Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

It's the pretending to be doing science and that attracts the description of pseudoscience, not the claims of the ufailogists, which range from honest-but-misguided to the completely bizarre rubbish that we see in posts like #531 in this thread.

I have no problem rooting out instances of fraud and pretense in ufology ... your help in that regard is most welcome and that's why I'm here. There is no reason that skeptics and ufologists should not be able to cooperate in this regard rather than being such hostile adversaries.

As for post #531, you are taking it out of context. If you post what your particular issue is with it, then I can put into the proper perspective for you. Simply proclaiming it as rubbish is non constructive and shows no level of critical thought or rational thinking.

j.r.

 

[Brainache]

Rramjet, would it make you happier if I called it Pseudohistory?

 

[Audible Click]

I have no problem rooting out instances of fraud and pretense in ufology ... your help in that regard is most welcome and that's why I'm here. There is no reason that skeptics and ufologists should not be able to cooperate in this regard rather than being such hostile adversaries.
As for post #531, you are taking it out of context. If you post what your particular issue is with it, then I can put into the proper perspective for you. Simply proclaiming it as rubbish is non constructive and shows no level of critical thought or rational thinking.

j.r.

Cooperate in what? We've read thread after UFO thread over the years on this forum. Most, if not all, of us have concluded that there is no credible evidence to support the idea that there are alien star craft or aliens that have visited Earth.

 

[GeeMack]

Cooperate in what? We've read thread after UFO thread over the years on this forum. Most, if not all, of us have concluded that there is no credible evidence to support the idea that there are alien star craft or aliens that have visited Earth.

Yes, ufology has tried that dishonest tactic since he arrived here. Blaming the skeptics for not cooperating is a cowardly cop-out for "ufology's" own failure. Fact of the matter is every last skeptic in these discussions has cooperated in trying to help the "ufologists" understand their failed arguments, their failed methodology, when they're being dishonest, which logical fallacies they're using and abusing, how their criticisms of skepticism are lies, how their claims about their own "evidence" are lies, and many other quality lessons. And the result? The aliens-exist faithful cry persecution and dishonestly blame those very cooperative skeptics for their own failure.

The logic proving ufology is not in and of itself a pseudoscience has already been illustrated by these posts:

The claim that "ufology" has been proven to not be pseudosciecne is another lie. Trying and failing does not in any rational way constitute proving.

 

[Akhenaten]

I have no problem rooting out instances of fraud and pretense in ufology ... your help in that regard is most welcome and that's why I'm here.

Cool. Start with changing the name. It's both fraudulent and pretentious, in much the same way that 'astrology' is.

We've already had some good suggestions, but I have to admit that flying saucery is still my favourite, although ufailogy and ufolology are pretty good too.

There is no reason that skeptics and ufologists should not be able to cooperate in this regard rather than being such hostile adversaries.

You'll need to discuss that with the skeptics. It's not my bailiwick, but I think you'll find that they disagree. Sceptics like evidence, from what I've seen, and you don't have any.

As for post #531, you are taking it out of context. If you post what your particular issue is with it, then I can put into the proper perspective for you. Simply proclaiming it as rubbish is non constructive and shows no level of critical thought or rational thinking.

j.r.

Out of context? What the dickens are you talking about?

In the context of this thread about 'ufology as pseudoscience' the entire post is rubbish.

Since you seem to want specifics, this:

• Homeopathy - Failure to properly account for the placebo effect. ( applies )
• Ufology - Failure to properly account for the placebo effect. ( does not apply )

• Homeopathy - Evidence based on precise measurement under controlled repeated conditions that physical amounts of the active ingredient in homeopathic solutions may be as low as zero. ( applies )
• Ufology - Evidence based on precise measurement under controlled repeated conditions that physical amounts of the active ingredient ( whatever that may be ) may be as low as zero. ( does not apply ).

is rubbish.

That you can't see it for what it is doesn't bother me one whit. Everyone else can, and that's what matters.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, would it make you happier if I called it Pseudohistory?

LOL. You have yet to demonstrate by evidence or logical argument that ufology is “pseudo” anything.

Perhaps you might like to give it a go though? I would be most interested in any reasoned argument you might have to put forward (it would make a welcome change from the ad hominems, ridicule and unfounded assertions).

 

[Akhenaten]

LOL. You have yet to demonstrate by evidence or logical argument that ufology is “pseudo” anything.

You've demonstrated it rather effectively yourself with a 225 page thread entitled "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" which on closer inspection turns out to be nothing more than a vast (well, modest, but endlessly repetitive) collection of unsubstantiated flying saucer stories.

Perhaps you might like to give it a go though? I would be most interested in any reasoned argument you might have to put forward.

No you wouldn't. You'll certainly feign interest, and even pretend to respond to the arguments presented, but you'll steadfastly ignore anything that doesn't accord with "OMG . . . aliens!"

(it would make a welcome change from the ad hominems, ridicule and unfounded assertions).

Or you could just stop doing those things.

 

[TjW]

You've demonstrated it rather effectively yourself with a 225 page thread entitled "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" which on closer inspection turns out to be nothing more than a vast (well, modest, but endlessly repetitive) collection of unsubstantiated flying saucer stories.

So, not vast. Would you accept half-vast as a description?

 

[Brainache]

LOL. You have yet to demonstrate by evidence or logical argument that ufology is “pseudo” anything.
...

Others have done that comprehensively in this thread and others. You, of course, remain unconvinced, but refusing to admit defeat is not the same as victory.

What would it take for you, Rramjet, to change your mind on this issue?
(Please bear in mind that saying something to the effect of: "I am convinced I'm right and nothing will change my mind." is an admission of closed minded cult mentality.) You have been given examples of what would convince skeptics, but I've yet to see what it would take to change your mind.

 

[Akhenaten]

So, not vast. Would you accept half-vast as a description?

Half-vast sounds absolutely perfect.

 

[ufology]

Cooperate in what? We've read thread after UFO thread over the years on this forum. Most, if not all, of us have concluded that there is no credible evidence to support the idea that there are alien star craft or aliens that have visited Earth.

Well Stray Cat has been helpful. He demonstrated how a couple of videos could be easily faked. Another one out there Lance, seems to have outed an author with faked credentials. Klass from the old school threw some serious doubt on the Walton abduction story. Just because there are old cases doesn't mean there won't be new ones in the future. All this Internet and video posting stuff is making it even worse. It would be nice to be able to approach the skeptics to seek a constructive opinion based on facts without feeling like we had to be enemies. I would like to think the mutual aim is the truth.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

It would be nice to be able to approach the skeptics to seek a constructive opinion based on facts without feeling like we had to be enemies.

We're not enemies. The skeptics will always be here to keep the kooks and the frauds in check. If you could set aside your pet faith in extraterrestrial spacecraft and just take a critical look at the facts, you wouldn't need to enlist the help of anybody to debunk the nonsense.

I would like to think the mutual aim is the truth.

First, we'd have to come to some common definition of "truth" that didn't include fantasy.

 

[Akhenaten]

I would like to think the mutual aim is the truth.

Hardly seems likely, given this:

To be precise, the request above is ill conceived. Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

I think you'll find that skeptics prefer their truth to be reality-based.

 

[GeeMack]

It would be nice to be able to approach the skeptics to seek a constructive opinion based on facts without feeling like we had to be enemies. I would like to think the mutual aim is the truth.

The constructive opinion of the skeptics here, based on facts, has been offered time and again, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. And your continued argument by dishonestly misrepresenting the skeptics' position is still a lie. That makes you a liar, of course. Your repeated dishonest arguments only reinforce that. They will not change it.

The truth is not a mutual aim. The truth is the aim of the skeptics. Getting others to validate your belief in aliens is your aim. You can lie and claim otherwise, but pretty much all of your arguments presented so far bear this out. That is where objectivity leads us.

But to get back on track from your attempted derail of this thread, your pretense of wanting to learn the truth, while demonstrating without a doubt that you're not really interested in any objective truth, show that "ufology" is indeed pseudoscience. Your arguments have failed.

 

[John Albert]

Soon as he gets backed into a corner with the logic, he'll just switch gears and yank our chains some more with another crazy anecdote.

"But... but... but... There was this one time I saw this UFO and it was THIIIS BIIIG! ...and ...and it went really fast, like ZOOOOOOOM!!! Right across the sky! And it was glowing all blue, and there was a window and I could see these teeny-tiny little aliens in there and one of them WAVED AT ME as they sped past... it was SO AWESOME!!!

"Try and debunk THAT, so-called skeptics!"

 

[Access Denied]

The UFO proponents claim that research has demonstrated there to be a significant percentage of cases which defy plausible mundane explanation.

True, that’s why UFOlogy is a pseudoscience, research conducted by scientists (in addition to identification studies) has demonstrated otherwise, specifically that in and of itself, it’s irrelevant.

The mere proposal of hypothetical explanations does not make something a pseudoscience.

True, it’s believing the null hypothesis (in this case, that “aliens” are not visiting us) has been falsified without falsifiable evidence (in this case, IFOs as opposed to UFOs) that makes something a pseudoscience.

Indeed, if we conducted science…

You would discover that “aliens” aren’t visiting us.

That reason then does not make ufology a pseudoscience.

Sure it does, there’s no plausible (nor rational, let alone healthy) excuse for not conducting the required (or alternatively, rejecting the existing) science and basing your belief solely on unfalsifiable evidence.

Is because it relies on anecdotes for the foundation of its belief?

Yes, in particular relying on anecdotal accounts as evidence that what was described was a) described accurately to a significant extent and b) actually there to a somewhat lesser extent.

First, it does not rely solely on anecdotal evidence.

True, it also relies on various other forms of “evidence” that is ambiguous, or otherwise inconclusive at best, if not falsified (debunked) outright, and rejecting plausible mundane explanations.

[snip spammed list of cases already demonstrated to fit the above criteria]

What is however absolutely critical to note is that ufology has so much more than mere anecdotal evidence on which it may base its conclusions.

Believing that doesn’t make UFOlogy’s conclusions right, it does however make UFOlogy a pseudoscience.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not misrepresenting your position at all, and I very much appreciate that we are nailing this down with reasonable exchanges. In the quote above, we are moving to a more precise embodiment of the point you are trying to make

I made exactly the same point I'd made several times before, just a little more succintly as I did not bother to repeat the detailed support for it.

And you still managed to misunderstand and misrepresent it.

Not only that, you used it as the starting point to produce possibly the biggest load of pseudoscientific guff you have so far dumped into the thread.

I give up.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have no problem rooting out instances of fraud and pretense in ufology ... your help in that regard is most welcome and that's why I'm here.

And yet when I showed you examples of pseudoscience from a pseudoscientist with links to Rramjet's posts, you ran like the wind from doing that exact thing. What skeptics would like to work with is honest UFOlogists, not dishonest agenda driven ones.

There is no reason that skeptics and ufologists should not be able to cooperate in this regard rather than being such hostile adversaries.

I'm the adversary of dishonesty, not UFOlogists.

 

[Stray Cat]

I was sat talking to a high ranking military man who doesn't wish to be identified due to perceived pressure from the MoD, but suffice to say he has 'inside knowledge' of some of the lesser known aspects of what goes on up there in the sky. As the conversation progressed we talked about all sorts of things, but one subject kept coming up time and again, the study of UFOs.
After a while I asked him; "What is the RAF position on UFOlogy".
He told me it was pseudo science.

So it must be true, because an anonymous and yet reliable military man told me so.

If anyone needs verifiable, physical evidence of this fact, I can scan in the page from my notebook where I wrote down his words.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I was sat talking to a high ranking military man who doesn't wish to be identified due to perceived pressure from the MoD, but suffice to say he has 'inside knowledge' of some of the lesser known aspects of what goes on up there in the sky. As the conversation progressed we talked about all sorts of things, but one subject kept coming up time and again, the study of UFOs.
After a while I asked him; "What is the RAF position on UFOlogy".
He told me it was pseudo science.

So it must be true, because an anonymous and yet reliable military man told me so.

If anyone needs verifiable, physical evidence of this fact, I can scan in the page from my notebook where I wrote down his words.

You seem credible so what you say has a great weight of evidence. What an extraordinary anecdote!