Page Content (OCR)
position on whether UFOs are extraterrestrial should be taken until they have been systematically studied. Resistance must be agnostic because, given our current knowledge, neither denial nor belief in the extraterrestrial hypothesis is justified; we simply do not know. Concretely, agnosticism means "seeing" the UFO for what it is rather than ignoring it, taking it seriously as a real and truly unidentified object, broadly defined to include any natural phenomenon. Since it is precisely such acknowledgment of UFOs' reality that the taboo forbids, "seeing" alone is a kind of personal resistance. To be politically effective, however, resistance must also be militant, by which we mean public and strategic. Indeed, purely private agnosticism about UFOs, of the kind that people in the modern world might have about God, does nothing to break the spiral of silence that surrounds the issue and so in effect contributes to it. To break the cycle resistance needs to be directed at the central problem posed by UFO phenomena, namely reducing our collective ignorance about what they are, rather than at the side issue of official secrecy, which strategically is a diversion. (If we're correct that governments are hiding not the truth but their own ignorance, then even if they released all their files we would be no closer to knowing what UFOs are.) That is to say, what is needed above all else is a systematic science of UFOs, on the basis of which we might eventually be able to make informed judgments about them, as opposed to simply reiterating dogmas one way or the other. To go beyond the minimal scientific research that has already been done and make new breakthroughs, such a science will have to do three things. First, it will need to focus on aggregate patterns rather than individual cases. Given our inability to manipulate or predict UFO phenomena, there are inherent limits to what case studies can show. Already, official analyses of selected cases have sometimes been able to rule out conventional explanations—what they are not—but this does not tell us what those UFOs are. UFOs are like meteorological phenomena, a4 4 1 ee! aoa which can be properly studied only in the aggregate. Second, a science of UFOs [12] will need to focus on finding new reports rather than analyzing old ones. This is because existing high- quality reports are relatively few in number and were collected by accident and through a variety of means, making it almost impossible to find patterns. Moreover, there is only so much information that can be extracted from a historical report, particularly one disconnected from knowledge of the environmental context. Trying to generate new reports systematically might greatly increase our data points, and put them automatically into context, as well. Finally, a science will need to focus on collecting objective, physical evidence rather than subjective, eyewitness accounts, for only the former will convince the authorities that UFOs "exist," much less that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is worthy of consideration. Of course, getting