Addressing the Most Common Criticisms Against Studying UAP
From the article:
Despite numerous newspaper articles from trustworthy sources in the
mainstream media , despite Pentagon admissions  and Congressional hearings , interest in UAP studies is met with laughter and derision, both from inside and outside of the scientific community, including from prominent science communicators . Why is this the case? Let’s break down the common criticisms of UFOlogy/UAP studies and debunk the debunkers for a change. While some of the arguments will be generic, I will spend a great deal of time on aliens, a common hypothesis requiring significant attention, but this essay should not be read as a list of counter-arguments only in favor of aliens.
A fairly well written (and lengthy) article that addresses many of the arguments we commonly see here. I don't agree with a number of Dr Szydagis' conclusions based strictly on what he presented, but think he makes enough good points that I felt the article would generate discussion here.
I never seriously use "(1) Cameras continue to improve in resolution, but there is still no good image or “smoking gun” video of UAP.", but it's one I believe can be made rigorous. His so-called debunking of it is certainly at least as fluffy as his framing of what a rigorous debunk would be. I think the problem is that the debunk is too often framed in a "proving a negative" (or an "AoE != EoA") way. We can't prove things aren't there by repeatedly not getting good photos of them. It needs to be turned round, into something where the claimants need to support their claim or position, rather than us ours.
(1) Given that technology has advanced such that modern evidence for the same kinds of claims that were unresolvable in the past are easily identifiable as being mundane, what is different about the more modern claims of evidence that are unresolvable from prior ones?
Of course this has the obvious counter-argument: Aliens know how good our tech is, and always keep just out of sight. Citation: the "Debunking Humor" thread. However, if they're making that counter, then they're assuming the thing they wish to deduce, so I don't mind if they go there.
Anyone got any better wordings?
Last edited by a moderator: