Dear Science teachers,

As you well know, science is not a belief system. It is a method of inquiry. It gives us a way to observe, ask questions, form hypotheses, and refine what we understand based on what we observe in the world.

When we engage with the UAP phenomenon, we are not stepping outside of science. We are engaging science at its edge. This is where real discovery happens.

The Scientific Method

Science begins with curiosity. The process looks something like this:

1. Observe a pattern or event.
2. Ask a question about why or how it occurs.
3. Form a hypothesis or possible explanation.
4. Test the hypothesis through observation or experimentation.
5. Analyze the results.
6. Revise the hypothesis or model based on the findings.

This method works well when the system under study is predictable or controlled. But UAPs are not predictable, and we cannot control their appearance. They do not respond to experimentation in the usual sense. Still, that does not mean they fall outside science. It means we may need to adjust how we apply scientific thinking in these cases.

Science does not require control. It requires honesty, rigor, and openness to what is actually happening.

Reproducibility and the Nature of Anomalies

In most scientific studies, reproducibility is key. If a result can’t be repeated, it’s considered unreliable. But in the case of many natural phenomena, we do not have control. We cannot reproduce an earthquake or a solar flare on demand. Yet we still study these phenomena using long-term data collection, pattern recognition, and correlation across many events.

UAPs may require this same kind of approach. The fact that they do not appear on command does not disqualify them from study. It only means we need methods appropriate for the subject.

Data vs. Evidence

There is also a difference between data and evidence. Data is what is observed or reported. Evidence is data that has been accepted to support or refute a hypothesis.

There are thousands of documented UAP sightings. Many experiencers describe consistent physical, psychological, and environmental effects. Radar data, flight records, and pilot testimony have confirmed that something real is being observed. These are all forms of data. The question is whether we allow them to be considered as evidence.

Rejecting data because it does not match current models is not scientific. It is a form of bias. Real science investigates what does not fit. That is how progress is made.

Correlation as a Clue

Correlation means that two events appear related. It does not prove causation, but it suggests a pattern worth exploring. In UAP reports, we see repeated correlations:

• Specific geographic hotspots with increased sightings
• Electromagnetic interference and physical trace effects
• Shared psychological impacts among experiencers

These patterns do not explain what UAPs are, but they point to something consistent and measurable. That is exactly what science is meant to follow.

The Role of Science Teachers

As science educators, we must model curiosity. When something does not fit the model, we should not dismiss it. We should ask better questions.

Students learn not just from the content we teach, but from our attitudes toward the unknown. If we teach that science only studies what it already understands, we close the door to discovery. If we model genuine curiosity and critical thinking, we open that door wider.

We should encourage students to explore, question, and stay open to possibilities. That is the heart of scientific thinking.

A Shift Toward Open Inquiry

For a long time, most data about UAPs has been gathered and held by government and military agencies. Much of it is not publicly accessible. That has made it difficult for independent researchers and scientists to engage with the evidence.

Now, this is beginning to change. Universities and research institutions are starting to take UAPs seriously. Scholars in fields such as physics, psychology, anthropology, and religious studies are beginning to ask big questions. This shift matters. Academic research will be more transparent and publicly available. It will allow educators and students to engage with the data directly and contribute to new understandings.

Encouraging young people to study these questions now means preparing them to take part in a growing area of inquiry. Science is not finished. It is still unfolding. And they can help shape what comes next.