Science
and political journalist Chris Mooney wrote an article, The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science.
It was published in the May/June 2011 issue of Mother
Jones.
Mr.
Mooney explored a 1950's era case study undertaken by renowned Stanford psychologist Leon Festinger. The
study focused upon the activities of the Seekers, a Chicago-based
group whose members were convinced they were interacting with aliens.
Those
familiar with the present day phenomenon known as alien abduction
will not find it surprising to read that the Seekers' interests
included matters of religious and existential significance. They also
believed their activities, which included transcribing messages
through automatic writing from their alien counterparts, were both
reliable and ahead of their time, not entirely unlike assigning such
beliefs to regressive hypnosis.
One
such message was believed to notify the group of not only an
impending apocalypse, but its exact date, December 21, 1954. Careers
were abandoned and preparations were made to be rescued by a flying
saucer.
When
the day of reckoning came and went, Festinger and his colleagues were
eager to observe how the group would respond. Following a brief
period of apparent confusion, a new message arrived. The Seekers, the
message indicated, had gloriously saved the entire world from ruin.
Their willingness to be drawn to the light and believe in the
prophecy had negated the dark contents of the prophecy. The members
of the group, Festinger documented, framed the lack of occurrence –
and arguable destruction of their belief systems - in a manner that
strengthened their resolve to believe.
Mooney
explained that the behavior of the Seekers is what is known as
motivated reasoning. Preexisting beliefs and emotions can be primary
factors in forming conclusions, and far more so than the introduction
of facts. More studies were cited by Mooney, demonstrating how people
will cling to any number of political and social belief systems even
after conclusive evidence to the contrary is presented. As Mooney
concluded, “In
other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to
convince. You lead with the values - so as to give the facts a
fighting chance.”
Cultural Beliefs
Factory
owners in Bangladesh needed no convincing of Mooney's findings when
they opted to shut the business down and hold special prayers to rid
the site of a reported ghost. Skeptical author Benjamin Radford
reported last month at Live Science
that some 3,000 workers at the garment factory rioted due to what
they believed was a haunted ladies restroom.
Interestingly,
Mr. Radford noted, very few, if any, workers claimed to have actually
seen a spirit. A woman who apparently started the chain of events did
not report seeing a ghost, but said she felt sick and assumed such a
ghost was responsible.
Are
such unfounded cultural beliefs entirely different from some of those found in
the UFO community, such as identifying short term amnesia, or
“missing time”, as an indication of alleged alien abduction?
Similarly, it could indeed be considered unreasonable to assume alien
abduction, the perpetrators of which have yet to be so much as
demonstrated to exist, typically occurs among multiple generations of
a family. It would seem much more reasonable to establish a presence
actually exists prior to claiming qualified to identify its preferred
methods of operation. Should such a presence continue to defy
identification, a valid argument could be made that alternative explanations should be considered, perhaps not altogether unlike
seeking a more readily available explanation than a ghost for the
Bangladeshi woman's illness.
Wanted: Abduction Researcher - No Ethics Required?
In
recent weeks I have increased writing about UFO researchers and organizations that inaccurately
claim to conduct scientific investigation. I subsequently
participated in several discussions at a number of venues in which
self-described abductees, self-described experiencers and various
interested parties defended their chosen perspectives. Discussions
evolved at times to some participants defending sham inquiry, or the
misrepresentation of nonscientific activities as science, and as
consistently committed by such individuals as David Jacobs and such
organizations as the Mutual UFO Network.
I
listened to many excuses made for sham inquiry, and why alleged alien
abduction – and even UFOs in general – are such difficult
subjects to research and investigate. I reasonably patiently
entertained statements which included such claims as the definition of
science is a matter of opinion. The same individual informed me
that aliens use some kind of technique that somehow blocks human
memory from functioning, as those familiar with abduction lore will quickly recognize as common subject matter. The individual then assured me that techniques such as
regressive hypnosis implemented as a memory retrieval tool can effectively
be used “side by side” with psychoanalytic techniques as
developed by “Fraud and Young”.
Somewhat similarly, another
individual undertook defending the
actions of David Jacobs while recommending he be consulted by those fearing they might have been abducted by aliens. “He is a
doctor of history, no ethics required for that,” the person wrote, apparently implying that Jacobs was not obligated to adhere to codes practiced by medical professionals, as well as mistakenly under the impression that such a statement strengthened their argument.
At
one point an individual agreed with me
that “abduction research in general and Dr. David Jacobs' research
specifically fail the scientific standard.” They added that an
excuse might be made that abduction is too weird to fit scientific methods
of investigation. While that might or might not be effectively argued, it completely fails to address why Jacobs and others claim to
follow scientific methods. One might not only ask why such false
claims are made in the first place, but why excuses for them are made
at all.
The
enabling of sham inquiry is as much a part of the problem as is the
perpetration itself. When the UFO community evolves to truly want
answers – not excuses, not patronizing and not motivated reasoning – it will find them. Then and only then will it mature
to seek what it has claimed it wanted all along: the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment