Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

You've still not answered this, ufology.

"UFO reports are the result of mundane explanations."

Simple and easily falsifiable. Would that be a good null hypothesis so that UFOlogy could start to shed the image of being a pseudoscience?

Actually I have answered the question more than once already, and I'll say it again, a null hypothesis is used in the application of statistical analysis for experiments that can be done under controlled and repeatable conditions.

In ufology, there are no repeatable or controlled conditions from which to establish an accurate statistical probablity for UFOs themselves. Therefore the logical approach is not to begin with any hypothesis, but to begin with a blank slate and apply critical thinking to see where the evidence itself leads.

j.r.

 

[EHocking]

Actually I have answered the question more than once already, and I'll say it again, a null hypothesis is used in the application of statistical analysis for experiments that can be done under controlled and repeatable conditions.

In ufology, there are no repeatable or controlled conditions from which to establish an accurate statistical probablity for UFOs themselves. Therefore the logical approach is not to begin with any hypothesis, but to begin with a blank slate and apply critical thinking to see where the evidence itself leads.

Then why do you not do so?

Your a priori state that UFOs are "advanced, intelligent, or intelligently controlled, highly motile entities or craft of non-human, extraterrestrial origin...", is not logical, nor a blank state and denies critical thinking to determine where the evidence leads, since you have already assumed the outcome, i.e., you are predisposed to deny a plausible, mundane explanation for UFO sightings.

All of which is in stark contrast to your disingenuous, pretense that UFOlogy applies non-biased appraisal of any evidence.

 

[Access Denied]

There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of ufology and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the ufology works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises.

As you have repeatedly ignored, they don’t explicitly have to, the claim is being made implicitly as evidenced by your very next sentence…

They are simply collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large.

Opinions reached (claims) regarding the objective nature of reality such as ET visitation is a proven (or "undeniable") fact as these books and you yourself have made based on subjective “evidence” alone is in fact pseuedoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

Next…

[or retract your claim that you "know" what you saw and we are being visited by alien spaceships]

No offense but like I’ve told Rramjet, you don’t seem to be cut out for this line of work either and UFOlogy could use a better spokesperson based on your truly embarrassing performance here.

 

[wollery]

Again we see that it must first be "promoted as scientific" and again we see accusations of cherry picking by me when in fact it's the other way around. There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of ufology and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the ufology works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises. They are simply collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large.

Speaking of cherry-picking, the quote was "promoted as scientific fact". Do I have to explain the difference to you?

Actually I have answered the question more than once already, and I'll say it again, a null hypothesis is used in the application of statistical analysis for experiments that can be done under controlled and repeatable conditions.

In ufology, there are no repeatable or controlled conditions from which to establish an accurate statistical probablity for UFOs themselves. Therefore the logical approach is not to begin with any hypothesis, but to begin with a blank slate and apply critical thinking to see where the evidence itself leads.

You might want to explain that to Rramjet, who has been trying to offer a null hypothesis for application to UFO data, and claims to be a trained scientist.

 

[ufology]

As you have repeatedly ignored, they don’t explicitly have to, the claim is being made implicitly as evidenced by your very next sentence…

Opinions reached (claims) regarding the objective nature of reality such as ET visitation is a proven (or "undeniable") fact as these books and you yourself have made based on subjective “evidence” alone is in fact pseuedoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

or retract your claim that you "know" what you saw and we are being visited by alien spaceships

No offense but like I’ve told Rramjet, you don’t seem to be cut out for this line of work either and UFOlogy could use a better spokesperson based on your truly embarrassing performance here.

None of the above makes any sense. I've ignored the faulty, biased, cherry picked definition of pseudosciece suggested by the skeptics precisely because it's faulty biased and cherry picked to suit their bias, and lastly, as the skeptics repeatedly do here, the rest addresses the arguer, not the argument.

To restate my position:

Most of the ufology works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises. They are simply collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large. However skeptics often assert incorrectly that these should be counted as pseudoscience.

Where the skeptics go off the rails is that for something to qualify as pseudoscience, it first must be presented as science. This overriding prequailifying condition is expressed in one form or another in all of the more detailed definitions of pseudoscience, including Wikipedia. This can take the form of making the claim up-front that ufology is a science unto itself, or by making it appear to be a science unto itself through the use of standard scientific formatting and the use of scientific credentials and equipment. In other words, it either has to say it's a science unto itself or put on a convincing act. Otherwise it's just journalism or history or docudrama, which obviously aren't science in and of themselves, and therefore fall outside the parameters that define pseudoscience.

As I've pointed out here numerous times already, ufology does not present itself as a science unto itself through the majority of its published works, and neither does it make any unified claim to being a science unto itself. My group has aover 2000 members in 22 countries so that alone demonstrates that there is nothing even approaching a prevailing claim that ufology is a science unto itself. All other instances that heve been pointed to by the skeptics have been out of context in that they are simply advocating the use of science within the field.

Lastly I've never claimed that instances of pseudoscience don't exist within the ufology, only that they shouldn't be used as an excuse to tar and feather the entire field. Not only would that not be fair minded, it would be pseudoskeptical.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually I have answered the question more than once already, and I'll say it again, a null hypothesis is used in the application of statistical analysis for experiments that can be done under controlled and repeatable conditions.

In ufology, there are no repeatable or controlled conditions from which to establish an accurate statistical probablity for UFOs themselves. Therefore the logical approach is not to begin with any hypothesis, but to begin with a blank slate and apply critical thinking to see where the evidence itself leads.

j.r.

You've not addressed the larger question then. Why is your null hypothesis "Some UFO sightings are the result of aliens."?

You claim that a null hypothesis doesn't apply and yet you have one. Since you are, in fact, using one, wouldn't it be better to have a null hypothesis that is falsifiable?

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

Why would you not want to use that rather than your unfalsifiable one?

 

[ufology]

You've not addressed the larger question then. Why is your null hypothesis "Some UFO sightings are the result of aliens."?

You claim that a null hypothesis doesn't apply and yet you have one. Since you are, in fact, using one, wouldn't it be better to have a null hypothesis that is falsifiable?

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."
​

Why would you not want to use that rather than your unfalsifiable one?

I don't have a null hypothesis because to attempt to insert a null hypothesis into a situation where it cannot be properly applied would be pseudoscientific ... and as you know, I don't advocate the use of pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don't have a null hypothesis because to attempt to insert a null hypothesis into a situation where it cannot be properly applied would be pseudoscientific ... and as you know, I don't advocate the use of pseudoscience.

j.r.

But you do have a null hypothesis.

What we do claim to support ( at least within our group ) is the concept of critical thinking

You also claim UFOs are aliens. From the "About USI page:

Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin.

So yeah, I'd say your claim to support critical thinking is about as accurate as the rest of your claims.

As you know, you do have a null hypothesis. Wouldn't it be better to have one that is falsifiable such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

Simple and easily falsifiable. All you need is just one verified ET. Why would you not want to do that?

 

[ufology]

But you do have a null hypothesis.

As you know, you do have a null hypothesis. Wouldn't it be better to have one that is falsifiable such as:
"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."

Simple and easily falsifiable. All you need is just one verified ET. Why would you not want to do that?
/quote]


I'm not going to engage in pseudoscience by taking on a null hypothesis knowing full well that it can't be scientifically applied to ufology. Why would you even want me to?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But you do have a null hypothesis.

As you know, you do have a null hypothesis. Wouldn't it be better to have one that is falsifiable such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

Simple and easily falsifiable. All you need is just one verified ET. Why would you not want to do that?

I'm not going to engage in pseudoscience by taking on a null hypothesis knowing full well that it can't be scientifically applied to ufology. Why would you even want me to?

j.r.

You're already engaging in pseudoscience by having a null hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. See Rramjet's inane "show us where science has proved ET does not exist..." from another thread. If you use critical thinking you will find that it is virtually impossible to prove a universal negative such as that so scientists and rationally minded people don't say things like that. Only pseudoscientists such as Rramjet use that argument.

