Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Rramjet]

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?

We don't need to "define" things to be able to descibe their characteristics and compare those characteristics to things we do know about.

And indeed we can come up with falsifyable hypotheses to do just that. For example if the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't. That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

...but of course we can scientifically explore the "unknown" - and ideed science is doing that right now (think the LHC for example and Dark Matter and Dark Energy).

 

[RoboTimbo]

We don't need to "define" things to be able to descibe their characteristics and compare those characteristics to things we do know about.

Ah, so when you claimed to eliminate all mundane explanations, you really meant all mundane explanations that you could think of!

And indeed we can come up with falsifyable hypotheses to do just that. For example if the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objets, then there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't. That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

Pseudoscientific nonsense. If Campeche were still unknown, it would be alien because oil well fires had not been a known cause before?

I've given you a better one:

If the pseudoscientific creduloids are correct in their religion-like belief that some UFOs are aliens, then some of the unexplained ones would display characteristics of all of the ones which have been confirmed to be aliens.

One fewer assumption than yours.

...but of course we can scientifically explore the "unknown" - and ideed science is doing that right now (think the LHC for example and Dark Matter and Dark Energy).

No you can't. You pseudoscientifically begin with your conclusion.

 

[Rramjet]

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

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

Dismiss science when it isn't convenient...

"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.

​

So in your world, there cannot be any differences of opinion in science?

Besides he and I are not actually opposed. He is taking about ufology making no claims to be a science – which it doesn’t - and I am merely pointing out that notwithstanding, scientific methodologies can be applied in its research. Think of history as a discipline – it does not claim to be a science – yet it utilises scientific methodologies – and there are many other “arts” disciplines which utilise scientific research methods as well (would you label those disciplines "pseudoscientific"?).

I believe you are simply too intent on mocking derision and too tied up in your own belief system to allow you to actually think cooly and critically about what you post.

 

[Rramjet]

I proposed:

If the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objets, then there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't.​

That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

You proposed:

If the pseudoscientific creduloids are correct in their religion-like belief that some UFOs are aliens, then some of the unexplained ones would display characteristics of all of the ones which have been confirmed to be aliens.

Can you tell me how that is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) hypothesis?

It would seem to me then that where I am proposing science - you are proposing pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I proposed:

If the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objets, then there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't.​

That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

You proposed:




Can you tell me how that is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) hypothesis?

It would seem to me then that where I am proposing science - you are proposing pseudoscience.

Did you even read what I posted? It is actually you who are proposing pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

So in your world, there cannot be any differences of opinion in science?

Certainly there can. But what you and ufology engage in is wishful thinking in order to bolster your preexisting belief in aliens. The difference isn't in opinion. It's in how your arguments amount to grasping at straws, and as expected, because of a total lack of critical thinking, the straws you grasp are bound to occasionally be contradictory. It's got nothing to do with science. It's pseudoscience.

Besides he and I are not actually opposed. He is taking about ufology making no claims to be a science – which it doesn’t - and I am merely pointing out that notwithstanding, scientific methodologies can be applied in its research. Think of history as a discipline – it does not claim to be a science – yet it utilises scientific methodologies – and there are many other “arts” disciplines which utilise scientific research methods as well (would you label those disciplines "pseudoscientific"?).

The evidence suggests you're both willing to say whatever you think will support your belief at any given moment, then dishonestly change your stated position and/or dishonestly claim you didn't mean what you said when you get busted in a lie or when you realize your argument is so stupid it can't stand up. It's pseudoscience.

I believe you are simply too intent on mocking derision and too tied up in your own belief system to allow you to actually think cooly and critically about what you post.

I don't have a belief system on this issue. I'm a skeptic. The fact that you dishonestly attribute that position to those who haven't bought into your fantasy only lends more support to the notion that "ufology" is pseudoscience.

 

[carlitos]

The ET hypothesis is then a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

The issue is critical thinking, as you don't seem to be involved in using any, I'm starting to feel like:

And wondering why I should continue to waste my time.

For one last attempt at this.
One of these things:

the object in question looks like it does shift in relation to the surrounding clouds

and

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

Is not like the other.

And they appear in sentences that are right next to each other.
You think you are raising an issue and indeed you are, just not the one you thought you were raising.

The issue appears to be that you are thrashing around in the dark trying to hand wave away clear evidence of CGI in order to maintain your PoV that it might be aliens. Further to this you are highlighting the double standards of what you except as reliable evidence. Apparently, truly testable, repeatable analysis that disagrees with your belief may be wrong and yet someone in a uniform or a real estate salesman who tells you a story that confirms your belief will be reliable.

 

[ufology]

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.

Once again, all I'm seeing above are proclaimations based on unfounded allegations ... apart from maybe some small talk, but so what if there is a bit of small talk? It's a discussion forum. As for the rest I'm not going to dignify it by repeating what has already been stated.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

As for the rest I'm not going to dignify it by repeating what has already been stated.

Well you gave it your best shot, and you weren't able to assemble a cogent argument to support your notion that there is critical thinking in "ufology". You might work on that dishonest argument tactic. When you're claiming to engage in critical thinking and your arguments are so far from honest and so full of waffling and ignorance of relevant issues, you're pretty much bound to fail. Better luck next time.

 

[John Albert]

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.

