The Unknown

When looking at reports on a fringe subject or belief, it’s easy and exciting to jump to conclusions when confronted with the intriguing word, ‘unknown’. For example, 90% of UFO cases in the borough of Castle Point in 1973 were investigated and explained away, whilst 10% were classified as ‘Unknown’.

In the scientific world, ‘unknown’ actually means that there is not enough reliable data to draw meaningful conclusions. Frustratingly, this lack of data on many famous fringe phenomenon means that, as time marches on, there tends to be a lot of unfounded speculation that can never be fully resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

A completely closed-minded cynic would use the label of ‘unknown’ to dismiss any capacity for belief. In contrast, a dogmatic believer would see the same term as evidence that supports their conviction. However, this is an alternative way of looking at it.

In my own experience of analysing laboratory data, results cannot be deemed credible without evidence of certain known parameters. For instance, these may include: a test method, calibration records of equipment, documented expertise of the analyst, etc. Without these kinds of minimum checks on the validity of the data, one is forced to discard the results, and report it as ‘unknown’.

In my opinion, remaining open-minded to analysis of any data is a good first step in drawing a conclusion. If there is insufficient evidence, this does not provide grounds to dismiss a phenomenon. It merely means we would have to classify it as unknown.

Mike H