Following up on a July 23, 2020 New York Times article on official investigations into airspace incursions by unknown aircraft, reporters Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean have co-authored a follow-up piece titled "Do We Believe in U.F.O.s? That’s the Wrong Question."
They then go on to make a rather unusual definition of UFO:
Which is, quite frankly, nonsense. The vast majority of UFO sightings are slow-moving blobs or lights that are simply too far away to be identified. Some accounts, like the 2004 experience of David Fravor, describe highly unusual (if not impossible) capabilities, but that's the exception, not the rule. "Unidentified" means "not identified"
It is a remarkable claim for a New York Times reporter to make, that they are somehow immune to making any kind of value judgment on the information they present. They (and I suspect this is largely Blumenthal, as he is highly engaged in the article comments) seems to be claiming they are presenting only immutable facts when in actuality they present mostly the opinions of other people that they claim are reputable. In other words, they believe these people are reputable.
Some examples from the comments:
So Blumenthal does not "believe" things, instead, he is "aware of" things, and "as sure as one can be" about things, and he "understands" things. Unfortunately, he's unable to demonstrate things, he's also unable to even give exact quotes from his sources, much less say who those sources are, or how exactly they know what they say they believe they know.
Perhaps the most telling things here Blumenthal's statement that "Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says." Now, people have asked me in the past why the government spends money researching odd subjects like UFOs. I respond saying it's a combination of two things: firstly, the very real problem of unidentified aircraft, possibly of novel types belonging to foreign adversaries, violating secure airspace, and secondly, wishful thinking by UFO fans, like Harry Reid.
Jacques Vallee is an interesting figure here. He's the original source for the French scientist portrayed in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But he does not actually believe in conventional alien visitors - instead:
So Valee thinks that UFOs are fake, but they are faked both by "a form of non-human consciousness" and separately by some human conspiracy. That Blumenthal says he pays attention to everything that Vallee says cast some doubt on his assistance that he's a mere conduit of facts unsullied by beliefs. It seems particularly at odd with their statement of "Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias." This opinion about Vallee very much does imply reporting bias, as does the presentation in the previous article of Eric W. Davis as some kind of authority from the Pentagon.
I believe that both Blumenthal and Kean are, essentially, taking advantage of the veneer of respectability offered by being a "New York Times Reporter" to promote things that they personally believe. I suspect that the apparent heavy-handed editing of their previous article shows that the more conventional New York Times staff has some misgivings about this.
Why did I title this "The Epistemology of UFOs?" Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. I'd avoided talking about epistemology until the end of this piece because once a discussion devolves into epistemology then it's all semantics and it's essentially over. Yet Blumenthal's and Kean's piece is essentially one of those discussion-killing devolutions. They claim not to "believe" in UFOs, but instead to know that UFOs "demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology" They present this, with a quote from Magaret Mead as something as factual as "the sun or the moon, or the changing seasons, or the chairs they’re sitting on."
In epistemology, knowledge is often defined as "justified true belief." Knowledge is something about the world that we believe to be true, and actually is true, and our belief in that truth is justified by the evidence available to us. Facts are facts, beliefs can be wrong, knowledge is made of facts that have correctly found their way into our brains. But what do Blumenthal and Kean know? Nothing concrete. Nothing they can share with us. Their three videos have diminished in interest under analysis. They don't actually demonstrate any interesting materials recovered from crashed sites. They only have the words of people they believe.
Article: We’re often asked by well-meaning associates and readers, “Do you believe in U.F.O.s?” The question sets us aback as being inappropriately personal. Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias.
But in this case we have no problem responding, “No, we don’t believe in U.F.O.s.”
As we see it, their existence, or nonexistence, is not a matter of belief.
They then go on to make a rather unusual definition of UFO:
Article: U.F.O.s don’t mean aliens. Unidentified means we don’t know what they are, only that they demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology.
Which is, quite frankly, nonsense. The vast majority of UFO sightings are slow-moving blobs or lights that are simply too far away to be identified. Some accounts, like the 2004 experience of David Fravor, describe highly unusual (if not impossible) capabilities, but that's the exception, not the rule. "Unidentified" means "not identified"
It is a remarkable claim for a New York Times reporter to make, that they are somehow immune to making any kind of value judgment on the information they present. They (and I suspect this is largely Blumenthal, as he is highly engaged in the article comments) seems to be claiming they are presenting only immutable facts when in actuality they present mostly the opinions of other people that they claim are reputable. In other words, they believe these people are reputable.
Some examples from the comments:
Article: Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@LesISmore We are aware of government UFO disinformation efforts over the years but we are as sure as one can be that our information is genuine based on highly reliable sources, some of whom are outside government.
Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@K Kfishna I believe MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network, collects such figures.
Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@David Stevens Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says.
Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 29
@James clarke We understand there are more videos but we have not seen them.
So Blumenthal does not "believe" things, instead, he is "aware of" things, and "as sure as one can be" about things, and he "understands" things. Unfortunately, he's unable to demonstrate things, he's also unable to even give exact quotes from his sources, much less say who those sources are, or how exactly they know what they say they believe they know.
Perhaps the most telling things here Blumenthal's statement that "Jacques Vallee is an outstanding intellectual in the field and I pay attention to everything he says." Now, people have asked me in the past why the government spends money researching odd subjects like UFOs. I respond saying it's a combination of two things: firstly, the very real problem of unidentified aircraft, possibly of novel types belonging to foreign adversaries, violating secure airspace, and secondly, wishful thinking by UFO fans, like Harry Reid.
Jacques Vallee is an interesting figure here. He's the original source for the French scientist portrayed in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But he does not actually believe in conventional alien visitors - instead:
Article: Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact.
Vallée also proposes that a secondary aspect of the UFO phenomenon involves human manipulation by humans. Witnesses of UFO phenomena undergo a manipulative and staged spectacle, meant to alter their belief system, and eventually, influence human society by suggesting alien intervention from outer space.
So Valee thinks that UFOs are fake, but they are faked both by "a form of non-human consciousness" and separately by some human conspiracy. That Blumenthal says he pays attention to everything that Vallee says cast some doubt on his assistance that he's a mere conduit of facts unsullied by beliefs. It seems particularly at odd with their statement of "Times reporters are particularly averse to revealing opinions that could imply possible reporting bias." This opinion about Vallee very much does imply reporting bias, as does the presentation in the previous article of Eric W. Davis as some kind of authority from the Pentagon.
I believe that both Blumenthal and Kean are, essentially, taking advantage of the veneer of respectability offered by being a "New York Times Reporter" to promote things that they personally believe. I suspect that the apparent heavy-handed editing of their previous article shows that the more conventional New York Times staff has some misgivings about this.
Why did I title this "The Epistemology of UFOs?" Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. I'd avoided talking about epistemology until the end of this piece because once a discussion devolves into epistemology then it's all semantics and it's essentially over. Yet Blumenthal's and Kean's piece is essentially one of those discussion-killing devolutions. They claim not to "believe" in UFOs, but instead to know that UFOs "demonstrate capabilities that do not appear to be possible through currently available technology" They present this, with a quote from Magaret Mead as something as factual as "the sun or the moon, or the changing seasons, or the chairs they’re sitting on."
In epistemology, knowledge is often defined as "justified true belief." Knowledge is something about the world that we believe to be true, and actually is true, and our belief in that truth is justified by the evidence available to us. Facts are facts, beliefs can be wrong, knowledge is made of facts that have correctly found their way into our brains. But what do Blumenthal and Kean know? Nothing concrete. Nothing they can share with us. Their three videos have diminished in interest under analysis. They don't actually demonstrate any interesting materials recovered from crashed sites. They only have the words of people they believe.