Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[AdMan]

Hey J.A. - perhaps instead of indulging in the vitriolic rant, you could simply address yourself to the following points then:

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.

<snip>

Just this first point has been throughly disproven in this thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

Just this first point has been throughly disproven in this thread.

It seems to have been totally dismembered in the 'UFOs: The Research, the Evidence' thread, although to be fair, as time goes on it's looking more and more like that might have just been a joke title, so maybe it doesn't count.

 

[John Albert]

Hey J.A. - perhaps instead of indulging in the vitriolic rant, you could simply address yourself to the following points then:

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.

We've already covered this.

Despite the dishonest arguments offered by your esteemed colleague J. Randall Murphy in this thread, ufology is indeed a pseudoscience because of the nature of the claims it makes, coupled with the fact that it rejects and/or ignores several basic concepts of scientific methodology.

The argument that ufology "does not claim to be a science" is demonstrably false. Several examples have already been presented in this thread of ufology organizations (including MUFON, by far the largest and best-established ufology organization) openly claiming to be engaged in the business of science.

• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.

Despite being a humanity and not a hard science, History relies on physical artifacts and defers to science to establish authenticity of source materials. It also adheres to similar standards of academic integrity. Ufology, on the other hand, relies solely on secondhand and thirdhand accounts, often with no discernible provenance whatsoever, and zero physical evidence.

At the fundamental level, in History the burden of proof is on the researcher making the claim to prove his case. In ufology, it is assumed that simply presenting arguments to discredit mundane explanations for reported phenomena is enough to warrant the promotion of wholly unsubstantiated paranormal causes.

• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

This comparison between modern scientific medicine and ufology is absurd. Modern medicine is a highly disciplined science, and the most strictly regulated of all scientific disciplines. By contrast, there isn't a single accredited college or university in this country that offers even a baccalaureate program in ufology. Ufology has no established methodology, no academic standards, no professional code of ethics, no history of scientific progress whatsoever.

Point me to a single group that publicly describes itself in terms of "ufology," that also adheres to actual scientific procedures and doesn't accept paranormal explanations, and I'll concede the point that the term "pseudoscience" is not 100% definitive of ufology.

 

[TheFallOfUriGeller]

Over the years I've talked with many other people who have seen them and I had a sighting of one myself. I have really good personal reasons for believing what I do.

j.r.

yes but if your father was skeptic, surley you would know that talk of people you know is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard:

1) people lie
2) normal people wouldnt know about natural phenomanon in the sky
3) people lie

I mean the fact you have only seen 1 yourself raises questions why 1?
and how do you know that it wasnt a natural event or something along the lines.

But ultimatly for me and i will keep asking this - why do these things come here get seen seen for about a few minuites then off they go - doesnt that seem odd? why travell all that way to get here then off they go again.

as for ailen abductions on humans id love to know when the 1st recorded abduction took place because my money is there being either a book or film around the same time. People want attention and if they say they got abducted by ailens thats there way of getting it. rightly or wrongly im not judge nor jury but people do and theres a saying "theres nowt as strange as folk." ans its true

its important to remember you need evidence that can be verified (not talk, or books) to lead towards an answer.
you dont start with an answer then look for evidience or claims of eye witnesses to support your answer..

 

[GeeMack]

you dont start with an answer then look for evidience or claims of eye witnesses to support your answer..

Pseudoscientists do. "Ufologists" do.

 

[carlitos]

I understand that the report did not conclude the thing the pilot saw was an extraterrestrial or alien craft. What was not clear, and still isn't clear given your persistent waffling and evasion, is whether you understand that. That's why I am asking you. Your continued ignorance of the question is noted.

I have been reading this thread, and i am embarassed for ufology. I can only wonder whether he is completely unaware how transparently dishonest his posts come across here, or whether the whole thing is an act. Or just self-delusion. Either way, as i noted, it's just embarassing to read.

Dude, if you can't answer a yes or no question, you are in league with the psychics, ghost hunters and other deluded souls at jref. This is not a compliment.

 

[ufology]

Just this first point has been throughly disproven in this thread.

The point was, "Ufology does not claim to be a science.", and the assertion by adman is purely a proclaimation without any substance. Ufology is not and never will be a science unto itself. It has been explained over and over again on this thread with logic and examples.

Again:

The largest portion of published works in ufology consist of informal historical accounts and personal experiences in books and journals for public consuption. Only a small fraction of published ufology books claim to be scientific treatises, and of those most are by scientists like Sagan, Klass, Alexander, Condon and Hynek.

The only thing that can be shown with anything approaching certainty is that there are individual cases of pseudoscience within ufology, and that those who suggest that ufology is a science unto itself are misrepresenting the field.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

The point was, "Ufology does not claim to be a science.", and the assertion by adman is purely a proclaimation without any substance. Ufology is not and never will be a science unto itself. It has been explained over and over again on this thread with logic and examples.

Again:

The largest portion of published works in ufology consist of informal historical accounts and personal experiences in books and journals for public consuption. Only a small fraction of published ufology books claim to be scientific treatises, and of those most are by scientists like Sagan, Klass, Alexander, Condon and Hynek.

The only thing that can be shown with anything approaching certainty is that there are individual cases of pseudoscience within ufology, and that those who suggest that ufology is a science unto itself are misrepresenting the field.

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, including 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.

You and Rramjet yourselves have both 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,'" 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.


Point me to a single group that publicly describes itself in terms of "ufology," that also adheres to actual scientific procedures and doesn't accept paranormal explanations, and I'll concede the point that the term "pseudoscience" is not 100% definitive of ufology.

 

[ufology]

I have been reading this thread, and i am embarassed for ufology. I can only wonder whether he is completely unaware how transparently dishonest his posts come across here, or whether the whole thing is an act. Or just self-delusion. Either way, as i noted, it's just embarassing to read.

Dude, if you can't answer a yes or no question, you are in league with the psychics, ghost hunters and other deluded souls at jref. This is not a compliment.

The above post does not address the argument but attacks the arguer instead, which is not in the spirit of genuine debate and is outside the bounds of discussion etiquette. If anyone should be embarrassed it is the poster who made the comment.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

So was that a yes or no answer to GeeMack's question then?

 

[Akhenaten]

The only thing that can be shown with anything approaching certainty is that there are individual cases of pseudoscience within ufology, and that those who suggest that ufology is a science unto itself are misrepresenting the field.

j.r.

You'd better have a word with Rramjet then.

 

[Akhenaten]

I have been reading this thread, and i am embarassed for ufology. I can only wonder whether he is completely unaware how transparently dishonest his posts come across here, or whether the whole thing is an act. Or just self-delusion. Either way, as i noted, it's just embarassing to read.

Dude, if you can't answer a yes or no question, you are in league with the psychics, ghost hunters and other deluded souls at jref. This is not a compliment.

The above post does not address the argument but attacks the arguer instead, which is not in the spirit of genuine debate and is outside the bounds of discussion etiquette. If anyone should be embarrassed it is the poster who made the comment.

j.r.

You should spend a bit less time on explaining your interpretation of the niceties and more time figuring out what it is that prompts people to address your arguments in this manner.

 

[ufology]

So was that a yes or no answer to GeeMack's question then?

I posted the answer to GeeMack's question in the form of an exact quote from the author of the report his question was in reference to. In this way GeeMack could verify the original source within the proper context rather than getting it second hand.

j.r.

 

[Access Denied]

Ufology is not and never will be a science unto itself.

Why?

I have to chuckle at the thought of all the UFOlogists you’re pissing off with statements like that…

Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/scienceindefault.pdf

Keep this up and you're going to put them all out of business.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why?

I have to chuckle at the thought of all the UFOlogists you’re pissing off with statements like that…

Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/scienceindefault.pdf

Keep this up and you're going to put them all out of business.

I've been sharing your chuckles for a while now. It seems that in their fervour to counter accusations of pseudoscience Rramjet and ufology have done a bang-up job of making themselves personae non gratae with the only group who might have been supportive of their . . . whatever it is.

For that matter, having esablished beyond doubt that ufology isn't science and if we're to forego the pseudoscience label, then what exactly are we supposed to call it?

It's silly enough to be a religion, but it doesn't seem organised enough to qualify. Maybe it's more of a pseudoreligion.

I might start a thread.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Hey J.A. - perhaps instead of indulging in the vitriolic rant, you could simply address yourself to the following points then:

[*]Ufology does not claim to be a science.

Wrong I think you should read more of our posts.

[*]Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.

Wrong, saying that you adhere to scientific principles is the same as saying it's a science. Also History is a social science so your analogy is dumb

[*]There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

Horrible analogy is horrible. When you have a WHOLE field that lives off the hypothesis that there are Alien crafts that are flying about in the sky and using terrible practices to prove aliens thus Pseudoscience which means fake science.

 

[ufology]

Why?

I have to chuckle at the thought of all the UFOlogists you’re pissing off with statements like that…

Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/scienceindefault.pdf

Keep this up and you're going to put them all out of business.

Q. Why will ufology never be a science unto itself?
A. First, the subject matter ( UFOs ) is a transient phenomena and therefore there is a lack of empirical material evidence to study under controlled conditions.

Secondly, if it could be studied under controlled conditions we'd be in a position to know exactly what they are and the context of being "unidentified" or "alien" would become a moot point, in which case the science of studying whatever they are would become something other than ufology ... perhaps astrobiology or exotechnology or exosociology ... I don't know, but once it's been identified well enough to study it under controlled conditions, it's no longer really "unidentified" and the "unidentified" part would become a purely historical facet ... and as such would not be science.

Thirdly, the largest portion of ufology related work involves the publication of historical cases and personal experiences and opinions in a non-scientific format such as books and journals for public consumption. Only a small fraction of the ufology publications are scientific treatises, and those are by authors such as Klass, Sagan, Condon and Hynek.

So because the concept of ufology as a science is ill conceived in the first place, and the portion of historical, journalistic and cultural factors in ufology greatly outweigh the scientific studies, the field as a whole simply doesn't fit into the scientific domain.

Certainly science can and does take place within the field, and ufology groups do advocate the use of genuine science, but the field on the whole is much wider than that.

All the ufologists I've polled on the topic recognize the truth of the above and my group has one of the largest memberships, so I'm not too concerned about the few who refuse to accept the logic.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

Despite the dishonest arguments offered by your esteemed colleague J. Randall Murphy in this thread, ufology is indeed a pseudoscience because of the nature of the claims it makes…

LOL. You just can’t help yourself from making those unwarranted ad hominem attacks can you.

If ufology makes claims that it maintains are scientific claims - and are actually not – then I would like to see them. Otherwise you are merely spouting unfounded assertions there my friend.

…coupled with the fact that it rejects and/or ignores several basic concepts of scientific methodology.

If ufology rejects or ignores concepts of scientific methodology, then perhaps you can point those out as well. But of course they will only be pseudoscientific if they claim to be scientific and then “reject or ignore” scientific principles.

I think you may also be confusing the field itself, with individuals who make statements. Not all individuals are ufologists and not all ufologists make unscientific claims.

The argument that ufology "does not claim to be a science" is demonstrably false.

The you have to show by evidence or logical argument that statement is true.

“The phenomenon can and should be approached dispassionately and scientifically” (MUFON)

So the mere call for a scientific approach is now pseudoscientific? Please…

“It can hardly be against human nature, or the scientific method in principle, to ask and to seek answers to those questions” (MUFON)

Ummm…is that not exactly what it says it is – an argument against pseudoscientific approaches?

“Cooperation, Sharing, and Establishing Ufology as a Science Through Professionalism in Investigation and Research.” (MUFON)

Once again – this is a call for the establishment of ufology as a science – obviously in recognition that it is not currently a science.

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

So it conducts scientific research. Is that what makes it pseudoscience now? You must demonstrate that any of its alleged scientific research is NOT scientific - or you haven’t a leg to stand on.

As for your other UFO organisations that claim to be doing science – likewise – you need to demonstrate that they claim to be doing science but are NOT doing science. Can you do that?

Despite being a humanity and not a hard science, History relies on physical artifacts and defers to science to establish authenticity of source materials.

I think you will find that History also relies on a great many anecdotes – in fact that is its’ principal reliance – it may of course be supported by Archaeology …perhaps that is where your confusion arises?

Ufology, on the other hand, relies solely on secondhand and thirdhand accounts, often with no discernible provenance whatsoever, and zero physical evidence.

Actually, just like History it relies on anecdotal accounts – but it also has physical trace evidence, radar, film and photographic evidence to support it.

At the fundamental level, in History the burden of proof is on the researcher making the claim to prove his case.

And so far, your claim that ufology is a pseudoscience has not been proved by you. Your claim, your burden of proof.

In ufology, it is assumed that simply presenting arguments to discredit mundane explanations for reported phenomena is enough to warrant the promotion of wholly unsubstantiated paranormal causes.

No, that is your personal conception. Besides it has nothing to do with whether ufology is a pseudoscience or not. Can you demonstrate that claims of the paranormal in relation to UFOs have been claimed to be scientific claims. No? I did not think so.

This comparison between modern scientific medicine and ufology is absurd. Modern medicine is a highly disciplined science, and the most strictly regulated of all scientific disciplines.

…and yet quacks and charlatans abound…

By contrast, there isn't a single accredited college or university in this country that offers even a baccalaureate program in ufology.

Perhaps that is why we (and obviously MUFON) have been calling for a properly constituted and funded program of research.

Ufology has no established methodology, no academic standards, no professional code of ethics, no history of scientific progress whatsoever.

Perhaps that is why we (and obviously MUFON) have been calling for a properly constituted and funded program of research.

Point me to a single group that publicly describes itself in terms of "ufology," that also adheres to actual scientific procedures and doesn't accept paranormal explanations, and I'll concede the point that the term "pseudoscience" is not 100% definitive of ufology

LOL! Talk about shifting the burden of proof! If you claim ufology is a pseudoscience – then you need to support that claim with evidence and/or logical argument!

You must demonstrate that wherever “ufology” has made a paranormal claim, it also maintains that it is a scientific claim (for after all, something is only pseudoscientific if it claims to be scientific in the first place).

 

[ufology]

I've been sharing your chuckles for a while now. It seems that in their fervour to counter accusations of pseudoscience Rramjet and ufology have done a bang-up job of making themselves personae non gratae with the only group who might have been supportive of their . . . whatever it is.

For that matter, having esablished beyond doubt that ufology isn't science and if we're to forego the pseudoscience label, then what exactly are we supposed to call it?

It's silly enough to be a religion, but it doesn't seem organised enough to qualify. Maybe it's more of a pseudoreligion.

I might start a thread.

Q. Having esablished beyond doubt that ufology isn't science and if we're to forego the pseudoscience label, then what exactly are we supposed to call it?
A. USI defines ufology in this way: "Ufology is a title used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs." So I suppose you could say, loosely speaking, that ufology is simply a topic or subject of interest in the category of unexplained phenomena.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Q. Having esablished beyond doubt that ufology isn't science and if we're to forego the pseudoscience label, then what exactly are we supposed to call it?
A. USI defines ufology in this way: "Ufology is a title used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs." So I suppose you could say, loosely speaking, that ufology is simply a topic or subject of interest in the category of unexplained phenomena.

j.r.

What's with this bizzaro Q&A nonsense? If the complexity of the quote function is beyond you there's a help and support sub-forum where you might be able to ask for some assistance and get it sorted out. Or do you prefer your method so you can reword the difficult questions and make it look like you're providing meaningful answers? It won't work, you know, and if you keep misquoting people I guarantee you'll be called on it.

And what's this garbage about "USI defines . . ."? Are we supposed to pretend that USI is some kind of third party; an authority to which we can refer our disputes or from which we can seek answers that are beyond our ken.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Are we supposed to pretend that USI (ie. you) didn't also say that:

"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."

You might just as well call your little flying saucer club "Anecdotes 'Rr' Us" but whatever, since it's just a topic of interest it doesn't really matter, although ufology is, at the very least, cringeingly pretentious.

So, now that we've arrived at some kind of pseudodefinition for your hobby, what makes you believe that you can use it as a basis to front up to a forum such as this and tell people who don't share your devotion to not knowing things that they're not proper sceptics; that people who don't share your idea of multiple realities are being narrow minded; that "OMG . . . aliens!" will never be a suitable replacement for critical thinking?


Ambitions and capabilities, ufology. You have them mixed up.