 UFO's.Ask yourself, "Who sees them?" I find it really interesting that amateur astronomers don't report UFO's. Amateur astronomers make up the largest body of sky observers. They log hundreds of hours every year staring into the night sky. So why don't we get UFO reports from this group on a regular basis? One reason is that they are more familiar with what they are seeing, and a UFO quickly becomes an IFO (identified object). A serious amateur astronomer is more likely to be acquainted with the optical atmospheric phenomena that uninformed observers mistake for flying saucers. For instance, there are frequent sightings of iridium flares (satellites that flare up brightly), regular satellites, sun dogs, moon dogs, parhelia, sun pillars, halos, glories, and St. Elmo's Fire. There are also arcs, patches, and other specific optical effects that can only be seen from an airplane. Then there are Sprites, dancing light sthat have appeared above most thunderstorms throughout history. Lightning from the thunderstorm excites the electric field above, producing a flash of light called a sprite. Sprites can take the form of fast-paced balls of electricity, streaks or tendrils. Fiery balls have been videotaped 35 to 80 miles high, moving up and down at one-tenth the speed of light. Both jetliner pilots and astronauts have previously reported sightings of sprites, along with a different but equally mysterious phenomenon known as blue jets. How many airplane pilots have studied rare atmospheric phenomenon and know what any of this stuff is? Much easier to just report a disc of light that seemed to follow the plane. Remember, a UFO is just that -- an Unidentified object, not a flying saucer. Ask yourself, "What does the person reporting this sighting have to gain?" The most typical report comes from someone living in a small town in a remote place (often Texas) where there isn't much going on. Typically, several people in the town will jump on the UFO bandwagon in hopes of focusing national attention on themselves and their town. The local press is all too happy to get the attention of the national news media, and the national news media is even happier to sell stories. The fact that the same thing happens every year in some small town somewhere doesn't seem to bother anyone. It still makes headlines.
If you want to learn more about unusual atmospheric phenomenon, here are some excellent sources:
Rainbows, Halos & Glories Pseudoscience (Far too many TV documentaries)
An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact that has been well established and is widely accepted in the scientific community. "Scientific facts" are really just statements that have a very high degree of certainty. To contradict such a statement, you had better have evidence available that is even higher up the certainty scale. A "leap of faith" is not evidence. An emotional attachment to an idea is not evidence.
Why do some people want to believe so desperately in the nonsense that they espouse? Bad science is everywhere, not only in print and on the web, but especially on television. The most obvious reason for the proliferation of bad science is that it helps create a bigger audience, good ratings and increased advertising revenues. Similarly, no newspaper editor can be convinced that he will increase his paper's circulation by canceling the astrology column and replacing it with an astronomy column. Publishers have found that books on astrology make money for them. But beyond the obvious profit motive, why do some people actually believe the nonsense that they are peddling?
Carl Sagan spoke directly to the point. Real science, he pointed out, is hard. It requires critical thinking skills that many people simply never develop, and it's much easier to believe a simplistic version of, for instance, creation, than to study the facts and discover what really happened. Pseudoscientists "long for the scientific seal of approval, but are unwilling to put up with the rigorous standards of evidence that impart credibility to that seal." Finally, psychologists tell us that some people are so desperate for attention of any kind that they even welcome negative attention. For this reason, they take to the web and cross-post their ridiculous notions everywhere. Their posts may show up on a newsgroup that you subscribe to, even though they don't subscribe to it themselves and never read it! Responding to their posts only feeds into their desperate need for attention. The best way to respond to such people is to completely ignore them. It makes absolutely no sense to engage them in a discussion about their beliefs because their motives for believing nonsense are purely emotional, not logical. To attempt any sort of discussion at all quickly becomes hopeless.
"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non smart reasons." "Students are taught what to think but not how to think." "For those lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works, the siren song of pseudo science becomes too alluring to resist, no matter how smart you are." These Links are both fun to read and informative:
|
Astronomy and astrology have not been related for centuries. Astronomy is simply
the observation and measurement of celestial bodies, while astrology is an attempt to find some sort of "meaning" or "influence" in the
planetary positions. The interesting thing, though, is that astrology, which gave birth to astronomy, has been out of date with the actual
sky for most of modern history. Oddly enough, considering that astrology has to do with planetary movements, astrologers no longer look at
the sky, and haven't for hundreds of years. No one ever bothered, over the years, to update or correct the various charts and tables from
which astrological readings were made. There was finally an attempt to correct all the various charts just a few years ago,
but it wasn't very successful. For this reason, no modern astronomer will ever be an astrologer, simply because the data used by astrologers
bears no relation to what is actually seen in the sky.
Personally, I'm still waiting to hear "Klaatu Barata Nikto".
Scientists are often quoted as saying, "Extraordinary evidence is needed for extraordinary claims".
So why don't scientists bother
to refute the claims of all the pseudoscientists running around? Easy--first,
there are so many false claims out there that the legitimate scientist wouldn't
have any time left to do anything else. If an extraordinary claim doesn't come
from a credible source in the first place, that is, from someone who has the
credentials to propose the idea, then it just doesn't make any sense to dignify
it with a response. If you want to propose a theory about an ancient civilization,
you better have a verifiable, reputable background in that field with at least
some history of publications and recognition. That is to say, you better have
put in the work. If you haven't, why should someone who has put in the years
of work required to understand that field bother to respond to your claims?
An article in the May 2003
Archaeology magazine sheds some light on the trend and the people who preach
nonsense. "They tend to be anti-establishment, suspicious of authority, suspicious
of science. They like to strike this populist pose of the little man fighting
against the big university professors. Pseudoarchaeology fans get attracted
to all sorts of odd notions. Their ancient civilizations, for instance, are
better than ours, more peaceful, more spiritually attuned. Like anybody else,
they are attracted to good stories, and pseudoarchaeology tells sensational
stories."
A piece written by Michael Shermer for Scientific American,
"Smart People Believe Weird Things", August 12, 2002, explains this phenomenon quite well. Here are some excerpts: