PERSPECTIVE:

Carl Jung:

Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man does not know what a thing is, it is at least an increase in knowledge if he knows what it is not.

Bernardo Kastrup:

Although the topic of UAPs has always fascinated me, my reaction to confronting much of the related literature –beyond the safe harbour of a few serious authors– has been one of considered dismissiveness. In my view, a significant portion of the published material could benefit from greater rigor, empirical grounding, theoretical clarity, and logical reasoning.

Hal Puthoff:

That is, while not eschewing the present strategies in place, we incorporate into our studies, in as aggressive and proactive a way as we can muster, more forensic work to expand our playing field and extract from the data and its surrounds more of the patterns and networks that appear to yoke the data together, rather than just attending to the data itself. Since this takes such hard work and such a commitment of effort in new arenas of investigation, it probably also means being willing to press a given hypothesis to the limit, even though it may be the wrong one, so that our understanding of the range of possibilities to which we must keep our minds open does not act to disperse our focused activity.

OPINION:

Discussions about UAP have a tendency to devolve into debates about evidence and finding undeniable proof that the phenomena, or aspects of it, even exist in the first place. These discussions often become points of contention within the community, hindering our ability to honestly engage with each other and share our findings. It is in those discussions that there seems to be a marked ignorance concerning the value of qualitative data analysis.

One may be forgiven for thinking that all evidence must be objective and quantifiable, but reality indicates that simply isn’t the case. Subjective experience is often an important metric for analyzing evidence and synthesizing interpretations. For example –from a healthcare perspective– outcomes research often includes patient satisfaction data in addition to illness and treatment outcomes. In fact, patient satisfaction scores are becoming an increasingly important metric for allocating funding, rating providers, and intervening in unethical policies, protocols, and procedures.

Many of us were taught that the scientific method requires us to reduce our observations through the use of taxonomies and labels. Qualitative data analysis is no different – requiring the same reductive labeling process, called ‘qualitative coding’. Academics whose research falls within the auspices of the ‘Humanities’ or ‘Liberal Arts’ should be intimately familiar with the process of qualitative coding, as it is often one of the most time-intensive aspects of their research (this is what Diana Pasulka was doing with Vatican archives).

Qualitative coding requires the investigator to simultaneously engage in critical and lateral thinking, identifying the most salient elements of an individual’s subjective experience, and relating those elements to recurring themes from the collective. To continue with the example from healthcare, this might look like one patient reporting feelings of not being listened to, another that didn’t understand their care-plan, and a third who reports that their concerns were not taken seriously. The subjective feelings of all three patients might be coded as ‘caregiver inattention’ even though they were three wholly different individual experiences.

Honest engagement with subjective experiences will allow us to identify gaps in knowledge/practice and intervene before those qualitative outcomes become disastrously quantifiable. Engaging in qualitative analysis of contact experiences will only further our understanding of the phenomena. This is necessary and –in my view– foundational for further development of the scientific corpus. Engaging other investigators in this way will more quickly dissipate that fog of ‘magic’ or ‘woo’ that surrounds the issue.

When you come across something that seems absurd, take a pause. Ask yourself these three questions:

What is this really saying?

What is the significance if it’s true?

What is the significance if it’s false?

If we pay close attention to subjective experience, keep an open mind, and use our critical thinking skills, we will often come away with valuable information. More than anything, we should be polite to others. Offer opportunities for the exchange of subjective experience (the more data the better), listen carefully to what is said, and do not be so quick to dismiss absurd information. It is often from the seemingly inconsequential details that patterns appear and the most profound truths come to arrive at our awareness.