Such attacks usually don't deserve a reply. I've dealt with them many times before.
In this case, though, since I'm accused of intellectual dishonesty, which is something about which I am very concerned, I sent a letter to the editor, which of course was not printed (likely because it was too long). Here it is:
In response to Andre Bordeleau regarding UFOs...
The rather personal attack on me by Andre Bordeleau ("In UFOs, the U is key," October 7, 2010) should probably best be ignored, but in this case I feel it deserves some comment.
Bordeleau informs readers that UFOs are not necessarily flying saucers from Mars piloted by little green men. This is a good example of stating the obvious. Considering most serious researchers on the subject know this already and try to educate the public on this fact, this is nothing new. In my several books on UFOs, I make this distinction often.
Bordeleau also calls me a "UFO buff." It's a bit condescending, as I like him am an astronomer and science writer. I remain objective and do not dismiss UFO reports out of hand but am willing to talk about them in a rational manner with witnesses, rather than engage in ridicule.
Bordeleau also writes that I "might believe an advanced civilization has found the means for interstellar travel," but I state no such belief. I share the view of most astronomers that extraterrestrial civilizations could exist but that the distances between stars are too great to overcome with our present understanding of physics and technology. To suggest that we will not be able to overcome the obstacle of distance given continued advancing technology is illogical, given that similar doubts about human engineering such as sending people to the Moon was also thought by some narrow-gazing scientists to be impossible.
Bondereau also relegates the study of UFO reports to an area known as "pseudoscience," a term generally used by debunkers to designate something which they disdain. The collection of data and research into UFO reports by witnesses (which include pilots, meteorologists and, of course, astronomers) is scientific in nature and should not be ignored.
My observation that there were more than 1000 reports of UFOs in Canada in 2008 includes sightings later explained as aircraft and balloons is a statement of fact. Without actually looking at the data, it is impossible to make statements or conclusions about what is being reported. That's how science works.
The one percent that are high-quality unknowns are the cases that were sifted out of the hundreds of UFOs reported sincerely by witnesses who were baffled by what they were seeing, and which remained unknown after ruling out various explanations.
Bordeleau's accusation that I am intellectually dishonest (brazen or otherwise) is bizarre, given that I honestly present the data behind my statement. His bias against the possibility that some cases are unexplained might be held in the same regard. I wonder how many of those 1000 cases he himself has studied in order to arrive at any conclusion, since making statements without investigation is not a scientific approach.
Even that small average yearly percentage, amounting to a few hundred cases during the course of our 20-year study of Canadian UFO cases, does not mean that Bordeleau's little green men (which he apparently entertains, not I) are hovering over St. Joseph's Oratory. It simply means that witnesses, among them good observers, are reporting unusual objects for which there are are sometimes no simple explanations.
Bordeleau concludes: "Perhaps the media should pay less attention to outfits like Ufology Research of Manitoba and more on properly investigating the stories they publish."
If media did pay no attention to Ufology Research of Manitoba or other institutions seriously investigating UFO reports, they would not get reliable and factual information regarding the subject and instead receive only uninformed opinion to publish.
Dismissing the subject of UFOs out of hand is not an objective standpoint.
0 comments:
Post a Comment