Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[AdMan]

This is where your confusion arises. You don't have to "call" it science for UFOlogy to become pseudo-science.

As long as the impression given is that some kind of research/investigation (eliminating mundane possibilities etc) has taken place and a conclusion reached based upon that research/investigation. When that conclusion flies in the face of science, it is pseudo-scientific.

Exactly.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Eh, perhaps if they didn't use the suffix "ology", no one would say it is a pseudoscience. The suffix should imply the scientific method. Just a thought.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The main rationale for calling something pseudoscience is that it must be presented as being science without following its rules. Because I make no claim to be doing science, and what I do doesn't fit the definition of science, what I do is neither science nor pseudoscience anymore than it would make a reporter who writes about science or UFOs a scientist or pseudoscientist. I can write as many articles as I want and talk to as many people as I want about whatever I want, including UFOs, but until I start calling what I do "science" you have no legitimate claim to say that what I'm doing is pseudoscience.

And I thought that Rramjet had cornered the market on doublespeak! A rose by any other name is still a rose. Writing articles where you investigate UFOs is an effort to evaluate the "evidence". If that isn't an attempt to be "scientific", I am not sure what is.

On the other hand, perhaps you want to equate what you do to religious beliefs, where blind acceptance to miracles and events requires little, if any, thought. You believe them simply because you want to believe them and not through scientific evaluation.

If you are just 'documenting' these UFO cases like a historian, you should document everything with no comment, which would include all skeptical arguments against these case without comment. You can not argue for or against a case unless you are willing to evaluate the evidence for or against.

The instant you comment or draw a conclusion, you are invoking some sort of scientific evaluation. Saying it is not science is just weaselling away from the pseudoscience definition.

Perhaps you need to take a stand on what you and your organization is really about.

 

[GeeMack]

And I thought that Rramjet had cornered the market on doublespeak! A rose by any other name is still a rose. Writing articles where you investigate UFOs is an effort to evaluate the "evidence". If that isn't an attempt to be "scientific", I am not sure what is.

On the other hand, perhaps you want to equate what you do to religious beliefs, where blind acceptance to miracles and events requires little, if any, thought. You believe them simply because you want to believe them and not through scientific evaluation.

Yep, it is weaseling, although I don't think the "ufologists" have the courage to actually admit that. It's not science and it's not pseudoscience. That much they'll insist. But it does entail a belief that UFOs are alien visitors. It's got all the stuff of a religion, but dammit, calling it that would make it sound just as silly as calling it pseudoscience. And calling it science would require the believers to back their faith with evidence. It rather puts them in a position where they can't be honest about it without appearing pretty ridiculous. And getting caught in their dishonesty makes them appear pretty ridiculous, too. It's a no-win for "ufologists".

If you are just 'documenting' these UFO cases like a historian, you should document everything with no comment, which would include all skeptical arguments against these case without comment. You can not argue for or against a case unless you are willing to evaluate the evidence for or against.

The instant you comment or draw a conclusion, you are invoking some sort of scientific evaluation. Saying it is not science is just weaselling away from the pseudoscience definition.

Perhaps you need to take a stand on what you and your organization is really about.

I'm not sure anyone could do that without admitting just how close to a religious faith it is. Look at ufology's willful ignorance every time I bring up those exact issues.

 

[ufology]

This is where your confusion arises. You don't have to "call" it science for UFOlogy to become pseudo-science.

As long as the impression given is that some kind of research/investigation (eliminating mundane possibilities etc) has taken place and a conclusion reached based upon that research/investigation. When that conclusion flies in the face of science, it is pseudo-scientific.

I beg to differ.

First Example: Wikipedia:

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility ... bla bla bla"

Clearly we see the prerequisite listed "... presented as scientific". Which I make no claim that ufology does, and neither is there a prevailing view among ufologists that it is ... that is something that is consistently done here by the skeptics.

Second Example: Encarta Dictionary:

"pseu·do·sci·ence; theory mistaken as scientific: a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific."

In the Encarta definition we have both "mistaken as scientifc" and "held to be scientific", each of which requires the example ( in this case a theory ) to be mistaken or held as scientific.

Again, I make no claim that ufology mistakenly thinks or holds itself up as science, and neither is that a prevailing view among ufologists. Again, that is something that is consistently done by the skeptics.

Third Example: Skeptic's Dictionary ( online )

"A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific."

Again, Neither I nor the ufology greater ufology community appears to hold any set of ideas it puts forth as scientific unless they actually are scientific ( for example, meteroites are from space ).

Fourth Example: Your Dictionary ( online )

"pseu·do·sci·ence; any system of methods, theories, etc. that presumes without warrant to have a scientific basis or application"

Again, Neither I nor the ufology greater ufology community appears to either with or without warrant presume to have a "scientific basis or application". Again, that is something that is consistently presumed by the skeptics.

It may be true that ufology will use a scientific study of some kind as an illustration when considering a particular question. For example, if someone asks if UFOs come from inside our solar system, I might answer by saying, "Although scientists say that there might be life on Europa, it doesn't appear likely that it would be advanced enough to build spacecraft." In this case I have made no use of pseudoscience at all. I've merely quoted a scientist and made a statement based on opinion. I've not made any claim that it is my scientific opinion that UFOs do not come from within our solar system.

So there are four examples including one from the actual "Skeptics Dictionary" that support my position, and an explanation within context. I really think we can lay this issue to rest now.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Wikipedia on UFOlogy^WP:

"Ufology has sometimes been characterized as a partial[20] or total[21][22] pseudoscience, which many ufologists reject.[23] Pseudoscience is a term that classifies studies that are claimed to exemplify the methods and principles of science, but that do not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lack supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lack scientific status."

There's more.

 

[ufology]

Eh, perhaps if they didn't use the suffix "ology", no one would say it is a pseudoscience. The suffix should imply the scientific method. Just a thought.

The "ology" in ufology just means "the study of". It is true that there are definitions of "ologies" that define anything with an "ology" to be associated with the sciences. But I think that such definitions are too broad. It can be better understood as a combining form used in the names of sciences or bodies of knowledge, e.g. theology ( as in the Wikipedia article).

Note: This is probably the best point I have seen yet that ufology assumes itself to be science, and I'm not even personally comfortable with the naming, but I didn't pick the name either. I traced it back to the Oxford Dictionary ( which BTW also doesn't call it a science ).

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

Again, Neither I nor the ufology greater ufology community appears to either with or without warrant presume to have a "scientific basis or application". Again, that is something that is consistently presumed by the skeptics.

See? "Ufology" isn't science. So the belief that UFOs are aliens visiting the Earth, given the adamant rejection of the notion that there's anything scientific about it, "ufology" is just faith. Like a religion. Its proponents can merrily go about maintaining their fantasy because it's safe from scientific inquiry. How convenient.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Well, if you're going to seriously study something, and claim to apply critical thinking, should scientific principles not be applied?

When a group officially claims to not be doing science, how can their conclusions be taken seriously? They should be either doing science properly, or at least accept the label of pseudoscience gracefully.

In my opinion, ufologists are doing science. Just not very well. They don't have to claim to be doing science in order for the pseudohat to fit. They just have to do research and draw conclusions without applying the scientific method.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Well, if you're going to seriously study something, and claim to apply critical thinking, should scientific principles not be applied?

When a group officially claims to not be doing science, how can their conclusions be taken seriously? They should be either doing science properly, or at least accept the label of pseudoscience gracefully.

In my opinion, ufologists are doing science. Just not very well. They don't have to claim to be doing science in order for the pseudohat to fit. They just have to do research and draw conclusions without applying the scientific method.

I am not sure what "UFOlogy" is describing at this point. We know he claims to apply "critical thinking" in his "investigations" but disavows that this is science in any form all to avoid his study being called pseudoscience.
If it is being investigated in any way, it has to apply some sort of method or standards. By establishing such standards, one is apply science in some form.
However, if no methodology or standards are being employed and everything is accepted is at face value with no discrimination at all, then it is faith based and we can call what "UFOlogy" is doing a religion just like the Raelians.

So, when "UFOlogy" claims he is not doing science, he can rightfully claim that it is not pseudoscience. However, he is admitting that UFOlogy is a religion. In either case, one can not state that they are really applying "critical thinking" or can they?

 

[ufology]

Well, if you're going to seriously study something, and claim to apply critical thinking, should scientific principles not be applied?

When a group officially claims to not be doing science, how can their conclusions be taken seriously? They should be either doing science properly, or at least accept the label of pseudoscience gracefully.

In my opinion, ufologists are doing science. Just not very well. They don't have to claim to be doing science in order for the pseudohat to fit. They just have to do research and draw conclusions without applying the scientific method.

Non-scientific ( in the strictest sense ) pursuits can be taken seriously. Philosophy for example. There is also a whole spectrum of sciences that calls itself science that doesn't completely fit with the strictest definitions involving empirical evidence ( for example radio astrononomy ), for which "direct observation" isn't really possible. Even with regular optical astronomy we are dealing with remote data, in some cases what is being observed doesn't even actually exist anymore ( the distance/light travel time issue ). Geologists do the same thing with seismographs. We don't get to "directly observe" the Earth's core or atomic nuclei. We merely extrapolate their existence.

On the question of, "should scientific principles not be applied?" I would say that the more we can apply scientific principles the better off we are, but if we are going to do that, it should be done by real scientists who know how to do it properly. Then we could say that although ufology itself isn't a "science", it offers genuine scientific data. In the mean time I think that critical thinking adds just as much credibility as science. Remember science also has it's credibility issues. The bottom line is that we make a genuine honest effort not to decieve ourselves or others.

Lastly, the reason ufology isn't well suited to be a science in and of itself is that it isn't limited to the contexts required by rigorous scientific testing. For example a large portion of ufology is the history of ufology, which includes the contactee and abduction phenomena plus a whole array of social, political, arts and entertainment related topics. These things are what add the ice-cream topping to ufology, they make it fun. From the Far Side and Futurama to X-Files and the MIB, ufology has at it's core a genuine mystery, but if we were to discard the rest, I think we'd be losing something valuable from a humanities perspective.

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

There is also a whole spectrum of sciences that calls itself science that doesn't completely fit with the strictest definitions involving empirical evidence ( for example radio astrononomy ), for which "direct observation" isn't really possible. Even with regular optical astronomy we are dealing with remote data, in some cases what is being observed doesn't even actually exist anymore ( the distance/light travel time issue ). Geologists do the same thing with seismographs. We don't get to "directly observe" the Earth's core or atomic nuclei. We merely extrapolate their existence.

Saying that astronomers and geologists are not doing science is just plain wrong. Any astronomer/geologist would state that you seem to have problems understanding the concept.

 

[Stray Cat]

I beg to differ.

I thought you might.

First Example: Wikipedia:

To be fair, argument by Wikipedia is as poor as argument by Google.

Clearly we see the prerequisite listed "... presented as scientific". Which I make no claim that ufology does, and neither is there a prevailing view among ufologists that it is ... that is something that is consistently done here by the skeptics.

And again, UFOlogy is often presented as scientific. Look at the work of Maccabee.
The most recent case (only this morning as luck would have it) that grabbed my interest was from that self inflated idiot Micheal Cohen from All News Web (or All Hoax Web as I prefer to think of it)
I give this example not to go into the case, but to make a relevant point about UFOlogy claiming to be 'scientific'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7sYosB5QZs

I refer you to the claim that "The clip has been submitted to a number of experts who have all come to the conclusion that it is not a computer generated image"

Which more than implies a level of scientific 'expert' input into the investigation.

Then take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8BSElF4JTc&feature=channel_video_title

So there are four examples including one from the actual "Skeptics Dictionary" that support my position, and an explanation within context. I really think we can lay this issue to rest now.

I doubt it, as long as you keep denying that UFOlogy presents itself as having some sort of scientific basis, when in reality, it's conclusions are often contrary to those that science understands and it's methods are not a patch on the real hard work that scientists have to do.

Inicornology isn't a science either, but if I sent samples of horse poo to a lab for testing, I'd be implying that a scientific method were being employed when I released my report stating that the laboratory had never seen samples with this chemical make up so it must have come from a Unicorn.

 

[John Albert]

This is where your confusion arises. You don't have to "call" it science for UFOlogy to become pseudo-science.

As long as the impression given is that some kind of research/investigation (eliminating mundane possibilities etc) has taken place and a conclusion reached based upon that research/investigation. When that conclusion flies in the face of science, it is pseudo-scientific.

^ This.

 

[ufology]

I thought you might.

I doubt it, as long as you keep denying that UFOlogy presents itself as having some sort of scientific basis, when in reality, it's conclusions are often contrary to those that science understands and it's methods are not a patch on the real hard work that scientists have to do.

Well done on the presentation of the video debunking. That is exactly what ufology needs to help show that we can't believe everything that is claimed on a video clip. Very useful.

Nevertheless, with respect to the specific question at hand, there is no claim in the video that "ufology is a science" or that he is doing science. Sending the video to "experts" isn't the same as sending them to "scientists" and the text at the beginning poses the question "Is it proof?" which is different than calling it proof. Lastly, the word ufology isn't even used. He's just a reporter who is billed as a "paranormal personality" and makes no claim to doing science. He is simply making a statement based on his personal opinions and showing us a video. So what? I've never even heard of the guy before.

By contrast neither USI nor MUFON define ufology as a science. Between the two of our groups you have by far the largest portion of UFO buffs and ufologists represented. Ufology is a field of study not a science, but it can and does use the findings of science in its exploration of the topic. That in no way makes ufology pseudoscience.

To close this post, I will acknowledge that your concerns regarding the improper application of critical thinking with respect to the data are perfectly valid ... there is genuine ufology ( which is what I do and advocate ). Then there is ( for the lack of a better term ) "woofology". I won't deny that anymore than there are "quack" doctors. Please just don't paint us all with the same brush. Help us to build bridges between the skeptics and genuine ufologists and educate people about the differences. That is what the JREF is about and I'm all for it.

j.r.

 

[Foolmewunz]

ufology,
If you want to believe, believe. But as others are pointing out, it's just a belief, and no better than any other marginal religion.

Tacking "ology" onto UFO is obviously an attempt to "make it seem all sciencey and stuff", but that probably wouldn't sound so good in a UFOlogist charter.

It's a crackpot hobby. Enjoy it. But if it's not a science, then why don't you guys get together and agree to call it something else - UFOphilia? Or would that not seem sciencey enough?

And that's the problem. You like the sound of the name, but you don't want to be held to the same standards as legitimate sciences/studies.

Take as an example your woeful Google test, which would've failed to get past a third grade class on Mr. Wizard. (To correct someone's correction via parallel search on Bacteriology, Google "bacteriology is a science", exact phrase - 774 hits.... "bacteria" - no quotes - 114,000,000 hits.) You did sloppy research and you offered it up as "proof" that the noble Ufology community doesn't consider itself scientific. That's the pseudo-science.

 

[GeeMack]

To close this post, I will acknowledge that your concerns regarding the improper application of critical thinking with respect to the data are perfectly valid ... there is genuine ufology ( which is what I do and advocate ). Then there is ( for the lack of a better term ) "woofology". I won't deny that anymore than there are "quack" doctors. Please just don't paint us all with the same brush. Help us to build bridges between the skeptics and genuine ufologists and educate people about the differences. That is what the JREF is about and I'm all for it.

Dishonesty noted. That would be the No True Scotsman fallacy: An intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

So as often as you've ignored this already I only expect continued ignorance, but... You keep saying you want to get skeptics to help you with your problems, but you won't say how.

Should skeptics and scientists lower their standards to accept anecdotes, lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and other unsupported assertions and logical fallacies? What do you propose skeptics should do to bring "ufology" up out of the realms of religion or pseudoscience and give it some sense of legitimacy? And why do you continue to blame skeptics for your failure rather than analyze where the weaknesses are in the "ufologist's" approach and remedy those for yourselves?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Dishonesty noted. That would be the No True Scotsman fallacy: An intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

So as often as you've ignored this already I only expect continued ignorance, but... You keep saying you want to get skeptics to help you with your problems, but you won't say how.

