Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Rramjet]

It still makes no sense. Even if it could be proven or disproven, what bearing would it have on whether the accounts are real?

People can make up anything they want and tell it to a paranormal or UFO researcher. They can be as imaginative or as pedestrian as they wish. The fact that there's already a huge body of accepted pop culture lore about UFOs, aliens, men in black, etc. makes no difference to the question of whether those things exist outside peoples' imaginations.

The statistics on hoaxing (delusion, etc) are insignificant (<1%). So that will not really be a factor in any analysis.

The contention is that, as the debunkers believe that UFO reports are simply the result of misidentifications of mundane objects, then there will be no difference between those reports that have been determined to have a mundane explanation and those that have not (if they are all mundane objects anyway then their characteristics across all reports will not vary significantly between the categories).

It is a simple, falsifiable null hypothesis designed to test a principal (core) belief of the debunkers.

Frankly, if the debunkers are so sure of their beliefs, then I cannot see what the objection to testing their beliefs in a controlled, scientific manner could possibly be.

 

[GeeMack]

Though he could very well believe that the "dishonest" things are actually valid (as opposed to engaging in willful deceit, which would imply he does see the reality on some level), i.e. delusion.

(Interesting principle: never attribute [without more evidence] to malice that which can be adequately explained by self-deception.)

True. I did suggest possibilities for claiming to have seen aliens, explanations like mental illness, delusion, lies, gullibility, stupidity, and even intervention of gods. Unfortunately "ufologists" just don't seem able to offer an open-minded argument applying the kind of critical thinking skills necessary to go beyond the singular, and not even especially creative notion of aliens.

 

[ufology]

Actually, that is a misquote of Gert Herb's study. 24% of those that responded to his mailing mentioned this. However, Herb assumed those that responded would have been more prone to fill out the form if they had seen a UFO.

OK ... that's interesting. I just reviewed that and then scanned through a CUFOs bulletin ( the people who did the poll ), from 1980 ( when the poll was done ), that summarizes the study, and it seems to contradict the assertion that nothing out of the ordinary that couldn't be explained was ever reported. Here's a quote:

Sixty-Six Unknowns Seen Through A Telescope:

With so many amateur astronomers reporting observations which resisted attempts at explanation one immediately asks, " How many observations were made with the astronomer's telescope or binoculars, presumed handy at al I times?" Sixty-six out of 427 observations of all sorts were made through the astronomer's telescope, generally after the object was spotted first by eye. Forty additional objects were observed by binoculars alone. Thus, nearly a quarter of the puzzling observatIons were made with optical aids! Mr. Herb next singled out cases of high strangeness; i.e., cases of sources in erratic motion and the "close encounter" cases. Fourteen of these were observed through a telescope and 17 through binoculars.​

j.r.​

 

[Akhenaten]

Like I said to GeeMack ... look up more, maybe you'll have your own anecdote someday.

Why bother going to all the trouble of looking up?

"Last night a 50-metre-long blue and silver object with "Gay Rodeo" writ large on its sides touched down on the local football field and approximately 37 pink unicorns disembarked. My next-door neighbour also saw this, although she claims that there were only 35 unicorns."​

Will you be sending a team to investigate, ufology?

Don't forget the FLIR.

In the mean time when you say "validate" I presume you mean provide conclusive proof.

Oh goody. Yet another anecdotologist who wants to claim that sceptics are in a perpetual state of confusion about the difference between evidence and proof.

We've been through that already. I've conceeded anecdotal evidence doesn't "prove" anything already. This thread isn't about "proof". It's about what is reasonable.

1. Substitute 'provide conclusive proof' for 'validate'.
   
   
2. Substitute 'reasonable' for 'evidence'.
   
   
3. Argue that anecdotes are reasonable and that sceptics are wrong to demand conclusive proof.
   
   
4. Lose everything in the Great Straw Fire of 2011.

Bummer.

Anecdotal evidence has often been the basis for investigating things.

Only things that actually happened. Pretty much rules out flying saucers, I'm afraid.

Given the persistence of anecdotal evidence, do you think it's reasonable not to investigate?

Why would persistence add to the value of an anecdote? People have been talking about Roswell for more than 60 years and it's still just a silly story. People have been telling Jesus anecdotes for 2000 years, and they're even sillier. Is it reasonable to investigate stories about Red Sea pedestrians and Pyramid-building giants?

No.

Not to interview witnesses?

Witnesses are people who have seen something that's known to have happened, like a train smash or a bank robbery. People telling flying saucer stories haven't even been shown to be witnesses.

Of course, that's not to say that if a large and diverse number of people describe a similar experience at the same time and in the same place then it's definitely worth investigating, and that's when we learn that they actually were witnesses to something. (Blimps mostly)

Not to look for scientific evidence?

The reasonability of looking for any kind of evidence will be dependant on the nature of the anecdote (563 individuals describing a large metal cylinder in a smoking crater on Horsell Common is probably worth a look) and on what the individual flying saucerer investigator feels like doing with his spare time. Some might say that it's more reasonable to collect Malibu Stacy dolls than to chase flying saucers, but who's to say?

What can you post to offer as something constructive?

j.r.

Here's something used for constructing holes:

Not that you need it.

 

[Rramjet]

Even the most damned-honest never-tell-a-lie-in-a-million-years person on the planet is still subject to error.

This does not mean they did err, it means they could have. But you're not going to know that from the anecdote. And that is why anecdotes are worthless.

I guess you missed this then:

Luckily we have the science of psychology to guide us. The study of perception and the factors that lead us into misperception of why people deceive and in what contexts is well documented. We can use that knowledge to assess anecdotal evidence.

And this:

”The expression anecdotal evidence refers to the use of particular instances or concrete examples to support a general claim. Such information (sometimes referred to pejoratively as "hearsay") may be compelling but does not, in itself, provide proof.” (http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/anecdoteterm.htm)​

” Despite its limitations, anecdotal evidence is important in some areas of research, such as case study research, where the emphasis might be on learning as much as you can about a specific situation and you have to depend on a person's own experience for information/data. Even in areas where anecdotal evidence is not considered valid or reliable for the type of study that you want to conduct, it can strongly suggest lines of research.” (http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/anecdotal.html)​

Oh, and this:

No-one is denying that misidentifications occur, but just because misidentifications are possible, does not mean that every case is a misidentification.

…and possibly this:

“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)​

And surely you could not have missed this:

The statistics on hoaxing (delusion, etc) are insignificant (<1%). So that will not really be a factor in any analysis.

The contention is that, as the debunkers believe that UFO reports are simply the result of misidentifications of mundane objects, then there will be no difference between those reports that have been determined to have a mundane explanation and those that have not (if they are all mundane objects anyway then their characteristics across all reports will not vary significantly between the categories).

It is a simple, falsifiable null hypothesis designed to test a principal (core) belief of the debunkers.

Frankly, if the debunkers are so sure of their beliefs, then I cannot see what the objection to testing their beliefs in a controlled, scientific manner could possibly be.

 

[ufology]

True. I did suggest possibilities for claiming to have seen aliens, explanations like mental illness, delusion, lies, gullibility, stupidity, and even intervention of gods. Unfortunately "ufologists" just don't seem able to offer an open-minded argument applying the kind of critical thinking skills necessary to go beyond the singular, and not even especially creative notion of aliens.

Maybe some UFO "promoters" are as you suggest, but the best ufologists make an effort to rule out those factors that you mention. Also, not all ufologists have adopted the ETH as a belief. You constantly presume far too much negativity.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

Don't forget the FLIR.

You must simply have missed this then…

You are simply not telling either the truth or the whole story there Stray Cat.

Before the FLIR incident there were a number of anomalous radar contacts and the aircrew became intent on discovering what those contacts were. It seemed as if the was a UFO out there, yet they could make no visual contact. Then psychologically primed for a visual contact they saw (what has subsequently been contended) the oil well flares. Naturally they thought they had their visual confirmation. You can access the full details of the story here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

 

[mike3]

Astronomers do see UFOs too ... and not just one or two astronomers who might otherwise be ostracized or ridiculed. Hynek himself began his work as a skeptic. So there is still hope for you yet. I'll tell you right now, with your experience, if you have a good sighting, you aren't going to need to ask yourself too many questions ... you will just know.

But you have to ask questions if you want to do science. No matter how "obvious" whatever you experience seems to be.

And this is not a criterion that applies only to UFOlogy or "paranormal" studies -- but to all scientific endeavor. If you refuse it, but still profess to be practicing science, then you are not, you are instead practicing pseudoscience. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Akhenaten]

Regardless of the strange beliefs you make up for your straw crtics, Rramjet, unidentified ≠ misidentified. Why do you pretend otherwise?

I was merely noting that the belief of the debunkers/critics/sceptics/cynics is that UFO reports are primarily the product of a misidentification of mundane objects.

Yes, I know exactly what you were merely noting and that's why I pointed out that you were wrong.

Since it's intentional on your part to have this bit of equivocation accepted without objection I don't expect you to stop it any time soon, but I consider it my civic duty to point it out.

 

[Akhenaten]

Don't forget the FLIR.

You must simply have missed this then…

<snip>

Ignoring Rramjet Flying Saucer Story #3941 ≠ missing.


Duh.

 

[John Albert]

The statistics on hoaxing (delusion, etc) are insignificant (<1%). So that will not really be a factor in any analysis.

I don't accept that statistic, because just look at it!

It's all covered in poop because you just pulled it out of your ass.

The contention is that, as the debunkers believe that UFO reports are simply the result of misidentifications of mundane objects, then there will be no difference between those reports that have been determined to have a mundane explanation and those that have not (if they are all mundane objects anyway then their characteristics across all reports will not vary significantly between the categories).

It is a simple, falsifiable null hypothesis designed to test a principal (core) belief of the debunkers.

Wow, dude. Is your thinking really that muddled? I don't even know how to begin addressing how flawed that premise is. So you're basing your entire argument on the notion that all things that can possibly be mistaken for UFOs are already known to have been mistaken for them, and therefore all other UFO stories must exhibit the same characteristics or else... aliens?!?

It gives me a headache even trying to wrap my brain around such illogic.

 

[John Albert]

accidental double post

 

[Akhenaten]

Codswallop. You have exactly none of this evidence.

This is a amost interesting cultural contribution to this thread. Apparently, there is aslo no evidence anyplace that definitvely defines the word "codswallop". The best I've come up with is that its origin came from the early days of soft-drink manufacturing when it was used as a form of mockery by drinkers of beer who had a disdain for the non-alcoholic beverage, which is kind of ironic in this case.

Stick around and maybe you'll learn some other cool stuff, although I has me doubts.

It's as if the obnoxious drunk were spouting off at the unimpaired intellectual.

j.r.

Yeah, except it's nothing like that.

 

[ufology]

But you have to ask questions if you want to do science. No matter how "obvious" whatever you experience seems to be.

And this is not a criterion that applies only to UFOlogy or "paranormal" studies -- but to all scientific endeavor. If you refuse it, but still profess to be practicing science, then you are not, you are instead practicing pseudoscience. What is so hard to understand about that?

Sure ... I agree ... but that won't change the fact of what I just said. Rramjet explained it earlier to someone else a little better. It's not so subtle that you have to wonder. It's just plain self-evident. You don't have to wonder about it, and the questions come later.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Genuine UFO sightings are relatively rare (per capita), it is not unusual for the majority of the population to go a lifetime without seeing one.

You seem to be claiming here that very few people will ever see an object in the sky that they are unable to identfy, but since nobody would ever say anything so daft I must be reading it without the benefit of knowing which words have been run through the Rramjet Redefinitionator™

Are you able to clarify this statement without resorting to your unfounded assertion that unidentified means the same thing as misidentified?

 

[John Albert]

Critical thinking acknowledges that the methodology of science represents the very best practices to date for discerning the objective nature of our Universe, thus critical thinking and the practice of science go hand-in-hand.

You wanna talk critical thinking, you have to accept scientific methods. Otherwise, you're not thinking critically, and I propose using a different term for your kind of thinking.

Howabout, "credulous thinking," "pseudoscience," or "woo."

You said you wanted to promote a critical approach to the subject of UFOs, but then you refuse to accept the advice of everyone in this educational community devoted to the discipline of critical thinking. If you already know so much about critical thinking and you're convinced we're all wrong, then what are you doing here? Seems to me this is all a pointless waste of time.

Critical thinkers are not going to change the rules of informal logic out of concession to your special pleadings, and you're obviously uninterested in hearing that one of the primary touchstones of your entire field of research is completely unrecognized in this community. Five pages into this thread, and we've been stuck at the same impasse since post #3.

