Edward Condon’s argument was that
UFO’s do not offer a fruitful field of study for major scientific discoveries.
He stated that the government should not endorse UFO sightings by the general
public and that kids in schools should just learn about UFO’s and aliens as if
they were scientifically true. He even offers a solution to that, by stating
that schools should tell kids about meteorology and astrology and stay away
from aliens and UFO topics. Hynek states the complete opposition of Condon,
meaning that Hynek believes that UFOs are worth “systematic, rigorous, study”.
He states that there are thousands of UFO reports and that there has to be
truth within some of it. Also, he suggests that they should compare large
groups of sighting to a particular category with a much larger population of
the same category. Payner had the strongest argument yet. I feel that Condon was trying to hard to get
his point across without evaluating the other side and Hynek’s argument was too
confusing. Payner gave suggestions for scientists interested in UFO’s by stating
that they should change the way that they go about studying UFO’s because of
the fact that alien’s are much more intelligent than to leave evidence of their
presence on Earth. Especially large amounts of evidence. He stated that UFO’s
are all about whether or not you believe it exists, similar to an angel,
because depending on what you believe the evidence you find will be different.
Hi there SigmaLove,
ReplyDeleteI think you give a really great point in your post. You said the reason why you believe that Paynter gave the strongest argument is because he gave a well balanced point of view. He did not just give his own side but tried to understand the other sides as well. I think that this is a great example of how we as students need to try and write to better convince our audience. It is important not just to rant about our own side of the topic but to also be educated and respectful of the opposing side as well.
I like how you summarized each author’s argument with the main points as the basis of your answer. You give detailed actions of each author and compare and contrast all of them. We both agree that Paynter has the best well balanced explanation to the existence of UFO’s. He gave both sides of the argument as supposed to the other two authors only giving one biased opinion of the topic. You can tell that the authors believe one way or the other. I feel like a lot of people sided with Paynter just because he gives both sides equal opportunities of being heard.
ReplyDelete