Thursday, December 22, 2005





THE FAITH-BASED SCIENCE OF SUSAN CLANCY (Budd Hopkins)

Recently I appeared on "Larry King Live," along with Clancy and several others, when one of the guests showed a blow-up of the world-famous Trent UFO photographs from McMinnville, Oregon, arguably the best-known UFO photos in existence. They were prominently featured in "Life" magazine in 1950, and have been reproduced hundreds of times since in many publications. What's more, in 1969, after careful analysis, an investigator for the skeptical Condon Committee described the McMinnville photo case this way: "This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical, appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses." Optical physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee has investigated this case thoroughly, flying to McMinneville, interviewing the Trents, their family and neighbors, taking his own test photos from the same location, and carrying out literally months of optical analysis of the original pictures. Maccabee's work has been published widely, but the photos themselves should be familiar to anyone with even a cursory involvement in UFO study and research. Yet, during the Larry King program, abduction authority Susan Clancy glanced at the photos on the monitor and said something like this: "that could be anything...someone who threw up a hubcap or a Frisbee or something." Her evident ignorance of this case, and, by extension, of the literature and history of the UFO phenomenon, was aptly illustrated by this glib, contemptuous wisecrack, a remark one might expect to hear late at night in a Texas barroom, but not from someone holding a Ph.D. degree from Harvard. Earlier, when King asked her how she became interested in the subject of UFO abductions, she began her answer this way: "I've been studying aliens for..." Studying aliens? Again, this peculiar description of her work in the laboratory is not what one would expect to hear from an experimental psychologist on an ostensibly serious TV program.

16 comments:

W.M. Bear said...

Hopkins does a thorough job of demolishing Clancy's research, IMHO.

gordon said...

WMB,

I don't agree. For instance, I don't think it's fair to insist that a PhD psychologist should know anything about a 50 year-old alledged UFO incident. Without any background knowledge into the analysis of the Trent photos, you probably _would_ claim that they " ...could be anything ...".

Clancy and Hopkins aren't even investigating the same thing, so the concept of using Hopkins to demolish Clansy's research is a falsehood. Hopkins is trying to understand how/why aliens are abducting people. To him, it is a real-world event. Clancy is trying to understand how/why false memories are generated and their difference to memories of real-world events. She (perhaps unfortunately) simply chose a group of people who had claimed alien abduction as her group to represent false memories. She probably had no a priori knowledge that there is any chance of alien abductions being real (and I for one would tend to agree with that). Maybe she should have chosen a group who see angels/demons etc instead, but she'd probably still have copped as much flak from the religious fanatics.

Mac said...

The problem is that both Hopkins and Clancy are hopelessly biased -- although of the two, Hopkins' rationale is the most sensible.

W.M. Bear said...

Gordon -- I can't agree. I haven't studied her book but from reviews as well as her pronouncements in the media, it certainly sounds like Clancy has a major axe to grind. Even her title sounds to me like it's meant as a direct slap to the late John Mack's similar title -- she's basically the Harvard Psychology Faculty's "answer" to Mack who stepped on a lot of pseudoscientific toes there by actually taking people's abduction experiences seriously. As Hopkins shows, Clancy starts with the presupposition that abduction experiences are the result of false memories and then (poorly) designs her study to support what is already a foregone conclusion. As Hopkins rightly asks, this is science?

Mac -- I wasn't necessarily agreeing with Hopkins either. I do think he focuses too much on the "physicality" of abductions when they do, by and large, sound more like what I would call "visionary" experiences (however likely it might be that these are induced by "outside" forces beyond our normal comprehension). However, I think that he makes an excellent case against both Clancy's implicit assumptions and her flawed methodology, as well as her virtually total igorance of the field that she is purporting to study.

Mac said...

WMB--

While I find Clancy's dismissal sickening, I suppose I find Hopkins' zealous subscription to the "nuts and bolts" model almost as disturbing.

JEFM said...

Gordon

I’m usually in tune with WMBear but now I agree with you on this one. Hopkins is not giving the point here and his “methodological flaws” are nonsense (at best). He’s criticizing her for not making certain things that are beyond her scope and would require a multidisciplinary panel to achieve. This was NOT the purpose of the study as I read. Also, Hopkins takes for granted (the same mistake he’s throwing at Clancy) the fact that abducted people have “transmitters” inside them (among clearly defined physical sequelae) which sounds very nice but, where’s the beef?

Come on, we all know that certain things Hopkins claimed in the final 7 points are beyond confirmation or scientific evidence at this point.

I believe ufologists (I don’t like that word, but its to get my point across) should sit down and debate a standard set of rules to define an investigative methodology which could then be analyzed by a panel for inherent flaws and from there, start investigating while in the mean time, make any amendments that need to be done into the method.

Hopkins starting point doesn’t seem very neutral to me either. He takes for granted the aliens are here, he knows their agenda and knows lots of details about them. I understand he has some evidence to back this up, but it should be more than anecdotic evidence. I think the hypothesis this lady is bringing forward is totally valid and frankly, who is walking the right path concerning this..? I thought we were all pretty much confused.

I know I am.

Jon

W.M. Bear said...

jon -- I'm pleased to hear that you're usually in tune with me, anyway! One last point -- whatever Hopkins own methodological sins -- and I agree they are legion -- these do not detract from his telling critique of Clancy's research. And this research DOES need to be exposed as the essentially meaningless and, yes, pseudoscientific "study" that it is. For one thing, she has the authority of Harvard AND the orthodox scientific community behind her. As a result, her study is likely to be accepted within this community as the final word on the subject when in fact it IS seriously, SERIOUSLY flawed if it can be cosidered to have demonstrated anything at all real or true about the abduction phenomenon. Because note: her basic conclusion is that ALL -- not some but ALL -- UFO abduction experiences are the result of "false memories." How can any reasonable person take such a totally reductive conclusion at face value?

gordon said...

WMB,

" ... these do not detract from his telling critique of Clancy's research."

I think you're still missing the point. Clancy's research is _not_ about the question of alien abduction. It's about false memory syndrome. Hopkins is criticising her for something she is not debating (originally)!! She just happened to use claimed abductees as her study group. To invalidate her research, you must _prove_ that her particular group _were_ abducted by aliens.

JEFM said...

I understand your point WMBear, I do. But, that’s the conclusion of the study she realized. At least that’s what she’s saying.

Obviously, she’s not going to take heat from the scientific community who ridiculizes these type of studies (sadly) because frankly, when that’s what you do for a living, its hard. Remember, this would not be a hobby to her, but work.

Research shows false memories can be induced by stress and, also, memory reacts poorly when under stress. Her research I believe it’s on false memories.

I hear “methodological flaws” from Hopkins and you, but I’d like to have them pointed out, and … like Gordon said, the best way (from a hypothesis vs. hypothesis point of view) to counter her research is to actually prove alien abductions are not false memories in the case of her study group or that they occur because of other unknown mind mechanisms. No easy task …

Jon

W.M. Bear said...

Rather than more negativity (although I'm working on a list of problems with Clancy's methodology based on Hopkins' observations), here is a link that contains the outline for what WOULD constitute respectable and genuinely scientific methodology for research into the abduction phenomenon. Even if Alexander's proposal does not sound very doable (if would require extremely generous funding and a major commitment of resources for one thing) at least it provides a set of benchmarks against which to measure existing studies of the phenomenon. Measured against these benchmarks, it strikes me that Clancy's methodology falls extremely short and flat. Read it for yourselves:

Research Methodologies On Contact With ETI

gordon said...

WMB,

Clancy is _not_ researching alien abductions. Why don't people actually understand that?? It's really that simple! A program that would look at AA would be structured completely differently. Any undergrad science major could tell you that. If Clancy _were_ to study AA, no doubt she would address most of these criticisms. She's not. Bringing her into the debate about AA is a red herring.

Ken Younos said...

"Clancy is _not_ researching alien abductions."

Actually, Clancy thinks that she IS studying AA. To her AA = false memory syndrome.

Furthermore, Clancy's research into false memory syndrome is based entirely on her assumption that alien abductions are fictions of the mind. WTF?! How the hell is she supposed to establish how "false memory syndrome" works if it is not at all certain (and there is in fact evidence to the contrary) that her subjects are actually suffering from false memory syndrome in the first place?!?

In fact there is virtually NOTHING substantial upon which Clancy can base her fundamental assumptions (viz., that alien abductions are not actually taking place). She bases them ENTIRELY on her own simple-minded and uninformed prejudice (as is evident from her own comments on the matter). Is such "research" even valid?!?! This is science?!?!???

W.M. Bear said...

Gordon -- The full title of Clancy's book is:

Abducted : How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens

If that is not about the "abduction phenomenon," then I don't know what is. We definitely have a fundamental disagreement about this and I don't see any way of resolving it. It is every bit as much "about abduction" as John Mack's Abduction is. You could, of course, I suppose, claim that that book too is just a psychological study or some such. But to me that really seems to be begging the question. And if her study is not about abduction, then why did she appear on Larry King Live together with Bud Hopkins? Moreover, the basic thrust of her book IS to "debunk" the abduction experience by reducing it to "false memory." No, she is NOT studying false memories per se using abduction as a convenient subject matter. She IS studying "the abduction phenomenon" using false memories as her explanatory paradigm.

Ken Younos said...

Regarding my first point: Just look at the title of her book in question, and judge for yourself --

_Abduction: How People Come to Believe They were Kidnapped by Aliens_

W.M. Bear said...

Ken -- Looks like we came up with virtually the same response at virtually the same time! Yours just happened to post first but please believe me it wasn't there when I wrote my response to Gordon! Talk about coincidence!

gordon said...

WMB, Ken,

Apologies to all for my being out here in the Antipodes. We don't get "Larry King Live" here, nor Clancy's book (?). All I had as reference were her published works at Harvard - I think the last paper I saw was 2003. So if the good Doctor has now decided to cash in and write a "bestseller" based on her personal beliefs, I stand corrected, if indeed it says what you claim.

However, the _science_ she did is what is contained in her peer-reviewed papers. In that arena, she was most definately "... studying false memories per se using abduction as a convenient subject matter", as WMB put it.