UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 22

Re: A Skeptical View Of UFOs

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:45:35 -0400
Archived: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:52:58 -0400
Subject: Re: A Skeptical View Of UFOs

>From: Claude Mauge <claudemauge.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:48:56 +0200 (CEST)
>Subject: A Skeptical View Of UFOs

>As this is my first post to this List, it is perhaps useful that
>I introduce briefly myself. I'm French, 61, single, and a
>retired teacher in maths and physics in a vocational school
>("lycee professionnel"), with a "matrise" in physics and a
>"licence" in psychology. I have several centers of interest, the
>main one being the UFO phenomenon with several articles
>published in some UFO journals (or chapters in two collective

>My interest in UFOs began seriously in 1974. I was during
>several years a moderate believer in UFOs and in the
>extraterrestrial hypothesis, but I changed my mind because of
>several facts and in 1982 I had become a UFO skeptic. A
>"skeptic" or a "debunker"?

>To use Frank Warren's phrase in his original post of September
>12, I think it's possible to "offer a good argument" about the
>possible/probable non-existence of UFOs. In any case, such an
>argument is presented in another post, which is divided into two
>parts because of its lenght.

>Is it "good"? Is it "bad"? The verdict is yours...


>1. Preliminary considerations.

>1.1 What name can we use for the theory presented here?
>Something like "non-existence hypothesis" is simple, but it does
>not take into account for instance possible revolutionary secret
>planes. Likewise, the phrase "socio-psychological hypothesis" or
t>he like is not satisfying because it seems to imply that all
>UFO cases have a priori only psychological or sociological
>causes. I use thus the expression "reductionnist composite
>hypothesis" (RCH in short) even if a better one could possibly
>exist. The word "hypothesis" is used as in "extraterrestrial
>hypothesis", but "theory", "paradigm", or "worldview" could
>probably be more accurate.


In this rather erudite discourse M. Mauge says in many words
the following hypothesis for UFO sightings/reports:

everything can be explained in conventional terms (in terms of
conventional phenomena or physics or science).

He says he started as a sort of "believer" and became skeptical
for reasons that were not explicitly stated, but I assume that
some sighting reports that he had 'believed' in were explained.

Anyway, this is different from my own experience. I discovered
that skeptics often offer and publicize explanations that
contradict the available evidence or descriptions of what
happened. When I discovered that skeptics accept explanations
that are found tnrough analysis to be invalid.I became skeptical
of the skeptics.

I would argue that there are sightings which have not been
explained and which won't be explained in the future in terms of
conventional science.

Of course, I am aware that reasonable investigators can disagree
over the various types of evidence that may be available from a
particular sighting.

When this happens one has to make a choice as to what evidence
to accept as valid.

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com