Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Rramjet]

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

j.r.

I must take the opportunity to defend myself here. The charge is that I have engaged in pseudoscience. The evidence for that is supposed to be contained within two posts of mine. The relevant sections from those two posts are:

Sure... I propose hypotheses, as any good scientist will - indeed must - in the face of the unknown, but I have consistently denied that we can draw conclusions from the evidence that any of the hypotheses are therefore true.

Note however the use of the word “was”. THAT is a categorical. A truly scientific investigator would NEVER use such a term. Scientists are very careful and precise in their use of language. They NEVER (if they can help it) use terms that the evidence does not warrant, yet here we have Sanio using the term “was required by the hoaxer” instead of the more correct terminology such as “would have been required by a hoaxer”. There is a world of difference and it indicates that Sanio had his mind already made up even while he was supposing to investigate this film.

I know that this will seem like “nitpicking” or playing with language to achieve the result one is aiming at - but believe me, I am a trained scientist and peer-reviewed published author in scientific journals and EVERY editorial comment I ever got in reply to my early submissions was to ALWAYS point out the very things I point out above. Editorial boards of scientific publications are fully aware of the critical nature of language use and semantics in such matters and if it is pertinent to them - it really should be pertinent to us as all.

So how precisely does that constitute pseudoscience? Of course it does not. The need to base our conclusions about hypotheses on the evidence, the care that must be taken with language so as not to mislead …. It is positively promoting scientific practices!

Given the source of the charge against me however it does not surprise me in the least that evidence for “white” is construed as evidence for “black”.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I must take the opportunity to defend myself here. The charge is that I have engaged in pseudoscience. The evidence for that is supposed to be contained within two posts of mine. The relevant sections from those two posts are:



So how precisely does that constitute pseudoscience? Of course it does not. The need to base our conclusions about hypotheses on the evidence, the care that must be taken with language so as not to mislead …. It is positively promoting scientific practices!

Given the source of the charge against me however it does not surprise me in the least that evidence for “white” is construed as evidence for “black”.

Ah yes, you egage in your typical ad homs. Maybe you should read ufology's definition of pseudoscience and discuss it with him. According to ufology (the poster) and many of the references that he brought in, you are a pseudoscientist engaging in pseudoscience. The evidence agrees with that and disagrees with your unevidenced opinion which may, as you probably suspect, be dismissed.

 

[ufology]

There are so many wrong things with ufology's definitions of UFOlogy and pseudoscience...

Actually there is nothing at all wrong with my definition and the ones for pseudoscience came off Wikipedia and other sites. I didn't just fabricate them. The sites were quoted in one of my posts. What isn't accurate is how you have interpreted what I've said in a manner the is not in keeping with the context of the illustrations.

Your point about Jules Verne ( a childhood favorite ) is good. Your point about people who write a book about the Earth being hollow, within the context of your illustration ( or at least the one I give you credit for ) is also good, but in another context, for example from a journalistic perspective, it may not be. It could simply be an account of what various other people have claimed, maybe combined with some pesonal experience. That would be neither science nor pseudoscience. It's nothing more than a collection of interesting stories put together by a journalist. By contrast, if it is presented as science, along with genuine scientific data backed up with empirical evidence, then it's science.

In the Close Encounters example I would make no claim that The movie maker was doing ufology. I would however make the claim that Close Encounters has become a ufology culture classic and part of ufology history because of J. Allen Hynek's cameo and consulting role. There are discussions about how the media and entertainment affect pubic perception of UFOs and might contribute to higher numbers of UFO sighting reports. It is very relevant to the general discussion of ufology, but it isn't science nor is it pseudoscience, it's just part of ufology culture.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

I must take the opportunity to defend myself here. The charge is that I have engaged in pseudoscience. The evidence for that is supposed to be contained within two posts of mine. The relevant sections from those two posts are:

<pseudoscience snipped>

So how precisely does that constitute pseudoscience? Of course it does not. The need to base our conclusions about hypotheses on the evidence, the care that must be taken with language so as not to mislead …. It is positively promoting scientific practices!

It constitutes pseudoscience because you're using the language and pretending to apply the principles of scientific investigation but in reality all you're doing is posting flying saucer stories.

Given the source of the charge against me however it does not surprise me in the least that evidence for “white” is construed as evidence for “black”.

ad hominem much?

 

[ufology]

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.

I think that it would be easier to have faked a video than come up with the stories I've heard. Besides I'm not here to provide proof. I'm here to have a discussion. I've had too many experiences myself to outright dismiss other people's. That being said, I don't think it's necessary to have had an experience to realize that it isn't reasonable to outright dismiss and deny all sighting reports.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

I am a trained scientist and peer-reviewed published author in scientific journals and EVERY editorial comment I ever got in reply to my early submissions was to ALWAYS point out the very things I point out above.
evidence for “white” is construed as evidence.

Were you taling about yourself in the quote above Rramjet?

j.r.

 

[ufology]

No, it's not. As we've mentioned before, the suffix "-ology" denotes study, which implies science or academics. There's a reason why aviation is called "aviation" and not "aviology."

I didn't pick the name. I traced it back to 1959 through the Oxford Dictionary:

"The Times Literary Supplement from January 23, 1959 in which it writes about the study of UFOs, "The articles, reports, and bureaucratic studies which have been written about this perplexing visitant constitute ‘ufology’."

Here we have the first known reference to "ufology" talking about articles and bureaucratic studies. Perhaps some of those studies were "scientific". perhaps some weren't. Perhaps they were just "studies" in a generic sense. We need to recognize the actual context in which the word ufology is used and formulate a real definition based on the way it is, not the way we would like it to be. I've done that. I've made my case several times using several real world examples.

So what if someone tacked "ology" to the end of the word? That doesn't suddenly make it a science any more than tacking "ology" onto the word "mix" ... ( although a pretty good case could probably be made for mixology ), but that's still not the point. I'm fine with the concept that there may be incidents of pseudoscience going on in ufology, but that doesn't make all ufology a pseudoscience ... especially since there are elements of ufology that aren't science in the first place ( e.g. ufolore, culture, journalism and just plain general interest ).

On the "Magnetic Bracelet" thing, I don't know enough about it. With magnetic bracelets, enough patients, and proper methodology, you should have all the ingredients needed to do actual science. I guess it just depends on whether or not any actual science is being done.

Lastly, I'll point out that if science proves itself wrong, it's still science. There is no shame in it. In other words an outlandish claim doesn't negate the possibility of actual science. And if a scientist goes about investigating it with genuine purpose and integrity, they aren't quacks. It's the ones who work hard, think outside the box, and try new things that often moves science ahead, not playing it safe all the time.

j.r.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think that it would be easier to have faked a video than come up with the stories I've heard. Besides I'm not here to provide proof. I'm here to have a discussion. I've had too many experiences myself to outright dismiss other people's. That being said, I don't think it's necessary to have had an experience to realize that it isn't reasonable to outright dismiss and deny all sighting reports.

j.r.

There are so many stories told by "viewers" of UFO's that turn out on analysis to be extraordinarily mundane that this casts doubt on the veracity of all of them.

Surely, among the zillions of "UFO" visitations there must be one in which the evidence is so irrefutable that the debunkers and skeptics would have to concede an "alien" cause.

Is this really to much to ask for?

Do me a favour. Whatever you are here for, give us a convincing case.

 

[ufology]

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.

Wow.. with this post I now know that my entire lifelong interest in ufology has not been in vain. Just to read those words in bold italics totally put a smile on my face ... in fact now I'm laughing ... I gotta remember that one ... nice outburst there!

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

What is your "null hypothesis" regarding UFOs?

If you've been researching this for 40+ years, please tell me you've at least worked out a null hypothesis.

So how about it? What is your default position regarding UFO stories?

What is your process for evaluating these tales and ascertaining the "truth" about them?

How do you fulfill your organization's stated purpose of "presenting accurate, objective, and verifiable information"?

Do you just take everything you hear at face value?

 

[ufology]

Is it aliens?

It's aliens, isn't it?

I don't think a proper "null hypothesis" can be applied to ufology. It requires controlled conditions and repeatability to get accurate statistics. The closest I've seen to such a study is one that proposed Mars might have alien bases. They counted all the UFO sightings over so many years and compared them to the proximity of Mars. To me there are some serious issues with this idea, but it is an example of using statistics based on observation combined with measurable and repeatable events to add weight to the credence of the hypothesis.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

There are so many stories told by "viewers" of UFO's that turn out on analysis to be extraordinarily mundane that this casts doubt on the veracity of all of them.

Surely, among the zillions of "UFO" visitations there must be one in which the evidence is so irrefutable that the debunkers and skeptics would have to concede an "alien" cause.

Is this really to much to ask for?

Do me a favour. Whatever you are here for, give us a convincing case.

I think we're still in the the "Is it pseudoscience?" thread. If you want to discuss the evidence you need to go over to the moderated evidence thread ( sorry ).

j.r.

PS: A good book of case compilations is "Beyond Top Secret" by Timothy Good.

 

[John Albert]

A "null hypothesis" means "the hypothesis we default to, if no confirmatory evidence is found."

As a researcher, the "null hypothesis" is not your ideal situation, of course. Ideally, you'd want to find some conclusive evidence to work with, so you can make a new discovery and advance the frontiers of knowledge. But as researchers, we have to be honest, so we start with a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis must be as simple as possible and make zero assumptions that cannot be explained by the most absolutely mundane, well-proven facts.

If you don't start with a null hypothesis, then you cannot make an unbiased study. If your null hypothesis includes any assumptions unsupported by conventional science, then you're working within the realm of "woo," (a.k.a. "hocus pocus," "flim-flam," "pseudoscience," "intellectual dishonesty," "bullcrap," etc.).

This is standard operating procedure for scientific research, unless of course you have some vested interest in not thinking critically or being 100% honest in your pursuit of the truth (say, religious-type faith, or a dishonest benefactor who pays you to cook up a biased study).

I don't think a proper "null hypothesis" can be applied to ufology.

Of course one can!

How about, "human error or deception"?

That's the simplest hypothesis that doesn't take into account any additional unverifiable suppositions.

Human error and deception are well-documented phenomena, known to be extremely common.

And that null hypothesis will work in just about all cases.

So you start from there, your investigation assuming human error or deception as the baseline, "null" hypothesis unless some material evidence is found to prove otherwise.

This is how critical thinking, and science, is properly done.

The closest I've seen to such a study is one that proposed Mars might have alien bases. They counted all the UFO sightings over so many years and compared them to the proximity of Mars. To me there are some serious issues with this idea, but it is an example of using statistics based on observation combined with measurable and repeatable events to add weight to the credence of the hypothesis.

If that ain't pseudoscience, then I don't know what is.

 

[ufology]

I'm disappointed that the claims you made about being a different sort of UFOlogist seem to be unfounded. A lot of members here (myself included) have explained why UFOlogy is considered to be pseudo-science and you basically ignore the relevant points and simply re-state your misconceived idea that to be pseudo-science the UFologists have to first claim it is science. This, as has been explained is not so.

I've backed up what you call my "misconceived" ideas on pseudoscience with multiple definitions as applied to actual situations. I've also explained the logic of the way ufology is used to denote a variety of activies, not all of them involving science, ( e.g. history, journalism, and cuture ) and therefore how any notion of ufology being a science in and of itself is faulty because it does not apply to the whole of the field. I've even acknowledged that there are instances within the field of ufology where pseudoscience has taken place, but that just isn't good enough for those who want to unjustly paint the entire field with one disparaging label because they can't admit that a change of views would be appropriate. Show some grace and class.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Then are we back to my request for you to provide an example of a UFO case investigated by a UFOlogist which couldn't be called pseudoscientific?

Just one example will do. Not a hypothetical one though, one that's published on the interweb, one we could look into.

I would say that J. Allen Hynek was a geuine scientist. I don't know whether or not all the work he did had all the details required to justify his studies as strictly scientific all the time, but I do believe that he did his honest best with what he had to work with under the conditions that were imposed on him at the time. In other words, he does not deserve to be labeled a pseudoscientist even if you want to start picking away at his studies.

Start here: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Hynek-01a.htm

j.r.

 

[ufology]

A "null hypothesis" means "the hypothesis we default to, if no confirmatory evidence is found."

The definition is not that simple, at least not in the Wikipedia. It is a statistical probablity model that requires controlled and repeatable conditions. That is why I say it isn't well suited to ufology. The Wikipedia uses a coin toss as an example. We have the same coin being tossed under the same circumstances in a controlled environment. UFOs just don't cooperate that way. The phenomenon isn't repeatable under controlled conditions. Furthermore a null hypothesis is something that can never be proven, so your examples "human error or deception" do not apply. It is possible that both of those hypotheses could be proven.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, the main problem with your "ufology is a broad field that encompasses many relative topics" argument, is that most of those topics under the umbrella of "ufology" implicitly support a large number of assumptions that are in themselves pseudoscientific.

Here are a few of the most basic examples of the assumptions I'm talking about:

• The assumption that mysterious, physical objects appear in the skies that defy explanation, and these objects only appear before single individuals or small groups of people who for some reason are never able to produce any material evidence of their existence. Never has anyone conclusively proven that such objects exist. Therefore, it is a pseudoscientific claim.

• The assumption that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth. Never has any evidence been produced that conclusively proves the existence of ET, let alone prove that they've visited Earth. Therefore, it is a pseudoscientific claim.

• The conspiracy theory that the US government has conclusive knowledge of the existence of ET, but they're keeping it hidden from the public for some nefarious reason. Despite such allegations, no conclusive evidence has ever come to light that this is anything more than an urban legend. Therefore, it is a pseudoscientific claim.

Whenever a researcher or self-described "expert" makes such claims as these without providing conclusive proof obtained through proper science, that is pseudoscience.

 

[ufology]

Each of them most likely will know just what they are entilted to. Millitary aircraft tend to stay away from commercial flight lanes and I bet most millitary radar operators are not aware of the hot stuff even when they are seeing them at their radar screens. Actually the cool secret stuff may be at millitary and/or civillian radar screens, but just as a blip with some ID characters.

But you are right; imagine a radar operator managing to "see" the first SR-71 flights. Remember, its design was a bit stealthy.

According to a government release the SR-71s were definitely behind some RADAR reports. There are probably a lot of high tech military craft that get reported as UFOs, especially by foreign RADAR. This is probably also why they have to keep a lot of UFO files secret.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

The definition is not that simple, at least not in the Wikipedia. It is a statistical probablity model that requires controlled and repeatable conditions. That is why I say it isn't well suited to ufology. The Wikipedia uses a coin toss as an example. We have the same coind being tossed under the same circumstances in a controlled environment. UFOs just don't cooperate that way. The phenomenon isn't repeatable under controlled conditions. Furthermore a null hypothesis is something that can never be proven, so your examples "human error or deception" do not apply. It is possible that both of those hypotheses could be proven.

I just explained to you what a null hypothesis is, in layman's terms. A null hypothesis is something that you don't need any special evidence to prove; it's the default. It makes no extraordinary assumptions, and projects that the research will conclude nothing special.

It's not necessary to build complex statistical models to formulate a null hypothesis about a simple subject. The premise of "null hypothesis" itself is very simple.

That Wikipedia article goes into great detail about the subject that is applicable to highly measured and controlled experiments, using medical drug testing as an example. I'm guessing whomever wrote the article probably works in the field of pharmaceuticals or biotech.

But null hypotheses are used in all areas of science.

Here's another website that gives a rather clearer explanation of it:

http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

The null hypothesis is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.

An experiment conclusion always refers to the null, rejecting or accepting H⁰ rather than H¹.

Despite this, many researchers neglect the null hypothesis when testing hypotheses, which is poor practice and can have adverse effects.

(Italics mine.)

H⁰ is shorthand for "null hypothesis" and H¹ stands for the "alternative hypothesis," or the explanation that the researcher hopes to prove. It's also possible to have additional hypotheses (H², H³, H⁴...) if you conceive alternate outcomes from your research.

But it's important to always start with H⁰, because it removes your own personal bias from the research.

 

[Rramjet]

Were you taling about yourself in the quote above Rramjet?

j.r.

Yes, but given that I am not about to reveal my identity (particularly) in this forum (where so much vitriol has been directed against me), then it becomes merely another unfounded assertion among the many which this forum seems so much to enjoy putting forward. You will therefore simply have to forgive my single lapse in judgement in that case. Sorry.