Why it matters how we think and talk about the UFO phenomenon

Question everything you read and hear about the UFO phenomenon. Because no one knows the truth of what UFOs are. By practising critical thinking, you can filter the reliable data on UFOs from the unreliable. The standards of reasoning presented here can raise the quality of the discourse on UFOs.

Photo by Arturo Castaneyra on Unsplash

This article describes “the standards of reasoning” (below the “Background” part), and why they are important to the discourse of the UFO phenomena (henceforth, “the phenomena”). But first, some background on why I believe it is important how we think and talk about the phenomena.

Background

The terms “ufology” and “ufologist” are problematic. Because they imply a systematized method and shared terminology underlying the study of the phenomena. There is none. Jacques Vallée has pointed out that problem in several of his books and various interviews over the years.

The main reason for the lack of such a shared theoretical framework and methodology from which to study the phenomena is the elusive and complex nature of the phenomena itself. Most people knowledgeable about the UFO subject are aware that the phenomena seem to require a multidisciplinary approach. Neither the STEM sciences nor the humanities/social sciences can, on their own, expand our knowledge of the phenomena.

So what can a curious layperson (everyone in “ufology” is a layperson) do to become a more reliable thinker on the phenomena?

In a previous article (in another context), I briefly mentioned some “standards of reasoning” to make the stigmatized UFO subject more legitimate among the public. If one has a serious interest in and cares about the truth behind the phenomena, one can start by examining how one is thinking, writing, and discussing the phenomena.

I can, for instance, ask myself: Do the way I communicate about the phenomena to the outside world give a clear picture of the phenomena's profound existential and scientific implications?

Or am I thinking and communicating about the phenomena in a factual, nuanced, cautious and humble way?

Or, how is my way of representing and presenting the phenomena influencing other people's perception about it? Am I adding to the social stigma of the UFO subject, or is my contribution to the discourse reducing the stigma?

I wanted to write this article mainly because I think the UFO phenomena/subject must go fully mainstream. The latter is crucial to get the truth of the phenomena in the public domain. If the UFO subject would become mainstream, then the disclosure process would become by, for and of the people. Citizens, politicians, lawmakers, academics, scientists, and journalists would together create a force strong enough to break down the walls of the secrecy surrounding the phenomena.

But for such a pressure on our governments to manifest at all, the public first has become receptive to credible data on the phenomena.

What I am trying to say is that from the public's perspective, the UFO subject has to go from a tinfoil hat subject to a legitimate subject. Thanks to, mainly, the “To the Stars Academy,” some positive effects on the social stigma have occurred. But there is still a lot of work to be done in that area.

So, the idea with this article about “the standards of reasoning” is that anyone currently interested in and commenting on the UFO subject can reduce the social stigma of the phenomena by practising some basic thinking skills.

The purpose of practising those basic skills is to raise the quality of the discourse on the phenomena and improve the public's perception of the UFO subject.

Why is the abovementioned important? Because people unfamiliar with UFO subject have to realize the phenomena's profound existential implications and great scientific significance for the future of humanity and our home, the Earth.

Since I only mentioned “the standards of reasoning” briefly in that previous article, I thought I should describe those standards in more detail. So, that comes next.

What are the standards of reasoning?

The standards are nothing new. What I describe here as “the standards of reasoning” (henceforth, “the standards”) are good old techniques from philosophy: Socratic questioning and critical thinking skills. They are, in theory, easy to learn, but harder to apply consistently in real life. Why is that?

Because the “soul” of the standards is a genuine curiosity and intent, to expand one's knowledge and deepen one's understanding of a subject, an aspect of a subject, a problem, and of fellow humans — their point of view, values, etc. Socratic questioning aims to acquire a deeper understanding of one's self and the world.

That genuine curiosity and intent are what should motivate and sustain one's search for (a) truth. If a genuine curiosity about something/someone and genuine intent to understand that same something/someone is not present, then one is not practising the standards of reasoning.

The standards are about one's approach/attitude, as they are about technical skills. The approach one should internalize is that of a willingness to understand something or someone. To understand something or someone, one should practice the noble skill of listening. If one genuinely wants to understand something or someone, one will listen with presence, focus, and in a non-judgmental way. And, of course, listen with curiosity and intending to understand.

So, I hope by now that it is relatively clear that the standards of reasoning are not about winning, being right or crushing one's opponent in an argument. The standards have nothing to do with one's own ego or worldview.

The standards have everything to do with one's relation to knowledge, understanding, and truth.

The standards also have everything to do with self-knowledge or self-awareness, but we are not going into that aspect.

If we can compare the search for knowledge, understanding and truth as a relationship to a person you hold dear and care about, then I believe it can be easier to get the approach to the standards. To truly understand someone, you have to put your ego aside and, so to speak, walk in that person's shoes.

The latter may sound strange regarding understanding a subject or a problem, but it is actually not so different. To understand a subject or a problem, you need to put aside your current assumptions, beliefs, and so on (it is here self-awareness comes in). You need to create an opening and space for new information to flow with as little friction as possible.

And as most people know, curiosity, understanding, and listening have one foundational thing in common: They all begin with an essential question.

Essential, or relevant, questions are the birth of progress in all academic disciplines, and in all kinds of quests for the truth. Most important in our case; the development of our way of thinking and communicating about the UFO phenomena/subject.

That is why the foundational skill in the standards of reasoning is asking essential questions.

Questioning the components of reasoning and questioning the quality of reasoning

Introduction

The standards of reasoning are inspired by The Thinker's Guide to The Art of Socratic Questioning. Based on Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools, by Dr Richard Paul and Dr Linda Elder, and Critical Thinking: an introduction to the basic skills (3rd edition), by William Hughes. I have taken some ideas and models from those two books, and so to speak, made them into my own.

First, notice the term “the art” of Socratic questioning. It is indeed an art, or a craft, to ask the essential question at the right moment, to the right person, and in the right situation. The art of Socratic questioning is as much about feeling/intuition/creativity as intellect and logic. It is about being fully present and focused, but in a relaxed manner. You should not be in a freeze-fight-or-flight state of mind (threat, defence, avoid, attack etc.). Instead, you should be in a rest-digest state of mind (peace, safety, openness, receptivity, etc.).

Second, both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions to search for meaning and truth. Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential or relevant to the search for meaning and truth.

In the following, we are going to look at two critical thinking concepts: 1) the components of reasoning (analyzing thought), and 2) the quality of thought (assessing thought). We use those two concepts to identify essential questions that, hopefully, will raise our thinking to higher levels of understanding and quality. And in the end, take us as close to the truth as possible.

1. Questioning the components of reasoning

To ask an essential or relevant question, you need to identify and focus on the right component of reasoning. I think the following model of “universal components of thought” can help identify the relevant component of reasoning to match with your question:

1) Whenever we think, we think for a PURPOSE 2) within a POINT OF VIEW 3) based on ASSUMPTIONS 4) leading to IMPLICATIONS and CONSEQUENCES. 5) We use DATA, FACTS, and EXPERIENCES 6) to make INFERENCES and JUDGEMENTS 7) based on CONCEPTS and THEORIES 8) to answer a QUESTION or SOLVE a PROBLEM (Credit to Dr Paul & Dr Elder).

Before I give some guidelines and examples of essential questions to each of those 7 (nr. 8 is a goal) components of reasoning, I should mention that I am mainly concerned about applying critical thinking and Socratic questioning on “one-system” questions and “conflicting-system” question, because these are the most relevant in the search for to truth about the UFO phenomena.

One-system questions require evidence and reasoning within a system. They have a correct answer = Knowledge. With one-system questions, there is an established procedure or method for finding an answer. They are prominent in mathematics, as well as in physics and biology.

Conflicting-system questions require evidence and reasoning within conflicting systems. They have a better and worse answer, but rarely any verifiable correct answer = Judgement. With conflicting-system questions, there are multiple competing viewpoints from which, and within which, one might reasonably pursue an answer to the question. These questions are predominant in academic disciplines like history, philosophy, religion, sociology, and economics.

Most people interested in the truth about the phenomena probably wish we would have more answers to the one-system questions. At least, I do.

But, since the modern era of “ufology”, we have been, and still are, mostly trying to answer conflicting-system questions. Obviously, because of the lack of substantial data to verify or refute through established procedures and methods. We do not know, but can suspect such substantial data exists. It is yet to be made public. Until it becomes public, we have to make the best of the situation of finding ourselves struggling with finding more or less well-supported answers to questions with more than one answer. Hence, the importance of basic skills in “standards of reasoning”.

Ok, back to “questioning the components of reasoning”. As you formulate questions, consider the following guidelines and sample questions.

1. Questioning Purposes and Goals. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the purpose/goal/agenda behind it. Some of the many questions that focus on the purpose component of reasoning include:

• What is the purpose/goal of this book, article, chapter, blog post, interview, discussion, etc.?
• Why is X being said, or written (at this moment, in this context?)?
• Who is the audience?
• What is the central agenda/goal? What other agenda/goals need to be considered?

2. Questioning Viewpoints and Perspectives. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand the point of view or frame of reference that places it on an intellectual map. Some of the many questions that focus on the point of a view component of reasoning include:

• From what point of view are you looking at the problem, the event, etc.?
• Is there another point of view/perspective you should consider?
• Which of the possible viewpoints/perspectives makes the most sense given the situation?
• What are you looking at, and how do you see (interpret) it? How can you look at it in another way?

