In the conclusion that Condon drew was that nothing has come
from the study of UFO’s that has added to scientific knowledge and it was not
likely to advance science. After reading his conclusion, I think there is a lack
of scientific evidence of the need of UFOs. That limited the bounds on what can
be discovered and what can be valid in our lives. Hynek concluded that the goal
would be to have a program to establish the reality of the UFO as a legitimate
subject for future scientific study. This is based on the claims that UFOs are
a global phenomenon and not enough research has been done on them. In addition,
Paynter concluded that it must be proven with the highest and most complete
standards of physical science and reasoning in order to know the existence of
UFO. In my point of view, I think Paynter made the best argument. This is
because he gave a valid conclusion that was based on the presented evidences.
No comments:
Post a Comment