A Clash of Perspectives: Artists and Academics on Alien Encounters
Written on
Recently, Steven Spielberg revisited his long-held beliefs about extraterrestrial life. These aren’t new ideas; he has previously stated that “they’re here” and that “the US Government is more aware than it lets on.” The past 75 years of UFO history lend some credence to this assertion. The increasing number of secret meetings regarding UFOs since 2017 further fuels speculation. Yet, it raises a question: how can Dr. Avi Loeb selectively interpret evidence while dismissing those he labels as “magical thinkers”?
The traditional scientific community has often missed the mark in its approach. They emphasize data, yet frequently overlook pertinent information. For instance, Graham Hancock has highlighted various data points, only to be labeled as racist by some in the scientific community. This seems to be a battle over intellectual territory. Unlike Hancock, Spielberg’s credibility remains intact, making it harder to dismiss him using such tactics. Curiously, while Loeb criticizes Spielberg for being illogical, he himself ventured into speculative territory by claiming ‘Oumuamua was indicative of alien technology.
Loeb has expressed confusion at the ridicule he faces from colleagues, questioning why they refuse to analyze the data. He argues that focusing solely on extraordinary evidence can lead to missing out on the ordinary. Carl Sagan once theorized that the Sumerians represented a first contact civilization, a hypothesis that requires supporting evidence. Erich von Däniken has provided some of that evidence.
If we accept that ‘Oumuamua could signify alien technology, it raises important questions. What are the chances that it’s the only such occurrence? Engaging in probability analysis is a scientific endeavor too. The timing of its appearance is as intriguing as the subtlety of the evidence surrounding UFOs.
For context, ‘Oumuamua appeared in 2017, the same year Top Gun pilot David Fravor publicly stated that he encountered a UFO with extraterrestrial beings. It was also the year when the New York Times reported government confirmation of UFOs.
Is aligning these data points merely fanciful thinking, or does it hold validity?
Loeb advocates for the ‘Galileo Project’ while seemingly ignoring the historical truth that science has often suppressed new findings. Galileo faced obstruction from the Church, and a female physicist was denied the opportunity to present her thesis on the sun's composition. Science has a history of errors, which, according to Edison, is a natural part of the process.
The real issue arises when one ceases to pursue knowledge, believing it to be futile.
Let’s consider that Spielberg might not be a scientist and that his cinematic research may lack the rigor needed for scientific conclusions. What about John E. Mack? As a medical doctor, psychiatrist, and Harvard professor, he suggested that the experiences could indeed involve aliens but emphasized that those reporting them are not delusional. Loeb’s silence on Mack’s contributions is telling and raises suspicions of bias.
If rocket science is merely “rocket science,” why did Elon Musk achieve more in two decades than scientists did in the previous fifty? Even when scientists claimed Musk’s endeavors were impossible, he proved them wrong without any accountability from the scientific community.
It seems some scientists prioritize job security over acknowledging advancements made by others.
So, is science purely data-driven? If that’s not entirely accurate, what else might they be misleading us about? While I strive to approach this issue with empathy, it’s challenging when individuals are blind to their own biases.
The Balance of Thought
Scientific inquiry tends to be a left-brain function, often dismissing right-brain approaches as irrational. However, a comprehensive understanding of the universe requires the integration of both hemispheres. The human experience is multifaceted, much like seeing in stereo rather than just in black and white.
Approximately 90% of people worldwide subscribe to some form of spirituality. Is this considered magical thinking? Many scholars delve deeply into this area, underscoring its significance. While materialistic science may enhance technology, it doesn’t necessarily cultivate human compassion. It has equipped us with advanced weapons and destructive capabilities, yet has failed to eliminate wars or elevate our moral standards.
The crux of the matter is that Loeb was reacting to Spielberg’s televised musings on aliens. He responded with a critical piece, labeling Spielberg and similar figures as ignorant and irrelevant. John, in turn, was offended by Loeb’s dismissive stance toward a prominent figure who has inspired countless individuals.
Loeb cannot position himself as a victim of scientific conservatism while simultaneously undermining a fellow human who has profoundly impacted the hearts and minds of many, potentially inspiring future scientists.
How many scientists credit Star Trek as their motivation to pursue science? Numerous individuals do, including several women scientists, with at least one going on to become an astronaut—thank you, Mae Jemison!
Science fiction has arguably influenced scientific advancement more than traditional science has. Conversely, science has sometimes restricted progress by confining thought and limiting individuals to narrow roles.
Avi Loeb possesses considerable intelligence in physics, and while he may excel at math, he likely relies on others for tasks outside his expertise. It’s reasonable to assume he has spiritual advisors, as he has quoted one before, indicating that he may delegate this aspect of his life as well.
The scientific community has created divides that hinder a holistic comprehension of existence and the human spirit. We are more than the sum of our individual components.
No one can definitively declare that believing in aliens is merely magical thinking. A physicist who has neglected to consider all available evidence cannot categorically dismiss the possibility of extraterrestrial life, just as the military has refrained from doing so.
Polymaths, with their broader knowledge base, are better positioned to grasp the larger picture, much like how viewing Earth from the moon transformed our collective self-perception.
When the world is seen as a singular entity, national divisions become irrelevant.
We should not easily dismiss magical thinking. If Arthur C. Clarke’s assertion holds true that any sufficiently advanced technology appears magical, we ought to be on the lookout for such marvels.
While Loeb critiques Spielberg, he ironically uses a Star Trek reference for his own imagery, indicating his own limitations in perspective. Had Spielberg created a Star Trek film, perhaps it would present a more optimistic future! Additionally, Loeb’s writing on Medium, while articulate, seems to lack the depth expected from a Harvard physicist.
Perhaps he is simplifying his writing to appeal to a broader audience, or he may underestimate the intelligence of his readers, suggesting he’s influenced by the Dunning–Kruger effect. Rather than attacking Spielberg, it would be more beneficial for Loeb to invite him for a discussion to explore each other's insights.
This reflects a larger issue, as the government played a role in the creation of Close Encounters while simultaneously pressuring Spielberg against its production. That speaks volumes, too.