3. Questioning Assumptions. All reasoning/thought rests upon assumptions. Assume that you do not fully understand someone's thought (including your own) until you understand what it takes for granted. Some of the many questions that focus on the assumption component of reasoning include:

• What exactly are you taking for granted here?
• Why are you assuming that? What other assumptions can be relevant, reasonable in case X?
• What assumptions underlie our point of view (what you believe will influence your perception and interpretation of X)? What alternative assumptions might we make?
• Should you explicitly state your assumptions?

4. Questioning Implications and Consequences. All thought has a direction. It not only begins somewhere — resting on assumptions (axioms) — it also goes somewhere; has implications and consequences. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) unless you know the most important implications and consequences that follow from it. Some of the many questions that focus on the implications and consequences of thinking include:

• What are you implying when you claim X?
• If you assume X to be true, what is likely to be the implication? Are the implications likely, probable, significant, etc.?
• Are your implications following from your initial assumption (claim or thesis)? What alternative implications could result from your assumption?

5. Questioning Data, Facts, and Experiences. All thought presupposes an information base. Assume that you do not fully understand the thought (including your own) until you understand the background information (facts, data, experiences) that supports or informs the thought. Some of the many questions that focus on the information component of reasoning include:

• On what information are you basing that comment/opinion/claim/thesis?
• What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be distorted?
• How do you know X (data) is accurate? How could you verify or refute X?
• Have you failed to consider any information you need to consider?
• What are these data based on? How was the data developed, presented, and by whom?
• Is your conclusion based on facts (knowledge, one correct answer) or judgement (matter of degree)?

6. Questioning Inferences and Judgement. All thought requires the making of inferences, the drawing of conclusions, the creation of meaning. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the inferences and the meaning that have shaped the thought/line of reasoning. Some of the many questions focusing on the inferences and judgement component of reasoning include:

• How did you reach that conclusion?
• Could you explain your reasoning?
• Is there an alternative plausible conclusion?
• Given all the facts, what is the best possible conclusion (or best possible explanation)?

7. Questioning Concepts and Ideas. All thought involves the application of concepts. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought (including your own) until you understand the concepts and ideas that define and shape the thought. Some of the many questions focusing on the concept and idea component of reasoning include:

• What is the main idea you are using in your reasoning? Could you explain that idea?
• Are you using the appropriate concept, or do you need to re-conceptualize the problem?
• Do we need more facts, or do we need to rethink how we are labelling the facts?
• Is your question a scientific, a theological or an ethical one (fact, preference, or judgement?)?

2. Questioning the quality of reasoning

Quality of thought, or reasoning, is a matter of degree in clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. Imagine you are writing an article, a book, a blog post, or a comment on social media. Before publishing, you need to evaluate the quality of your reasoning:

1. Questioning Clarity.

• Am I clear about what I am saying, or is my thinking muddled (vagueness)?
• Have I stated my main idea, then elaborated on it?
• Have I provided examples to make my points clear?
• Have I written sentences that can be interpreted in different ways (ambiguity), or have I made my intended meaning clear?

2. Questioning Precision.

• Have I provided adequate details for the reader to understand precisely what I mean? Do I need to be more specific or precise?

3. Questioning Accuracy.

• Have I made sure that all the information I have presented factual is so?
• Are my sources of information credible?

4. Questioning Relevance.

• In the article, book, blog post, etc., as a whole, do I keep a clear and consistent focus?
• Do I wander from the main point?
• In each paragraph, is everything in the paragraph relevant to the main idea in the paragraph?

5. Questioning Depth.

• Do I clearly understand what makes the issue complex?
• Have I sufficiently detailed those complexities?

6. Questioning Breadth.

• What points of view apply to this issue?
• Am I failing to consider this issue from an opposing perspective because I am not open to changing my view?
• Have I entered the opposing views — or all relevant points of view — in a factual and nuanced manner, or only enough to find flaws in them?

7. Questioning Logic.

• Do all the ideas in my paper fit logically together?
• Do my first paragraph fit with my last?
• Do what I say follow from the evidence?
• Have I made the connections between ideas clear to the reader?

8. Questioning Fairness.

• Do I have any vested interest in this issue?
• Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?
• Have I adopted the principle of charity? According to the principle of charity, whenever two interpretations are possible, you should always adopt the most charitable interpretation. That is, the one that makes our “opponent's” views as reasonable or defensible as possible.

The above description of the standards of reasoning is not exhaustive. The reason I wrote this article is, again, because I care about how people outside the ufo community perceive the UFO subject and how people in the ufo community handle the subject.

I truly believe that people in the ufo community can raise the UFO subject's status and help people unfamiliar with the subject understanding its profound existential and scientific implications.

One fairly simple way to reduce the social stigma of the phenomena is to start with oneself, honestly examine whether what and how one is thinking and communicating about the phenomena adds to or reduces the social stigma of the UFO phenomena.