October 15-21 Question 2

Although Condon believes that UFOs do not exist, he states “… any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported …” Condon does not seem to have enough substantial evidence to argue that scientists should not study UFOs and instead, he states that schools should not discuss this phenomenon or give credit to students who are finding sources from UFO books and magazine articles. Unlike Condon, Hynek believes that UFOs are worth studying. He states that scientists must start from scratch with data gathering and data processing. I believe that Hynek makes the best argument. He believes that a small percentage of sightings are alien space craft, but he makes it known that the only way to prove such a thing is to collect new and legitimate information. Paynter is skeptical, but he believes that there is a slight chance that UFOs exist. He writes in a way to persuade readers that there is no such thing as UFOs, saying things like “just because a given UFO sighting cannot be explained it does not follow that it has been proved to be an alien space ship,” and “there is no probative physical evidence that compels us to conclude that aliens are visiting the Earth.”