Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[AdMan]

Acually it doesn't and I dealt with that in my respose to him, so I'm not going to repeat it here.

j.r.

You are being intellectually dishonest if you don't address the two posts above yours, which clearly contradict your claim that MUFON isn't intending to make ufology a science.

 

[ufology]

You are being intellectually dishonest if you don't address the two posts above yours, which clearly contradict your claim that MUFON isn't intending to make ufology a science.

I did address those posts. MUFON simply advocates the use of science in ufology. So what? You're twisting the paragraph around to suit your own bias and using it as a means to leverage the label onto everything. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers if I were you.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I did address those posts. MUFON simply advocates the use of science in ufology. So what? You're twisting the paragraph around to suit your own bias and using it as a means to leverage the label onto everything. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers if I were you.

j.r.

Simply saying, "Nuh uh!" isn't much of an argument. Reality and the evidence say that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. MUFON's website shows it to be pseudoscience. Rramjet's and your posts prove that it is pseudoscience.

Do you have any logical arguments to make to refute it? "Nuh uh!" doesn't count.

 

[AdMan]

I did address those posts. MUFON simply advocates the use of science in ufology. So what? You're twisting the paragraph around to suit your own bias and using it as a means to leverage the label onto everything. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers if I were you.

j.r.

What part of this am I twisting around?

The theme of the meeting was: “Cooperation, Sharing, and Establishing Ufology as a Science Through Professionalism in Investigation and Research.” The meeting resulted in the formation of a steering committee comprised of representatives attending the summit conference to meet, develop an organization structure, address the goals and objectives, and communicate this information to participating groups.

http://www.mufon.com/MUFONHistory.html

 

[Stray Cat]

I did address those posts.

No you didn't.

MUFON simply advocates the use of science in ufology.

No, it is registered for tax emption as "scientific research organization"
As I quoted form their website. You can't brush that off as merely "an opinion".

So what?

So you closing your eyes to it, isn't going to make it go away.

You're twisting the paragraph around to suit your own bias and using it as a means to leverage the label onto everything.

No, we are showing you verifiable evidence that counters your claim that MUFON does not claim to be scientific or to be doing sicence.

It has a masthead that clearly states: "The Scientific Study of UFOs for the benefit of Humanity"
It is tax exempt as a "Scientific Research Organisation"
It held a conference called "Cooperation, Sharing, and Establishing Ufology as a Science Through Professionalism in Investigation and Research"

And you're still saying they not trying to put a gloss of scientific authority over their Flying Saucer Club?

 

[Locknar]

I have finished cleaning the original "Critical Thinking In Ufology" thread, and as this thread was a continuation of that discussion have merged the two.....

Split posts can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215317

Did I catch every infraction/issue...probably not, did I move things that maybe should not have been, could be. Any questions as to why your post was moved, edited, etc. - you are welcome to PM me, or ask in Forum Management. As always, you are also welcome to file an Appeal.

Please keep the discussion civil/polite, on topic, and address the argument vs attack the arguer...ie. rule 0, rule 11, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Rramjet]

So far in this thread I have seen no argument or evidence that would demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience.
Won’t someone actually address themselves to the claim?

Where is the list of arguments? Where are the statements of the form

Ufology is a pseudoscience because… (here is the evidence and/or here is the logical argument).

There just aren’t any.

There are plenty. The fact that you dismiss or ignore them is irrelevant.

If there were such arguments then of course you would have presented them. That you have not probably means you cannot – and you cannot because they do not exist. Prove me wrong.

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFO reports arise primarily from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc). After all, if they all arise from the same source, then the described characteristics should be equally epresented/interpreted/misrepresented/misinterpreted across all reports.

Not true, and actually pseudoscientific.

LOL. According to the debunkers in this thread – leading with your conclusion is pseudoscientific…

This relies on the idea that the people observing UFOs make accurate reports, even when they are making erroneous observations.

No it does not, it implies that the misidentifications, erroneous observations and inaccuracies should be spread evenly over all reports. That is, when the reports are grouped according to the specified characteristics (shape, speed, etc) then those groupings can be statistically tested to determine if the knowns and the unknowns come from the same population. That is, if all reports arose from the same population we would expect an even distribution between all reports of (for example) the colour white (or a circular shape, etc).

It stands to reason that if someone makes a report about a UFO and it is identifiable as a mundane object then the report must be reasonably accurate, but if they misidentify a mundane object, and their misperception is bad enough that it is no longer possible to identify as that mundane object then they can't be describing it with the same set of characteristics as the identifiable mundane object UFO.

Oh, so now you are hypothesising that ONLY identified reports will be accurate and ONLY unidentified reports will be inaccurate. Okay then, you will then be able to present the evidence to support that hypothesis? No, I thought not.

If misidentified mundane objects were described with the same characteristics as the identified ones then they wouldn't be unidentified.

Ummm…huh? The contention is actually that if all reports arose from the same population then we would expect an even distribution between all reports of (for example) the colour white (or a circular shape, etc).

I think you may find that you may be beginning with a conclusion - and that then is preventing you seeing the underlying logic.

To quote someone or other, it an unsupported assertion, and may be dismissed as such.

It is standard practice in science to provide authoritative reference sources in support of your contentions.

The vast majority of ufologists believe that UFOs are alien craft.

That is a completely unfounded assertion and may be dismissed as such. Define “ufologist” for a start…

I've never used my PhD as an argument. In fact, I rarely mention it. I do occasionally mention that I'm a professional astronomer, where it's relevant.

…and yet you just did mention it and it is completely irrelevant to the argument. The argument was about whether it was necessary for someone to have qualifications before their research could be taken to have a sound scientific basis. You contended that it was necessary. I replied that it was elitist for you to think so - and that what really mattered was the science, not the qualifications of the person conducting it.

I do not, however, introduce a paper with the fact that the author is a PhD. If the paper is worth anything then it will stand on its own, regardless of the author's qualifications.

..and yet you argue differently:

Furthermore, Astronomers need qualifications, whereas ufologists require nothing, except a belief.

The first flaw is that ufology offered it as an argument from authority.

Incorrect. He admitted the research as the production of a PhD in response to the persistent claims that "ufologists" are unqualified to conduct science.

The second flaw is that it isn't refereed, and therefore anything it says is unchecked and must be treated with caution.

Oh, so now YOU are returning to the very argument that you just rejected - the argument from authority – the question is, wollery, whether or not the science is sound, not whether it has the weight of “authority” behind it.

The third flaw is that it doesn't even support the argument ufology was trying to make.

That is the beauty of science. One does not have to have one’s arguments supported to recognise good science – or are you contending that science is only good if it supports your own conclusions?

The fact that most of those mundane explanations are put forward by "debunkers" rather than ufologists seems to have escaped you.

You contended the argument from authority to dismiss reports from ufologists (an argument you now say you reject – but only sometimes – when it suits you…), I was merely pointing out that the same argument could be applied to the debunkers and their identified as mundane reports…

…not all UFO researchers are involved in bad science, but the vast majority are. I note that you don't contradict that argument.

I merely noted that you have supplied no evidence that your claim there is actually true - and that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It's very interesting the posts and parts of posts that you choose to respond to. There are plenty of good arguments, but you ignore most of those.

…coming from one who has just ignored much of what I posted…LOL.

It's also interesting that ufology hasn't responded to my post.

He does not have to waste his time – I am doing such an excellent job for him.

 

[Akhenaten]

I did address those posts. MUFON simply advocates the use of science in ufology. So what? You're twisting the paragraph around to suit your own bias and using it as a means to leverage the label onto everything. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers if I were you.

j.r.

Waving your hands around and telling people that the words they're reading mean something other than what they actually say is not addressing the posts.

 

[Akhenaten]

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFO reports arise primarily from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc). After all, if they all arise from the same source, then the described characteristics should be equally epresented/interpreted/misrepresented/misinterpreted across all reports.

Has 'unkown' been added to the Redefined Words List?

My copy may not be fully up to date.


Tell us Rramjet, how do we tell which reports contain misrepresented/misinterpreted characteristics and which ones don't, or does pseudoscience allow one to treat all equally?

 

[RoboTimbo]

He does not have to waste his time – I am doing such an excellent job for him.

You're doing equally as well as he is.

 

[Akhenaten]

You're doing equally as well as he is.

That was begging to be said.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFO reports arise primarily from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc). After all, if they all arise from the same source, then the described characteristics should be equally epresented/interpreted/misrepresented/misinterpreted across all reports.

You've not got it quite right, but being a pseudoscientist that's to be expected.

If the pseudoscientists are correct that some UFO reports are pseudoaliens, then they will match the characteristics (shape, color, speed, etc.) of the IFOs which have positively been identified as ET.

So, how tall are all the pseudoaliens which have been positively identified?

 

[John Albert]

Do you even read the guff that you quote?

While it is true that rumor, speculation and tabloid sensationalism surround the UFO subject, it is with the collection, analysis and verification, as far as possible, of sober reports like the above that MUFON and other responsible UFO organizations are most concerned. The phenomenon can and should be approched dispassionately and scientifically from a variety of angles, perceptual, psychological and sociological, to name but a few. If objects from another planet are indeed visiting ours, what form of propulsion system and other technologies are employed? What kinds of biological lifeforms might be onboard? What God or gods will they worship? And how will UFO occupants - now or in the future, immediate or remote - perceive humans: as mental, emotional and spiritual equals or as vastly subpar inferiors? Should the skeptics prove right, in a "worst-case" scenario, and UFOs turn out out to be nothing more than a convoluted space age myth of our own making, surely our perceptions of the UFO phenomenon will tell us much about the contents and inner working, the built-in "plumbing" of the human mind and perhaps consciousness itself? In either event - including other scenarios and potential explanations as yet unformulated - many unanswered questions remain. It can hardly be against human nature, or the scientific method in principle, to ask and to seek answers to those questions. We welcome your assistance!

Source

In 1982, when members from several UFO organizations called for greater cooperation between organizations, the 1982 MUFON UFO Symposium in Toronto became the ideal vehicle to bring the leaders of the various UFO organizations together to discuss the issue. MUFON hosted a one-day meeting following the symposium where 50 people met in a brainstorming session to chart the direction for a proposed federation for North American UFO groups. The theme of the meeting was: “Cooperation, Sharing, and Establishing Ufology as a Science Through Professionalism in Investigation and Research.” The meeting resulted in the formation of a steering committee comprised of representatives attending the summit conference to meet, develop an organization structure, address the goals and objectives, and communicate this information to participating groups.

http://www.mufon.com/MUFONHistory.html

Apparently not:

What is MUFON's relationship to the U.S. Government?

MUFON has federal tax-exempt status as a scientific research organization.

Source

Looks like they're making some pretty blatant scientific pretensions to me. Judging by that, it's obvious they want to be taken seriously as a scientific organization.

Besides MUFON, here are a few other ufology groups who openly claim to be doing science:

http://www.ufo-science.com
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://www.ufoscience.org/
http://www.ufocenter.com/
http://www.ufohypotheses.com/

Some of these websites also contain links to other websites devoted to promoting pseudoscience, and ads for quack medicines, perpetual motion machines and other pseudoscientific scams.

It appears that most UFO research groups (especially MUFON, the oldest and by far the largest one) do indeed invoke the claim of "science" to describe their work. Ufologists make just as many claims to science as any other pseudoscientists, and probably even more than most. For example, there are huge branches of pseudoscience that rely on the low-tech, "ancient tradition" angle, like your chi-healers, naturopaths, reiki practitioners, acupuncturists, spirit mediums, astrologers, etc. Those pseudoscience purveyors seldom make claims that their work is especially scientific.

Also, you and Rramjet both have made numerous claims to the practice of scientific techniques.

Despite his recent parroting of your own disingenuous claims about ufologists not claiming to do science, Rramjet has repeatedly described himself as a "scientist" here on these forums.

When Rramjet proposes his hypothetical ufology meta-analysis comparing characteristics of UFO anecdotes, or chants his favorite mantra about "'anecdotal evidence' blah blah blah 'physical trace evidence' blah blah blah 'nuts and bolts craft' blah blah blah," what do you think he's trying to do? He's trying to make a case using scientific research and data analysis. Not doing a very good job of it I'll admit, but there's no doubt he's trying to present himself in a "sciencey" manner.

What do you think you're doing when you go out into the field to meet an "eyewitness" and make out a sighting report? You're collecting and cataloging data. When you discuss with colleagues the relative merits of the ETH, PSH and IDH, you're engaging in discourse. These are all ostensible "sciencey" activities. These are the trappings of science that ufologists use to try and give validity to their paranormal claims. The difference is that ufologists assume the existence of unproven paranormal causes, then work backward to try and validate those paranormal myths using whatever means they can. That is why ufology is a pseudoscience.

Regardless whether you claim to be a scientist or not, the business of promoting any paranormal claim as fact is pseudoscience.