Your current null hypothesis of "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin" is not falsifiable because you can't prove a universal negative that aliens aren't visiting the Earth. That's why it is pseudoscience.

If you were to change it to an actual falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

That one is falsifiable. You just need to provide one confirmed ET to falsify it. That one is not pseudoscience. That's why Rramjet is screeching so loudly about my falsifiable null hypothesis and trying to push his idiotic pseudoscientific one, despite it being explained to him multiple times why it is pseudoscientific nonsense.

Why would you not want a falsifiable null hypothesis rather than your pseudoscientific unfalsifiable one?

 

[GeeMack]

As I've pointed out here numerous times already, ufology does not present itself as a science unto itself through the majority of its published works, and neither does it make any unified claim to being a science unto itself. My group has aover 2000 members in 22 countries so that alone demonstrates that there is nothing even approaching a prevailing claim that ufology is a science unto itself. All other instances that heve been pointed to by the skeptics have been out of context in that they are simply advocating the use of science within the field.

Your group its aim is "to illuminate the truth by presenting accurate, objective, and verifiable information". So the argument that your group isn't presenting itself as scientific is blatantly untrue. It's nonsense. The fact that your group doesn't use the word "science" is irrelevant. The 2000 members in 22 countries are engaging in pseudoscience, even if they are too cowardly to call it science and too dishonest to call it faith.

Pretty much the only alternative at this point would be if your group stopped pretending there was anything objective about trying to support a preexisting belief in aliens, and presented itself honestly for once. Honestly, you know, knock off the silly and transparently false claim to be objective, and truthfully admitting they have faith in a fantasy.

But for now, since those 2000 people don't have the integrity to admit there is no objective support for their faith, it's pseudoscience. Until someone takes all those lies about objectivity, verifiability, and seeking their preconceived "truth" off the web site, your "ufology" group will be a quintessential example of pseudoscience.

 

[PixyMisa]

ufology, your argument appears to be that ufology isn't pseudoscientific because it's not sufficiently coherent to qualify for such a status. Do I have that correct?

 

[John Albert]

The same article that is referred to in the quote above also quotes the Tunguska Event as pseudoscience. Clearly this too is misplaced. The Tunguska Event itself is a scientific fact and labelling the entire topic as pseudoscience demonstrates how poorly the term has been applied to it as well.

The article wasn't referring to the Tunguska Event itself as pseudoscience. The Tunguska Event is a well-documented occurrence that has been thoroughly examined by historians and scientists.

What the article was referring to as "pseudoscience" is the conglomeration of pseudoscientific "theories" that have proliferated around the Tunguska Event, like the "miniature black hole" hypothesis, the "crashed flying saucer" hypothesis, the "alien nuke/antimatter weapon test" hypothesis, and (my personal favorite) the "Nikola Tesla Death Ray" hypothesis.

Again we see that it must first be "promoted as scientific" and again we see accusations of cherry picking by me when in fact it's the other way around.

You're lying again. You're not fooling anybody with this dodging maneuver, so why don't you just man up and admit it? It might actually start to earn you some degree of respect around here.

We all can see and understand exactly what you did there with the definition thing. You redefined "pseudoscience" to fit your argument, just like you did with the definition of "critical thinking" in that other thread that got shut down and merged into this one. You deliberately chose a definition of the word "pseudoscience" that didn't include ufology in a list of alleged pseudosciences, then you plucked out just the first sentence and presented it as a complete and whole definition, disregarding the rest of the definition. Not surprisingly, the entire rest of the article you cited (the overwhelming majority of information you so flippantly discarded) contains numerous characteristics of pseudoscience that fit ufology to a "T."

Besides that, your argument you presented to support rejecting the rest of the article hinges around a flat-out lie that "ufology does not claim to practice science." That too has been disproven. I and others have cited numerous examples of ufology organizations (including MUFON, which is by far the largest, oldest, and best-established ufology organization in the world) that explicitly claim to be applying science to the study of UFOs while still promoting the wholly unscientific conclusion that outer space aliens are visiting Earth.

