Ufo Skepticism At A Crossroads: What Michael Shermer Leaves Out About Uap
Michael Shermer’s recent column on UFOs/UAPs reaffirms classical skepticism: most sightings historically resolve to mundane explanations like balloons, birds, satellites, or drones, and there remains no verified evidence supporting extraterrestrial visitation. His stance underscores that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, a principle well-supported by decades of investigations. However, Shermer's analysis heavily relies on outdated talking points and overlooks important developments since 2017, particularly how governments and scientific institutions now approach UAPs with more empirical rigor. The Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) reports that while the majority of recent UAP cases are explained by prosaic causes, a significant minority remain unresolved after thorough investigation. Some cases exhibit anomalous behaviors warranting deeper technical analysis by defense and intelligence agencies. Official records, including a 2024 historical report, refute claims of crashed alien craft but do not dismiss the phenomenon entirely or the need for further study. Skeptical anecdotes, such as astronaut Scott Kelly’s story recalling a balloon misidentified as a mysterious object, emphasize human perceptual fallibility but do not negate well-documented multi-sensor military incidents, such as the 2004 Nimitz case. These examples serve as cautionary reminders rather than definitive judgments on all encounters. Shermer categorizes UAP into ordinary terrestrial, extraordinary terrestrial (advanced foreign technology), and extraordinary extraterrestrial, asserting that all current sightings fit the first category. This certainty, however, is unwarranted given the persistent subset of unexplained cases and the Pentagon’s procedures for deeper review when potential advanced foreign technologies are suspected. Distance and the improbability of interstellar travel are frequently cited as reasons to dismiss the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH), yet these arguments often discount the vast time scales involved, the exponential growth of technology, and ongoing astrophysical research that treats extraterrestrial intelligence as a legitimate scientific question. A truly evidence-driven approach recognizes that observation initiates scientific inquiry without inherent bias; investigations should systematically eliminate mundane explanations while remaining open to unresolved anomalies. Ufology requires a shift from traditional scientific methods to observational and forensic science to account for its transient and complex nature. Currently, no confirmed extraterrestrial physical evidence exists publicly, and most UAP cases have prosaic explanations. Nonetheless, a consistent minority remain unexplained and occasionally display extraordinary characteristics deserving serious, structured investigation. The debate should not be polarized between outright credulity and dismissive skepticism but rather focus on advancing inquiry based on imperfect but genuine data. While Shermer’s perspective reassures skeptics by revisiting familiar critiques, it fails to fully engage with the evolving data landscape and institutional responses that continue to push the conversation forward.
Source: theufochronicles.com
