Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

A PHD is not a doctorate in philosophy. That's what the words mean, but that's not what it is. You get a PHD in cellular biology too...

Essentially we're making the same point. Although a PhD means "doctorate in philosophy", it is awarded in a variety of disciplines as well as Philosophy itself, and is not always associated with science, which means that the point that kicked off the thread ( about the PhD as it relates to pseudoscience ), isn't relevant to pseudoscience unless the PhD he got was connected with science, which it's not ... I think he was in "Culture and Communication", and used ufology as his thesis.

j.r.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

It's not a science at all. One can do science when investigating a report, but that's not ufology. A team could study the emissions from jet planes using good science, that doesn't make it chemtrailology.

ETA: Okay, dumb example, but still...

 

[Pixel42]

Dude ... you're making no sense. Simply highlighting something and putting a label on it doesn't make it so. I haven't presented it as "science" or made any "scientific claim". I've simply reported what has been said by military jet pilots who have tried to chase UFOs.

You did state it as if it was fact. At least I certainly got the impression you considered it fact, and others obviously did too.

It's impossible to estimate either the size or distance of something if you don't know what it is. Literally impossible. Aircraft pilots would tend to assume that something they're chasing is another aircraft and base their estimates of its size, distance and manuevering ability on that assumption. Only if that assumption is correct is their perception that what they were chasing "outmaneuvered" them and was deliberately "elusive" reliable.

 

[Fred]

Returning to Martin Plowman's Ph.D mentioned in the opening post, it was awarded in the Department of English and Cultural Studies of Melbourne University and was entitled High Strangeness: A Lacanian Cultural History of UFOs and Ufology. So, as was suggested earlier in this thread, it had no pretensions to being scientific or even pseudo-scientific per se and was in fact a post-modernist examination of the cultural phenomenon. There have been previous Ph.Ds awarded for dissertations dealing with UFO/ufology in a similar vein (though not, praise be, from a Lacanian perspective), e.g. one entitled Flying Saucer Culture: An Historical Survey of American UFO Belief (2006) by Dean Bertram* and another in the same year by Zoe Couacaud, How the alien invaded the American mind: a history of experts, entrepreneurs, story-tellers, and a love of the alien in modern American culture. These were awarded by the American Cultural Studies department of the University of Sydney and neither they nor Melbourne have set up a department of ufology.

http://wales-local.co.uk/ufo2/the-ufo-diaries-keep-it-real_282163520T59I_Feb2011.html

*Interesting but irrelevant tidbit: Bertram co-founded A Night of Horror International Film Festival the same year he gained his doctorate.

 

[Correa Neto]

There are a few dozen All Sky Camera Networks set up across North America.

see: http://allsky.ca/NAdatabase.html

Some have been around for a decade or so.

Nothing UFOish so far.

To this one should add the amateur sattelite trackers, the space trash tracking networks and the (civillian and milliatry) radar stations monitoring airspace.

And the number of reliable track records of alien spacraft obtained so far is...

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Oh! me, me! I know this one! Is it... Zero?

 

[Stray Cat]

Dude ... you're making no sense. Simply highlighting something and putting a label on it doesn't make it so. I haven't presented it as "science" or made any "scientific claim". I've simply reported what has been said by military jet pilots who have tried to chase UFOs.

j.r.

And yet, if challenged in any detail about the accuracy of these stories, you would no doubt have to resort to (pseudo)science in order to show the stories to be accurate. Unless you are one of the rare UFOlogists that openly admits that these are just anecdotes that are delivered with all the various human perception/memory/motivation fallibilities?

 

[GeeMack]

I'm not engaging in "science" [...]

That much is obvious.

[...] nor am I engaging in "pseudoscience".

You seem to be more than inferring the existence of flying things that "could perform maneuvers impossible for any terrestrial aircraft then or now" is a given. You're presenting dishonestly assembled information to try to defend that position. And you're doing it not with science, but at the expense of science. So pseudoscience it is.

This is an online forum ... I'm just trying to have a discussion.

Yes, that's what the 911 Truthers say when they are trying to defend an indefensible position with their pseudoscience, too.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd use the phrase 'This suggests that the others are the same thing' but yeah.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The study of UFOs (“ufology”) can be a science – as demonstrated in the following scientific study. The Battelle Study - 5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14
(here is the actual link to that study so that you may see what it is for yourselves - http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf).

Of course the mere ability to apply scientific methodology within a discipline of study does not make that discipline a science (consider History for example) – however, considering any definition of pseudoscience will contain the phrase “without scientific foundation”, the ability to successfully apply scientific methodology certainly does prevent something from being a pseudoscience.

Ufology seeks to determine whether UFOs are truly inexplicable in terms of our knowledge of the natural or technological world. In that endeavour it applies scientific methods in the examination of the evidence (multiple eyewitness, radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence). The fact that many UFOs turn out to be genuine unknowns (as indicated in the Battelle Study) makes assigning the correct scientific discipline, under the auspices of which a study should be made, difficult – for example should it be physics (a science) or should it be psychology (a science)?

You've forgotten FLIR again (LOL).

