVologist. You want an example to follow? Those people weren’t just an example, they were heroes.

    This is not to say scientists themselves don’t have similar problems. Science is, after all, a social activity pursued by fallible humans. It is my strenuously asserted position that Collins & Pinch’s “The Golem” and “The Golem Unleashed” are the best education available as to what the human pursuit of science and technology are and are not. But there’s lots of us keeping our eyes on each other, and enough looking sideways at most everything that if there’s a better answer to be had, no matter how unpopular it may be at the moment, it’ll get its chance if those with the sideways look can focus and bring it forward.

    * By profession, I’m a neuroscientist. By training I’m a methodologist. I create and evaluate scientific study designs and analysis techniques (bend your head around nonlinear statistics incorporating factional dimensions). I’ve been one of the few in my field capable of, and having worked with, physicists, chemists (bio and otherwise), engineers, mathematicians, and even radio-astronomers, and having enough language and understanding in common with them (much of that ability I credit to two study visits to the Santa Fe Institute) to make progress in one field or another that couldn’t have occurred without input from the other fields. I have no doubt in my mind that I could evaluate any papers containing data that Phil Plait et al. would care to pass my way showing results that support their assertions as to non-existence. I’ll give fair warning — I’ve been an amateur astronomer for over 40 years, and not just the staring up at the night sky sort.

    Between “skeptics” and “true believers”, give me the latter only, please. Neither aid my work, but at least the believers provide moral support. And if there is ever any hard evidence to be evaluated, it’ll come from them, or scientists, but not “skeptics”. So who serves a purpose beyond themselves?

    No, I am not the brain specialist…..
    YES. Yes I AM the brain specialist, who was previously at (among others):
    National Institutes of Health, and
    Department of Psychiatry, Yale Medical School

    1. let me add this
      There are professionals and amateurs. Both are respectable of course.

      But what separates them is NOT whether they get paid for what they do.

      It is whether or not they do their work seriously.

      —-
      It is not how fast you go
      it is when you get there.

    2. Very well said
      I think what you’ve pointed out is the issue most people have been dancing around. Many of these debates are people claiming their “rightness” based on their arguments, however none of it is an actual scientific evaluation. Most often the people proposing the scenarios or discussing the scenarios have some financial stake in the matter (on both sides of the argument). The arguments are made as if there is scientific proof of the person’s conjecture, however none of the debates are actually scientific whatsoever, they are entertainment as you say. Certainly there isn’t any universally accepted scientific proof that has been verified by other studies.

      The thing I find so strange is that even when there appears to be something that any scientist would find interesting enough to truly study, the study never happens. The reports of strange sightings and more come in from many areas and yet nobody (scientifically) questions it from even a sociological perspective. Beyond my interest in the UFO subject itself, I find the lack of scientific study in the subject one of the most interesting aspects. There is clearly something to study and yet no study occurs.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal