I Spotted a UFO! - the Scientia Review

I Spotted a UFO!
Anish Dhesikan
Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science
Occam’s razor is a philosophical principle that assists in explaining phenomena and
determining the credulity of certain claims. In its most basic restatement, the concept conveys
that the simplest solution is often the most accurate. The belief supports the idea that the option
in which the fewest assumptions are made is typically correct. Though if there is substantial
evidence to support a more complex theory, then this explanation may be more accurate.
Nonetheless, Occam’s razor generally suggests analyzing the situation and explaining the
outcome with the simplest solution.
Ufology, the study of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), is commonly categorized as a
pseudoscience; it is notorious for its lack of unbiased evidence and failure to follow the scientific
process. Reports of UFO sightings have been populating the media ever since World War II
(Ufology). However, promulgators reject the notion that ufology is a pseudoscience in an attempt
to bolster their claims. Many pseudoscientists recognize that the scientific analyses of chemicals
in agitated soil, disturbances in the electromagnetic field, and returns from aircraft radars have
been inconclusive; however, they believe that crude witness reports are strong pieces of evidence
to support the claim (Cook, 2006). Generally, pseudoscientists work in isolation and do not
publish their explanations in peer-reviewed journals because their ideas are often too radical for
the organizations to accept. The promulgators may also see themselves as genii while
discrediting the claims of even the most reputable scientists. Additionally, they may use complex
jargon to confuse the audience into believing that their claims are thoroughly researched
(Shermer, 2010).
Nick Pope, a supposed expert on UFOs and conspiracy theories, meets all the
requirements necessary to be classified as a pseudoscientist. In one of his many self-published
reports, he explains that there have been several witness accounts of UFO encounters, including
a sighting reported by pilots and employees at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. The
UFO, however, did not appear on any radar. Still, Pope deduces that the flying object must not
have been a typical aircraft that was recognizable by radar systems (Pope). Pope’s absurd refusal
of radar data and failure to publish peer-reviewed articles exemplify his classification as a
pseudoscientist.
For these promulgators to arrive at the conclusion that UFOs are extraterrestrial
encounters, they must make several assumptions, many of which cannot be scientifically
supported. First and foremost, they accept that extraterrestrials exist and are intelligent enough to
visit earth in advanced, flying machines. They also assume that such machines can enter and exit
earth’s atmosphere without disintegrating. Pope in particular suggests that the UFOs cannot be
detected by radar, but can be seen by human eyes. These complex assumptions result in a
complicated solution that is most likely inaccurate when assessed using Occam’s razor.

Several simpler explanations can be given for the observed phenomenon. One very
obvious theory is that the entire idea of UFOs is a hoax, and that people all over the world
dramatize the sight of flying objects in order to achieve fame. This explanation involves much
fewer assumptions than does the promulgators’ ideas; hence, it is a simpler solution that is much
more likely to be accurate. Another theory to rationalize the claim is space rock colliding with
Earth’s atmosphere to create a flash of light visible to humans but not detectable by radars. With
this idea, the only assumptions are that a space rock collides with the atmosphere to produce
light, and this light is mistaken for an extraterrestrial flying machine. Although these
assumptions are also quite dubious, they are simpler than those of the pseudoscientific claim, and
are therefore more likely to be accurate.
In the light of Occam’s razor, ufology is, indeed, a pseudoscience in that it purports a
claim that is far too complex, and it is not supported by substantial scientific evidence.
Promulgators of this assertion are often hermetic, and they satisfy the criteria to be categorized as
pseudoscientists. Other, simpler explanations for the reporting of alleged UFOs contain fewer
and simpler assumptions than those made by supporters of the claim. Thus, the study of ufology
supports a theory that is not accurate when examined using Occam’s razor and does not fare as a
legitimate science.
Literature Cited
Cook, Ryan J. (2006). Anthropology & UFOs. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from
http://www.anthroufo.info/au.html
Pope, Nick (n.d.). Unidentified Flying Threats. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from
http://www.nickpope.net/
Shermer, M. (2010). Hermits and Cranks: Lessons from Martin Gardner on Recognizing
Pseudoscientists. Scientific American. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from
http://www.scientificamerican.com
Ufology. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology