LETTER TO THE EDITOR

BUREAUCRATIZED PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sir,

I have been reading RIAP Bulletin beginning with its first issue and usually finding in it materials worthy of interest. Our field of study—anomalistics—is certainly very controversial in itself and needing a serious, objective, and responsible approach to the problems under consideration. I can admit that the RB editorial staff has usually demonstrated such an approach. But too much lack of bias is also a bias. Publication of the paper "History of State-Directed UFO Research in the USSR" by Yuliy Platov and Boris Sokolov does not seem to serve well the goals you have proclaimed. Everything has a limit, after all, and, say, the academical periodical Problems of History will never publish a positive paper on A.T.Fomenko's "new historical chronology". Just the same, an astronomical journal will not accept for publication astrological horoscopes, and a serious ufological journal will not reprint a sensational report from a rag newspaper. But the paper by Platov and Sokolov (as well as the general approach of the Soviet/Russian Academy of Sciences to the UFO problem) is every bit as pseudoscientific—I would even say more pseudoscientific, since it is armored with the official position of established science. Is it incomprehensible to the editor of RB that the "popular" opinion about the paper will be very simple and definite: Soviet science has proved that UFOs do not in fact exist.

Soviet science was an integral part of the Soviet totalitarian system. The point is not that the Party and Government gave scientists an order to solve a problem and the latter readily carried it out. But the science top brass (both academic and applied) was in fact fused in the Soviet establishment and these "orders" were prepared with their direct or indirect participation. A high-rank Soviet scientist (whose rank did not depend on the data from the citation index, but mainly on his "level of power") was first of all a bureaucrat and only then a researcher (if at all). Of course, the Academy of Sciences did also contain and is still containing many really outstanding scholars who have made a great contribution to science. But even a good scientist, taking on the job of a manager in the bureaucratic system, accepts with it the bureaucratic mode of action and thinking. The latter is not too complicated: one must carry out all orders from the top, then report back to one's superiors and obtain a well-deserved reward. This reward is provided not by the scientific community, but by the "chief bureaucrats"—first of all (particularly where the old Soviet system is concerned) the Party and State authorities. It is just natural that under these conditions research tasks acceptable for the scientific establishment may be of two types only: either it is an obviously solvable problem with a guaranteed result (however much will it cost to reach it), or a pseudoproblem requiring no real solution at all (the latter was certainly more typical for Soviet social sciences—where direct rule by the Communist Party was more prominent, but at the same time one could with ease report back with new bulky volumes glorifying the same Party). What the Soviet science bureaucrat dreaded the most was a complicated (still worse if an interdisciplinary) problem with an "open"—that it, not guaranteed a priori—solution. Such a problem implies an "open reward" as well: neck or nothing, so to say. Yes, in the "cracks" of Soviet bureaucratic science such problems were also being elaborated—but the scientific policy of the State in general and the Academy of Sciences in particular was oriented to "normal science" (in Kuhn's sense), that is to the "obviously solvable" "puzzles" whose results could be of some practical (first of all, military and technological) value. (This scheme is certainly somewhat idealized: for the bureaucrat the State is just a kind of milch cow, and nothing more. But the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles must fly and hit the mark. If not, the bureaucrat may be fired.)

And now, the UFO problem is probably the worst possible variant of a problem with an open solution—a materialized nightmare for a science bureaucrat. Notwithstanding that the Academy of Sciences had under the pressure of circumstances to take up the problem, it has always remained for the Soviet scientific establishment (even judging from the paper by Platov and Sokolov) a task of less than secondary importance. The lack of normal funding (proudly presented in the paper as—strange to say!—a great achievement) clearly demonstrates that. The very fact that the UFO program in the USSR started and lasted as long as 13 years testifies, in my opinion, that there were some hidden impulses "from the top" (Politburo? Who knows...)—but even these impulses could not overcome bureaucratic resistance on the part of the science red tape. (If I am not mistaken, one can see a similar situation in the USA—where attempts by the Federal government to charge NASA to look into the UFO problem have failed miserably.)

Now a few words about "more scientific" aspects of the work under consideration... The academical line of attacking the problem may be called amateurish at best. As far as one can judge from the paper, academical "ufologists" were waiting for a report about an anomalous phenomenon to come through official channels; then, if the report was considered as worthy of attention, they could go to the place of the event and look for a probable explanation of the case. If such an explanation was found, the team heads ticked the report off. If there was no "probable" explanation at all (cf. the Borisoglebsk aircraft accidents), the case was classified as "unexplained" and also ticked off. After a certain amount of such data was gathered, the researchers wrote a scientific report: say, 95% of strange phenomena have been identified, 5% have not. The report was signed by the group heads and sent to their superiors. That was all. No attempt to look into the nature and origin of these five percent of really enigmatic events has ever been made. Wise behavior indeed! With such strange methods of treating the problem, a deeper insight into the phenomenon was just impossible. Calling things by their proper names, the Academy of Sciences of the USSR studied rocket launchings and balloon flights for 13 years, carefully avoiding anything really unknown and worthy of further examination. Can it be called a scientific investigation? Not in the least. In fact, this is exemplary bureaucratic pseudoscience. Attempts by the editor of RB to smooth over this impression in his editorial paper look very unconvincing.

