Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

Simmer down. It wasn't directed at you personally beyond how far you made it about you personally. You claimed that you have the power to read people and detect their motivation and when they were being dishonest with you. Nowhere did I say that you couldn't see someone turning red. Nowhere did I say that you wouldn't be able to catch an obvious inconsistency in their story. That's why I referred to it earlier as a strawman argument, meaning it was not one that I made, you made it and then became defensive about it to the point where you weren't reading my actual arguments.

The point was, that you missed, people don't always give themselves away when they are hoaxing or lying or whatever they are doing.

Would you like to start over?

Below is a quote of your initial statement:

Do you have a link that backs up these assertions? I think that you're crediting yourself with powers that you don't actually possess. The same powers that cause people to know they couldn't possibly be misperceiving something.

Since we're being good skeptics here, we should make sure that our own biases and lack of objectivity aren't influecing us, shouldn't we?

It looks pretty plain to me that you are challenging my personal ability. I tried to take the personal part out, you accused my of "snipping", so there you are ... your words ... highlighted in yellow ... from your post. Not only do they challenge my ability, they ask for proof of the obvious, which was explained.

Perhaps the part of this exchange that helps illutrate my point the most is that you think I should "simmer down". If we were actually talking in person, you would realize I'm just hanging out here sipping my coffee and calmly posing the questions, which because you aren't here to observe has led you to assume something that isn't the case.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Below is a quote of your initial statement:




It looks pretty plain to me that you are challenging my personal ability. I tried to take the personal part out, you accused my of "snipping", so there you are ... your words ... highlighted in yellow ... from your post. Not only do they challenge my ability, they ask for proof of the obvious, which was explained.

That's because I am challenging your personal ability. You neglected to post your words but here they are to refresh your memory:

I'm pretty good at judging character when I'm sitting right there in front of someone asking questions.

j.r.

I don't think you or anyone is the excellent judge of character that they judge themselves to be.

On this forum, if you claim something like you did, that is open for discussion. I didn't mean to intentionally hurt your feelings.

Perhaps the part of this exchange that helps illutrate my point the most is that you think I should "Simmer down". If we were actually talking in person, you would realize I'm just hanging out here sipping my coffee and calmly posing the questions, which because you aren't here to observe have led you to assume something that isn't the case.

j.r.

The simmer down part was because you had started your rapid fire strawman questions at me. Do you know why they are called strawmen?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This thread isn't about "putting up or shutting up". Perhaps we don't have the same views on what constitutes "anecdotal evidence".

Oxymoron.

I guess I'll have to repeat it one more time: Anecdotes are not evidence. Of anything. Ever.

 

[ufology]

Now Rramjet ufology wants to redefine anecdotal.

<shakes head sadly>

OK Robo ... here's my sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_report

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation:

an·ec·dot·al [ànn?k d?t’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànn?k d?tik] adjective
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.

I didn't write the Wikipedia article on medical case studies and how they are made up of anecdotal evidence. I didn't write the Encarta dictionary entry either. In your estimation anything non-scientific is "anecdotal". That is one possible definition ... and a good one, but the word "or" in the definition allows for "firsthand knowledge" not to be considered as "anecdotal".

The reason I wanted to clarify ( not "redefine" ) the definition is to calrify it in the context of our discussion. If you would care to offer your clarification, then we will have identified where our differences are and might be able to proceed with a meaningful discussion.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Oxymoron.

I guess I'll have to repeat it one more time: Anecdotes are not evidence. Of anything. Ever.

OK then Tomkins ...

Do you have any ideas on how to obtain evidence? Is not the pursuit of evidence a worthy effort? Do you have any evidence you would like to share with us?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I got mine from Wikipedia too.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

It could easily have more definitions than the common one that I use. When I hear the word "anecdotal", I think of someone telling a UFOlogist about their sighting.

John Albert earlier in the thread commented on the unfalsifiable nature of anecdotes and why that renders them a spent force as far as evidence for extraordinary claims goes.

What is needed is extraordinary evidence.

 

[wardenclyffe]

OK then Tomkins ...

Do you have any ideas on how to obtain evidence? Is not the pursuit of evidence a worthy effort? Do you have any evidence you would like to share with us?

j.r.

Some people, many of them seem quite sincere, tell stories of being able to communicate with beings in spaceships. They've said they've been able to summon these ships. It should be easy to obtain evidence if they could do what they claimed.

They certainly seemed to be telling the truth and to believe it themselves.

Ward

 

[ufology]

I got mine from Wikipedia too.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

It could easily have more definitions than the common one that I use. When I hear the word "anecdotal", I think of someone telling a UFOlogist about their sighting.

John Albert earlier in the thread commented on the unfalsifiable nature of anecdotes and why that renders them a spent force as far as evidence for extraordinary claims goes.

What is needed is extraordinary evidence.

OK RoboTimbo ...

We have some slightly conflicting definitions and examples. I would say the differences although subtle are important. Some of them clearly show there is usefulness in anecdotal evidence, particularly in medical case reporting. However that is a far cry from "Billy Joe said she sawed a Flyin' Saucer down by the crick ... hicup ... hicup ... hicup".

It seems reasonable to reject the hearsay in a bar but lend some credence to firsthand accounts of credible witnesses, especially when there is some corroboration. It has been proposed that all anecdotal evidence, and that would include medical case studies, is useless. Does such a hard line advance our pursuit of the truth at this time? If so how?

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

This thread isn't about "putting up or shutting up".

So far it's a demonstration of how "ufologists" apparently lack critical thinking skills, or at the very least how they want to pretend the term "critical thinking" means something other than the way it is conventionally used in discussions here on the JREF forums. Your admission right at the beginning of the thread that you were going to abandon the scientific process in favor of believing stories that support your preconceived notions about aliens attests to that.

 

[ufology]

Some people, many of them seem quite sincere, tell stories of being able to communicate with beings in spaceships. They've said they've been able to summon these ships. It should be easy to obtain evidence if they could do what they claimed.

They certainly seemed to be telling the truth and to believe it themselves.

Ward

Ya wouldn't that be nice. I'm a ufologist and even I have a hard time with the "spaceship summoning" lore. I'll let you know if the space aliens ever grant me that gift by setting up a landing across the street here. I figure these things are about as likely to come when called as we are to get in a chopper and fly out to retrieve a wolf we've tagged every time it howls at the moon.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

We have some slightly conflicting definitions and examples. I would say the differences although subtle are important. Some of them clearly show there is usefulness in anecdotal evidence, particularly in medical case reporting. However that is a far cry from "Billy Joe said she sawed a Flyin' Saucer down by the crick ... hicup ... hicup ... hicup".

Your belief in aliens is no better an explanation for unidentified flying things than this...

There's a god who hates you, who enjoys taunting you, who gets pleasure out of teasing you. And that god creates visions of mysterious flying things in your mind and in some other people's minds. That god puts the thought in your head and those other people's heads that those flying things are craft piloted by aliens.​

That explanation has exactly as much supporting evidence as your silly conjecture that aliens might actually be visiting Earth. Unless you give as much heed to that possibility as you do to alien visitors you are not engaging in critical thinking, your willful ignorance of the myriad equally unevidenced possibilities notwithstanding.

 

[GeeMack]

Ya wouldn't that be nice. I'm a ufologist and even I have a hard time with the "spaceship summoning" lore. I'll let you know if the space aliens ever grant me that gift by setting up a landing across the street here. I figure these things are about as likely to come when called as we are to get in a chopper and fly out to retrieve a wolf we've tagged every time it howls at the moon.

Why not? What could you possibly know about how aliens think?

 

[RoboTimbo]

OK RoboTimbo ...

We have some slightly conflicting definitions and examples. I would say the differences although subtle are important. Some of them clearly show there is usefulness in anecdotal evidence, particularly in medical case reporting. However that is a far cry from "Billy Joe said she sawed a Flyin' Saucer down by the crick ... hicup ... hicup ... hicup".

It seems reasonable to reject the hearsay in a bar but lend some credence to firsthand accounts of credible witnesses, especially when there is some corroboration. It has been proposed that all anecdotal evidence, and that would include medical case studies, is useless. Does such a hard line advance our pursuit of the truth at this time? If so how?

j.r.

Let's not compare UFOs to medical case studies. Since, as you've said, the UFO phenomenon doesn't lend itself to the same rigors as other pursuits, it would be a disservice to compare it to other pursuits.

The part above that I bolded, you heard incorrectly. What was probably said was that anecdotal evidence is useless for validating extraordinary claims. such as, "I saw a pseudoalien spaceship!" How do you separate the evidence from the claim? Obviously you can't call the claim the evidence for the claim, although one pseudoscientist tried.

How would you falsify a tale told to you by a witness to a UFO when all you have is their word?

 

[ufology]

So far it's a demonstration of how "ufologists" apparently lack critical thinking skills, or at the very least how they want to pretend the term "critical thinking" means something other than the way it is conventionally used in discussions here on the JREF forums. Your admission right at the beginning of the thread that you were going to abandon the scientific process in favor of believing stories that support your preconceived notions about aliens attests to that.

I've said nothing about abandoning science, I've only said that it isn't all that counts. There are other issues in ufology to discuss that aren't scientific, yet people find interesting. For example ufology culture and how it affects personal choices in our daily lives. Or to explore the logical thread of various assumptions as a contingency. For example, if we accept that it is reasonable that so many firsthand accounts by reliable trained people indicate that there is a phenomenon worth seeking out scientific evidence for, then how do we do that? Might not working from various hypotheses reveal clues as to how we might, under certain circumstances acquire scientific evidence?

The post suggesting we get someone to summon a UFO is actually more constructive than simply dismissing the idea altogether.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Let's not compare UFOs to medical case studies. Since, as you've said, the UFO phenomenon doesn't lend itself to the same rigors as other pursuits, it would be a disservice to compare it to other pursuits.

The part above that I bolded, you heard incorrectly. What was probably said was that anecdotal evidence is useless for validating extraordinary claims. such as, "I saw a pseudoalien spaceship!" How do you separate the evidence from the claim? Obviously you can't call the claim the evidence for the claim, although one pseudoscientist tried.

How would you falsify a tale told to you by a witness to a UFO when all you have is their word?

OK Robo this is a reasonable way to proceed. Note that it was Tomkins who said all anecdotal evidence is useless, to quote, "Anecdotes are not evidence. Of anything. Ever." and that is who I was referencing there.

With your approach we are getting into similar territory as the "Sagan's Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" thread. I've already pointed out that firsthand reports from reliable witnesses are acceptable evidence ( not proof ). I would say that firsthand knowledge gained from direct interaction by a verified source of proven reliability is extraordinary ... but still not "proof".

However, the point of this thread isn't to "prove" anything, only to determine if it reasonable to believe UFOs exist and from there propose reasonable hypotheses that might yeild clues as to what they are and why they are here.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

OK RoboTimbo ...

We have some slightly conflicting definitions and examples.

This being a thread pertaining to critical thinking, this is the section we should be using to define anecdotal evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic

 

[Stray Cat]

I've already pointed out that firsthand reports from reliable witnesses are acceptable evidence ( not proof ).

You keep referring to "reliable witnesses" and "credible witnesses" in the same way that Rramjet keeps parroting the "backed up by military, radar and physical trace evidence" as if these things are conclusive when his mammoth thread (oh that should be extinct by now) has failed to secure a single case where there is any justification for such certainty.

So I would ask: How do you define a 'credible witness', it's such a subjective thing and it seems to me that a 'credible' one is most likely one that tells a story I believe... which again is hardly critical thinking in action.

And then how do you define a 'reliable witness'?
Is it one that simply turns up when they say they will, to tell you what they think they saw?

 

[ufology]

Your belief in aliens is no better an explanation for unidentified flying things than this...

There's a god who hates you, who enjoys taunting you, who gets pleasure out of teasing you. And that god creates visions of mysterious flying things in your mind and in some other people's minds. That god puts the thought in your head and those other people's heads that those flying things are craft piloted by aliens.
​

That explanation has exactly as much supporting evidence as your silly conjecture that aliens might actually be visiting Earth. Unless you give as much heed to that possibility as you do to alien visitors you are not engaging in critical thinking, your willful ignorance of the myriad equally unevidenced possibilities notwithstanding.

Hey GeeMack ...

I really think you should get out and do more sky watching if you can. You always get so personal about why I believe UFOs exist and assume it's only because I believe people with more education, more training, more relevant experience with flight, some of them scientists, also believe in them ... no those aren't the only reasons ... I don't just believe that other people have seen them.

If you want to get all persoanl, I've seen one myself as well. I have no doubt about their existence. So go ahead and start in with the insults and belittlement and mockery ... I'm sure the JREF people would be proud of you, especially since I came here seeking to build bridges, to enlist the help of people in the JREF. Tell us all GeeMack, what did we all really see then? Educate us ... I'll start nominating you for the language award.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Tell us all GeeMack, what did we all really see then? Educate us ...

See as critical thinking includes the use of logic and therefore the avoidance of logical fallacy, this is not a good approach.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

What you saw was something you couldn't identify. No one needs to prove that to you, if you think it was something other than an unidentified flying object, then the burden of proof rests with you.

 

[Turgor]

Hey GeeMack ...

I really think you should get out and do more sky watching if you can.

I know this was directed at somebody else, but as someone who has clocked hundreds of hours of watching the sky at night I want to respond here.

I have counted thousands of meteorites, seen hundreds of galaxies, open and globular clusters, binaries, huge clouds of dust etc, either with the naked eye or with the help of binoculars/telescopes.

I have never once seen any object in the sky which I thought could not be easily explained without invoking aliens or alien spacecraft. Maybe you should join your local amateur-astronomer chapter, and really take a look at the sky. I am willing to bet it would cure you of the tendency to give any validity to explanations of UFO's that involve aliens.