Edmund Storms wrote:
The UFO phenomenon is investigated by hundreds of people and seen directly by thousands. If you want reproducibility, this is a perfect example.
Not so perfect. It is more in the category of a natural science field observation, rather than a phenomenon reproduced in an experiment, and detected with instruments. The latter is far more reliable. Field observations are essential to science. Darwin used them to make biology into a science, rather than glorified stamp collecting. But observations made by untrained people are often flawed.
It seems to me that the term "reproduce" usually means that the researcher plays an active role in bringing about the phenomenon. The researcher makes it happen in some sense. This would not apply to a UFO unless you invent a gadget that brings a UFO to your door, like the one shown in the movie "ET." It doesn't have to work every time. Low reproducibility would be convincing, as long as the proof itself is solid, the way it is with cloning, for example.
- Jed
