Discussion #2 UFOs

Condon believes that UFO study is a useless topic of study and that scientists shouldnt waste their time on it because it hasnt been a fruitful adventure but he also believes that people with good ideas and for specific studies in this field should be supported, which is very contradictive. Contradicting statements make an argument weak and invalid. Hynek supports the study of UFO sightings. He believes that the unexplained Ufo phenomena are too often dissmissed by authorities and as a result have not been studied in a systematic scientific matter. He believes we should approach this matter with the most mathematical data gathering and processing way possible to be able to get the most effective report. He argument is dealing with empirical reasoning. Because each of his reasonings involve actual real data i believe that his argument is a strong one. Paynter believes that the existence of UFOs and alien abductions should be conducted "according to the highest standards of scientific inquiry" without any physical evidence he argues we should remain skeptical about these claims. He believes that the UFO community should adopt scientific standards of investigation and proof in their work, with probative evidence and rigorous reasoning. His argument I believe proves to be strong, because you cant argue about whether somthing is real, if you have no real evidence.