Page Content (OCR)
civilization might have advanced 3,000 years (much less 3,000,000) after theirs. In light of these arguments, if anything, visitors from other civilizations should be here, which prompts the famous "Fermi Paradox," wert [9] or "Where are they?" "They Would Land on the White House Lawn." So skeptics often take the argument one step further, by asking: If visitors from other planets have come all this way to see us, why don't they land on the White House lawn and introduce themselves? After all, if human beings were to encounter intelligent life in our own space exploration, that's what we would do. On this basis, the fact that UFO occupants have not done so is evidence that they are not here. But is it? It is not at all clear that space-faring humans would land on an alien equivalent of the White House lawn if they journeyed to a distant planet. Perhaps advanced explorers would maintain a policy of wee planet. advanced planet. Perhaps advanced explorers would maintain a policy of noninterference toward lower life forms. Regardless of what human beings might do, however, on what scientific basis can we know the intentions of alien beings, whose nature and agendas might be utterly unimaginable to us? There is none, and as such one cannot rule out the possibility that extraterrestrials might have reasons for avoiding contact. "We Would Know If They Were Here." This final argument appeals to human authority—that, due to our vast surveillance of the skies with sophisticated radar and telescopes, the world would know definitely by now if extraterrestrials were here, because the experts would have discovered would of them. This position, too, is by no means decisive. First, it assumes an ability to observe and recognize UFOs that may be unwarranted; if some are vehicles able to visit Earth, then their occupants could easily have the 1 1 rn re 14 awe 104 technology to limit knowledge of their presence. Second, the authorities have not actually looked for UFOs, and what is not looked for or expected is often not seen. Finally, in view of pervasive official secrecy about UFOs, more is probably known about them than is publicly acknowledged. This does not mean that what is known is their origin, but in the face of so much secrecy it is natural to raise the question. Importantly, our point about each of these arguments is not that they are wrong, but that reasonable people can disagree about whether they are wrong, since they all ultimately rely on unproven assumptions rather than established scientific facts. Indeed, the very fact that it is so easy to raise reasonable objections to UFO skepticism is further evidence that, ~oo4wn foal . 4 reasonable objections is reasonable objections to UFO skepticism is further evidence that, scientifically speaking, human beings can't rule out the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Some of us may look at the evidence and arguments and conclude that the probability is zero, while others may give the hypothesis more credence—but who really knows? No one knows, because we do not have the scientific knowledge to make such probabilities meaningful. As former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld might put it, we are dealing here not with "known unknowns" but "unknown unknowns," where to