All said and done, but there remain, however, at least two unanswered questions. First, what was the contribution (and conclusions) of the military UFO researchers? Although the paper has two authors, one from the Academy of Sciences and the other from the Ministry of Defense, it seems as if there have been presented mainly "academical" data and conclusions, not the "military" ones. Boris Sokolov's signature under the paper testifies that he agrees with these conclusions. In every detail, or not?

A second question will inevitably be asked by Western (especially American) ufologists: wasn't the "Soviet UFO study program" just a cover operation? At first sight, this would have been an ideal solution: what else could have lasted for so long, being so cheap (practically free), fruitless, and not too secret? But what could have been disguised under such a sophisticated cover? A really professional examination of reliable (maybe, instrumental?) UFO data performed at a high scientific level at some supersecret research institutes of the same Ministry of Defense? Doubtful, to say the least, even though such a supposition can't be ruled out completely. Strictly speaking, the results obtained by all these Setkas do not differ very much from those presented in the Blue Book, GEPAN/SEPRA, and Colorado Project official reports. Decade after decade, the "experts" have been grinding out the same few words: real UFOs... well... seem... eh-eh... to exist... perhaps... but these are certainly not extraterrestrials! Science.

If the Ministry of Defense was in fact interested in reproducing properties of real UFOs potentially useful for the military, such as radar invisibility, high maneuverability, etc. (and this is flatly asserted in the paper by Platov and Sokolov), the last thing they should have done in this connection would have been to track their own rocket launchings. The MOD should have forgotten about the 95% of explained cases and concentrated its attention on the 5% of inexplicable residue. It is beyond reason to consider the Soviet military as complete idiots who for 13 years were persistently pursuing gas-dust trails of their own rockets. On the other hand, what could they have done having no effective scientific methods of studying these very five percent of real UFOs? ...Unless, of course, they gave up the Academy of Sciences as hopeless, developed such methods with the help of non-academic scientific research bodies and launched really serious investigations. But if so, their results still remain secret.

This scenario looks logical enough, but, to be sincere, I do not believe it. Until any good proofs to the contrary come to the surface, the conception of "smart and supersecret" UFO studies covered with a camouflage net ("maskirovochnaya setka"—in Russian) of a "stupid and only half-secret" program is a pure speculation—both for the former USSR and the USA and France. I am afraid that this "setka" is the final truth and no "inexplicable residue" has ever existed in the maze of the Soviet bureaucratic system. Big science of this age and day cannot and does not want to solve the UFO problem. Period.

I started this letter, being, frankly speaking, under an emotional influence from reading the paper by Platov and Sokolov. At some time, however, I stopped writing and re-read both its RB version and, for a better understanding (since English is not my native language), its Russian text, published in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2000, Vol. 70, No. 6). My assessment of the "UFO study program" described in the paper did not change, but that of the paper itself has somewhat evolved to the better. This is, after all, a valuable work, sufficiently frankly—and even with pride—telling of the complete fiasco of the most ambitious attempt of bureaucratized Soviet science to resolve the UFO enigma. If some readers understand it differently, this will not be the authors' fault. But following the recommendations of the Academical Commission on Pseudoscience—to accompany any published "controversial" article with comments of specialists (see: Herald of the RAS, 1999, Vol.69, No.10, p.881), you, Sir, should have admitted this fact in your editorial and not have stated that science "did perform its <...> task: it has proved that genuine UFOs do exist" (RB, 1999, Vol.5, No.3-4, p.2). If the main function of science is the quest for truth—then science has not performed it here. But if its main function is the quest for a "comfortable lie"—then it certainly has.

— Pyotr N. Rybalko, M.S.

To download RB, Vol. 6, No. 2-3, containing this paper, please click here:
http://www.geocities.com/riap777/EPRB-623.pdf (349 KB)

RIAP Bulletin is published two to four times per year. You can pay your subscription online and purchase back RB issues safely and securely with your Credit Card (as well as by checks, MOs, and cash) via the following secure order page: 

https://order.kagi.com/?4FZ&lang=en

All transactions are conducted over SSL encrypted servers, providing the highest level of protection available for your credit card transactions.

Please note: the transaction fee (10 to 12.5 percent) will be paid by RIAP; so, you should NOT add anything to the sum payable.

The RB PDF files downloadable from this site are password-protected. Passwords are sent to RB subscribers immediately after their subscription sums are received and processed.

If there happens any problem with downloading, please let us know and we will be glad to send you the RB files you selected as attachments to e-mail. Or, if you prefer, we will send you their print version.