Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Frying Dutchmen]

All that effort to try and explain away the fact that no hard evidence of ET visitation exists when there should be lots of it by now if in fact it was occurring.

[mutli-sensor data fusion and all that good stuff]

So much for critical thinking...

AD

You may call it Hand waving RR calls it critical THINKING!

 

[Pixel42]

How can the evidence for any of those things be “better”? Either there is evidential support for something or there is not. The evidence for any conjecture, claim or hypothesis (etc) must be assessed on its own merits.

If however you are claiming to have assessed the evidence for homeopathy (or astrology) and have found it to be more compelling than the evidence for UFOs, then you will be able to support that contention with evidence or logical argument. The mere statement that such evidence is “better “ does not somehow magically make it so.

Well let's take homeopathy as an example.

There's a mountain of anecdotal evidence for this - thousands of people who say they suffered with an ailment (often for years), took a homeopathic remedy, and got better.There is certainly photographic evidence (before and after pictures) to support these anecdotes, probably even actual physical evidence such as blood tests to prove that someone's health improved after taking a homeopathic remedy. People who believe in homeopathy are not, for the most part, cranks or frauds; they are people who have had personal experiences which have convinced them that a homeopathic remedy which they took made them better. They know this with the same certainty that ufology knows that the light in the sky he saw could not have had a mundane explanation.

No amount of pointing out that homeopathy is scientific nonsense is going to convince these people otherwise, nor should it: if homeopathy works, it works, and if we don't know why we'd have to find out, even if that meant throwing away anything we think we currently understand about physics and chemistry.

I'd say the evidence for homeopathy is far more compelling than that for UFOs which cannot be explained mundanely. The only thing that makes it less so is that we can do carefully blinded clinical trials which prove it doesn't work.

 

[Access Denied]

However, it is not only anecdotal evidence that UFOlogy had to consider, there is also the radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and in some cases a conjunction of those types of evidence - incuding mutiple eyewitness) to consider - and of course it is just this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

Well, believe whoever and whatever you want but whatever you do, don't drink the Kool-Aid man...

AD

 

[Pixel42]

However, it is not only anecdotal evidence that UFOlogy had to consider, there is also the radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and in some cases a conjunction of those types of evidence - incuding mutiple eyewitness) to consider - and of course it is just this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

How does it set it apart from, say, ghosts, for which self-styled ghost hunters with their cameras and electromagnetic radiation detectors can provide a similar standard of evidence as well as just as many (more, probably) apparently unexplainable anecdotes going back centuries?

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Of course all the debunker's misrepresentations, lies, ridicule, denial, abuse, unfounded assertion and expressions of faith-based belief in the world won't get them any closer to addressing the actual question posed by this thread concerning whether UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

It is a pseudoscience. Also when you make **** up like that first 'sentence' god kills a kitten.

Ufology has claimed that UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it is not a science in the first place.

Think of the discipline of History for example. It uses applied scientific methodology in its research and also relies on anecdotal evidence to draw many of its conclusions. Would you consider History to be a pseudoscience?

Funny story Historical studies doesn't base it's self on rubbish also UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

The question becomes why would the respected displine of History be able to use anecdotes as evidence on which to base conclusions? The answer is of course that they have refined methodologies for ascertaining whether anecdotal evidence is relieable or not.

Because the study of history isn't based on things they can't identified thus your analogy of UFOlogy being like historical studies is bunk.

UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it has never claimed to be a science. it may legitimately use scientific methodologies in its research and it may also legitimately draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

No it can't if you truly think that all hope is lost you'll never learn never change because you're a believer. Plus UFOlogy is a pseudoscience

However, it is not only anecdotal evidence that UFOlogy had to consider, there is also the radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and in some cases a conjunction of those types of evidence - incuding mutiple eyewitness) to consider - and of course it is just this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

Hey Ramjet guest what? UFOlogy is pseudoscience. Also all these points have been address. So why bring them up again? Oh that's right faith in UFAOs, people like you UFOlogy will never need skeptics.

 

[ufology]

None of them, however, apply here where the context is quite specifically 'ufology'.

Stop trying to muddy the water with irrelevant sidetracks about what might be the case if we were discussing something that we're not.

Stop your proclaiming! Ah ... but wait, that is what Pharohs do ... they go around proclaiming stuff ... and you are certainly living up to your screen name in the proclaiming department, especially, since Akhenaten was a major proclaimer ... proclaiming this and proclaiming that ... everybody must worship Aten ... bla bla bla.

j.r.

 

[tsig]

Stop your proclaiming! Ah ... but wait, that is what Pharohs do ... they go around proclaiming stuff ... and you are certainly living up to your screen name in the proclaiming department, especially, since Akhenaten was a major proclaimer ... proclaiming this and proclaiming that ... everybody must worship Aten ... bla bla bla.

j.r.

Hint:

You're supposed to address the argument not the Avatar.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology has claimed that UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it is not a science in the first place.

If the field of study is trying to ascertain material realities of the universe, then yes it is a science. Or at least it is purporting to be.

Think of the discipline of History for example. It uses applied scientific methodology in its research and also relies on anecdotal evidence to draw many of its conclusions. Would you consider History to be a pseudoscience?

History is not a pseudoscience. Modern historians work closely with the material sciences and utilize scientific practices to establish the authenticity of artifacts and documents. History also uses anecdotal evidence, but not to justify belief in something which is unknown to science or has never been proven to exist.

If, on the other hand, an "historian" uses false or misleading evidence to justify beliefs that contradict known science (for example, the notion that space aliens or supernatural beings helped construct the Pyramids of Gaza), then that self-appointed "historian" is engaged in pseudoscience. Likewise, if an "historian" makes unfounded claims in an attempt to give credence to mythological legends (like claiming to have found the resting place of Noah's Ark) then that "historian" would also be practicing pseudoscience. An "historian" claiming the existence of an ancient, global conspiracy to rule the world through religion (like the claims of pseudo-historian Acharya S.) without providing comprehensive material evidence of ancient origin, would also be engaged in the perpetration of pseudoscience.

The question becomes why would the respected displine of History be able to use anecdotes as evidence on which to base conclusions? The answer is of course that they have refined methodologies for ascertaining whether anecdotal evidence is relieable or not.

There's also the fact they're not claiming the existence of paranormal objects which are totally unknown to science.

UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it has never claimed to be a science.

This is a specious argument. A couple guys posting on the JREF forums don't speak for all practitioners of ufology. Plenty of ufologists have insisted on the scientific veracity of their work. Ufologists often claim they've uncovered "evidence" that prove UFOs are real, but it's always been bunk.

You've been repeating the same nonsense for how long now?

Look, it's really very simple: Any field of study that doesn't follow proper scientific practices, yet makes extraordinary claims about the workings of the material world that run contrary to valid, accepted science, is a pseudoscience.

...it may legitimately use scientific methodologies in its research and it may also legitimately draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

Feel free to do whatever you want. Who cares? The evidence you're studying doesn't mean a damn thing anyway. Without the proper disciplines and procedures, you're just pretending to do research. It's pseudoscience.

However, it is not only anecdotal evidence that UFOlogy had to consider, there is also the radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and in some cases a conjunction of those types of evidence - incuding mutiple eyewitness) to consider - and of course it is just this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

Yeah, and the bigfoot researchers have the testimony of highly credible policemen and forest rangers, plus photographic evidence, plaster castings of footprints, claw marks on trees, etc. The ghost hunters have their photographs, films, audio recordings, EMF detectors and gauss meters. The homeopaths, acupuncturists, and chi-healers have their patient testimonials and so-called "clinical studies."

All pseudosciences have their own versions of "evidence" that don't stand up to critical scrutiny. Ufology is no exception.

 

[Aepervius]

Pharaoh, you've been around longer than I have. Are all UFOlogists poured from the same mold? The only two I know of seem to be WoW^tm twins.





ETA: I just checked Wikipedia and there is absolutely no entry for Wall O' Waffle^tm!

Not all UFO believer are like that (I hesitate to use UFO-logy when no knowledge is gained except maybe social study). Some even fight agaisnt the current, and publicly dismiss or leaves group in fracas. Like the MUFON head left saying "this is all about human deceiving human" or something similar.

SAdly here the msot vocal are of the same type as rramjet.

Now if you counted poster by their knowledge of UFO, proper logic and reasonning, Stray cat and a few other would be what I would really an UFO-logist, but they are usually called debunker so ... .

 

[John Albert]

I have to admit I didn't understand much of your long-winded definitions.

How about these definitions:

Truth: that which corresponds to reality; that which is objectively real.

Proof: irrefutable objective evidence that something is true.

See, if your understanding of "truth" is so ambiguous that you can't even define it without getting into all sorts of irrelevant talk about "contexts," that indicates to me that either you are confused about what is real and what isn't, or else you have some serious problems with honesty. A third option might be that you were trying to tailor your answer in such a way that I wouldn't have any basis to criticize, but that too would be dishonest.

When you talk about the "pursuit of the truth," what do you actually mean? Pursue it only within some contexts, and not others?

See, the whole purpose of critical thinking is to discern the truth by means of specific practices that have proven reliable at weeding out falsehoods and inconsistencies. That's why science is based on it. Science is the practice of discerning reality little by little through logic, trial and error, and independent verification by others. If you're trying to find out the truth about some physical matter, science is the best methodology we have to date.

Rejecting science in favor of fantastic stories and wild speculation is not going to get you closer to the truth; it's rather like being lost in the woods and neglecting your compass in favor of dowsing your way out with a tree branch.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course all the debunker's misrepresentations, lies, ridicule, denial, abuse, unfounded assertion and expressions of faith-based belief in the world won't get them any closer to addressing the actual question posed by this thread concerning whether UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

Why do you lie like this?

Ufology has claimed that UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it is not a science in the first place.

Of course it isn't. It's pseudoscience and you're a pseudoscientist.

Think of the discipline of History for example. It uses applied scientific methodology in its research and also relies on anecdotal evidence to draw many of its conclusions. Would you consider History to be a pseudoscience?

UFOlogy isn't History.

The question becomes why would the respected displine of History be able to use anecdotes as evidence on which to base conclusions? The answer is of course that they have refined methodologies for ascertaining whether anecdotal evidence is relieable or not.

You mean for things which we know can and have happened?

UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it has never claimed to be a science. it may legitimately use scientific methodologies in its research and it may also legitimately draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

No, UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

However, it is not only anecdotal evidence that UFOlogy had to consider, there is also the radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and in some cases a conjunction of those types of evidence - incuding mutiple eyewitness) to consider - and of course it is just this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

You forgot FLIR again. LOL! Your dishonesty is showing again. It's that very consideration of evidence which doesn't point to aliens that makes UFOlogy a pseudoscience and you a pseudoscientist.

 

[Stray Cat]

Scientific methodology can be applied to the study of many things.

It can also be misapplied to many things, in which case it's called pseudo-science.

History for example is not a science, yet it applies scientific methodologies

And sometimes pseudo historians apply pseudo scientific methods, that's when we read about "proof" of aliens building Pumapunku or Pyramids in Bosnia etc.

and often relies on anecdotal evidence to draw its conclusions.

No it doesn't.
Granted there are some histories that are made up from purely anecdotal accounts, but they do not make any claims against the material reality of the universe and they don't claim to have used any scientific method in reaching their conclusions.

You would not consider History an illegitimate discipline of study and research would you?

As with all things in life, it completely depends upon how you go about it.
If one wants to look through the historical records and pick and chose some disparate bits and pieces and then stitch them together to make a picture that is inaccurate to prop up a blind belief (such as the Apollo Moon Landing deniers), then it's far from a legitimate discipline of study and research.

As for the “transience” of things, are you contending that “transience” is a real factor in existence? Surely to be transient, by definition, must entail existence?

The point about transience was raised by ufology in an attempt to make an excuse as to why UFO's can not be properly and scientifically studied.
No I'm not suggesting anything as daft as you propose, I'm suggesting that transience does not exclude science from examining, measuring, testing and making predictions based upon results. Therefore, the transient nature of UFOs does not give them any special 'exemption', this is called special pleading and is a logical fallacy which is not critical thinking.

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course all the debunker's misrepresentations, lies, ridicule, denial, abuse, unfounded assertion and expressions of faith-based belief in the world won't get them any closer to addressing the actual question posed by this thread concerning whether UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

Sticks and stones, Rramjet. I'm pretty sure that childlike antics like this on the part of the junior partner in the Ufailogy Roadshow do more to convince the viewers that ufology is pseudoscience than anything your opponents might attempt.

Whether you wish to admit it or not is of no import whatsoever, Rramjet. The question, "Is ufology a pseudoscience?" was done and dusted long ago and the time is now for pointing and laughing, and possibly tidying up a few peripheral issues that the pseudoscientists keep throwing into the mix.

Ufology has claimed that UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it is not a science in the first place.

What a ridiculous line of argumentation.

This is exactly the same as saying the mocked-up aeroplane of a cargo cult can't be a pseudoaeroplane because it was never a real aeroplane in the first place.

Think of the discipline of History for example. It uses applied scientific methodology in its research and also relies rather than relying on anecdotal evidence to draw many of its conclusions.

FTFY

Would you consider History to be a pseudoscience?

No.

History is the branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events.

Ufology is a hobby that records and analyzes things that have never been shown to happen.

The former is based in reality, the latter is not.

The question becomes why would the respected displine of History be able to use anecdotes as evidence on which to base conclusions? The answer is of course that they have refined methodologies for ascertaining whether anecdotal evidence is relieable or not.

In other words, history doesn't rely on anecdotal evidence to draw many of its conclusions, as you previously claimed.

You should at least try to be consistent with your baseless assertions.

UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it has never claimed to be a science. it may legitimately use scientific methodologies in its research and it may also legitimately draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence..

You already said this. It's drivel.

You can't use scientific methodologies on things that have never existed.

No.

However, it is not only anecdotal evidence that UFOlogy had to consider, there is also the radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and in some cases a conjunction of those types of evidence - incuding mutiple eyewitness) to consider - and of course it is just this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

The fact that you refer to ufology yourself as a paranormal phenomena is pretty telling. Firstly it tells us that even you recognise, at some level, how bogus it is. Secondly, it tells us that you still haven't learned that phenomena is the plural form of the word you meant to use.

I'll just add that:

• You do not have any physical trace evidence, and
  
  
• You forgot the FLIR.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hint:

You're supposed to address the argument not the Avatar.

Awww, we may as well let him play. He's already lost the argument.

I'll even help out by posting a larger version.

 

[Stray Cat]

FTFY

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Rramjet]

How does it set it apart from, say, ghosts, for which self-styled ghost hunters with their cameras and electromagnetic radiation detectors can provide a similar standard of evidence as well as just as many (more, probably) apparently unexplainable anecdotes going back centuries?

A very good question. On topic and to the point. Thank you.

As you intimate, similar to UFOs, ghosts also seem to have multiple eyewitness accounts, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

Both UFOs and ghosts also suffer from similar misconceptions about explanations. For UFOs it is “ET”, for ghosts it is “spirits of the dead”.

Of course one can hold an opinion that those are the explanations – but there is no direct evidence to back them up.

The difference I guess is that we know at least theoretically ETs can exist, and probably they do (it is likely that among all the countless billions of stars there will be another life bearing planet out there somewhere – or put another way – it would be extremely unlikely that humans are the only manifestation of intelligent – and I use the term advisedly - life in the universe).

We simply cannot say the same thing about spirits of the dead. That is we don’t have any evidence that it is even possible for spirits of the dead to exist or manifest. We do have evidence that the universe can produce intelligent life.

One could however visit this site (http://www.spinvestigations.org/) to see how scientific methodology is being applied to the study of ghosts.

