The Challenge of Finding Common Ground: Believers, Skeptics, and Debunkers in the UFO Debate
Written by UAP Files Jimmy
The ongoing debate between UFO believers and skeptics, highlighted by a recent exchange on Twitter (now X) between UFO believers and the most well-known skeptic and regular debunker Mick West, reminds me of a profound dilemma: the intersection of probability, data, and scientific skepticism.
The following conversation sparked this article and highlights the challenges in reconciling differing perspectives on the existence of ‘UFOs’ and the interpretations of evidence.
The Twitter/X Exchange:
In a conversation observed on Twitter, user @PostDisclosure expressed a conditional acceptance of Mick West’s potential debunking of photos to be featured in an upcoming film by James Fox. Mick West responded with his characteristic interest in new evidence. However, another user, @opngate, criticised West's frequent use of terms like "probably" and "probable," arguing that they reflect a preconceived notion rather than scientific inquiry.
The Role of Probability in Skepticism
West’s approach, which involves assessing UFO sightings with plausible ‘earthly’ explanations such as birds, reflections, or sensor errors, illustrates a common skeptical method. This approach relies heavily on probabilistic reasoning, where explanations are evaluated based on their likelihood given existing knowledge. Skeptics often prioritise explanations that align with known phenomena, effectively excluding less probable scenarios, including extraterrestrial, or non-human hypotheses, unless extraordinary evidence is provided. The definition provided by many on this side of the debate as to what constitutes ’extraordinary’ is often left ambiguous.
Believers' Perspective on Probability
From the believers' viewpoint, the skeptic’s reliance on probabilities rooted in familiar explanations often dismisses the potential for extraordinary phenomena. They argue that given the vastness of the universe and the possibility of life beyond Earth, coupled with credible witness accounts and unexplained sensor data, and in many cases personal experiences, the probability of non-human intelligence should not be dismissed out of hand. To them, an over-reliance on conventional probabilities can stifle genuine scientific curiosity and exploration of the unknown.
And had we stifled scientific curiosity and exploration of the unknown in the 17th century, we would have never learned of other life forms living here, in fact, invisible, living on our own skin and within our bodies. Things like bacteria, fungi, viruses, and mites. Life only found through new breakthroughs in technology - microscopes for example.
The Dilemma of Definitions and Evidence
One core issue is the differing definitions of "probability" and "evidence" between skeptics and believers. For skeptics like Mick West, probability is tied to reproducibility and alignment with known scientific principles. For believers, however, the anecdotal yet compelling nature of witness testimony and the sheer number of unexplained incidents tip the scales in favour of considering extraterrestrial, or non-human possibilities.
For instance, if multiple credible witnesses observe a UFO moving at impossible speeds, say, for example Mach 29, and it is corroborated by sensor data, believers argue that this should increase the probability of non-human involvement. Skeptics, however, may default to explanations involving sensor errors or misinterpretations because these fit within the framework of known technology and science. A possibility is not probable if it is impossible.
Jerry Springer-esque Final Thought
The conversation between UFO believers and skeptics, exemplified by the exchange between Mick West, Robert West Rozier and Ryan Robbins, highlights the challenges in finding common ground when it comes to probability, data, and scientific analysis.
To someone who’s seen a skyscraper-sized UFO move silently through the sky, corroborated by several family members at the same time, who remember the event for decades after, or a school of kids and teachers who have seen non-human craft and beings land near their school…or military/intelligence insiders privy to secret information, data and analysis that changes their world view forever…they’re going to have a different definition of what ‘probability’ means in this context.
To someone who does not believe UFOs exist in the non-human context, the possibility of them fitting in to any conclusion is impossible.
When I interviewed Mick West, this was the one point I really wanted to make and I did raise this very point, having interviewed people who claimed exactly this scenario had happened. A skyscraper sized UFO, observed by a whole family, for example. The only explanation Mick was able to comprehend, was group-psychosis of some description.
Will we ever be able to find common ground?
The full interview:
The crux of the matter isn't deciding what we accept as evidence - the crux is "what do we do when two pieces of evidence contradict each other...?". How do we resolve that issue?