Why does the scientific community dismiss the idea of UFOs having an extraterrestrial origin?

Uh, they don’t. They’re just waiting for evidence before jumping to a conclusion.

What is SETI, if not the scientific community?

I don’t think extraterrestrial life is the issue. The issue is that in spite of decades of reports of UFO’s, there has been no documented evidence.

Most scientists believe that statistics support the possibility probability of life on other planets.

(Personally, I find the myth of UFOs visiting us typical of human egocentric bias. So life has evolved somewhere else, has developed intelligence, invented faster than light space travel, finds us in this inconceivable large mass of space and stars, and then has some reason to come anally probe us? )

Because scientists believe that any civilization that has the technology to travel several million light years (at a minimum) to get to us probably has better things to do than steal cows and sexually assault random people when they get here.

There is evidence of them, but they seem to always dismiss extraterrestrial origins. SETI has not found anything, either because: nothing there, we arent looking hard enough/sensitively enough, they dont communicate at such slow speeds like radio waves and use neutrinos or something else instead, are too busy logged into virtual worlds, dont want to be found, or virtually any other possible explanation. Yet they think they might be out there, but why not think UFOs would be related? So simple life is probable to exist, but complex intelligent life? It could be that Earth is an anomaly, could not be. We really dont know how complex intelligent life could evolve, other than that there is no perceived goal to evolution.

There has been documented evidence. See Uruguay. We cant assume what they would want, how they would function, or what there motivations would be in seeking us out, if they did. Either way it is probably for the better, because it could be possible that they would just destroy us and harvest our resources like Stephen Hawking says.

We can’t assume they exist if we have no evidence of communication.

You’re doing the scientific method backwards.

The majority of UFO sightings can be explained as nothing more than the mind playing tricks. Similar to ghost sightings. The rest are usually hoaxes.

What evidence?

I am not assuming they exist at all. I am actually quite convinced that they probably dont. Simple life? Yes, that probably exists. Complex intelligent life??? I would think we would have found something by now. It seems charitable to say that they are all either; too advanced, extinct already, intelligent but live on water worlds, etc. I am just asking why they would, in general, not consider it as a possibility considering what evidence we do have of unexplained phenomena.
I am talking only about the documented unexplained ones. Out of the 2100+ cases studied, Uruguay has said only about 40 have no explanation at all, that the UFO phenomenon is occurring there, and that they do not rule out ET hypotheses. Hardly “proof of aliens” but worthy of scientific recognition nevertheless.

I have to agree with @Seek_Kolinahr , your argument is illogical. (See what I did there?) The scientific community is not dismissing the origin of UFOs as extraterrestrial, they are dismissing UFOs until there is evidence that they exist (40 of 2100 incidences without explanation are not evidence, they are incidences without explanation).

It’s simply an issue of occam’s razor at this point. There have been many direct claims of UFOs (as in, “i have proof of UFOs”), every single one of which has been debunked. So, you have no direct evidence. Now, all you have is the possibility. When you have, as you say, a very small amount (<2%) of cases with no known explanation, you have two choices: A) it’s something we don’t understand, but probably fits with the other explanations in a way we simply don’t know yet/can’t know because of things like corrupted video without a known source to check with or B) it falls into the cases of those other, fully discredited theories. Which is more likely? Any good scientist wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but that doesn’t make it worthy of major speculation.

Throw into the mix the fact that visits from extraterrestrials would require going against a large amount of other data (how’d they get here? why have we never seen any other evidence? why is the only evidence bad? why have the incidences of UFO sightings dropped precipitously with the advent of cell phone cameras? etc), the chances that it’s actually extraterrestrial are very, very low, and thus dismissed until and unless new data comes along.

This also has to do with Bayesian Probability, simplified excellently by Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you want people to believe that hyper-advanced aliens are visiting us across the interstellar void, you’ve got to give us something more then “there are some fuzzy photos we don’t understand”.

