Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

Obviously anecdotal or eyewitness evidence it is not invalid, but your second contention there is interesting.

I think you mean to say that when comparing “ordinary” claims with “extraordinary” claims, anecdotal and eyewitness evidence will have lesser weight in consideration of the extraordinary claim?

They have no weight except in pseudoscience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as Sagan so rightly said.

 

[Rramjet]

I think it's also important to recognize the bottom line of what the other posters here are getting at.

(…)

Anecdotal evidence doesn't "prove" anything…

At least I hope that is what you mean by their bottom line… I do think that is what they are trying to get at – just they are approaching it by calling eyewitness and anecdotal evidence invalid. I suppose you could construe that to mean that it is invalid as proof and I guess they would have a point if they explained it in that way. It is just that they also seem to want to rule it out as potentially contributing to a weight of evidence – and that is where my objection lies – for I believe, while it may not constitute “proof”, it can contribute to a weight of evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...to a pseudoscientist.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Obviously anecdotal or eyewitness evidence it is not invalid, but your second contention there is interesting.

I think you mean to say that when comparing “ordinary” claims with “extraordinary” claims, anecdotal and eyewitness evidence will have lesser weight in consideration of the extraordinary claim?

That is correct. That's why you can convict someone in court with eyewitness account. The testimony of an eyewitness who describes an event which has never been observed is still thoroughly invalid.

If we had real tangible proof of alien visitation in the past, eyewitness accounts would be taken seriously at times. But they are invalid in the sense that they are never conclusive on their own.

 

[Complexity]

I don't think there is any critical thinking in 'Ufology'.

I think there is a great deal of critical thinking about 'Ufology', none of it supportive of people who believe that Earth has been visited by alien vessels and/or lifeforms.

I find the thread title to be presumptuous, inaccurate, and offensive.

In the OP, Ufology said, "It differs from the Research & Evidence thread where debates based on a presumption of scientific research and empirical evidence are the norm." I take this to mean that Ufology thinks that by saying this, he thereby removes this thread from the expectation that scientific research and evidence are respected, valued, and that evidence for claims is expected.

Saying doesn't make it so. I will hold you, Ufology, to the same standards in this thread that I do in every other thread.

I found your lecture on critical thinking to be... ironic.

The only topics I currently find of interest in the field of Ufology (which I henceforth will take as the study of people who believe in this nonsense) are:

What are psychological and psychiatric precursors for a belief in alien visitation to Earth?

What are the psychological and psychiatric similarities between conspiracy theorists and believes in alien visitation to Earth?

What aspects of belief systems (i.e. memes), once incorporated in a mind, make that mind more susceptible to belief in alien visitation to Earth?

What aspects of belief systems (i.e. memes) are effective in protecting a mind that already has a belief in alien visitation from the affects of reason, rationality, evidence, and scientific reasoning?

 

[Complexity]

The critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence. In many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is. It's based on direct observation of the phenomenon. There is no filter or third party for the data to pass through before it hits the witness's retina and becomes a stimulus for optical observation. It's pretty rare that people actually see something for which no stimulus has been provided.

Regarding simple ignorance. We can help overcome that by posting up clarifications and working it out in a constructive manner. We can deal with fallacies in logic the same way. As for lies and deception, let's smoke them out and expose them for what they are. We don't need them in ufology any more than anyone else does.

j.r.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

At least I hope that is what you mean by their bottom line… I do think that is what they are trying to get at – just they are approaching it by calling eyewitness and anecdotal evidence invalid. I suppose you could construe that to mean that it is invalid as proof and I guess they would have a point if they explained it in that way. It is just that they also seem to want to rule it out as potentially contributing to a weight of evidence – and that is where my objection lies – for I believe, while it may not constitute “proof”, it can contribute to a weight of evidence.

I don't speak for anyone but myself.
There is never any other type of evidence in the field. Stories. That's it. And no, they cannot add to a "weight of evidence". Useless.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

-[snippity]

What are psychological and psychiatric precursors for a belief in alien visitation to Earth?

What are the psychological and psychiatric similarities between conspiracy theorists and believes in alien visitation to Earth?

What aspects of belief systems (i.e. memes), once incorporated in a mind, make that mind more susceptible to belief in alien visitation to Earth?

What aspects of belief systems (i.e. memes) are effective in protecting a mind that already has a belief in alien visitation from the affects of reason, rationality, evidence, and scientific reasoning?

That would be much more interesting to read about than a redefinition of critical thnking.

 

[Rramjet]

That is correct. That's why you can (not) convict someone in court with eyewitness account. The testimony of an eyewitness who describes an event which has never been observed is still thoroughly invalid.

