3 ms·

I am often asked by friends and colleagues, “Why don’t astronomers see UFOs?” The fact is that they do. In 1977, Peter Sturrock, a professor of space science an

I am often asked by friends and colleagues, “Why don’t astronomers see UFOs?” The fact is that they do. In 1977, Peter Sturrock, a professor of space science and astrophysics at Stanford University, mailed 2,611 questionnaires about UFO sightings to members of the American Astronomical Society. He received 1,356 responses from which 62 astronomers – 4.6 percent – reported witnessing or recording inexplicable aerial phenomena. This rate is similar to the approximately 5 percent of UFO sightings that are never explained. As expected, Sturrock found that astronomers who witnessed UFOs were more likely to be night sky observers. Over 80 percent of Sturrock’s respondents were willing to study the UFO phenomenon if there was a way to do so. More than half of them felt that the topic deserves to be studied versus 20 percent who felt that it should not. The survey also revealed that younger scientists were more likely to support the study of UFOs. https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/why-we-should-take-ufo-sightings-seriously https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/why-we-should-take-ufo-sigh...

gattilorenz 8y ago
> Over 80 percent of Sturrock’s respondents were willing to study the UFO phenomenon if there was a way to do so Over 80% say that they would study them, but there's no way to do that (in a scientific way). More than 50% say they should be studied. The majority did not conclude that they are extraterrestrial.
- wefarrell 8y ago
  There are plenty of non reproducible phenomena that are studied scientifically and UFOs wouldn't be any different. Funding can be allocated to deploying observation devices with instruments specifically for this purpose. Evidence can be cataloged and analyzed to find patterns. Unfortunately no prestigious scientific institute is going to allocate the proper focus. This isn't happening to the extent that it should because of the stigma involved, not because of the lack of evidence or lack of capability to investigate that evidence. There are no good hypothesis that fit within the framework any conventional scientific theory but that doesn't make the evidence any less reliable.
  - gattilorenz 8y ago
    Let's stick to the facts, because you're speculating here: - There are UNIDENTIFIED flying objects - (it would seem that) the scientific consensus is "we would like to investigate this, however we cannot" - a small percentage of these UFOS are not explainable in conventional ways. The rest are conjectures and speculations. Non-reproducibility is not the biggest issue, non-falsifiability is a bigger problem. Scientists are saying: "we don't know, we should investigate, but we can't". You are saying: "they can't investigate, then it's obviously aliens"! I say they are Santa's little elves using camouflaged reindeer (this also explain the "flying lights": it's Rudolph's nose): prove my theory wrong. TL;DR: if you can't scientifically study a phenomenon, or if no studies are done, science is not telling you what the phenomenon is. You can believe you know what that is, but it still just your belief.
    - wefarrell 8y ago
      > You are saying: "they can't investigate, then it's obviously aliens"! You're putting words into my mouth. Nowhere have I said that scientists should investigate the extraterrestrial explanation of UFOs, they should investigate the phenomena without any preconceptions. > Scientists are saying: "we don't know, we should investigate, but we can't". They aren't saying that. They are saying there's a lack of funding and will. Take the time to read that article that I quoted: https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/why-we-should-take-ufo-sightings-seriously https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/why-we-should-take-ufo-sigh...

gattilorenz 8y ago

> Over 80 percent of Sturrock’s respondents were willing to study the UFO phenomenon if there was a way to do so Over 80% say that they would study them, but there's no way to do that (in a scientific way). More than 50% say they should be studied. The majority did not conclude that they are extraterrestrial.

wefarrell 8y ago
There are plenty of non reproducible phenomena that are studied scientifically and UFOs wouldn't be any different. Funding can be allocated to deploying observation devices with instruments specifically for this purpose. Evidence can be cataloged and analyzed to find patterns. Unfortunately no prestigious scientific institute is going to allocate the proper focus. This isn't happening to the extent that it should because of the stigma involved, not because of the lack of evidence or lack of capability to investigate that evidence. There are no good hypothesis that fit within the framework any conventional scientific theory but that doesn't make the evidence any less reliable.
- gattilorenz 8y ago
  Let's stick to the facts, because you're speculating here: - There are UNIDENTIFIED flying objects - (it would seem that) the scientific consensus is "we would like to investigate this, however we cannot" - a small percentage of these UFOS are not explainable in conventional ways. The rest are conjectures and speculations. Non-reproducibility is not the biggest issue, non-falsifiability is a bigger problem. Scientists are saying: "we don't know, we should investigate, but we can't". You are saying: "they can't investigate, then it's obviously aliens"! I say they are Santa's little elves using camouflaged reindeer (this also explain the "flying lights": it's Rudolph's nose): prove my theory wrong. TL;DR: if you can't scientifically study a phenomenon, or if no studies are done, science is not telling you what the phenomenon is. You can believe you know what that is, but it still just your belief.
  - wefarrell 8y ago
    > You are saying: "they can't investigate, then it's obviously aliens"! You're putting words into my mouth. Nowhere have I said that scientists should investigate the extraterrestrial explanation of UFOs, they should investigate the phenomena without any preconceptions. > Scientists are saying: "we don't know, we should investigate, but we can't". They aren't saying that. They are saying there's a lack of funding and will. Take the time to read that article that I quoted: https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/why-we-should-take-ufo-sightings-seriously https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/why-we-should-take-ufo-sigh...