I'm not sure whether UFOlogy should be defined as only a pseudoscience. It seems to be more religion-like, with its adherents and high priests (Stanton Friedman, Bill "Blinky" Birnes, Giorgio "High Hair" Tsoukalos, Erich von Däniken), their own "sacred knowledge", the different sects or cults, and of course, their "god". I liken their thinking to the same mental constructs as other religious followers, the same type of logical fallacies, the "defend to the death" attitude, the "alien shaped hole" in their lives and the very closed mindedness that they accuse others of.

 

[Cuddles]

Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience. I've explained that already.

No, you've claimed it already. You have yet to actually support that claim. Which isn't really surprising, since it's obviously impossible to support - science is simply the method of gathering data, generating a hypothesis to explain it, then gathering more to see if the hypothesis stands up, rinse and repeat. So if done correctly, ufology obviously would be a science. However, since most of the time it isn't done properly, it currently remains pseudo-science instead. The only way it could avoid being either is if there was no attempt to investigate anything at all or generate any explanations, but that obviously isn't the case.

This is an online forum ... I'm just trying to have a discussion.

An online forum with rules about staying on topic. The topic of this particular thread is discussing whether ufology is a pseudo-science. If you don't want to discuss that, you should stop posting here and instead start a new thread about a topic that you actually do want to discuss. On the other hand, if you do want to discuss the topic of this thread, you should stop telling everything that you're not interested in discussing it. As it is, you sound awfully similar to many 9/11 truthers who make all kinds of vague claims, then say they're "just asking questions" when anyone calls them out.

 

[Complexity]

No. 'Ufology' is not even a pseudoscience.

'Ufologistology' could be a study of (silly) people who believe in UFOs, and it might even be interesting as long as the people studying the critters didn't believe in the same nonsense. It could also fit as a subfield of abnormal psychology. Even then, however, I would not refer to it as a science.

 

[quarky]

The scientific method is a means to identify that which hasn't been identified.
So far its the best method we have.
Science in general is not immune to corruption.
Sometimes a scientist really wants to see a certain result. His objectivity is compromised.
This isn't a flaw in the method. its a flaw in the scientist.

This flaw of objectivity (stupid human nature; god bless etc) goes in both directions.

The study of pseudoscience could certainly be a legitimate discipline of science.

In chemistry we have pseudo-molecules. The very word is compromised .
Pseudo-ephedrine for instance is a real substance.

I wish we had a more exact language.
Don't even get me started on the word 'organic'.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ufology needs skeptics, but we need constructive ones who can focus on cases and hypotheses with a critical yet open mind.

j.r.

So just 'sceptics' then.
As all real sceptics have critical open minds.

I'm sure there are more than a few members (myself included) that await eagerly, your cases and hypotheses.

 

[GeeMack]

And here I thought we were making progress.

What is the deficiency in the methodology of the alien believers that has caused them to fail at every turn in trying to demonstrate that any such thing exists? Other than blaming skeptics for your failure and expecting them to lower their standards of objectivity, how would you repair the problems with the "ufology" pseudoscience methodology to make it an actual objective process?

If you want to make progress you need to do something other than blaming other people for your failure.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And here I thought we were making progress.

j.r.

Rramjet has pretty well burned all of his bridges. Can you bring anything different to the table? I'd be interested in a discussion with an honest, skeptical UFOlogist.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

When science studies UFOs, UFOs either become IFOs or they remain UFOs. So far none have gone from UFO to 'alien craft'.

I'm also wondering where UFOology fits in if it's neither science nor pseudocience. That would rule out all methodical study, be it based on evidence based methods or the looser standards of 'proof' required by pseudoscience. I'm thinking we should consider it a performing art, perhaps a subset of stand-up comedy, something in the same vein as competitive bragging or 'best liar' competitions.

 

[ufology]

I'm also wondering where UFOology fits in if it's neither science nor pseudocience. That would rule out all methodical study, be it based on evidence based methods or the looser standards of 'proof' required by pseudoscience.

I'm thinking we should consider it a performing art, perhaps a subset of stand-up comedy, something in the same vein as competitive bragging or 'best liar' competitions.

Ufology does not rule out the application of science toward the advancement of knowledge within the field. The ufology group I am with supports critical thinking rather than any particular brand of skepticism, but could also be considered skeptical in a generic sense. I've included a loose definition of critical thinking below for clarification ( courtesy of Wikipedia ):

Critical thinking has been described as reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. It has also been described as "thinking about thinking." It has been described in more detail as "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action" More recently, critical thinking has been described as "the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment, which uses reasoned consideration to evidence, context, conceptualizations, methods, and criteria."

It is not the same as "scientific skepticism" and can make use of any evidence to advance a better understanding of the subject matter.

j.r.

PS: Yes it can also be entertaining. Ufology includes an appreciation for the social impact it has, including humor.

 

[Locknar]

I've gone through and moved upwards of 40 posts, most to the Moderated UFO thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156375), others to AAH.

Discussion re what UFOs are, etc. belongs in the moderated thread - not here.

If you feel your post was moved in error, you are welcome to PM and ask me or as always you may file an Appeal.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Marduk]

The ufology group I am with supports critical thinking.

which group ?