So is philosophy a science too?
Philosophy is, like History, a
Humanity.
According to Wikipedia:
The humanities are academic disciplines that study the human condition, using methods that are primarily analytical, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural sciences.
The humanities include ancient and modern languages, literature, history, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre. The humanities that are also regarded as social sciences include technology, anthropology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, law and linguistics.
Ufology is not a Humanity. It is pseudoscience.
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.
Formal fallacy;
converse error.
Your offhand denial of the broad range of possible "mundane" explanations (starting with the obvious, "people often report things that are wrong") and consequent unqualified jump to paranormal explanations, is a logical error commonly committed by practitioners of pseudoscience.
Science does not do that; the Humanities do not do that.
Religion and Theology might do that, but they don't try to force-fit scientific methodology into the endeavor to validate their supernatural, or "paranormal" beliefs. Instead, they
profess their faith in the supernatural, and justify their beliefs on the relative merits of that standpoint.
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
Improper grammar there. That period ought to have been a comma.
You persist in repeating these lies that such material evidence exists, when it absolutely does not.
This is not simply a matter of being wrong about something. You have been corrected many times on this matter, yet you persist in repeating the lies. YOU ARE A LIAR.
...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…
This is an
opinion, not a fact.
Using that opinion as a basis to build a case around unsupported evidence is an example of
confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is a natural human tendency, and that is why science has such strict, methodical rules for measured observation, the formation of hypotheses, the collection of evidence, the structuring of experiments, peer review, independent testing, etc.
When you make categorical statements about the nature of the material Universe, you are entering the realm of
science. When you shirk scientific methodology in establishing such statements, you are practicing
pseudoscience.
it is just that we do not have the direct evidence to support that belief.
Now, you admit that you
lied in your statement above, to wit:
...one can also justify a belief that ET exists based on the evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft. Intelligent manoeuvres and associated beings
There is no direct evidence to support any of those things, only a bunch of stories, many of which are also lies. Please quit lying.
Of course, I'm guessing your extraordinary lack of cognitive dissonance and/or basic honesty will lead you to rationalize these two contradictory assertions in the familiar manner of any liar too dumb to realize when he's been caught in his own lie.
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.
Equivocation;
redefinition.
You're absolutely wrong. All they have to do is make unproven assertions about the material world in an authoritative way, and justifying those claims through unscientific "research" and "evidence."
Go ahead, squirm all you want. Like a Chinese finger trap, the more you struggle, the tighter the bonds become! The more dishonest angles you use to try and weasel out of the definition of pseudoscience, the clearer it becomes that ufology can't fit any other designation
but pseudoscience.
Science can – and has - produced false and misleading evidence.
Non sequitur;
irrelevant conclusion.
Again, you misconstrue what pseudoscientific means. A claim without evidence is merely an unfounded assertion. Nothing more, nothing less.
A "paranormal" claim, made on the basis of ostensible "research," that defies established scientific knowledge, is pseudoscience.
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.
Again, you mince words. You know exactly what the idiom "known to science" means. It means "established by science to be consistent with how the physical universe works." The reason science is not studying it is because scientists are smart enough to realize there's nothing there to study.
Science has claimed many things to exist that have not been “proved” (gravitons – to take a topical issue - for example).
Gravitons are
theoretical. They're not yet accepted as scientific fact. Now before you start seeing this as a loophole to start claiming that flying saucers and ET are also theoretical, there's a whole lot more material evidence to support the existence of gravitons than there is for ET or flying saucers, which are based entirely on stories.
>
