In “Evaluating Evidence for the Existence of Unidentified Flying Objects”, there are three authors that all have different views for the belief that UFO's exist. I seemed that all their arguments where based of bias opinion from themselves. In this way I think they compared but they are in complete contrast when it come to the final verdict of whether UFO's exist. The first bias opinion was written by Edward Condon, who believed that because there was a high count of reports and sightings that UFO's must exist. This then leads him to argue that these finding or reports should be published in academic and scientific journals. However, the second opinion was more neutral then bias, which was presented by J. Allen Hynek, that stated that we must look further in detail into these reports in order to accurately analyze them. He proposed that we must physiologically study the witnesses in order to find the honest truth whether it be a lie or the truth. Lastly, Royston Paynter argued that there was to little of evidence to even look into such subject. Honestly all these arguments can be believed by some and ignored by others. In this way it hard to say which argument was better because they all are very different from each other. Hoevewr, I think Hynek had a point in saying that we must look closer at the evidence.
Heisenberg
No comments:
Post a Comment