Where do we go from here?

In support of Kris Kringle, a "santaclausologist" could easily make a website presenting anecdotes of sightings, every news report of NORAD tracking his travels across the continent, all the songs and movies in the popular culture, plus the "material evidence" of Christmas cards, children's letters, photographs of presents, half-eaten cookies and milk, etc., but of course it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans from a critical thinking perspective.

So, ufology, how about it? Care to address any of these thoughts, or am I just wasting my time posting in this thread?

 

[Rramjet]

I was merely noting that the belief of the debunkers/critics/sceptics/cynics is that UFO reports are primarily the product of a misidentification of mundane objects.

Yes, I know exactly what you were merely noting and that's why I pointed out that you were wrong.

I guess you missed this little exchange then:

Ummm… I thought your contention was that “tens of thousands of people” DO NOT see UFOs, but merely misidentified mundane objects.

That is true…

The statistics on hoaxing (delusion, etc) are insignificant (<1%). So that will not really be a factor in any analysis.

I don't accept that statistic, because just look at it!

It's all covered in poop because you just pulled it out of your ass.

“For example, the USAF's Project Blue Book concluded that less than 2 % of reported UFOs were "psychological" or hoaxes; Allen Hendry's study for CUFOS had less than 1 %” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object)

Blue Book’s Dr Hynek (The Hynek UFO Report) has “Hoax” at 0.9% and “Psychological” at 0.5% (p. 259).

You were saying?

The contention is that, as the debunkers believe that UFO reports are simply the result of misidentifications of mundane objects, then there will be no difference between those reports that have been determined to have a mundane explanation and those that have not (if they are all mundane objects anyway then their characteristics across all reports will not vary significantly between the categories).

Wow, dude. Is your thinking really that muddled? I don't even know how to begin addressing how flawed that premise is. So you're basing your entire argument on the notion that all things that can possibly be mistaken for UFOs are already known to have been mistaken for them, and therefore all other UFO stories must exhibit the same characteristics or else... aliens?!?

It gives me a headache even trying to wrap my brain around such illogic.

Let me try and clarify it for you then:

• The contention from the UFO debunkers is that all UFO reports are principally caused by a misidentification of mundane objects.
• All the objects contained within the UFO reports should therefore have the characteristics of mundane objects.
• There should then be no statistical difference on those characteristics between the “explained” reports and the “unexplained” reports (if they are all mundane objects, then how could there be a difference?).
• So, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference.
• Of course we can test that hypothesis.
• If there is no difference found, then that supports the UFO debunkers contention.
• If there IS a difference found , then that refutes the debunker’s contention.

If there is anything you still do not understand about that, then please let me know and I will attempt a further clarification for you.

 

[Rramjet]

Dude, you're running in circles!

Critical thinking acknowledges that the methodology of science represents the very best practices to date for discovering the objective nature of our Universe, thus critical thinking and the practice of science go hand-in-hand.

There. I said it. OK?

You wanna talk critical thinking, you have to accept scientific methods. Otherwise, you're not being critical, and I propose using a different term for your kind of thinking.

So let’s put my null hypothesis to the test. Or are you afraid of it too?

There should be no difference in defined characteristics between UFO reports that have been determined to have mundane explanations and those reports that remain unidentified.

A simple, straightforward test of the hypothesis that most UFO reports are the result of a misidentification of mundane objects.

You talk the talk. Can you walk the walk?

You said you wanted to promote a critical approach to the subject of UFOs, but then you refuse to accept the advice of everyone in this educational community devoted to critical thinking. If you already know so much about critical thinking and you're convinced we're all wrong, then what are you doing here? Seems to me this is all a pointless waste of time.

Critical thinkers are not going to change the rules of informal logic out of concession to your special pleadings, and you're obviously uninterested in hearing that one of the primary touchstones of your entire field of research is completely unrecognized in this community. Five pages into this thread, and we've been stuck at the same impasse since post #3.

Perhaps that’s because you are running in circles? You get an answer, then repeat the same post all over again as if no answer was ever supplied...

I propose we test my null hypothesis if you are so worried about where we go from here. That is the application of science you are calling for. There is your critical thinking. Let’s scientifically and critically test a core belief of the UFO debunkers shall we. Let the chips fall where they may. That’s science!

