Publications Topics:

Books

ASP Conference Series

Monograph Publications

IAU Publications

Books of Note

Purchase through the AstroShop

Journals

Publications of the ASP (PASP)

Magazines

Mercury Magazine

Archive

Guidelines for Authors

Order Mercury Issues

Mercury Advertising Rates

Newletters

The Universe in the Classroom

ASP E-mail Newsletters

Special Features

Astronomy Beat

Contact Us

Mercury, Jan/Feb 1995 Table of Contents

(c) 1995 Astronomical Society of the Pacific

I envy pseudoscientists. They have the power to dictate what is legitimate to study, for merely by associating with a field, they send scientists scurrying away. And in their rush to distance themselves from pseudoscience, many scientists (not to mention U.S. senators) have said some decidedly unscientific things.

It is time for scientists to stand their ground, secure in the knowledge that subjects are never pseudoscientific; methodologies are. To this end, Mercury will encourage the reasoned debate over UFOs and other fringe sciences. We will open the door on the process of science, not just the results of science.

Perhaps the publics greatest misconception about science is that is monolithic. But science is fundamentally a fractious process. Not only is it possible to be scientific yet wrong, that is the usual state of affairs for most researchers. Only in stagnant fields is it otherwise. Sadly, it often seems that scientists and educators are ashamed to reveal this. Kids in school learn of the "scientific method" as though practicing scientists actually followed Ten Steps to Discovery. These steps are so divorced from everyday life that people conclude they could never apply critical scientific thinking themselves. Science seems like a difficult truth to be revealed by high priests, and then forgotten.

Yet the power of scientific reasoning derives from the fact that, in principle, anyone can apply it. Unlike magic, science does not endow individuals with special powers. Thus I trust, say, Stephen Hawkings' theorems even though I've never derived them myself. Since anyone should be able to reproduce scientific results, someone should eventually notice if the results were wrong. This trust in the social process of science saves us from paralysis. None of us can go around rederiving every equation or investigating every claim. We must each decide for ourselves where our talents are best put to use.

Proclaiming that some subjects are not worth studying undermines the checks and balances of science. I have less trust in UFOlogy than in particle physics, not because UFOlogists are necessarily unscientific, but because the social injunction against studying UFOs means there is less of the to-and-fro essential to critical analysis of research.

So let us hear what UFOlogists have to say. Of course, their hypotheses are, like those of all scientists, guilty until proven innocent. If we decide, personally, that UFOs are not worth our while, then we must be clear that is a statement about us, not about UFOs. By keeping an open mind, we not only might learn more about the natural world, we would demonstrate to the public that the mysteries that interest them interest us, too. Then they might not need to turn, in a sincere but misguided attempt at balance, to pseudoscientists.