I would add that while the evidence for ‘ghosts” (as a phenomenon or phenomena) does seem to exist (and while there is no direct evidence for “spirits of the dead”) that evidence in my opinion (for I have not studied that evidence) for ghosts as spirits of the dead does not seem as strong as that for UFOs as ET – I could be wrong of course… but we do have “official” UFO encounters and research efforts undertaken on UFOs, but we don’t have that same effort directed toward ghosts – that suggests to me that UFOs were, and probably are, taken much more seriously than ghosts.

 

[carlitos]

Just a heads-up that the U in UFO means unidentified. An "official" sighting of something unidentified is like what exactly? Rramjet is supposed to be more scientific because his pet unidentified thing is intraterrestrial "aliens" and not ghosts or Our Lady of Guadalupe? Not impressed.

 

[Rramjet]

If the field of study is trying to ascertain material realities of the universe, then yes it is a science. Or at least it is purporting to be.

So is philosophy a science too?

History is not a pseudoscience. Modern historians work closely with the material sciences and utilize scientific practices to establish the authenticity of artifacts and documents. History also uses anecdotal evidence, but not to justify belief in something which is unknown to science or has never been proven to exist.

I am not attempting to justify a belief in anything that is unknown to science or has never been proven to exist either. UFOs clearly exist. My contention is that the evidence shows that there are UFO cases that defy plausible mundane explanation.

That being said, one can also justify a belief that ET exists based on the evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft. Intelligent manoeuvres and associated beings and the fact that it is probable in the vastness of the universe that ET does exist and that science does not preclude that existence - indeed, it suggests strongly that ET should exit out there somewhere… it is just that we do not have the direct evidence to support that belief. It can however be justified if one is so inclined.

If, on the other hand, an "historian" uses false or misleading evidence to justify beliefs that contradict known science (for example, the notion that space aliens or supernatural beings helped construct the Pyramids of Gaza), then that self-appointed "historian" is engaged in pseudoscience.

I think you have slightly misconstrued what “pseudoscientific” means. It means that someone claims to have adhered to the scientific method and principles when they have not. Science can – and has - produced false and misleading evidence.

Likewise, if an "historian" makes unfounded claims in an attempt to give credence to mythological legends (like claiming to have found the resting place of Noah's Ark) then that "historian" would also be practicing pseudoscience.

No, the mere proposal of hypotheses (claims) does not make something pseudoscientific either. To claim to have tested those hypotheses using scientific methodologies and principles to produce the evidence they present, if they have not done so, is pseudoscientific.

An "historian" claiming the existence of an ancient, global conspiracy to rule the world through religion (like the claims of pseudo-historian Acharya S.) without providing comprehensive material evidence of ancient origin, would also be engaged in the perpetration of pseudoscience

Again, you misconstrue what pseudoscientific means. A claim without evidence is merely an unfounded assertion. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's also the fact they're not claiming the existence of paranormal objects which are totally unknown to science.

It depends on what you mean by that phrase “unknown to science”. My guess is that you mean “not proved” by science – for paranormal phenomena are “known” to science – it is just that they have not had concerted, sustained, peer-reviewed programs of research directed toward them.

Science has claimed many things to exist that have not been “proved” (gravitons – to take a topical issue - for example).

UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it has never claimed to be a science.

This is a specious argument. A couple guys posting on the JREF forums don't speak for all practitioners of ufology.

Find me the evidence of ufologists who claim that ufology is a science then.

Plenty of ufologists have insisted on the scientific veracity of their work.

As I have explained a number of times now – the application of scientific methodologies does not make a science – history for example.

Ufologists often claim they've uncovered "evidence" that prove UFOs are real, but it's always been bunk.

That is your faith-based opinion and of course you are entitled to it, but it does not demonstrate ufology to be pseudoscience.

Look, it's really very simple: Any field of study that doesn't follow proper scientific practices, yet makes extraordinary claims about the workings of the material world that run contrary to valid, accepted science, is a pseudoscience.

Science “makes extraordinary claims about the workings of the material world” (and often against what are accepted to be valid, accepted ideas about how the material world works) – the whole idea of the universe is absolutely preposterous – yet here we are…

Feel free to do whatever you want. Who cares?