In support of Kris Kringle, a "santaclausologist" could easily make a website presenting anecdotes of sightings…

Somehow I doubt that. What sets UFOlogy apart from such things is the evidence:

We have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence). This is the type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal fields.

Do you have any verified radar, photos, film, physical trace evidence for Santa (or even multiple eyewitness sightings)?

 

[John Albert]

Do you have any verified radar, photos, film, physical trace evidence for Santa (or even multiple eyewitness sightings)?

Not at the moment, but how much do you want to bet they'd come pouring in every Christmas, if I put up a website?

That evidence would be every bit as valid and falsifiable as any evidence for UFOs.

Damn it, now I might actually have to do this, just to prove a point.

The statistics on hoaxing (delusion, etc) are insignificant (<1%). So that will not really be a factor in any analysis.

“For example, the USAF's Project Blue Book concluded that less than 2 % of reported UFOs were "psychological" or hoaxes; Allen Hendry's study for CUFOS had less than 1 %” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object)

Blue Book’s Dr Hynek (The Hynek UFO Report) has “Hoax” at 0.9% and “Psychological” at 0.5% (p. 259).

OK then, on what basis did those researchers arrive at those statistics?

I'm guessing that was the percentage of reports that were conclusively proven to be hoaxes, or where somebody admitted having perpetrated a hoax. Who knows how many of the other "inconclusive" reports might also have been hoaxed, but were not discovered as such?

...Or did the researchers arrive at those figures on just a hunch, based solely on the anecdotal "evidence" and the field interviewers' faith in their own personal knack for judging the truthfulness of complete strangers?

Either way, that figure (like most "facts" in the study of ufology) is so unreliable as to be practically meaningless.

The contention is that, as the debunkers believe that UFO reports are simply the result of misidentifications of mundane objects, then there will be no difference between those reports that have been determined to have a mundane explanation and those that have not (if they are all mundane objects anyway then their characteristics across all reports will not vary significantly between the categories).

Let me try and clarify it for you then:

• The contention from the UFO debunkers is that all UFO reports are principally caused by a misidentification of mundane objects.

Except when they aren't.

There's always the possibility that they're hoaxes, lies, confabulations, optical illusions, hallucinations, hypnagogia, etc.

Considering the fact that, you know, absolutely zero material evidence has ever been presented to corroborate any of these stories.

• There should then be no statistical difference on those characteristics between the “explained” reports and the “unexplained” reports (if they are all mundane objects, then how could there be a difference?).

"Mundane objects" is an extremely vague and broad category. How many different kinds of "mundane objects" would you say exist in the entire world?

Give me a ballpark figure on the number of kinds of "mundane objects" that could conceivably be misconstrued as flying saucers, and then tell me how many permutations of them share similar characteristics that you enumerated in your "hypothesis."

• So, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference.
• Of course we can test that hypothesis.
• If there is no difference found, then that supports the UFO debunkers contention.
• If there IS a difference found , then that refutes the debunker’s contention.

Who's your dealer? I know a few people who would pay a LOT of money for the opportunity to impair their mental functioning to that extent. Just saying. You can PM me if you like. I promise to be discreet.

If there is anything you still do not understand about that, then please let me know and I will attempt a further clarification for you.

No, don't bother. I think I have all the information I need.

 

[Akhenaten]

In support of Kris Kringle, a "santaclausologist" could easily make a website presenting anecdotes of sightings…

Somehow I doubt that. What sets UFOlogy apart from such things is the evidence:

We have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence).

We have no such thing, Rramjet. Have you tried to estimate how many times you'll need to repeat this lie before it turns into the truth?

This is the type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal fields.

This is the sort of extraordinary claim that makes ufology exactly the same as all the other paranormal nonsense.

Do you have any verified radar, photos, film, physical trace evidence for Santa (or even multiple eyewitness sightings)?

The statement you're pretending to answer only mentioned anecdotes, Rramjet. Adding all the other stuff to make it look like you have a real answer does your already abysmal credibility no favours at all.

In any case, with the exception of the alleged eyewitness sightings, the evidence for flying saucers that you want to believe in does not exist. Do you think nobody has noticed your abject failure to demonstrate otherwise?

As far as (alleged) eyewitness sightings, Santa is a clear winner over your flying saucers.