Logical Fallacies and SETI

I have to apologize. Some of you were expecting another post on Friday, which I realize I did foolishly promise. But I’m still on vacation, and I needed some time to, well, vacation. Don’t worry, I haven’t been abducted by the MIB. My apologies for leading you on.

As you can see, I’m still in Paris, mulling over my thoughts after observing SETI scientists in action at the first-ever “Searching for Life Signatures” symposium at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris.

It will take me several more days to pull together my conclusions, but I want to share a few initial reactions.

As a launching point, I want to react to a comment to my Thursday post “Something is Here,” which recapped a French scientist’s proposal that SETI take a serious look at UFO phenomena.

I have been an avid supporter of SETI for many years. However, attending this conference opened my eyes to several logical fallacies in the natural philosophy underlying SETI and in SETI’s rejection of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as an explanation for some UFO sightings that science cannot adequately explain.

Here’s the comment I want to react to (it was posted by a fellow attendee of the conference, who admits she missed Alain Labeque’s presentation on Tuesday):

“I wasn't at UNESCO to listen to my colleagues talks. I don't regret it by reading your post. . . . Science... as a candle in the dark... “

What caught my attention, of course, was the “Science as a candle in the dark” allusion to Carl Sagan. I think this comment operates on three different levels, all logical fallacies commonly resorted to by so-called “skeptics” who attack those suggesting science should seriously investigate the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFO reports.

First, the comment is merely a rhetorical flourish with no scientific meaning, although on its face it pretends to have such meaning.

Other rhetorical flourishes popular with the SETI crowd are “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Sagan again – and “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” – Arthur C. Clarke’s “Third Law.” (The SETI crowd never seems to seriously consider Clarke’s First and Second Laws.)

Rhetorical flourishes like this, of course, are just that – rhetoric. They mean nothing from the viewpoint of science, but do open a window into the logic (or lack of logic) underlying a scientist’s claims.

Second, such comments are an appeal to authority, another logical and scientific fallacy.

I understand the late Carl Sagan was known, loved and respected by many in attendance at the SETI conference at UNESCO, but just because he said something doesn’t mean it is true – or that it is a truly scientific or logical manner of reasoning.

Or even that it should be taken seriously.

I have never heard the SETI crowd so found of quoting Sagan as an authority against UFOs also quote another famous set of claims from Sagan’s book The Demon-Haunted World – the very work from which the “Science as a candle in the dark” flourish is drawn.

Specifically, in this book Sagan stated he found value in the serious scientific exploration of several paranormal claims. Sagan felt three reported psychic phenomena merited serious scientific scrutiny (though just barely):

(1) the reported ability of humans, by thought alone, to produce minute but statistically significant variations in random number generators run on computers:

(2) “ganzfeld” studies in which people under mild sensory deprivation appear to receive thoughts and images transmitted to them mentally by other people; and

(3) claims that young children sometimes relate the details of a previous life, details which are verified upon checking and which the children could not have known in any conventional way (except, presumably, through reincarnation)

I doubt you will ever hear anyone in the SETI crowd refer to Sagan’s interest in telekinesis, ESP and reincarnation, even while they quote him authoritatively on other subjects, such as why interstellar travel is (in their view) unlikely or impossible.

Finally, the “Science as a candle in the dark” flourish is really a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on anyone who would suggest an advanced technological civilization in our galactic neighborhood might venture to travel between the stars -- including our star, the Sun.

Reduced to its essentials, what the “Science as a candle in the dark” comment really means in this context is:

SETI = Science = candle, light

UFOs = Pseudoscience = darkness

Sadly, these three logical fallacies – reliance upon rhetorical flourishes, appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks – were all on display at the SETI conference at UNESCO.

Intriguingly, by far one of the most – if not the most -- data-packed presentations at the SETI conference at UNESCO was that of Bjorn Gitle Hauge on the “Investigation and analysis of transient luminous phenomena in the low atmosphere of Hessdalen valley, Norway.”

The Hessdalen phenomenon has been known for many years, but Hauge presented stunning new photographic, spectrographic and radar data indicating a luminous, energetic phenomena of an unknown character and source occurring over Hessdalen.

I’ll write up Hauge’s presentation in more detail when I return to the States, but for now I can tell you the visceral reaction of the American SETI contingent at UNESCO ranged from apparent mockery to thinly veiled anger.

It is important to understand Hauge advanced no hypothesis to explain the reported phenomena – although he begged the scientists at the conference to examine his data and suggest an explanation. He certainly did not suggest the phenomena were evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. He merely reported evidence the phenomena were real.

And – unlike much of the “science” presented at the conference – he actually had empirical data to back up his claims.

That, however, was too much for some of the most renowned scientists in the SETI field, who apparently cannot tolerate even the suggestion of unexplained phenomena in our atmosphere, even when supported by multiple data sets and unaccompanied by a suggested extraterrestrial explanation.

I guess that’s what passes for science these days.

(On that note, I’ll tell you what I learned at UNESCO about Dyson Spheres – a much-loved canard taken very seriously by many at the SETI conference – in a future post. Suffice it to say, if these imaginary constructs utterly unsupported by empirical evidence were called “Korbitz Spheres,” no one would take the idea seriously, and rightly so.)

To be continued . . .