3 ms·

There are plenty of non reproducible phenomena that are studied scientifically and UFOs wouldn't be any different. Funding can be allocated to deploying observa

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

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...