It’s like the various ‘alien architect’ theories for the pyramids. Is it technically possible that they helped with the pyramids? Yes, in that we haven’t proven they didn’t (keeping in mind you cannot formally prove a negative in science), but there’s no good reason, at the current time, to think they did.

@BhacSsylan Thanks. I can definitely see your point. I understand all of what everyone is saying, I suppose I just thought that it was worth some amount of investigation, not jumping to any conclusions. It is certainly an interesting phenomenon, at least I think so. Thank you for not being pedantic in your answer…

Well, there has been investigation. That’s why you have that Uruguay information, the Navy has also undertaken similar studies into unexplained effects, and the existence of things like SETI. Don’t mistake the scientific consensus for lack of investigation. Usually what it means is that there was investigation, and now most of the community considers it settled, again, until and unless new, good information comes to light.

UFO believers and SETI have completely different “visions” of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

The former believes that aliens have been actively involved in the history of humans, that aliens have made contact with humanity, and that aliens are somehow “investigating” humans.

The later believes that aliens are simply “out there somewhere,” and that the aliens are probably just going about their daily lives, not caring (or knowing) about humanity.

Here is the answer to your question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o&autoplay=1

If you were hanging out drinking beer on your porch back in the Carter administration and you saw something like this fly over your house, you would have sworn it was an extraterrestrial.

…and if you’re a government spending billions of dollars working on a top-secret bomber you don’t want anyone else to know about, and a civilian sees your plane and thinks it’s flown by little grey men with big eyes, are you really going to step in and set the record straight?

There have probably been countless failed experimental airplanes (both manned and unmanned) the public has never been officially informed about, and with the explosion of UAV development, the number of UFO’s sightings will likely skyrocket.

Dismiss is a string word and scientists do not dismiss this possibility, they just dismiss the ” evidence ” brought forward by people usually wearing tin foil hats.

There are still cases which have been shown to not be hoaxes and pass all legitimacy tests. So given that, lets assume they arent, because there are scientists who agree they arent, how would they even work? Work, as in, hover with high maneuverability? Regardless of who built them, how would that even be accomplished?

I post on about three other sites regularly besides this one, and two of those are filled with scientists and other well informed people. This issue seems to be somewhat divided, with each giving their own reasons for this. Drakes Equation itself is sometimes used by people to dismiss the likelyhood of life in other parts of the universe, while at other times people use the equation to support the likelyhood of life being common (or at least not rare). Some religious creationists like Rich Deem like to use the Drake Equation to show that earth is a rare case.

Personally I tend to think that anything could be possible, and yet I can still retain my scepticism. My opinion of the matter is that there were likely some coverups concerning ufo’s, and even some very high ranking officials have spoken out at a great deal of risk to their own life or reputation. I don’t blindly just believe others, but some anecdotal testimony stands out more to me than others. I highly doubt that we know everything there is to know about physics, and I’m also convinced that they likely don’t travel by propagating through great distances. It may also be likely that much more advanced intelligences than us would not be familiar with our means of communication in my opinion.

This is a cool site for discussing anything considered paranormal, but unlike on other sites ufo discussion is front and center on there. I post on there sometimes. There are sceptics and proponents alike in more equal numbers on there, but ufo’s just aren’t my top interest so I’m only on there sporadically.

A fallacy.

The question implies that it is a fact that UFO’s are extra terrestrial in origin, but the Scientific community is intransigent and dismisses the notion out of caprice.

One premise is not proven, the other is not likely.

Back to zero.

@josie No. The question in no way implies that. It was asking why they wouldnt consider it as a possibility. Thank you though.

@hogbuttons

Yes.
The question does indeed imply that. It is no different than if the question had been “UFO’s are extraterrestrial in origin. Why does the scientific community dismiss the idea?”

@josie No. If that were the case I would have asked that. You are just misunderstanding it. Please dont tell me what my question meant. It is asking exactly what I said, why they would dismiss it as a possibility.

@josie How could you possibly even misunderstand what it is saying? Nobody else suffered so much confusion… But its ok, this is coming from “Stuff I dont understand is WEIRD to me!” person so Im not really surprised….