Your argument that ufologists don't claim to be doing science has now been disproven, so I'm asking you kindly to please stop repeating this lie.

And ufology, why don't you answer Wollery's excellent response to your "large parts of ufology are not claiming to be doing science" argument? He made a very apropos correlation between ufology and astronomy that you might find compelling.

 

[ufology]

Looks like they're making some pretty blatant scientific pretensions to me. Judging by that, it's obvious they want to be taken seriously as a scientific organization.

Besides MUFON, here are a few other ufology groups who openly claim to be doing science:

http://www.ufo-science.com
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://www.ufoscience.org/
http://www.ufocenter.com/
http://www.ufohypotheses.com/

Some of these websites also contain links to other websites devoted to promoting pseudoscience, and ads for quack medicines, perpetual motion machines and other pseudoscientific scams.

So yeah, as I've said it several times already, and now I have now disproven your argument that ufologists don't claim to be doing science. I'm asking you kindly to please stop repeating this lie.

It appears that most UFO research groups (especially MUFON, the oldest and by far the largest one) do indeed invoke the claim of "science" to describe their work. Ufologists make just as many claims to science as any other pseudoscientists, and probably even more than most. For example, there are huge branches of pseudoscience that rely on the low-tech, "ancient tradition" angle, like your chi-healers, naturopaths, reiki practitioners, acupuncturists, spirit mediums, astrologers, etc. Those pseudoscience purveyors seldom make claims that their work is especially scientific.

Besides, you and Rramjet both have made numerous claims to the practicing of "sciencey" techniques.

When Rramjet chants his favorite mantra about "'anecdotal evidence' blah blah blah 'physical trace evidence' blah blah blah 'nuts and bolts craft' blah blah blah" or proposes his hypothetical ufology meta analysis comparing characteristics of UFO anecdotes, what do you think he's trying to do? He's trying to make a case using scientific research and data analysis techniques. Not doing a very good job of it I'll admit, but there's no doubt he's trying to act in a "sciencey" manner.

What do you think you're doing when you go out into the field to meet an "eyewitness" and make out a sighting report? You're collecting and cataloging data. When you discuss with colleagues the relative merits of the ETH, PSH and IDH, you're engaging in discourse. These are all ostensible "sciencey" activities. These are the trappings of science that ufologists use to try and give validity to their paranormal claims. The difference is that ufologists assume the existence of unproven paranormal causes, then work backward to try and prove those causes using whatever means they can. That is what makes ufology pseudoscience.

Regardless whether they're claiming to be scientists or not, the business of promoting any paranormal claim (that is unproven by science) is pseudoscience. Spiritualist mediums, psychics, telekinetes, and others in the "parapsychology" field are also definitively pseudoscientific, but almost none of them actually identify their "powers" as science.

And ufology, why don't you answer Wollery's excellent response to your "large parts of ufology are not claiming to be doing science" argument? He made a very apropos correlation between ufology and astronomy that you might find compelling.

Keep up the good work and keep the pressure on. If science is to be done in ufology it needs to be done properly and a constant critical eye will only help to move it in that direction.

j.r.

 

[Aepervius]

Keep up the good work and keep the pressure on. If science is to be done in ufology it needs to be done properly and a constant critical eye will only help to move it in that direction.

j.r.

Yeah but see here is the catch 22 : if science is done in Ufology, that will reduce the body of evidence to ... zero. That is why you refuse to admit ufology is pretending to be science : so that you can still pretend there is some evidence by touting the various ufo-ET-sighting stories. Sadly, approximately 99% of the ufologist out there, did not get your memo.

 

[tsig]

All that was done with the quote is present an opinion that science can and should be used within the field. Nowhere does it say ufology is a science, which is the actual issue at hand. One can and should use science for many things, but that doesn't suddenly mean every time it's used it's pseudoscience. The article also makes it clear that they have drawn no firm scientific conclusion regard based on any of the science that has been done.

So again we're just seeing an out of context twisting of an opinion to suit a particular bias in order to unfairly slap the label over the entire field.

Other websites such as "Science Of Astrology" or "Science Of Homeopathy" are really clear cut on the issue, they are saying Astrology is a science and Homeopathy is a science. Nowhere does the MUFON article say Ufology is a science.

And even if you find a bunch of their scientific studies that meet the definition of pseudoscience ( claims to be science or presents itself as science or wears the trappings ... bla bla bla, but don't adhere to the scientific method ), all you've done is expose a bunch of reports to scrutiny ... good for you ... you'd have done something useful in ufology. But it wouldn't make the other 900 ufology books I have on my shelf that don't present themselves as science suddenly pseudoscience.
j.r.

900??

 

[Rramjet]

Yeah but see here is the catch 22 : if science is done in Ufology, that will reduce the body of evidence to ... zero.

If that is where the science takes us, do be it. However, to this point in time all the scientific exploration that has been conducted points toward some very intriguing evidence indeed. People who conduct research into UFOs are not afraid of the science – indeed they have been calling for properly constituted peer-reviewed programs of research into UFOs for a very long time now.

That is why you refuse to admit ufology is pretending to be science…

While ufology may use scientific methodology to conduct research (indeed welcomes it and positively calls for it), it is not a science, nor does it pretend to be.

…so that you can still pretend there is some evidence by touting the various ufo-ET-sighting stories.

Interestingly, not only do we have the multiple eyewitness testimony, we have the radar, film, photographic and physical trace evidence to support the research.

Sadly, approximately 99% of the ufologist out there, did not get your memo.

Do you have any evidence to support your unfounded assertion (your faith based belief) there? No? I thought not.

 

[Correa Neto]

Lets’ use ufology’s approach and look at UFOlogy as a collage. It is not actually completely wrong, since some of its aspects can not be called science by any means. Many of the esoteric UFOlogists and some alleged contactees (like this forum’s Earthsister) for example are anything but science. Sure, as soon as they present themselves as doing science, it becomes pseudoscience, but let’s put this aside for a moment.

Let’s ignore the fact that a number of vocal UFOlogists claimed to be scientists (or present themselves as doing science) and were shown to have faked their credentials. Lets ignore that other eminent UFOlogy figures faked the material they presented or presented materials shown or supposed to be faked.

Let’s ignore, for example, those folks at UFOhunters and Ancient Aliens when they are talking about energy vortexes, Einsten’s equations validating time travels and ufology’s own recent Star Trek-like technobabble about antigravity.

Let’s focus on another aspect- the one he mentions as more akin to journalism. Now, good journalism, or just simple, plain, good and honest collection of stories involves, among other things, keeping track of original sources and presenting the material on a faithful, unbiased way. Sources must be faithfull. Is this happening within UFOlogy? All it takes are a few visits to UFOlogy sites where sightings and abductions are described to see it is not. A visit to the “UFO evidence” thread right here at JREF also shows this. A simple example. Suppose I claim a certain UFO was also tracked by radar. You, the skeptic rightfully will ask for my sources. Suppose my source is an interview at Playboy magazine. So, as journalism or as unbiased and reliable story telling UFOlogy also fails. It is just plain bad journalism, tabloid journalism. Note UFOlogy relies a lot on tabloid journalism as source…

So, UFOlogy when presented as science, usually is pseudoscience; when presented as journalism or faithful unbiased collection of tales it also usually fails, its pseudo journalism or tabloid journalism. The bottom line is- UFOlogy’s methods are failed.

 

[GeeMack]

900??

Another lie.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If that is where the science takes us, do be it. However, to this point in time all the scientific exploration that has been conducted points toward some very intriguing evidence indeed. People who conduct research into UFOs are not afraid of the science – indeed they have been calling for properly constituted peer-reviewed programs of research into UFOs for a very long time now.

That's because UFOlogy is a pseudoscience practiced by pseudoscientists, as has been proven in this thread.

While ufology may use scientific methodology to conduct research (indeed welcomes it and positively calls for it), it is not a science, nor does it pretend to be.

No, UFOlogy calls for science to try to prove anecdotes equals pseudoaliens. You are correct that it is not a science but it does pretend (look up the word "ostensible") to be so it is a pseudoscience. Some of its adherents even pretend to be scientists.

Interestingly, not only do we have the multiple eyewitness testimony, we have the radar, film, photographic and physical trace evidence to support the research.

Well, no. We have multiple claimants, no radar of known pseudoaliens, no film, photographic or physical trace evidence of ET to support any pseudoscientist's delusions. And you forgot FLIR again. LOL! That's your dishonesty showing.

Do you have any evidence to support your unfounded assertion (your faith based belief) there? No? I thought not.

This statement is more evidence that you are a pseudoscientist engaged in pseudoscience.