Over the centuries, the existence of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) has become an extensively scrutinized subject. In fact, in 1948, the American Air Force started studying these phenomena in depth, and the Project Blue Book commenced. Because of this confusion, different scientists have been tackling this issue using different approaches, where they have concluded on the existence of UFO and given evidence for their arguments. Therefore, this discussion will compare and contrast the arguments of three scientists, Edward Condon, Royston Paynter, and Allen Hayek. In addition, there will be an evaluation of their evidence and the conclusions each provides.
In their scientific evaluations, Condon, Hayek, and Paynter presented one similarity about the existence of UFOs. They have all indicated that this topic has been there and is persistently popping up in current society. In addition, they feel that the topic is in the midst of great confusion, and they suggest that scientists should undertake more research to clarify and ascertain the existence of UFOs. Nonetheless, their arguments have differed in various ways. For instance, Condon insists that whether the UFO issue is studied or not, it certainly does not advance the scientific field in any way (Condon & Gillmor, 1969). Hayek’s argument contrasts with his perception that UFOs exist, but their legitimacy can only be substantiated if the scientists involved should first determine if this topic would positively influence the scientific progress (Hynek, 1972). On the other hand, Paynter’s argument contrasts with the UFO existence because he seems to agree with skeptics and puts a condition that this Phenomenon can only be legitimized if physical evidence is provided (Carroll, 2011).
All the three scientists, Hayek, Condon, and Paynter, have indeed presented their conclusions logically, ensuring that they have also provided a significant proof for their assertions. Condon concludes that no scientific advancement can be substantiated from researching on the UFO phenomena. He avers that even after studying the subject for 21 years, he has not determined that they exist. Moreover, he argues that the scientists who are directly associated with this issue have shown very little interest in this topic. Besides, he indicates that teaching this subject in schools causes more harm to learners because the information consumed is not well founded on scientific evidence (Condon & Gillmor, 1969).
Hayek, on the other hand, has concluded that scientific studies on UFO have been presented in a much-disorganized manner. Therefore, a statistical approach should be used to evaluate any information connected to the UFO phenomena to ensure that every aspect is fully explored. He draws evidence that the UFO subject has not been fully accepted in the scientific field. Further, trained personnel have not adequately examined this topic, and it lacks the proper attention of the concerned scientists, a situation that has increased confusion towards the understanding the existence of UFOs (Hynek, 1972).
Paynter concludes that UFOs existence will continue to be a dubious claim, which needs physical evidence from scientists to confirm its legitimacy. He continues to explain that if aliens can leave any proof of their visits, scientists can use this evidence to determine where they originated. In fact, this is the consideration that any object coming from another planet would have different chemical compositions, which can be related to their origins (Carroll, 2011).
From the three conclusions, Hayek’s argument can be established as the best argument because his argument has shown that scientists have collected plenty of information regarding the existence of UFOs. However, despite his scientific argument, it has become hard to make a legitimate conclusion regarding these objects because the information that has been gathered is scattered and disorganized.
As is evident from the above analysis, the UFOs existence has lingered for years, making the topic more confusing to laymen and scientists. However, all experts agree that studies should be carried out to substantiate the existence of these objects. In essence, more research and gathering of relevant information will make more sense on the issue and bring more understanding.
Carroll, R. (2011). The Skeptic’s dictionary: A collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. John Wiley & Sons.
Condon, E. U., & Gillmor, D. S. (1969). Scientific study of unidentified flying objects. Scientific study of unidentified flying objects., by Condon, EU; Gillmor, DS. New York, NY (USA): Bantam Books, 1.
Hynek, J. A. (1972). The UFO experience: A scientific inquiry. The UFO experience: A scientific inquiry., by Hynek, JA. Chicago, IL (USA): Henry Regnery, 12+ 276 p., 1.