You've claimed that your own UFO club ("USI") is the exception to the pseudoscience rule, therefore the entire field of ufology doesn't deserve to be tarnished along with a few bad apples (that incidentally constitute the vast majority of self-described "ufologists"). However, that boast rings especially hollow when one reads your organization's mission statement endorsing the claims of ET contact and alien abduction, or one considers the appalling examples of confirmation bias, magical thinking, and pseudoscientific gobbledygook you've written in every UFO thread on this forum.

There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of ufology and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the ufology works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises.

By that reasoning, the same could be said of many other practices that are undeniably pseudoscientific:

There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of cryptozoology and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the cryptozoology works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises.

There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of crystal healing and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the crystology works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises.

There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of spiritualism and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the spiritualist works ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises.

There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of clairvoyance and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the psychic predictions ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises.

There is no logic in applying the label of pseudoscience to the entire field of faith healing and anyone who does is ignoring the fact that that most of the faith healing accounts ever published don't claim to be scientific treatises.

See? Your emasculated definition of "pseudoscience" fails at describing even those practices generally recognized as pseudoscience. You've deliberately rendered the definition useless to support your own denial.

What you've basically done is change the definition of pseudoscience to apply only to cases of academic fraud in science. Some cases of academic fraud may contain examples of pseudoscience, but "pseudoscience" is not synonymous with "academic fraud." The difference is, pseudoscience is a far broader field that encompasses any claims intended to sound scientific (in other words, categorical statements about the general operation and/or state of the physical Universe) but do not result from proper scientific methodology or discipline.

They are simply collections of events and opinions assembled into book form for the public at large.

Are you implying that these "collections of events and opinions" are presented purely for entertainment purposes and not intended to be taken seriously?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Are you implying that these "collections of events and opinions" are presented purely for entertainment purposes and not intended to be taken seriously?

Sorry for the big snippage, but I think its important to say that even under this prism, UFOlogy is a failure, since the tales are usually distorted, the original material is not available, the material is quite often a second-, third- or n-th hand account, research is weak if not biased, and the list could go on. To make things worse, over this questionable basis UFOlogists build conclusions (actually use it to back a preconceived notion)- aliens.

Yes, not everything within UFOlogy is pseudoscience. Bad, tabloid-type journalism and cultish behavior are also within UFOlogy. UFOlogy's current situation can not be defended, and its UFOlogists' own responsability. Blaming skeptics, mainstream science and conspiracies won't help UFOlogists. Want to change the situation? Change your methods. Its the only way to go.

 

[John Albert]

Yes, not everything within UFOlogy is pseudoscience. Bad, tabloid-type journalism and cultish behavior are also within UFOlogy. UFOlogy's current situation can not be defended, and its UFOlogists' own responsability. Blaming skeptics, mainstream science and conspiracies won't help UFOlogists. Want to change the situation? Change your methods. Its the only way to go.

Yep.


Here's what I'd like to know: in all of "ufology," who are the "good apples"?

How many legitimate, scientific organizations that accept reports of UFO sightings and conduct studies of such reports, actually describe themselves as "ufologists" and their activities as "ufology"? My guess would be zero.

Organizations like the USAF, NARCAP, and SCICOP/SCI do not self-identify as "ufology" organizations. Carl Sagan did not self-identify as a "ufologist."

Point me to a single group that publicly describes itself in terms of "ufology" or "ufologists" and adheres to actual scientific procedures and doesn't accept paranormal explanations, and I'll concede the point that the term "pseudoscience" is not entirely definitive of ufology.

 

[ufology]

You're already engaging in pseudoscience by having a null hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. See Rramjet's inane "show us where science has proved ET does not exist..." from another thread. If you use critical thinking you will find that it is virtually impossible to prove a universal negative such as that so scientists and rationally minded people don't say things like that. Only pseudoscientists such as Rramjet use that argument.