Once again, all I'm seeing above are proclaimations based on unfounded allegations ...

Ufology and Rramjet, do you guys really want me to go back through the entire thread and snip quotes of every time one of you two engaged in or promoted faulty reasoning?

How about this: How about we play a game of "Name That Logical Fallacy" like they often do on The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe? How well do you know the rules of informal logic?

GeeMack actually proposed this approach in post #2 of this very thread:

Since we have a massive body of evidence right here on the JREF forums that the typical position of "ufologists" is based on logical fallacies, blind faith, and a whole lot of dishonesty, in order to help establish the truth, how about every time the "ufologists" try to use arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, lies, anecdotes, and anything besides objective evidence to try to support their belief in alien visitors, the scientists and skeptics point out those flawed arguments? And then the alien believers set aside those particular failed arguments and move on to something else? ...

I think it's a great idea: an object lesson in argumentation.

One rule though: As GeeMack said, if somebody calls you out on a fallacy, you must answer it with either a defense or an admission; if you admit to having made a flawed argument or fail to make an unflawed logical defense of it, then you must not repeat that argument again.

So what do you say? Everybody go back through and find examples of faulty or deceptive logic. I'm curious to see how this turns out.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ufology as a whole and a UFO sighting report are two entirely separate contexts with respect to the question of the thread.

They aren't really though. The basis of UFOlogy is that unidentified flying objects are alien in origin. Regardless of which department of UFOlogy you are looking at (history, social, reseach). To come to such a conclusion could only be done using the scientific method. However, as the conclusion far outreaches the evidence, science must have been misapplied along the way, therefore the whole of UFOlogy is based upon pseudo science. Anytime science is utilised in order to further the notion of "aliens", it is guilty of pseudo-science.

The only way that one could possibly arrive at the 'its aliens' conclusion without utilising pseudo-science would be in a completely religious, blind belief manner... Which would then negate the need for a thread called "Critical Thinking in Ufology".

 

[Stray Cat]

Ufology and Rramjet, do you guys really want me to go back through the entire thread and snip quotes of every time one of you two engaged in or promoted faulty reasoning?

Of course they do, it's exactly how come the 'Evidence' thread got so long.
As soon as the page is turned in the thread, Rramjet thinks he has a blank canvass to reassert his faulty evidence as if we hadn't just exposed it for the shallow cesspool it was.

UFOlogists on the whole when locking horns with sceptics will infinitely throw stuff at the wall in order to see if anything sticks. As one slippery story falls off, in they come with the next one, and the next one and the next one. Reapplying the same faulty logic each time, representing the same anecdotal inaccurate, badly researched, cherry picked guff.

Guys, it's not really down to us to disprove your folk tales, it's down to you to prove them. Either that or stop asserting over reaching conclusions like 'it's aliens'

 

[Kahalachan]

Depends if the literal words are implied. Unidentified Flying Object-ology could be someone who is well versed in meteorology and aeronautics to be able to try to identify flying objects.

If someone is an alien spaceship-ologist, then yeah it's a pseudoscience.

 

[Stray Cat]

Of course I doubt I need to point out that in order to negate the accusation of pseudo-science, all the UFOlogists need to do is simply provide some evidence to support the assertion that their conclusion of 'its aliens' is correct...

... well I say simply.

 

[ufology]

I proposed:

If the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objets, then there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't.
​

That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

Hey There Ramjet ...

In this debate the opposing cases have been presented and the pro-pseudoscience position has been swept off the map by overiding logical principles backed by example. This debate was over a long time ago. They just refuse to accept it.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Hey There Ramjet ...

In this debate the opposing cases have been presented and the pro-pseudoscience position has been swept off the map by overiding logical principles backed by example. This debate was over a long time ago. They just refuse to accept it.

j.r.

 

[Brainache]

...
And indeed we can come up with falsifyable hypotheses to do just that. For example if the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't. That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

...

This bit: "if the UFO debunkers are correct in their belief that UFO reports can be principally explained as the result of misidentified mundane objects", contradicts this bit: "there should be no difference ... between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't". Because the UFO debunkers say that all UFO reports have plausible mundane explanations. How many mundane explanations do we have to reject before we decide that we have exhausted all mundane possibilities?

What are we supposed to do Rramjet? Take some UFO anecdote and try our hardest to avoid mundane explanations so we can then speculate about Aliens instead?

 

[Access Denied]

...there should be no difference on defined characterisitics (speed, shape, etc) between those reports that have plausible mundane explanations and those that don't.

Demonstrably false…

1. Plausible is an entirely subjective term; not everyone, typically a highly vocal and vested minority, accepts a given explanation for a given report or class of reports.

2. Not if the observer’s interpretations or claims of what they saw given in the reports that haven’t been conclusively identified to the majority, or satisfactorily to the minority, are:

a. more in error in some fundamental, but practically indeterminable, way(s) than those that have; and/or

b. representative of a distinct subset of all observers whose interpretations or claims are more influenced by pre-established concepts and/or other common factors.

That is a scientifically testable (falsifyable) scientific hypothesis.

Done.

Next shining example of a pseudoscientific UFOlogical hypothesis malformed from garden-variety saucer logic please…

AD

 

[Access Denied]

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.

^ This.

Wall 'O Waffle™

^ That.

One of these is like the other.