[fwlr]

Some years ago, a psychologist named Bem approached the field of parapsychology (the study of psi, psychic phenomenon) and performed several studies that demonstrated statistically significant effects. Much was made of just how thoroughly rigorous these studies were. They had pre-registration, large n, no p-hacking, you name it - truly unassailable papers whose results are antithetical to common sense and reality.

In the discussions following those papers, one comment stuck with me, though I forget where I read it. It goes like this:

“Coverage of these papers often has titles like ‘Rigorous Scientific Studies Prove Psi is Real’, but I would instead say ‘Psi Proves Rigorous Scientific Studies are False’”

This comes to mind with this UFO stuff because I find myself having a similar reaction. We are being presented with the highest quality of what we might call “media evidence”: reputable and named sources from real and major organizations, on the record, quotes that stand alone (no need to editorialize and distort what they’re saying etc), the whole nine yards. They are scrupulously doing everything right, you could not possibly demand a higher standard of reporting - and yet the contention is antithetical to reality. UFO reporting is basically convincing me that even unbiased honest reporting free from any agenda can’t be relied upon.

(Am I refusing to entertain the possibility that UFOs are real only because I know that if I did entertain the possibility, the evidence would be overwhelming, and that would result in me being forced to believe in UFOs, which I don’t want to do? Not quite. I am partial to Steve Sailer’s ‘Shoebill’ argument: “there is a giant bird that looks like a dinosaur and sounds like a machine gun” is a wild claim I would refuse to believe, but there are now countless hours of high quality video footage of such things existing; where is the good video evidence for UFOs?)