No one dismisses the possibility, it is simply that the possibility isn’t actually on the table.

I mean, there is exactly as much hard evidence for extraterrestrial visitors being responsible for these unexplained phenomena as there is for Thor and Loki playing Ultimate Frizbee as the responsible party. Is your next question going to inquire as to whether the scientific community “dismisses” Loki Frizbee as an explanation for UFO activity?

Besides, scientific research, particularly research into space, is seriously lacking in resources. Are you going to front the money for SETI to develop the technology to scan for neutrino emissions?

@Seek_Kolinahr Yeah…... We covered that already….........
He was saying my question implied something it didn’t, and there is no need for you to be pedantic. I thought if a nation-state thought it was possible from the data they had collected, than the scientific community ought to consider it as possible as well.

Fortunately for all of us, science doesn’t work that way.

Things don’t become true just because a group of people think it’s so. There has to actually be evidence of the fact.

For example, a large group of Muslims all believe that since the Koran says salt water and fresh cannot be mixed, then it can’t. Fortunately, we recognize that the evidence shows otherwise, and avoid building our potable water reservoirs near the sea-side.

@Seek_Kolinahr Not saying it should “become true.”
What I said was “if a nation-state thought it was possible from the data they had collected, than the scientific community ought to consider it as possible as well.
And again, no need for pedantic analogies that are off point.

facepalm

Get off that word. Seriously. Not only have you used it too many times, but you are using it incorrectly, and ironically. If anything, it is you that is overly concerned with a minute detail.

As I have previously mentioned, the scientific community is under funded. They must prioritize their spending and their consumption of resources. Who has the time or inclination to chase rabbits down holes? As it is, most people think the folks who run SETI are crazy-pants. (Not me, I think it would be badass to pick up some alien version of “Mars Attacks!”)

Also, I’m pretty sure communication by neutrino emissions is something Gene Roddenberry made up. So, unless you consider Galaxy Quest to be a prophecy, we can probably dismiss that notion.

Get off trying your best to make me sound stupid with comments about Loki and other nonsense. And you are being pedantic, Im all but expecting to hear about how I shouldnt start sentences with “and” as well as not using apostrophes in my contractions. Youre even being pedantic in telling me Im not using the word pedantic right. Or the neutrino emission part?? Really???? It was in a list of nearly infinite possibilities as to why we wouldnt have heard from them, which was my entire point.

I don’t mind informal speech at all, provided you aren’t using txtspk. I myself am on a mobile and will ask that you forgive the odd autocorrect error.

It is not my intention to make you sound stupid. I use the analogies merely to demonstrate the logic I have used to come to my conclusion. My points are valid, I do believe, and I would be happy to continue defending them, if continuing the discussion pleases you.

Because formal traditional written language is superior to txtspk? I suppose if you looked at it from a post-modernist perspective, txtspk could be considered a superior form of communicating. After all, if it can do the same task more efficiently then I dont see why not. (Sorry, but I had a long argument with a language professor and you brought me back to that lol.)
Your points are valid. I have never really disagreed with you, per se. What I dont like is people misunderstanding me and telling me what my own question was implying, or that I am meaning something Im not. That bothers me. I dont even necessarily believe in any way really that UFOs have an ET origin. It would definitely not be my first suspicion. I was just getting at the fact that since they havent pursued it as a likely possibility in quite some time, than it was just worth some moderate investigation given recent findings. You are surely right in the fact that that is because, as you say, it is a rabbit down a hole. A study that would not be very beneficial, and costly, etc.
And I would think that if they were out there that it is probably for the best that they either are not aware of us, dont have any interest, or the like. I would just imagine that the negative possibilities of contact would have to be greater than the positive. Based on everything we know of life, it would just seem that way. Destroy; Consume; Move on…
Unless… they were an artificial life form?

I think you’ve just answered your own question. Welcome to Fluther,by the way. I hope you stick around!

I know several people at SETI. They are very serious astronomers and do excellent science