When reading over the Perspectives
on Evaluating Evidence for the Existence of UFOs, Condon, Hynek, and Paynter
all bring different point of views on the topic of UFOs. Condon argues that scientist need to put more
of their time into studies that will help them to advance science unless there
are good ideas regarding UFOs and they should continue to keep pursuing. He is saying that if people have good ideas
for specific studies in the UFO field then it should be supported. But, UFO reports should not be available for
the public. On the other hand, Hynek
believes that the UFO phenomena is disregarded by authorities and have not been
studied in a systematic or sufficient manner.
He believes that there needs to be more gathering of data. Data with the comparison among large groups
who have sighted UFO objects like contacting other countries to figure out who
has seen it other than America. He feels
that there could be alien space crafts but there has to be more research. Paynter is most skeptical about the UFOs and
aliens because there needs to be physical evidence. That is why I believe that he provides the
best argument. He shows that there needs to me more data gathered
from other countries.
The topic on Unidentified Flying Objects is a really controversial one. It is not easy for people to form a strong opinion about this topic simply because there are so many different claims. Some people say that they have seen UFOs while others say that it is nothing but a fictional figment of our imagination. I agree with you when you took Paynter's stance. The saying "I'll believe it when I see it" is something that I can apply to this. The fact the it is not openly talked about by the authorities and it seems to not be as popular as the other controversies that we are talking about nowadays only goes to show that there really is not a lot to say about the existence of UFOs.
ReplyDelete