Moral Principles Violated by "The Skeptics"
If you've seen many of the documentaries about UFOs on TV, you've seen the same skeptics brought out to poo-pooh the whole idea ... and that's their job. They are filling the position of conservative whose ethical purpose is to protect the foundations of civilization from the liberals who wish to change things (that's the liberal's legitimate job). Certainly, we require change to be made in civilization so long as our civilization remains incomplete and imperfect. The liberals propose soluitons (changes) and the conservatives try to prevent them from being implemented because it is very often inimical to genuine progress. To change anything, the two sides must come to some sort of agreement. It can be a temporary truce like "we'll try it your way for awhile and see if it works" ... or ... "yes, I see your point and will have to rethink my position on the matter". As long as the two sides don't come to blows and at least a few of them have genuine concern for civilization, we can progress out of the trees, caves and mud huts.
There is however a disconnect presently between conservatives and liberals in the scientific arena (in which the UFO subject is contested). That disconnect originates a few centuries ago with Galileo. Because he chose to support the superiority of religion over science ... the state over independence ... irrationality over rationality ... we are stuck with the consequences. He accepted the foregoing by not taking his place in history with others who have had to choose between the sovereignty of their own minds and subservience to another's will. That is ... he cowtowed to the pope to save his own hide thereby forcing the Renaissance out of Italy and into the Netherlands, i.e. he retreated before the Persians instead of fighting to the death at Thermopylae.
The practical result is that science is, in general, socially defensive and self-conscious of its subservient lower class position. It has never recovered from being chastised by religion and forever seeks a "master" to tell it what to do ... at least as far as its social position is concerned. When an evil government suppresses dissent, the scientists in the affected country just cave in ... even faster than the "press" does. They are not idealists who will die for an idea ... they are pragmatists who run away and hide till the dust settles then come back to "serve" the new master whether he be good or evil. And, of course, science utterly collapses altogether if the despot is too despotic ... or, sticks around too long.
These pragmatic scientists tend to be conservative and dour and they have evolved a general scientific philosophy which they call "The Scientific Method". What it really is ... is ... Radical Empiricism.