In “Evaluating Evidence for the
Existence of Unidentified Flying Objects”, there are 3 different perspectives
when it comes to UFO’s being real. Condon is a firm believer that due to the
many reports of UFO sightings, that UFO’s are a real viable thing. Because
Condon thinks that the reports are true, he also believes that they deserve to
be published in scientific journals. Standing in more of the middle ground,
Hynek believes that more clarity needs to be brought on the stories from those
who reported seeing UFO’s. He proposes that psychological studies need to be
done to better understand what those people really saw or did not see. Lastly
there is Paynter who is on the other side of the spectrum. Paynter says there
is not enough evidence to even start believing the reports of UFO sightings in
the first place. I think it is difficult to decide who has the best argument
because I think bias comes from what you believe as well. In my opinion I think
that it is easier to believe the skeptic over those who go out on a limb and
believe something that does not have a lot of supporting evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment