Standards of Law, Standards Void of Weight in the Scientific Method.

Greetings. The arguing for the reality of historical UFO cases, and for the legitimacy of witness testimonials, is often, at least within the UFO subculture, based on the standards applicable within a court of law.

While such legal standards are essential when it comes to the defense and prosecution of cases, be it a civil or a criminal scenario, legal standards have no standing within the scientific community specifically, the scientific method. In a court of law, anecdotal information, witness testimonials, are acceptable forms of evidence, used to arrive at verdicts and legal decisions. Anecdotal information is not evidence in the eyes of the scientific community, for such information does not measure up to the standards that scientists adhere to. The scientific method relies on the long term collection of raw data, physical evidence, and observations conducted using instruments and technologies that take the human element out of the equation. 

Human beings are fallible, subjective, and imperfect mammals. Human beings can be biased and self-centered, especially when it comes to the embracing of beliefs, opinions, and positions. Human beings are not capable of collecting information about their environment in a completely objective manner; some personal bias and error is always a part of the process of initial observation and subsequent memory storage in the human brain. Instruments suffer from no such failings, and simply collect information they are designed to collect, free of bias, free of error, free of subjective conviction or assumption. As a result of such labors, scientists are able to take into consideration data and information that has been collected, archived, and coalesced in a far more accurate way than any human being could hope to achieve. 

The scientific method deals with facts and figures, not beliefs and opinions. Statements like "He/she is a credible witness," or "I believe the witness and their story" are not uttered by scientists, but such statements are too often said by UFO researchers. Such declarations are opinions, not facts. Such declarations are not a part of the scientific method. The current situation is not really all that surprising, considering the lack of investigative standards and methodologies as it pertains to UFO investigations. The scientific research community has such standards and methodologies, which makes the endeavor far more reliable, defensible, and likely to arrive at conclusions that are supported by actual evidence, not completely unsupported schools of thought, void of anything substantive except dogmatic supposition. 

When a UFO researcher decides to believe, or not believe, the testimonial of a witness, he/she has not adhered to the scientific method, and has become a charter member of the world of pseudoscience. Such a decision is based on opinion, not on the thorough examination of data and physical evidence resulting in investigative conclusions firmly supported by non-anecdotal information. Terms like "believe," "credible," "reliable," or the dreaded "trained observer" are used far too often in UFO circles, and place the entire UFO research community, and their methods, firmly in question. 

If the UFO subculture would simply examine physical evidence, and not rely solely on anecdotes, it might attain a level of traction, however, physical evidence is lacking, and such an effort does not sell tickets, and it does not ensure a place at the pseudoscientific round table of ufology. 

Science, science, science. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.