Compare and contrast the arguments of Condon and Hynek, regarding the existence of UFOs
Watch the video and read the discussions on UFOs. Go to our University Library and read
Allen Hynek - UFOs: Its Time for a Scientific Approach
EU Condon - UFOs I Have Loved and Lost
Compare and contrast the arguments of Condon and Hynek, regarding the existence of UFOs. Evaluate the conclusion that each person draws and the evidence that each uses to support his conclusion. Which person do you think makes the best argument? Why?
This week's lesson was definitely interesting. It was very nice to get a refresher on the importance of language in influence and critical thinking. The review of fallacies, common mistakes, and terminology will definitely help in many different areas, not just business in my opinion.
In reading both assigned readings, I found that both Allen Hynek and E.U. Condon had two different approaches to their writings. In Hynek's piece, UFOs: It's Time For a Scientific Approach, Hynek concludes that the premature dismissal of UFOs is an absolute mistake unless scientific and methodical procedures are put in place. However, most of his arguments are not really backed by anything of notable substance. Instead, it reads as an explorative piece that aims at eliciting curiosity and emotion toward more scientific research on UFOs. With Condon's "UFO's; I have loved and I have lost", there is more breadth in explaining all concepts. Just like Hynek, Condon addresses that scientific research of UFOs is crucial, but does so in a way that provides more context to someone just tuning in. This may be due to the fact that he himself conducted a study of UFOs. Condon addresses other areas which come naturally to the UFO arena, such as pseudoscience and cultist populations. Condon concludes the writings by laying out his experiences and credentials at the end. Professor Condon seems to have a much more effective and structured premise to support his arguments when compared to Hynek, who primarily hinged on emotional appeal, curious inquiry, and begging the question. What did you think? Did Hynek better support his arguments or did Condon?
This week in discussion we compare and contrast the UFO argument between Condon & Hynek. In my opinion, Hynek’s argument doesn’t show that he has enough evidence to support his logic. He mentions that he has years of experience with virtual aspects of UFO phenomenon. He believes that if we precipitate out the essential elements from popular UFO chaos, we will uncover a new empirical phenomenon. Hynek also admits that this has not been done due to ridicule and the impossible task of obtaining qualified personnel. Condon on the other hand does admit to not being 100% sure that UFOs even exists. In his argument he mentions that the Airforce studies anything seen flying in the sky that may present a threat or hazard.
From that study, the Airforce concluded that no defense problems were reported. Throughout human history many have claimed to have seen something odd flying in the sky. The problem is that some never report it, and when they do it is long after the event has occurred. Me personally, I believe that it is possible extraterrestrial beings do exist. I look at it this way, GOD was so detailed when creating living things. Although we all have similarities, we do not share the same colors, shapes, sizes, personalities, culture and more. He also created dinosaurs, birds, and even sea animals such as jelly fish. These creations are why I believe anything is possible, even if we don’t understand it all.
Condon, E. U. (1969). UFOs I have loved and lost. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25(10), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1969.11455289
J. Allen Hynek. (1981). UFO’s: It’s Time For a Scientific Approach. The Christian Science Monitor (1983).