Skip to main content

Captured by Aliens? - Nigel Watson ***

Some might regard a 'history and analysis of American [alien] abduction claims' as more science fiction than science fact, but Nigel Watson makes a reasonable case that either the abductions are real - in which case we're talking astrobiology - or they are in the minds and imaginations of the alleged abductees, in which case it's an interesting psychological phenomenon.

As someone who really enjoyed the X-Files, it was fascinating to see how much of that TV show appears to have been based on 'real' claims. Far and above my favourite show was a season three episode called José Chung's "From Outer Space". Not only is it extremely funny, it explores well the multiple layers of how incidents can be seen from different viewpoints in totally different and entirely contradictory ways - and this seems absolutely typical of the experts that Watson calls on (some believers, others sceptics) in looking at how abductions have been handled.

The backbone of the book is the Barney and Betty Hill abductions in 1961, which seem to have started the phenomenon in its modern form, though there were earlier equivalent instances. The Hills crop up in most chapters, but along the way we also discover Victorian 'airship' sightings, the 'contactees' of the 1950s - who rather than being abducted claim to have had a more voluntary exchange of information with aliens and visits to their ships (who were almost all like ordinary humans and tended to come from Mars or Venus) - and the evolution of the key parts of abduction stories, from intrusive medical examinations to lost time.

This is all interesting stuff, though Watson does sometimes go into more detail than we really need. However, what can feel a little odd is that Watson will describe an abduction as if it were a fact - something that actually happened physically as described - then immediately after will tell us why it is unlikely to be true (or in some cases how it proved to be a hoax). It's as if the author is actually sceptical, but doesn't want to admit it. A good example of apparent acceptance of something unlikely was his description of the author Whitley Strieber, whose book Communion is alleged to be non-fiction.

Watson comments 'If Communion was the only book that Strieber wrote on these experiences, then we could agree with the skeptics that this was a piece of fiction written to exploit UFO believers. However, Strieber has written several more books on his encounters and it is obvious he is grappling to understand and explain the nature of his other people's alien encounters.' So the reason someone who wrote a book which Watson tells us 'sold millions of copies' would write more books is clearly not to make money but understand and explain a phenomenon?

In a summary at the end, Watson pulls together a devastating set of arguments, from the lack of physical evidence to the dependence on hypnotic regression which has been totally disproved as means of recovering memories, but rather implants fake memories. These arguments to any logical observer mean that there is absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of alien abductions. Watson also impressively demolishes a series of objections to criticisms of the Hill's abduction experiences that again show that there is no reason to accept them as credible. Yet even after all this he offers three possible analyses - that the aliens really exist (but are inscrutable), that they exist but not in the normal physical sense, or that they are a psychosocial phenomenon - made up consciously or unconsciously. I suspect he doesn't want to alienate (pun not intended) believers. But only that third option makes any sense from the information presented.

This, then, is a useful book (if expensive for a slim paperback) to get a flavour of what the whole abduction business is about and how it has been treated by sometimes self-proclaimed experts, and Watson provides some powerful analysis - but that analysis perhaps could have been deployed in a more consistent fashion through the book.


Paperback:  
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...