Anonymous
8/26/2025, 1:33:43 AM
No.938963500
>>938963336
That argument overstates the credibility of UFO anomalies by equating them with legitimate scientific discoveries like gravitational waves or neutrinos. Those phenomena were pursued through rigorous theoretical frameworks and replicated data—not vague, low-resolution sightings or unverified claims. Multi-sensor anomalies don’t automatically indicate something extraordinary; sensors can malfunction, and different systems can misinterpret the same mundane event.
Calling skepticism “convenience” misrepresents scientific caution. Dismissing extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence isn’t laziness—it’s intellectual discipline. The subset of sightings that "defy conventional explanation" only do so because of incomplete data, not because they point to extraterrestrial craft.
Science doesn’t ignore anomalies; it demands they withstand scrutiny. Most UFO claims collapse under investigation or remain unresolved due to poor evidence—not because they're beyond explanation. Treating unexplained as unexplainable is not rational—it’s a leap of faith, not science.
That argument overstates the credibility of UFO anomalies by equating them with legitimate scientific discoveries like gravitational waves or neutrinos. Those phenomena were pursued through rigorous theoretical frameworks and replicated data—not vague, low-resolution sightings or unverified claims. Multi-sensor anomalies don’t automatically indicate something extraordinary; sensors can malfunction, and different systems can misinterpret the same mundane event.
Calling skepticism “convenience” misrepresents scientific caution. Dismissing extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence isn’t laziness—it’s intellectual discipline. The subset of sightings that "defy conventional explanation" only do so because of incomplete data, not because they point to extraterrestrial craft.
Science doesn’t ignore anomalies; it demands they withstand scrutiny. Most UFO claims collapse under investigation or remain unresolved due to poor evidence—not because they're beyond explanation. Treating unexplained as unexplainable is not rational—it’s a leap of faith, not science.