Okay, that is good. So, would you agree then that an anecdote supporting the claim that Jim was at the shop today containing the words “Oh and guess what, I saw Jim at the shop today” is used (in practical day-to-day terms) as valid evidence that Jim was at the shop? I do not mean that it is (or can be) used as proof that Jim visited the shop, just that we ordinarily take it and use it as valid evidence and that Jim was at the shop?

If so then will you drop your categorical claim that anecdotal evidence is invalid (because clearly there are contexts in which it is valid) - in favour of your claim that it is “ Worthless in support of an extraordinary claim”?

If we had real tangible proof of alien visitation in the past, eyewitness accounts would be taken seriously at times. But they are invalid in the sense that they are never conclusive on their own.

Yes, I agree, anecdotal and eyewitness accounts are not valid as proof, but in your opinion, can they contribute to a weight of evidence? If not, why not?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Okay, that is good. So, would you agree then that an anecdote supporting the claim that Jim was at the shop today containing the words “Oh and guess what, I saw Jim at the shop today” is used (in practical day-to-day terms) as valid evidence that Jim was at the shop? I do not mean that it is (or can be) used as proof that Jim visited the shop, just that we ordinarily take it and use it as valid evidence and that Jim was at the shop?

If so then will you drop your categorical claim that anecdotal evidence is invalid (because clearly there are contexts in which it is valid) - in favour of your claim that it is “ Worthless in support of an extraordinary claim”?


Yes, I agree, anecdotal and eyewitness are not valid as proof, but in your opinion, can they contribute to a weight of evidence? If not, why not?

You should have listened to my original suggestion. Go find out, on your own, why it is invalid. It is. This will help you. I don't have the qualifications to explain everything about critical thinking to you. You are looking for holes in my examples to try and justify the use of anecdotal evidence.

By the way, "I saw Jim at the shop today" barely has any value in the first place. It would not trump physical evidence, for example. And that's for ordinary claims. Can you not see that it is unacceptable, when it comes to ghosts, UFO's and whatnot?

We are discussing events which have never been proven. Ever. No special pleading. No anecdotal evidence, or you lose your critical thinking licence.

 

[ufology]

But you have to. It is absolutely reasonable to dismiss anecdotal evidence. It's unthinkable not to. You have to.

It's only unthinkable in situations where absolute precision is critical for health and safety reasons, like how much pressure a tire will take before it explodes in someone's face, or how much medication it takes to overdose, or how strong a bolt needs to be to keep an airplane engine from falling off. But even in those situations, there is a margin of error. Human advancement has always involved taking chances and risks. If we had always refused to explore things unless we were absolutely certain we were doing it perfectly every time, we'd still be living in the stone age.

In the case of human experience and UFOs, it's not a life or death situation. If somebody says they saw a UFO it won't place anyone's life in danger to report it. It's not "unthinkable" to listen to people's experiences and consider what they have been through. It's more "unthinkable" that anyone would use science as a reason for ignoring the common experiences so many fellow human beings.

Sharing our experiences as human beings is a perfectly natural part of human existence and communication. It is valuable ... it is essential.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

… anecdotal and eyewitness (evidence) are not valid as proof, but in your opinion, can they contribute to a weight of evidence? If not, why not?

You should have listened to my original suggestion.

Which was..?

Go find out, on your own, why it is invalid.

Your claim was that anecdotal and eyewitness evidence is invalid. I am merely attempting to ascertain the basis for your belief in that regard. If you don’t what to - or cannot - tell me, that is fine, but I must state that if you cannot justify a claim you make then we can dismiss it on the grounds that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't have the qualifications to explain everything about critical thinking to you.

I am not asking for a philosophical treatise… If you state that eyewitness and anecdotal evidence is invalid, then surely, in consideration that the discussion is about critical thinking, you must have some reasons on which you base your conclusion? Surely you are not contending that your conclusion is a mere faith based belief?

You are looking for holes in my examples to try and justify the use of anecdotal evidence.

If holes exist, then surely it is legitimate to point them out – that is what critical thinking is all about surely – not accepting things on blind faith, but picking them apart to see if all the underlying assumptions are valid or not? You seemed to have no qualms in suggesting my assessment concerning the matter was incorrect…

By the way, "I saw Jim at the shop today" barely has any value in the first place.

So you say, but I provided an example where it was demonstrably valuable. Do you simply ignore that example or do you have some other objection to it?

It would not trump physical evidence, for example.

I agree, if the physical evidence indicated one thing and the anecdotal evidence another, then the physical evidence is assumed to have the greater weight.

And that's for ordinary claims.

Ummm …for all claims surely?

Can you not see that it is unacceptable, when it comes to ghosts, UFO's and whatnot?

I think you may be confusing evidence with proof. Evidence can constitute proof, but it need not necessarily be proof. For example, there is the concept of “weight of evidence” we must deal with:

“Weight of Evidence (WOE) … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.”(http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

I would be interested to hear your opinion on the concept of weight of evidence and any potential role in critical thinking it might play.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Did I mention that yesterday, I was walking down the street when all of a sudden, the ground cracked like a giant cookie and I fell down a very deep pit but then Superman rescued me?

 

[Rramjet]

Sharing our experiences as human beings is a perfectly natural part of human existence and communication. It is valuable ... it is essential.

Indeed, and I would add that denying investigation into human experience on the grounds that the only evidence we have is anecdotal (although in what context that would actually apply is hard to imagine – perhaps “ghosts”, maybe Bigfoot, certainly not in the context of UFOs - for there we have radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence alongside the multiple eyewitness testimony) and also on the basis of – “(according to what I think I know) It cannot be, therefore it isn’t” actually does a grave disservice to the advancement of knowledge, removing potential advancements from consideration.

 

[Rramjet]

Did I mention that yesterday, I was walking down the street when all of a sudden, the ground cracked like a giant cookie and I fell down a very deep pit but then Superman rescued me?

Did I mention that there is no established body of anecdotal evidence for Superman?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Did I mention that there is no established body of anecdotal evidence for Superman?

Oh don't worry. I've got puuuh-lenty of Superman anecdotes for you, Rramjet. So if you're trying to imply that Your UFO anecdotes are more reliable just because there's LOTS of them, then I shall open a thread devoted entirely to Superman anecdotes and problem solved.

 

[ufology]

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.”
​

Good article there Rramjet ...

I've heard that same argument made that multiple bits of weak data cannot add up to better data. It seems to me that we can quite literally demonstrate that it does. All you have to do is go back to using your 14.4. modem to download a picture. You can literally watch how bits of data are gathered and put together to form a meaningful image. Same with the data that comes from our space probes, cell phones, CDs ... vitually anything digital. In these cases there is also a margin for error that can be corrected ( extrapolated ) from data surrounding the "noise". Then there is HDR photography, the use of three sets of different photos combined with special software to produce a picture that is better than any single picture alone. Then ( and this is one of the best ), there is fingerprint ID software than can be used to assemble a single fingerprint from numerous partials ... a glass here, a doorknob there ... the knife stuck squarely in the carrot cake that wasn't supposed to have been eaten until Sunday.

j.r.

 

[mike3]

Hey there GeeMack ... thanks for dropping in!

The critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence. In many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is. It's based on direct observation of the phenomenon. There is no filter or third party for the data to pass through before it hits the witness's retina and becomes a stimulus for optical observation. It's pretty rare that people actually see something for which no stimulus has been provided.

Regarding simple ignorance. We can help overcome that by posting up clarifications and working it out in a constructive manner. We can deal with fallacies in logic the same way. As for lies and deception, let's smoke them out and expose them for what they are. We don't need them in ufology any more than anyone else does.

j.r.

Anecdotes are not the best evidence. Even if an anecdote is sincere (i.e. it is not a made-up tall tale), at best it represents a single, uncontrolled observation that is subject to a significant number of possible biases and sticking points. And besides, how do we establish its sincerity in the first place?

There's a reason that when scientists gather data they control the observations in some way.

 

[ufology]

Oh don't worry. I've got puuuh-lenty of Superman anecdotes for you, Rramjet. So if you're trying to imply that Your UFO anecdotes are more reliable just because there's LOTS of them, then I shall open a thread devoted entirely to Superman anecdotes and problem solved.

Hey Tom ... Thanks for weighing in on the crackpot hypothesis.

OK we've conceeded that anecdotal evidence doesn't "prove" anything. For that matter even if we had a video of you being rescued by Superman, that wouldn't "prove" anything either. And even if we could watch with our own eyes while you showed us how Superman rescues you, that still wouldn't "prove" anything. I saw David Copperfield make a Lear Jet vanish. Do I think he has genuine magical powers ... we'll damn he's good enough to make me wonder.

Essentially you're just playing the "crackpot card". We don't need to prove there are crackpots out there who make up stories just for the fun of it. We know there are. But we're not dealing with just a few people, and it isn't reasonable to believe that they are all crackpots. The evidence weighs very heavily against that assertion.

j.r.

 

[mike3]

Hey Tom ... Thanks for weighing in on the crackpot hypothesis.

OK we've conceeded that anecdotal evidence doesn't "prove" anything. For that matter even if we had a video of you being rescued by Superman, that wouldn't "prove" anything either. And even if we could watch with our own eyes while you showed us how Superman rescues you, that still wouldn't "prove" anything. I saw David Copperfield make a Lear Jet vanish. Do I think he has genuine magical powers ... we'll damn he's good enough to make me wonder.

If one could summon up Superman for a whole crowd to see, that would be something. Can you summon up a UFO for everyone to see?