Should skeptics and scientists lower their standards to accept anecdotes, lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and other unsupported assertions and logical fallacies? What do you propose skeptics should do to bring "ufology" up out of the realms of religion or pseudoscience and give it some sense of legitimacy? And why do you continue to blame skeptics for your failure rather than analyze where the weaknesses are in the "ufologist's" approach and remedy those for yourselves?

Bolded Part. have you been rooting around in my trash? I had just about that same paragraph tacked onto the end of my previous post - well, the first sentence, at any rate. I decided to delete it in the interest of brevity, but I was just getting ready to go there when I read your post.

 

[ufology]

ufology, If you want to believe, believe. But as others are pointing out ... bla bla bla.

You've missed a lot of the points I've made, including the rationale regarding my Google search example. It is the skeptics who claim that ufologists are calling themselves scientists. Where is the evidence? Out of literally millions of UFO related returns there are only a few obscure references. Biology and the other scienes have nothing to do with it. Plugging in some other unrelated search term proves nothing about what we're talking about. If you were a scientist claiming that your argument makes any sense, then it would be you who was performing the pseudoscience ... not me.

But even if I entertain your argument that there is a logical comparison to be made, the argument you are using doesn't work. There is no question bacteriology is a science so we would not expect not to find a bunch of posts claiming something we already know. However if there are all these ufologists claiming ufology is a science and it's a debated topic, then we should expect to find more evidence of ufologists calling ufology science ... we don't.

j.r.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You've missed a lot of the points I've made, including the rationale regarding my Google search example. It is the skeptics who claim that ufologists are calling themselves scientists.

Why would you think I've missed any of your points? They're not that complicated nor are they hiding. I've been following this thread since its inception.

It is not the skeptics claiming anything - it's the skeptics pointing you to claims of UFOlogists; claims visible by the Google results if you delimit your search.

You did a flawed search to try to prove that no one makes the claim, and you were shown to be wrong. If you wish, we can extrapolate that to say you were being dishonest, but I prefer to think you just made a mistake. But, hey, that's me. And that's right now. If you continue to try to use the flawed result as "proof", I will switch that opinion in a heartbeat.

Where is the evidence? Out of literally millions of UFO related returns there are only a few obscure references. Biology and the other scienes have nothing to do with it. Plugging in some other unrelated search term proves nothing about what we're talking about. If you were a scientist claiming that your argument makes any sense, then it would be you who was performing the pseudoscience ... not me.

Nonsense. (Maybe I'm going to change my mind rather quickly, after all.) You are proving our argument. YOU plugged in the terms and you stacked the deck by asking for a direct quote. There are 884,000 results for a Google of UFOlogy Is A Science, sans quotation marks. Thousands of those links are to adherents/believers trying to sell folks on the science.

In fact, in my Google, if you just type in the word Ufology, you get only 912,000 results. Seems that a whole huge percentage of articles or comments about Ufology are invovled in this very topic.
(Brother and Sister Skeptics! I am not arguing Google as an accepted scientific method of proving anything. Argumentum Ad Searchengineum has not been recognized yet in most debating societies.)

But even if I entertain your argument that there is a logical comparison to be made, the argument you are using doesn't work. There is no question bacteriology is a science so we would not expect not to find a bunch of posts claiming something we already know. However if there are all these ufologists claiming ufology is a science and it's a debated topic, then we should expect to find more evidence of ufologists calling ufology science ... we don't.

j.r.

But you're wrong. "There is no question"... "we would not expect"... Really? Would you be surprised to find that there are more cites for "Bacteriology is a science" than there are for "Bacteriology" (both non-specific searches).

You also use that royal "we" most conveniently. "We" would not expect anything, if "we" is "I".... I went looking for the results and found them,... with no prior expectations, whatsoever. Bacteriology is a science - 5,480,000 hits. Bacteriology - 4,430,000 hits.

How do "we" explain that if "we" expected to not find anything because it's common knowledge? In short, you're flailiing about and coming up with arguments from personal incredulity. "It just seems to me" is not a valid scientific argument.

The irony may escape you but not the other "we" (posters on this forum). You're trying to use poor research skills to prove, scientifically, that you're not claiming you're a science and ergo, not a pseudo-science, either. This doesn't really qualify as circular logic - maybe figure-either logic?