Saturday, March 24, 2012
UFOs
In the article “Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects”, Condor argues that UFOs may exist and that there should be a public agency researching the different UFO citing individually. Hynek argues in “The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry”, UFOs pose a very real aspect that should be open to a more rigorous and serious studies. Paynter argues in “Physical Evidence and Unidentified Flying Objects” that the scientific community should more seriously investigate UFO citing. I believe that Paynter makes the best argument overall, this is because he refutes both Hynek and also Condor’s arguments which only helps to make his argument better and stronger. Also in Condor’s argument he does not ever truly use conclusive evidence to support his findings. Hynek also does not really argue his subject matter very well having holes in his reasoning and not coming up with a true conclusion. Overall Paynter does the best at arguing and he goes over other peoples arguments which reinforces his argument making sure that he doe not have any holes in it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, I also believe that Paynter had the best argument because there is not enough physical evidence to prove that aliens do exist. Although there may be a few sightings that are recorded, if their conclusion of the existence of aliens then there must be more supporting evidence of it. I also agree with you that Hynek does not fully support his conclusion; his argument was weaker than the other arguments. This topic of UFOs definitely needs a more specific and in depth study in order for their findings to be credible. Once there are physical evidence and more credible data, then we can argue that UFOs are real.
ReplyDelete