You – obviously, otherwise you would not bother even replying.

The evidence you're studying doesn't mean a damn thing anyway.

Touchy, touchy – yet it is still not a valid argument to show ufology is pseudoscience.

Without the proper disciplines and procedures, you're just pretending to do research. It's pseudoscience.

The mere statement of unfounded claims does not somehow magically confer veracity on them. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Yeah, and the bigfoot researchers have the testimony of highly credible policemen and forest rangers, plus photographic evidence, plaster castings of footprints, claw marks on trees, etc. The ghost hunters have their photographs, films, audio recordings, EMF detectors and gauss meters. The homeopaths, acupuncturists, and chi-healers have their patient testimonials and so-called "clinical studies."

I am not defending those things against the charge of pseudoscience. I have not studied the evidence for or against those things so I am in no position to draw any such conclusions. I am however defending ufology against the charge.

All pseudosciences have their own versions of "evidence" that don't stand up to critical scrutiny. Ufology is no exception.

That is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But your mere say so does not make it so.

 

[Akhenaten]

How does it set it apart from, say, ghosts, for which self-styled ghost hunters with their cameras and electromagnetic radiation detectors can provide a similar standard of evidence as well as just as many (more, probably) apparently unexplainable anecdotes going back centuries?

A very good question. On topic and to the point. Thank you.

"This looks like a soft-ball question that I can can probably waffle my way through without taking too many hits."

/babelfish

As you intimate, similar to UFOs, ghosts also seem to have multiple eyewitness accounts, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

'Seem to', yes, at first glance. Of course we all know what happens when we put these extraordinary claims to the test, don't we?

Especially your oft-repeated lie about having physical trace evidence. Neither you or the ghost hunters have any such thing.

Both UFOs and ghosts also suffer from similar misconceptions about explanations. For UFOs it is “ET”, for ghosts it is “spirits of the dead”.

The only misconception that UFOs suffer from is the one propogated by ufologists; namely that they are something other than what their very name describes them as - UNIDENTIFIED.

As for explanations for flying saucers (which is what you're really talking about) and ghosts - how can you describe them as misconceptions when neither has even been shown to exist? How do you know that flying saucers aren't being piloted by ETs or that ghosts aren't spirits of the dead?

Of course one can hold an opinion that those are the explanations – but there is no direct evidence to back them up.

There's no evidence one way or the other, so why are you calling them 'misconceptions'?

The difference I guess is that we know at least theoretically ETs can exist, and probably they do (it is likely that among all the countless billions of stars there will be another life bearing planet out there somewhere – or put another way – it would be extremely unlikely that humans are the only manifestation of intelligent – and I use the term advisedly - life in the universe).

The possibility of intellegent life other than ourselves existing somewhere in the Universe and the likelihood of ETs visiting the Earth are completely different issues with completely different sets of variables.

To attempt to conflate them in the way you have is misleading, if not downright dishonest.

We simply cannot say the same thing about spirits of the dead. That is we don’t have any evidence that it is even possible for spirits of the dead to exist or manifest. We do have evidence that the universe can produce intelligent life.

The fact that the Universe can produce intellegent life in no way counts as evidence for the likelihood of Earth-visiting ETs, despite your attempted inference.

There is exactly the same evidence for ghosts and ETs. None.

One could however visit this site (http://www.spinvestigations.org/) to see how scientific methodology is being applied to the study of ghosts.

One pseudoscience at a time will do me.

I would add that while the evidence for ‘ghosts” (as a phenomenon or phenomena) does seem to exist (and while there is no direct evidence for “spirits of the dead”) that evidence in my opinion (for I have not studied that evidence) for ghosts as spirits of the dead does not seem as strong as that for UFOs as ET – I could be wrong of course… but we do have “official” UFO encounters and research efforts undertaken on UFOs, but we don’t have that same effort directed toward ghosts – that suggests to me that UFOs were, and probably are, taken much more seriously than ghosts.

“““Waffle”””.