Your current null hypothesis of "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin" is not falsifiable because you can't prove a universal negative that aliens aren't visiting the Earth. That's why it is pseudoscience.

If you were to change it to an actual falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."
​

That one is falsifiable. You just need to provide one confirmed ET to falsify it. That one is not pseudoscience. That's why Rramjet is screeching so loudly about my falsifiable null hypothesis and trying to push his idiotic pseudoscientific one, despite it being explained to him multiple times why it is pseudoscientific nonsense.

Why would you not want a falsifiable null hypothesis rather than your pseudoscientific unfalsifiable one?

As everyone can see the above is a clear misrepresentation. I've never claimed to have a null hypothesis, and I've gone so far as to explain why more than once, yet the above simply ignores that fact and goes on to claim I do and then uses it to slap the pseudoscience label on again. It's as if the skeptics want ufology to be a pseudoscience so that they can have fun attacking it instead of doing something useful.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

As everyone can see the above is a clear misrepresentation. I've never claimed to have a null hypothesis, and I've gone so far as to explain why more than once

It's true. He's never claimed to have a null hypothesis, and he's presented numerous special pleadings to justify his feeling that he doesn't need one.

 

[ufology]

It's true. He's never claimed to have a null hypothesis, and he's presented numerous special pleadings to justify his feeling that he doesn't need one.

The above is almost correct ... the pleadings have not been so much that I don't need one, but that it isn't scientifically applicable and therefore shouldn't be used. Rather, a clean slate so to speak, in each case is a better way to begin. Start with no preconceived opinion and see where the evidence leads.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

The above is almost correct ... the pleadings have not been so much that I don't need one, but that it isn't scientifically applicable and therefore shouldn't be used. Rather, a clean slate so to speak, in each case is a better way to begin. Start with no preconceived opinion and see where the evidence leads.

The very purpose of the null hypothesis is to eliminate preconceived opinions that haven't already been proven.

The null hypothesis starts our research off with an assumption of the most conservative possible baseline: assume only those conditions which are already proven facts according to conventional science. It's a way of "zeroing out the variables," eliminating our own personal biases.

Personal biases are something which we're all vulnerable to. We may not even realize we have them, yet they can result in a distortion of our research results. The null hypothesis is used to eliminate personal bias, giving our research a firm basis in reality.

A null hypothesis is always scientifically applicable. If it's inapplicable to what you're studying, then you're doing pseudoscience.

By the way, a special pleading is a logical fallacy in itself.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As everyone can see the above is a clear misrepresentation. I've never claimed to have a null hypothesis, and I've gone so far as to explain why more than once, yet the above simply ignores that fact and goes on to claim I do and then uses it to slap the pseudoscience label on again. It's as if the skeptics want ufology to be a pseudoscience so that they can have fun attacking it instead of doing something useful.

j.r.

How can it be a clear misrepresentation when I quoted your own words? Do you mean because you haven't specifically said, "This is my null hypothesis..."? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Your current null hypothesis is "Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin". I got it from your website. It is also consistent with the tenor of your posts on this forum in this and other threads. It's as if the UFOlogists want ufology to be a pseudoscience so that they can have fun pretending to each other that there are aliens among us.

Why do you want to perpetuate the current image that UFOlogy "enjoys" of being a pseudoscience? Here is a better null hypothesis for UFOlogy to take on board and gain a semblence of respectability:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

It is simple and falsifiable, therefore scientific. It only requires just one confirmed ET. Yours is not falsifiable and is therefore pseudoscientific.

Why would you not want to use the falsifiable one?

The above is almost correct ... the pleadings have not been so much that I don't need one, but that it isn't scientifically applicable and therefore shouldn't be used. Rather, a clean slate so to speak, in each case is a better way to begin. Start with no preconceived opinion and see where the evidence leads.

j.r.

But you do have a preconceived opinion. It is:

"Earth is being visitied by objects of alien origin"​

Your preconceived idea is not falsifiable and is therefore pseudoscientific. Why do you want to perpetuate UFOlogy being a pseudoscience?