While many ufologists strive for legitimacy, and some are respected scientists in other fields, ufology has never been fully embraced by the scientific community, for a number of reasons. Despite involvement of some respected scientists, the field has seen very little attention from mainstream science.
One cannot obtain a "ufology" degree from any college or university, though there have been a few college or university courses on the subject, often from a folklore perspective. Many ufologists are scientific amateurs, and however well intentioned, are often unfamiliar with generally accepted research standards, thus often rendering their own research useless even to sympathetic mainstream experts. Some amateur ufologists have been criticised for accepting as true stories or tales without demanding supporting evidence or conducting even cursory research. Some ufologists have been proven to be con artists or people who simply desire fame or money, and these people have damaged the overall credibility of the field. However, other amateur ufologists have conducted solid investigations of UFO cases, but their amateur status had led to them being dismissed by professional scientists and investigators.
Ufologists embrace a wide spectrum of approaches, beliefs, and attitudes, from those regarded by some as quacks (e.g. David Icke); to respected mainstream scientists some of whom argue that UFO reports are as worthy of study as any topic, and deserve case-by-case analysis using the scientific method. Debunkers (such as P.Klass or Dr.Donald Menzel) have offered their opinions on UFOs, and though their conclusions have been disputed, they too represent an influential perspective in UFO studies.
However, this classification (sometimes presented as "skeptics" vs. "believers") is something of a false dichotomy, as there are other opinions on the subject: prominent scientist Dr. Carl Sagan was quite skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO question, but in 1969, he co-organised a symposium on the subject, thinking that science had unfairly neglected the UFO question.
Overall, Ufology might be seen as an interdisciplinary field, as people have examined UFO reports from a number of perspectives. In her critique of the Condon Report, Diana Palmer Hoyt notes that "The UFO problem seems to bear a closer resemblance to problems in meteorology than in physics. The phenomena are observed, occur episodically, are not reproducible, and in large part, are identified by statistical gathering of data for possible organization into patterns. They are not experiments that can be replicated at will at the laboratory bench under controlled conditions." (see external links below)
Along these lines, Peter A. Sturrock suggests that UFO studies should be compartmentalized — as are most scientific endeavors — into at least "the following distinct activities:
Field investigations leading to case documentation and the measurement or retrieval of physical evidence;
Laboratory analysis of physical evidence;
The systematic compilation of data (descriptive and physical) to look for patterns and so extract significant facts;
The analysis of compilations of data (descriptive and physical) to look for patterns and so extract significant facts;
The development of theories and the evaluation of those theories on the basis of facts."[1]
Study of UFO sightings has yielded results applicable to other fields, such as in weather phenomena (see Hessdalen) and in human perception, such as the study lead by the SOBEPS for the Belgian flap in 1989-'90 or the studies of the GEPAN/SEPRA in France.
Some argue the general rejection of ufology by mainstream science is part of the problem: anyone can declare themselves a "UFO researcher", and completely bypass the sorts of scientific consensus building and peer review that otherwise shape and influence scientific paradigms. This has allowed many to stake out territory and disseminate claims, information and analysis of widely varying rigor and quality.
Some ufologists consider the general attitude of mainstream academics as arrogant and dismissive, or bound to a rigid world view that disallows any evidence contrary to previously held notions.[citation needed] Others charge that mainstream rejection of UFO evidence is a classic case of pathological science.[citation needed] Astronomer and ufologist J. Allen Hynek's famous comment regarding this subject is, "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method and people should not be taught that it is."[2] Another comment by Hynek regarding the frequent dismissal of UFO reports by astronomers was, "Close questioning revealed they knew nothing of the actual sightings, of their frequency or anything much about them, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. This is characteristic of scientists in general when speaking about subjects which are not in their own immediate field of concern
based on Wikipedia materials