Read on Twitter
1/n Retweeting here for thread capability. I've picked up and put down about three pieces on this. Why is this issue so stuck? Is the past repeating itself?
@itsredactedYT @LtTimMcMillan @nibbleshift @MadScientistPod https://twitter.com/itsredactedYT/status/1320834100849246212
@itsredactedYT @LtTimMcMillan @nibbleshift @MadScientistPod https://twitter.com/itsredactedYT/status/1320834100849246212
2/n I suspect we're going to hear at least three arguments
A) UFOs need wider public exposure
B) UFOlogy needs better science
C) UFOlogy has a problem with bad information and entertainment narratives
A) UFOs need wider public exposure
B) UFOlogy needs better science
C) UFOlogy has a problem with bad information and entertainment narratives
3/n More and better science is called for, but it isn't enough on its own. @SkyHub10 is an example of ambitious project with a goal of expanding available data. I can't overstate my support.
4/n Though the data is scattered and fragmentary, it is more plentiful than some might think. The idea that we have no photos or credible testimony is not true -- a recent example for me is the Spanish MOD files.
Lack of data is not *entirely* responsible for the "stuckness."
Lack of data is not *entirely* responsible for the "stuckness."
5/n Another issue is mistaking exposure for "disclosure."
There tends to be a belief that we need more celebrities, more "grassroots" interest, more podcasts, more interviews, etc. Often that approach leads to simplifying material in order to make it easier to consume
There tends to be a belief that we need more celebrities, more "grassroots" interest, more podcasts, more interviews, etc. Often that approach leads to simplifying material in order to make it easier to consume
6/n The topic does not suffer from lack of publicity. Plenty of people are casually interested in UFOs.
Attention is a very powerful thing. However, attention is only effective when clearly directed to an achievable end
Attention is a very powerful thing. However, attention is only effective when clearly directed to an achievable end
7/n Next, bad information. Yes, there is an enormous amount of bad information.
However, to quote a friend "this is not a problem of supply, it is a problem of demand."
It is a shock to no one that people tell wild, untrue stories about UFOs. That will not end anytime soon.
However, to quote a friend "this is not a problem of supply, it is a problem of demand."
It is a shock to no one that people tell wild, untrue stories about UFOs. That will not end anytime soon.
8/n So what *will* make a difference? Aside from raw data, the most important thing we need that we currently lack is a coherent theory of the case and the will to pursue it.
9/n What we need are clear arguments that connect the following:
Why does this matter?
What is the evidence to support those arguments?
What is the fundamental problem?
What should we do next?
Why does this matter?
What is the evidence to support those arguments?
What is the fundamental problem?
What should we do next?
10/n Right now, there is no consistency from people in a position to know about the fundamental problem.
Is it bureaucratic intransigence or is it extralegal conspiracy? If it is a combination, what is the balance, exactly?
Is it bureaucratic intransigence or is it extralegal conspiracy? If it is a combination, what is the balance, exactly?
11/n Progress will be made if these questions are framed and approached systematically. Science is one tool to do that.
Journalism and the law are other. That means relentlessly (sometimes ruthlessly) questioning evidence and witnesses
Journalism and the law are other. That means relentlessly (sometimes ruthlessly) questioning evidence and witnesses
12/n One major problem in this field is that there are a small number of sources. Naturally, journalists wish to maintain good relationships with those sources. Especially when they feel aligned with the stated goals and mission of those sources.
13/n However, journalists do the public and actually even their sources a disservice when they do not effectively press for information and form clear, well supported arguments.
It doesn't help anyone to only get the comfortable parts of the story.
It doesn't help anyone to only get the comfortable parts of the story.
14/n Too often I think the research community gets the safe story rather than the full story. Not to mention getting the entertaining story rather than the true one.
Getting the "unsafe" but true story pisses people off. Those are the stories that make progress.
Getting the "unsafe" but true story pisses people off. Those are the stories that make progress.
15/n I think things will move when we:
A) Have a clear theory of where we're going
B) The courage to obtain the evidence and testimony needed to support that theory
C) Tell the story of the above with minimum bullshit
A) Have a clear theory of where we're going
B) The courage to obtain the evidence and testimony needed to support that theory
C) Tell the story of the above with minimum bullshit
16/16 To sum: of course we need science. Most of all though, we need clear thinking.
Beyond that, we have to unflinchingly ask very tough questions of ourselves and others. Less tolerance of avoidable ambiguity, and less hand-wringing about the stuff that doesn't matter.
Beyond that, we have to unflinchingly ask very tough questions of ourselves and others. Less tolerance of avoidable ambiguity, and less hand-wringing about the stuff that doesn't matter.
Addendum: I want to be maximally clear that I think science, data, SkyHub, etc are *essential* -- its the journalism and law part of the tripod I'm concerned about and trying to address here.
