• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

Foolmewunz said:
1. j.r. Are you J. Randall Murphy?

2. You are actually old enough, according to your profile here, to recall when near space was just being explored, but not many people thought of it as pure fantasy. A few years after your were born, man walked on the moon for the first time. But never let a little hyperbole get in the way of a good paragraph, eh?
Click to expand...


Yes that's me. I'll tell you who the "they" were. Although I remeber the Apollo Program as a young kid, my great grandmother who I used to visit at the time told me how her husband ( a blacksmith ... before even cars ) used to say to her how someday we'll figure out how to travel to the stars. My grandmother told me the same thing about him. I kind of have this romanticized vision of him with his wife and daughter sitting up on some summer hill on starry night ... without all the big city lights. In those days he was considered "way out there". Even at my age when the space program started. Kennedy's own scientists at first thought it would be impossible to pull off the moon landing ( from the Kennedy biography ). Today some people still refuse to believe it ever happened ( don't worry, I'm not one of them ).

j.r.
 
Science, pseudoscience, whatever. It's all pointless semantics. You can call ufology a sooper dooper science with fricken' lasers attached to it's fricken' head and it doesn't negate the fact that ufology has been a complete waste of time and effort for over half a century and running.

From the standpoint of the furtherance of human knowledge and understanding, ufology has contributed exactly zilch, and there is every indication that it will continue to contribute more of the same for the foreseeable future and beyond.

No matter what the ufologists call their little UFO distraction, they're still going to breathe their last breath with Phillip Klass' curse on their heads.

No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs that you know today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So, J.R., I have read most of your profile at UFOlogy.

You have been on an alien spaceship. You met MIB's. You speak of psi research as though it were credible, not to mention regressive hypnosis, OBE, orbs, hauntings and iconic religious manifestations. It has been fun reading your posts and I commend you on your eloquence, but I can no longer give a shred of credibility to what you write. I mean no disrespect, but I'm through. Okaybye.
 
ufology said:
Yes that's me. <snip>
Click to expand...

Well, considering your own self-published bio from your site, don't you think you could just be a little more forthcoming?

http://www.ufopages.com/Common/Control/Reframe_T1.htm?../../Reference/FS/Murphy-02a.htm

So you are a firm believer in UFOs = Aliens, correct? You've had direct experience with UFOs, perhaps even extraterrestrials, and visited a craft?

Apologies to all if this seems like an ambush, but I think folks here ought to know who they're dealing with. If Jim Fetzer showed up in CT and introduced himself as an interested teacher rather than one of the poster boys for 911 Truth, we'd want to know it.
 
ufology said:
I'm not saying I think what I do is or isn't science. I'm just saying my armchair science and introductory courses don't make me a "scientist" and I'd rather remain humble than start making exaggertaed claims. If I can somewhere along the way earn the respect of the people here for my honest efforts, it would mean a lot to me.

j.r.
Click to expand...

As Stray Cat has said, you don't have to claim to be doing science to be practicing pseudoscience, whether you are happy with that or not.

In this post, a UFOlogist claims to use the scientific method, formulating hypotheses and drawing conclusions.

In this one, he claims to actually be a scientist.

Would you call that type of UFOlogy pseudoscience or not?
 
ufology said:
You presume to know what I preconceive
and proclaim as if true what you think I believe.
By adding those together with your self-serving notes
and ignoring the contrary within my quotes,
you can build any illusion to fit your conclusion
and pretend to yourself that it floats..
Click to expand...


Cute. I can see how some people might believe that sort of juvenile silliness would deflect the actual issues under discussion. But I don't think anyone here is buying it. Maybe if we explore this a bit further...

USI was created in 1989 by J. Randall Murphy in Calgary Canada for the purpose of providing easy access to UFO related information, and over the long term, to help establish the truth regarding alien visitation to planet Earth. USI is "pro-UFO" to the extent that it recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition. USI also concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin.
Click to expand...


In short, you start with the preconceived notion that UFOs are some sort of craft piloted by aliens or under their control, your dishonest protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. It's not science. It's pretend science, or pretty much definitively pseudoscience.
 
ufology said:
I'm not saying I think what I do is or isn't science. I'm just saying my armchair science and introductory courses don't make me a "scientist" and I'd rather remain humble than start making exaggertaed claims.
Click to expand...

So by attempting to perform science, you can easily perform pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is most often performed by those who have not been educated in the sciences and non-scientists. I guess you can count yourself among that group.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, considering your own self-published bio from your site, don't you think you could just be a little more forthcoming?
Click to expand...

Amazing the divergent paths I see here. I was born one year later and while he was having his "experiences", I was learning about the night sky and experiencing the wonders of the universe. I regret to report that in all my years of observing the night sky, I have yet to see anything I can't explain.

I think I have read enough in this bio and here to conclude that JR's "UFOlogy" is a pseudoscientific religion.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Amazing the divergent paths I see here. I was born one year later and while he was having his "experiences", I was learning about the night sky and experiencing the wonders of the universe. I regret to report that in all my years of observing the night sky, I have yet to see anything I can't explain.

I think I have read enough in this bio and here to conclude that JR's "UFOlogy" is a pseudoscientific religion.
Click to expand...

Should we call it a pseudoreligion?
 
I don't really think "religion" is an appropriate categorization, either. Religion involves some degree of orthodoxy, or established dogma, that ufology doesn't really exhibit. Some ufologists maintain that UFOs are ET, others claim they're interdimensional craft, yet others contend different paranormal explanations.

"Pseudoscience" is the appropriate designation in my opinion, because all ufologists justify their beliefs by faulty analysis of inconclusive "evidence," (ie. folklore, anecdotes, amateur photography, injuries to livestock or wildlife, terrestrial features like disodrered ground vegetation, crop circles, etc.). Because they perform their analyses in a non-scientific way (using faith-based null hypotheses, ignoring the lack of conclusive material evidence, etc.), "pseudoscience" is the appropriate call here.
 
Last edited:
There are so many wrong things with ufology's definitions of UFOlogy and pseudoscience...

Jules Verne was not doing Geology when he wrote Journey to the Centre of the Earth. He used, however, lots of tidbits of XIX Century's Geology to write it. Verne was not doing pseudoscience, he was not attempting to do science, he was writing fiction. On the other hand, I can do Geology by writing about how Verne used Geology to write the book.
Amateurs can do Geology if they use the propper methodology. Whoever writes a book about claiming the Earth is hollow is making pseudoscience,

Spielberg was not doing UFOlogy when he made Close Encounters of the Third Kind; he used its lore. Friedman and McAbees, among others, claim to use a scientific approach regarding the UFO phenomena. Since their methods have many flaws, discussed at other threads, they are doing pseudoscience.
People scanning the skys for alien craft most likely are not doing science but pseudoscience.
The methods used by UFOlogists as a whole (yes, there may be exceptions) to study UFO sightings are not scientific but their investigations are quite often presented as scientific. Thus they are doing pseudoscience.

Got it? UFOlogy is pseudoscience. Fiction works based on UFO lore and the impact of the UFO phenomena on our culture are not pseudoscience, even though the products of the pseudoscience are introduced within our culture. And yes, the study of this relationship may be science. Cultural, social science.
 
Akhenaten said:
Can we call it "Flying Saucery"?

That's got a nice ring to it.
Click to expand...

5xuzpy.jpg


Salut, Akhenaten!
 
RoboTimbo said:
As Stray Cat has said, you don't have to claim to be doing science to be practicing pseudoscience, whether you are happy with that or not.

In this post, a UFOlogist claims to use the scientific method, formulating hypotheses and drawing conclusions.

In this one, he claims to actually be a scientist.

Would you call that type of UFOlogy pseudoscience or not?
Click to expand...

I like the way Stray Cat has approached this thread. Whether you think I Iagree with what was said is a pontless observation. I've already stated my rationale and it makes sense on its own to anyone who understands what I'm trying to say.

I don't know if Rramjet is actually a scientist or what the other link is referring to exactly. Maybe ask Rramjet.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
I like the way Stray Cat has approached this thread. Whether you think I Iagree with what was said is a pontless observation. I've already stated my rationale and it makes sense on its own to anyone who understands what I'm trying to say.

I don't know if Rramjet is actually a scientist or what the other link is referring to exactly. Maybe ask Rramjet.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Whether Rramjet thinks he's engaging in pseudoscience would be a pointless observation. I want to know what you consider to be pseudoscience and what you don't.

You earlier said that after having seen some of his posts, you had no quibble with his approach. Now that I've drawn your attention to those two posts, has that opinion changed?

Are you prepared to say that Rramjet has been engaging in pseudoscience according to the definition that you have insisted on?
 
Repeated Post - Still Looking for an Amswer

ufology said:
Good work. I've seen so many satellites that I don't bother looking them up anymore. But imagine watching what you think at first is a satellite, that instantly stops, pauses for a second, changes heading by instantly accellerating down about 20 degrees, stops instantly again, darts about at sharp angles and in straight lines over a distance of 30-40 degrees, and then streaks away off over the horizon in the opposite direction. Those are the kind of reports I've heard a couple of dozen times from people who I don't believe were fabricating a story. I've got no Earthly explanation for such sightings.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of a video of such a sighting? One where the direction of the camera is known the entire time, preferably with some fixed landmarks? Bonus points given if the picture stays in focus.

Thank you.

:th:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom