Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Stray Cat]

OK ufology... I'll let you know, I'm starting to lose patience here.

Your hand waving excuses and most importantly, your constant failure to answer relevant points when I've gone to an amount of trouble to respond fully and at some length to questions you pose is getting a little tiresome.

 

[ufology]

I've given him examples of pseudoscience in action based on his definition and he refused to acknowledge that it was pseudoscience.

Ufology as a whole and a UFO sighting report are two entirely separate contexts with respect to the question of the thread. The question of the thread is, "Is ufology a pseudoscience?" not "Is this particular UFO report here or that one there pseudoscientific?"

As mentioned in previous posts, to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience based on instances where sighting reports are used in a story would be like branding all medicine as pseudoscience because somebody makes references to some anecdotal case studies or because there are a few quacks here and there.

Also, to keep demanding answers to questions that aren't relevant as if they would prove some point is pseudoskeptical. You may be able to make a convincing case that some sighting reports and case studies are pseudoscientific, but it is simply false logic that such studies, even if they were to match the definition of pseuodoscience, would mean that all of ufology is therefore a pseudo science.

All I needed to do to show that ufology is not pseudoscience is demonstrate that some elements of ufology fall outside either definition. Not only is that plainly self-evident, the logical proof has been stated over and over again. Here's another example of the kind of logic you are using:

Logic: "Women wear dresses. Therefore anything wearing a dress is a woman."

Skeptic: "Answer the question? Are you wearing a dress or not?"

===============================================

Accept it. Ufology is not a pseudoscience any more than anything wearing a dress is a woman. It's so obvious that this discussion should have been closed when this point was made the first time.

Additionally, it would do those skeptics who are considering this debate well to remember that ufology does not dismiss science or skepticism. For example my ufology library includes copies of The Skeptical Inquirer ( SCICOP - now just CSI ), UFOs A Scientific Debate ( Carl Sagan & Thornton Page ), The Cosmic Connection ( Carl Sagan ), UFOs Explained ( Phillip J. Klass ), The Scientific Study Of Unidentified Flying Objects ( Edward U. Condon ). Indeed, I would not guarantee that you would not find any pseudoscientific examples cherry picked by the skeptics in those works. But like it or not, they are a part of ufology. So if you really want to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience, then every time you immerse yourself in a discussion about it, you're branding yourself with it as well.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ufology as a whole and a UFO sighting report are two entirely separate contexts with respect to the question of the thread. The question of the thread is, "Is ufology a pseudoscience?" not "Is this particular UFO report here or that one there pseudoscientific?"

I didn't link you to a UFO sighting report. I linked you to the work of one of our resident UFOlogists and asked if that represented pseudoscience. You have already defined what pseudoscience is, would you apply that label to what was going on at the links I gave you?

As mentioned in previous posts, to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience based on instances where sighting reports are used in a story would be like branding all medicine as pseudoscience because somebody makes references to some anecdotal case studies or because there are a few quacks here and there.

No, we know that injury and disease exist and we know that the practice of medicine can remediate some injury and disease in known ways. It is more like branding homeopathy as pseudoscience because homeopathy is not known to cure anything beyond the effect of placebo. Oh wait, homeopathy is pseudoscience! The methods used in UFOlogy by its practitioners who believe that UFOs are alien spaceships is pseudoscience because UFOs as alien spaceships has never been shown to be the answer. Having a predetermined conclusion and trying to shoehorn anything to fit that conclusion is pseudoscience.

Also, to keep demanding answers to questions that aren't relevant as if they would prove some point is pseudoskeptical. You may be able to make a convincing case that some sighting reports and case studies are pseudoscientific, but it is simply false logic that such studies, even if they were to match the definition of pseuodoscience, would mean that all of ufology is therefore a pseudo science.

Can you give me an example of an investigation into UFOs as alien spaceships that hasn't been pseudoscientific. I believe Stray Cat has been asking the same thing and you've been ignoring his question also.

All I needed to do to show that ufology is not pseudoscience is demonstrate that some elements of ufology fall outside either definition. Not only is that plainly self-evident, the logical proof has been stated over and over again. Here's another example of the kind of logic you are using:

Why do you believe that to be true?

Logic: "Women wear dresses. Therefore anything wearing a dress is a woman."

Skeptic: "Answer the question? Are you wearing a dress or not?"

===============================================

Nope, false logic (and pseudoscientific). Try again.

Accept it. Ufology is not a pseudoscience any more than anything wearing a dress is a woman. It's so obvious that this discussion should have been closed when this point was made the first time.

Well, no. It's been shown that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience and I've given you examples which show pseudoscience in action and that the person doing it was a pseudoscientist. They fit your own definitions! And yet you refuse to acknowledge it. If you didn't want to discuss the pseudoscience of UFOlogy, then why did you dredge up an old thread discussing it?

Accept it.

Additionally, it would do those skeptics who are considering this debate well to remember that ufology does not dismiss science or skepticism. For example my ufology library includes copies of The Skeptical Inquirer ( SCICOP - now just CSI ), UFOs A Scientific Debate ( Carl Sagan & Thornton Page ), The Cosmic Connection ( Carl Sagan ), UFOs Explained ( Phillip J. Klass ), The Scientific Study Of Unidentified Flying Objects ( Edward U. Condon ). Indeed, I would not guarantee that you would not find any pseudoscientific examples cherry picked by the skeptics in those works. But like it or not, they are a part of ufology. So if you really want to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience, then every time you immerse yourself in a discussion about it, you're branding yourself with it as well.

j.r.

Would you agree or disagree that UFOlogists who are starting with their conclusion that some UFOs are alien space ships and engage in the discipline of UFOlogy to study them are engaging in pseudoscience?

 

[carlitos]

...it seems normal that it wouldn't shift exactly the same.

But like I said, I'm not FX expert.

Why are you ignoring an actual FX expert (Stray Cat) and telling us what "seems" normal to you? Who cares about your uniformed opinion? Why, it's almost as if you don't want to use critical thinking in ufology so that you can pretend the case in question is alien piloted craft.

As he put it:

So you are no expert in FX but you can still think of an excuse why an expert in FX could be wrong... OK.

Indeed.

 

[GeeMack]

Additionally, it would do those skeptics who are considering this debate well to remember that ufology does not dismiss science or skepticism.

First, it's hardly a debate. You're offering arguments comprised of a variety of logical fallacies and deceptive tactics, and ignoring direct concerns in order to support the notion that "ufology" is not a pseudoscientific endeavor. All your efforts in that regard have failed. But "ufology does not dismiss science"? Really? Should we all have a laugh now at that dishonest argument, or should we first take a look at these many denials that "ufology" is science...

Therefore what we actually have are the two extremes, science and pseudoscience, with ufology as the subject matter in between, which makes ufology itself neither science nor pseudoscience.

There are some flawed assumptions and incorrect statistics here. Ufology is an area of inquiry and study. It isn't science nor is it psudoscience.

Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience.

I'm not engaging in "science" nor am I engaging in "pseudoscience".

Again, ufology makes no claim to being science in and of itself. Therefore it is neither science nor pseudoscience.

Ufology on the whole makes no claim to be in and of itself "sceintific".

Ufology is ufology and science is science. I don't think the twain will ever meet, [...]

I've already stated why my view is different several times but you seem to keep missing it. The main rationale for calling something pseudoscience is that it must be presented as being science without following its rules. Because I make no claim to be doing science, and what I do doesn't fit the definition of science, what I do is neither science nor pseudoscience [...]

Clearly we see the prerequisite listed "... presented as scientific". Which I make no claim that ufology does, and neither is there a prevailing view among ufologists that it is ... that is something that is consistently done here by the skeptics.

[...]

Again, I make no claim that ufology mistakenly thinks or holds itself up as science, and neither is that a prevailing view among ufologists. Again, that is something that is consistently done by the skeptics.

[...]

Again, Neither I nor the ufology greater ufology community appears to hold any set of ideas it puts forth as scientific unless they actually are scientific ( for example, meteroites are from space ).

[...]

Again, Neither I nor the ufology greater ufology community appears to either with or without warrant presume to have a "scientific basis or application".

Much evidence exists here and in other threads showing that "ufology" does indeed dismiss science and skepticism while pretending to apply it. Repeated arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, other glaring logical fallacies, dishonestly blaming science and skeptics for the failures of "ufology", and continuing to dishonestly redefine terms in unconventional ways in order to support the belief in aliens is contrary to science and skepticism. Couching all that in terms of investigations, inquiry, studies, research, or examining evidence is exactly what makes it pseudoscience.

 

[ufology]

OK ufology... I'll let you know, I'm starting to lose patience here.

Your hand waving excuses and most importantly, your constant failure to answer relevant points when I've gone to an amount of trouble to respond fully and at some length to questions you pose is getting a little tiresome.

And how does your comment above in any way address the issue?

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

And how does your comment above in any way address the issue?

It points out your avoidance of relevant concerns, which is, whether by intent or as a byproduct, evidence that "ufology" ignores rather than embraces critical thinking.

 

[John Albert]

OK ufology... I'll let you know, I'm starting to lose patience here.

Your hand waving excuses and most importantly, your constant failure to answer relevant points when I've gone to an amount of trouble to respond fully and at some length to questions you pose is getting a little tiresome.

And how does your comment above in any way address the issue?

This is a thread about "critical thinking in ufology," yet the ufologists in this thread have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to address numerous valid concerns raised by the critical thinkers concerning the conspicuous avoidance of critical thinking on their part.

Instead of discussing these concerns honestly and reasonably, you guys have waffled, attempted to redefine the English language, appealed to several misleading authorities, pontificated on subjects in which you have no expertise, posited numerous sophisms including false or misleading statistics, levied ad hominem attacks, attempted to sidetrack the conversation with smalltalk, and blatantly ignored direct challenges to your fallacious reasoning, only to reiterate the same fallacies a few posts later.

I personally have put enough hours into these threads over the past week or so to constitute a part-time job. Many of us have applied an enormous effort to try and get you guys to reign in your credulous, lazy reasoning and start treating the subject logically, but it seems to be going in one ear and right out the other.

 

[ufology]

Would you agree or disagree that UFOlogists who are starting with their conclusion that some UFOs are alien space ships and engage in the discipline of UFOlogy to study them are engaging in pseudoscience?

Of all the responses that were in the above post, this is the only part worth commenting on. To get at what the real issue is with respect to pseudoscience in ufology, it would be better to simply ask the question, "what constitutes pseudoscience in ufology?"

There are probably instances where a convincing case can be made that pseudoscience is taking place, for example claiming that because quantum physics says that there are other dimensions, UFOs are coming here from other dimensions.

There are probably also instances where a convincing case can be made that science is taking place, for example during the lab testing of physical samples to determine composition.

But the bottom line of whether or not either example above is really pseudoscience depends on the context in which it is presented. For example the IDH hypothesis can be discussed in the context of plausibility or what other people think, or for that matter in the context of this very post, and that doesn't make this post pseudoscience. Neither does it make it science. But it is still ufology.

On the other hand, if the hard science from the materials testing is presented as scientific proof of alien visitation, the overall report would fit the definition of pseudoscience ... and just plain bad ufology.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

Hi ufology,

The question was phrased - "Do you agree or disagree?" In between the many words that you posted, might you find one of those words?

Would you agree or disagree that UFOlogists who are starting with their conclusion that some UFOs are alien space ships and engage in the discipline of UFOlogy to study them are engaging in pseudoscience?

Seemingly deliberate obtuseness and the inability to answer simple, direct questions is not winning you friends or influencing the skeptics here.

 

[carlitos]

And how does your comment above in any way address the issue?

j.r.

I think that my comment here frames it up for you. By the way, I don't believe that you really don't understand his frustration. I think you're playing a game. Just my 2 cents.

 

[John Albert]

Ufologists cherry-pick which science they accept and which they reject, based on how useful it is toward advancing their belief in flying saucers.

Ufology is an undisciplined area of study that imitates some procedures of science, operates on unsupported, extraordinary assumptions about the nature of the material Universe based around folklore, and makes authoritative, scientific-sounding claims without adhering to the disciplines of critical thinking or scientific methodology.

That's pseudoscience.

Cryptozoology is another pseudoscience that shares a lot in common with ufology. It has similar pop culture elements. Like ufology, it made a big resurgence in the 1970s due to popular woo-related TV shows, and surged again in popularity in the '00s due to the Internet. It makes unsupported, extraordinary assumptions based on folklore. Like ufology, most "evidence" put forward by cryptozoologtists has been in the form of anecdotes or easily-hoaxed photographs, films, track castings, etc., yet to this date no cryptozoologist has never produced any conclusive material evidence of one of their legendary monsters. Like ufology, cryptozoology has a very active history and subculture of generating hoaxes.

If you accept cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, ufology fits the bill equally well.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of all the responses that were in the above post, this is the only part worth commenting on.

j.r.

No, that's just the part that you thought you could most easily deliberately misinterpret and answer a question that I didn't ask. You'll still need to answer that part of the post and this time answer the question I did ask and also answer the questions that you cut out that aren't going to be so easy for you. Here they are again along with the question that I actually asked at the end which you didn't answer but pretended to:

Ufology as a whole and a UFO sighting report are two entirely separate contexts with respect to the question of the thread. The question of the thread is, "Is ufology a pseudoscience?" not "Is this particular UFO report here or that one there pseudoscientific?"

I didn't link you to a UFO sighting report. I linked you to the work of one of our resident UFOlogists and asked if that represented pseudoscience. You have already defined what pseudoscience is, would you apply that label to what was going on at the links I gave you?

As mentioned in previous posts, to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience based on instances where sighting reports are used in a story would be like branding all medicine as pseudoscience because somebody makes references to some anecdotal case studies or because there are a few quacks here and there.

No, we know that injury and disease exist and we know that the practice of medicine can remediate some injury and disease in known ways. It is more like branding homeopathy as pseudoscience because homeopathy is not known to cure anything beyond the effect of placebo. Oh wait, homeopathy is pseudoscience! The methods used in UFOlogy by its practitioners who believe that UFOs are alien spaceships is pseudoscience because UFOs as alien spaceships has never been shown to be the answer. Having a predetermined conclusion and trying to shoehorn anything to fit that conclusion is pseudoscience.

Also, to keep demanding answers to questions that aren't relevant as if they would prove some point is pseudoskeptical. You may be able to make a convincing case that some sighting reports and case studies are pseudoscientific, but it is simply false logic that such studies, even if they were to match the definition of pseuodoscience, would mean that all of ufology is therefore a pseudo science.

Can you give me an example of an investigation into UFOs as alien spaceships that hasn't been pseudoscientific. I believe Stray Cat has been asking the same thing and you've been ignoring his question also.

All I needed to do to show that ufology is not pseudoscience is demonstrate that some elements of ufology fall outside either definition. Not only is that plainly self-evident, the logical proof has been stated over and over again. Here's another example of the kind of logic you are using:

Why do you believe that to be true?

Logic: "Women wear dresses. Therefore anything wearing a dress is a woman."

Skeptic: "Answer the question? Are you wearing a dress or not?"

===============================================

Nope, false logic (and pseudoscientific). Try again.

Accept it. Ufology is not a pseudoscience any more than anything wearing a dress is a woman. It's so obvious that this discussion should have been closed when this point was made the first time.

Well, no. It's been shown that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience and I've given you examples which show pseudoscience in action and that the person doing it was a pseudoscientist. They fit your own definitions! And yet you refuse to acknowledge it. If you didn't want to discuss the pseudoscience of UFOlogy, then why did you dredge up an old thread discussing it?

Accept it.

Additionally, it would do those skeptics who are considering this debate well to remember that ufology does not dismiss science or skepticism. For example my ufology library includes copies of The Skeptical Inquirer ( SCICOP - now just CSI ), UFOs A Scientific Debate ( Carl Sagan & Thornton Page ), The Cosmic Connection ( Carl Sagan ), UFOs Explained ( Phillip J. Klass ), The Scientific Study Of Unidentified Flying Objects ( Edward U. Condon ). Indeed, I would not guarantee that you would not find any pseudoscientific examples cherry picked by the skeptics in those works. But like it or not, they are a part of ufology. So if you really want to brand all of ufology as pseudoscience, then every time you immerse yourself in a discussion about it, you're branding yourself with it as well.

j.r.

Would you agree or disagree that UFOlogists who are starting with their conclusion that some UFOs are alien space ships and engage in the discipline of UFOlogy to study them are engaging in pseudoscience?

Thanks in advance.

 

[GeeMack]

Would you agree or disagree that UFOlogists who are starting with their conclusion that some UFOs are alien space ships and engage in the discipline of UFOlogy to study them are engaging in pseudoscience?

Of all the responses that were in the above post, this is the only part worth commenting on.

Predictably followed by dishonestly ignoring the question and avoiding comment on it. And of course predictably and dishonestly trying to reconstruct the question...

To get at what the real issue is with respect to pseudoscience in ufology, it would be better to simply ask the question, "what constitutes pseudoscience in ufology?"

And then some more transparently dishonest No-True-Scotsman arguments.

When those who purport to engage in "ufology" absolutely must rely on arguments with a solid foundation of dishonesty, while maintaining a pretense of wanting a legitimate discussion, that is pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

Seemingly deliberate obtuseness and the inability to answer simple, direct questions is not winning you friends or influencing the skeptics here.

Actually I think it's a great example of how the pseudoscience of "ufology" works. Lies, arguments from ignorance, logical fallacies, dishonestly re-framing the discussion when you're clearly failing, changing the meanings of terms to bolster a preconceived belief in aliens, and then crying persecution when busted. It's interesting, and pathetic in a way, that it's about all the "ufologists" seem to have. They can't legitimately support their fantasy with anything objective, so they try to turn objectivity on its head.

This strategy might work with stupid people. They might acquire a disciple or two that way, very much like IDiots can troll a few gullible Christians into their fold. But it doesn't take much awareness or much critical thinking to see right through it. I expect there are lurkers here learning that "ufology" is a silly pastime if for no other reason than it doesn't have an honest leg to stand on.

 

[Rramjet]

…continuing to dishonestly redefine terms in unconventional ways in order to support the belief in aliens is contrary to science and skepticism.

Let’s examine that assertion for critical thinking shall we?

First, here are the principle reasons why some people might believe the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is plausible explanatory hypothesis.

First we have the observational evidence of ostensible 'nuts and bolts' craft, intelligent manoeuvring and associated beings.

Then we have the multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

Then we add in the lack of plausible mundane explanations for that evidence and couple it with the fact that there is nothing in science that would preclude ET visitation.

The ET hypothesis is then a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

That of course does not mean it is the explanation for UFOs (meaning ‘genuine UFOs’ or those that after much analysis and research have no plausible mundane explanation) – it merely means that there is evidence to support a belief in the ET hypothesis.

How does any of that then “ dishonestly redefine terms in unconventional ways”? Of course it does not.

How is any of that “contrary to science and skepticism.”? Of course it is not.

If it is not actually contrary to science and scepticism and draws on existing evidence to allow the formation of plausible hypotheses – then it is not pseudoscientific.

Consider also the following:

The methods used in UFOlogy by its practitioners who believe that UFOs are alien spaceships is pseudoscience because UFOs as alien spaceships has never been shown to be the answer.

Interestingly science is often about gaining knowledge about things where we do not know the answer. For things about which science has no answer hypotheses are formed and then they are explored to determine if they have any evidential support. Just because a particular hypothesis has not been “proved” (beyond a reasonable doubt) does not mean that the existing evidence cannot be used to shape our beliefs and guide us in further enquiry. Progress in science would simply stall if we required absolute proof of every hypothesis ever proposed before we proceeded to explore the implications.

The ET hypothesis is a hypothesis where there is circumstantial evidence in support. It is not in the least pseudoscientific to form opinion based on that evidence and then proceed to explore the ramifications of those opinions.

One can even form null hypotheses to test various assumptions and beliefs surrounding the ETH. For example:

If the UFO debunkers are correct and all UFO reports principally arise from a misidentification of mundane objects, then there should be no difference between defined characteristics (speed, shape, et) between those reports that have bee shown to have plausible mundane explanations and those that have not.

That is a falsifyable null hypothesis that would test a principle belief of the UFO debunkers – one that they use against the ET hypothesis all the time.

It seems however the UFO debunkers fear the outcome of such a scientific test – for they never say, ‘I have confidence in my belief that UFO reports principally arise from a misidentification of mundane objects, so okay, go ahead and test the hypothesis and we would be interested in the results when you have done so’.

Instead they come out with all sorts of objections – for example ‘We also believe hoaxes and delusions result in UFO reports – so the hypothesis is invalid’. However this objection does not recognise two critical points: First, that “hoaxes and delusions” should also be similarly spread between the two groups, so they will have no statistical bearing on the outcome of any analysis and Second, that a number of studies have shown that the incidence of hoaxes and delusions is actually insignificant (between 1-2%) so if, in testing the hypothesis, we obtain a statistically significant difference, we can also say that “hoaxes and delusions” have not have made a significant contribution.

There is a scientific test. It is not pseudoscience.

 

[Brainache]

I have always understood that the suffix "-ology" means "Study of..." and that the "U" in UFO stands for "Unknown". So the word "UFOlogy" denotes the study of unknown flying things.

How is it possible to study the unknown scientifically?

Wouldn't one need to define the flying objects before attempting to study them? Or is UFOlogy the study of anecdotes about UFOs; in which case it should be re-named: "Extraordinology" perhaps?

 

[Rramjet]

Lets use this as an exercise on critical thinking.

First, lets check the source of the evidence, its reliabilty. In a QA/QC, we will be in the QA part.

1. Is the source questionable?

2. Is it suspected of being a hoax?

If the answers to the above questions are "no", as they seem to be (unless there's something I am not aware of), then we can move to the next step, which would be to ponder about the image's qualit (QC).

3. Could it be an image artifact?

Seems NASA folks ruled that out. So, we can move on to the next step and ask... Unless, of course, there are reasons I am not aware of.

4. Has the image enough details for us to identify what's there?

Barely. This allows us, however, to at last try to figure out what was imaged. Now we ask...

5. What are the possible and plausible explanations for that image?

NASA guys already did that and came out with two plausible and possible explanations (you can find them a bit more detailed at BBC's article if you read it, or at its original sources)- a meteor or an old orbiter. Yes, one could say its an UFO since we don't know exactly what it was, but this UFO has plausible mundane explanations available.

Now, if one claims it its (or could be) something from "beyond the borders of what we call nature", this person is making a baseless claim wich can be readilly dismissed as so; this person is making pseudoscience.

See? Critical thinking is not that hard. UFOlogists should try it more often.

Now of course all that simply shows that ufology's original contention that film and photographs cannot consitute proof of anything - which I believe you rubbished with “ No one with a sane mind would question the veracity of an image acquired by the Hubble telescope or by one of the Mars rovers, for example. ” and “ If you have images with the proper quality and provenance, they will be accepted and will be considered good evidence”

I was merely pointing out that even with the evidence you propose from NASA and the Mars rovers, we still cannot be certain (supporting ufology’s contention) and are then merely reduced to proposing plausible explanatory hypotheses – the very thing you say is illegitimate when it comes to UFOlogy!

You cannot have it both ways Correa Neto…

This is a thread about "critical thinking in ufology," yet the ufologists in this thread have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to address numerous valid concerns raised by the critical thinkers concerning the conspicuous avoidance of critical thinking on their part.

Instead of discussing these concerns honestly and reasonably, you guys have waffled, attempted to redefine the English language, appealed to several misleading authorities, pontificated on subjects in which you have no expertise, posited numerous sophisms including false or misleading statistics, levied ad hominem attacks, attempted to sidetrack the conversation with smalltalk, and blatantly ignored direct challenges to your fallacious reasoning, only to reiterate the same fallacies a few posts later.

I personally have put enough hours into these threads over the past week or so to constitute a part-time job. Many of us have applied an enormous effort to try and get you guys to reign in your credulous, lazy reasoning and start treating the subject logically, but it seems to be going in one ear and right out the other.

Critical thinking – consider this question: Is there anything in the above that does not constitute unfounded assertion – indeed does not constitute the very thing that John Albert is railing against?

It seems to me to be merely an emotive diatribe consisting ad hominem attacks and false and unfounded assertions. Not much critical thinking in evidence there.

This thread is supposed to be about critical thinking, yet on the evidence those who rant against ufology’s and my own position in such a way never seem able to actually get it together to address the substantive issues put forward.

Issues such as can anecdotes be considered to be evidence?
What role does human perceptive apparatus (physical hardware and psychological heuristics and biases) play in critical thinking about UFOs?
What role does “proof” – as opposed to “weight of evidence” - play in critical thinking about UFOs?
Can we develop any falsifyable hypotheses to test some underlying assumptions about UFOs?
…and so on.

It seems to me that every time a discussion about those topics gets going, it is quickly abandoned by the UFO debunkers in this thread after a refutation from either myself or ufology (either that or once a refutation to a debunker contention is posted – the UFO debunkers simply reiterate their original unfounded assertion as if no reply was ever presented).

All that I believe does not add up to critical thinking about UFOs – it adds up to something else entirely…

 

[RoboTimbo]

Let’s examine that assertion for critical thinking shall we?

First, here are the principle reasons why some people might believe the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is plausible explanatory hypothesis.

First we have the observational evidence of ostensible 'nuts and bolts' craft, intelligent manoeuvring and associated beings.

Jumping to your conclusion without evidence is pseudoscience. Even if there are nuts and bolts craft, why attribute them to aliens before terrestrial? That makes UFOlogy pseudoscience.

Then we have the multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

You forgot FLIR again. LOL! Witnesses to what? Radar of what? Film and photographic of what? And FLIR (which you forgot) of what? Oh, that one was of oil well fires. LOL! Physical trace evidence of what? Oh, that was a known fungus. Nothing has ever been alien. UFOlogy is pseudoscience.

Then we add in the lack of plausible mundane explanations for that evidence and couple it with the fact that there is nothing in science that would preclude ET visitation.

No, you subtract all mundane explanations with no reason. I've eliminated all plausible non-mundane explanations leaving only "mundane". UFOlogy is pseudoscience.

The ET hypothesis is then a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

No, it isn't.

That of course does not mean it is the explanation for UFOs (meaning ‘genuine UFOs’ or those that after much analysis and research have no plausible mundane explanation) – it merely means that there is evidence to support a belief in the ET hypothesis.

Only to someone without critical thinking skills, such as a pseudoscientist.

How does any of that then “ dishonestly redefine terms in unconventional ways”? Of course it does not.

How is any of that “contrary to science and skepticism.”? Of course it is not.

Of course it is, as I've just demonstrated. To think otherwise is to not think critically.

If it is not actually contrary to science and scepticism and draws on existing evidence to allow the formation of plausible hypotheses – then it is not pseudoscientific.

Starting with your conclusion and shoehorning anything to fit, as you tried to do above and were corrected on, is pseudoscience and not critical thinking.

Consider also the following:

Interestingly science is often about gaining knowledge about things where we do not know the answer. For things about which science has no answer hypotheses are formed and then they are explored to determine if they have any evidential support. Just because a particular hypothesis has not been “proved” (beyond a reasonable doubt) does not mean that the existing evidence cannot be used to shape our beliefs and guide us in further enquiry. Progress in science would simply stall if we required absolute proof of every hypothesis ever proposed before we proceeded to explore the implications.

More pseudoscience. There are things which science hasn't discovered yet, therefore pseudoaliens is no way to go through life.

The ET hypothesis is a hypothesis where there is circumstantial evidence in support. It is not in the least pseudoscientific to form opinion based on that evidence and then proceed to explore the ramifications of those opinions.

But there isn't circumstantial evidence for ET. Forming an opinion that ET is behind some UFOs when ET has never been shown to exist is pseudoscience.

One can even form null hypotheses to test various assumptions and beliefs surrounding the ETH. For example:

For example:

If the UFO creduloids are correct and some UFO reports arise from improper identification of alien vessels, then there should be no difference between the unidentified ones and all the ones which have been confirmed to have been aliens.

If the UFO debunkers are correct and all UFO reports principally arise from a misidentification of mundane objects, then there should be no difference between defined characteristics (speed, shape, et) between those reports that have bee shown to have plausible mundane explanations and those that have not.

Nope, yours is nonsense. You are now adding another unknown to a null hypothesis which makes it pseudoscientific. But you knew that already.

That is a falsifyable null hypothesis that would test a principle belief of the UFO debunkers – one that they use against the ET hypothesis all the time.

How is it falsifiable? Are you saying that every mundane explanation has already been used and all the unknown UFOs should be like those? So Campeche, if it were still unknown, would be alien because that was the first time that oil well fires were the cause of a report? Do you see why you engage in pseudoscience now and why your "unfalsifyable" null hypothesis is pseudoscientific nonsense?

It seems however the UFO debunkers fear the outcome of such a scientific test – for they never say, ‘I have confidence in my belief that UFO reports principally arise from a misidentification of mundane objects, so okay, go ahead and test the hypothesis and we would be interested in the results when you have done so’.

It seems that the dishonest UFO creduloids are doing exactly what GeeMack said.

Instead they come out with all sorts of objections – for example ‘We also believe hoaxes and delusions result in UFO reports – so the hypothesis is invalid’. However this objection does not recognise two critical points: First, that “hoaxes and delusions” should also be similarly spread between the two groups, so they will have no statistical bearing on the outcome of any analysis and Second, that a number of studies have shown that the incidence of hoaxes and delusions is actually insignificant (between 1-2%) so if, in testing the hypothesis, we obtain a statistically significant difference, we can also say that “hoaxes and delusions” have not have made a significant contribution.

The UFO creduloids come out with all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsenses such as "positively defy plausible mundane explanation!"

There is a scientific test. It is not pseudoscience.

You failed the scientific test. It is pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

Thanks for another fine example of the dishonesty involved in "ufology". Pretend to embrace science when that suits your purpose...

[* Nonsensical attempt to derail the discussion snipped. *]

There is a scientific test. It is not pseudoscience.

"Ufology" isn't pseudoscience because it is science.​

Dismiss science when it isn't convenient...

Therefore what we actually have are the two extremes, science and pseudoscience, with ufology as the subject matter in between, which makes ufology itself neither science nor pseudoscience.

There are some flawed assumptions and incorrect statistics here. Ufology is an area of inquiry and study. It isn't science nor is it psudoscience.

Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience.

I'm not engaging in "science" nor am I engaging in "pseudoscience".

Again, ufology makes no claim to being science in and of itself. Therefore it is neither science nor pseudoscience.

Ufology on the whole makes no claim to be in and of itself "sceintific".

Ufology is ufology and science is science. I don't think the twain will ever meet, [...]

I've already stated why my view is different several times but you seem to keep missing it. The main rationale for calling something pseudoscience is that it must be presented as being science without following its rules. Because I make no claim to be doing science, and what I do doesn't fit the definition of science, what I do is neither science nor pseudoscience [...]

"Ufology" isn't pseudoscience because it isn't science.​

Two 180° conflicting arguments. Which one is the lie? "Ufologists" don't seem to have the slightest idea what it is they're trying to do, other than, of course, validate for themselves their belief in aliens.

​