Research Hub/Papers/One science for both UFOlogists and Astrobiologists?
Peer-ReviewedOpen Access2025

One science for both UFOlogists and Astrobiologists?

Ted Peters

Limina: The Journal of UAP Studies

Summary

Philosopher of science Ted Peters (CTNS/GTU) examines why astrobiologists and UFOlogists have been unable to share methodological space despite both communities operating with scientific frameworks and both taking the extraterrestrial intelligence hypothesis seriously. Astrobiologists study life on exoplanets but reject claims of current visitation; UFOlogists apply ETI as a primary explanatory framework for reported encounters. Peters identifies the 'ETI myth' as a shared conceptual substrate, explores the sociological and epistemological barriers between the fields, and asks whether a unified scientific approach to both questions is possible.

Abstract

Increasingly, scientists among UAP investigators outside the mainstream seek to explain unidentified aerial phenomena with the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Within the safe boundaries of mainstream science, astrobiologists believe life exists on exoplanets but deny that alien intelligences are visiting Earth. Both communities operate with scientific mindsets and both engage with what the author terms the 'ETI myth.' Yet astrobiologists actively shun ufologists. This paper examines the epistemological and sociological barriers separating these two communities, analyzes the shared conceptual ground - particularly the extraterrestrial intelligence hypothesis - and asks whether a common scientific framework can accommodate both the search for extraterrestrial life in the cosmos and the investigation of UAP reports as potential evidence of non-human intelligence in our atmosphere. The author argues that methodological convergence is not only possible but scientifically warranted, and explores what a shared scientific space for both disciplines might look like.

Citation

Ted Peters. (2025). Limina: The Journal of UAP Studies. DOI: 10.59661/001c.131694

https://doi.org/10.59661/001c.131694