Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[wollery]

You take a descriptive characteristic (say a shape) and note its incidence in both the known and the unknown reports. The hypothesis states that we should expect the incidences to be evenly distributed between reports (if all objects are merely misidentified mundane objects then we expect it will be). Then we run (for example) a Chi-square analysis to see if the observed incidence statistically differs from the expected incidence. A simple and straightforward test of the hypothesis.

That's fine, for objective measures.

But how, precisely, are subjective measure controlled for?

 

[dafydd]

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?


j.r.

A hobby.

 

[EHocking]

Actually, if you ever read the book, it doesn't promote the concept of alien spacecraft at all....

yes it does.

Right in the first sentence of the foreword by the author, which you reproduce on your sight.

"This is a book about unidentified flying objects -- UFO's -- "flying saucers"
...
It is well known that ever since the first flying saucer was reported in June 1947 the Air Force has officially said that there is no proof that such a thing as an interplanetary spaceship exists."
​

To declare that the book is not promoting the concept (hell he's contending PROOF) for ET craft either demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension on your behalf - or a deliberate misdirection on the aim of the book. These are very disingenous debating tactics, ufology.

He also goes on and practically admits that he is conducting pseudoscience,

"With the exception of the style, this report is written exactly the way I would have written it had I been officially asked to do so while I was chief of the Air Force's project for investigating UFO reports -- Project Blue Book. "
​

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Another term you don't understand. Look it up.

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.


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.

LOL. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156375

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.

Well, no. It's the quacks and charlatans who make up the pseudoscientific field of UFOlogy.

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

Done and done.

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

It puts the lie to your statement that UFOlogy doesn't pretend to be doing science.

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


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

Of course not, it's a pseudoscience like homeopathy.

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.

It conducts research in a pseudoscientific manner to arrive at its foregone conclusion that OMG Aliens!

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?

Yep. No OMG Aliens.

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?

The pseudoscience of UFOlogy relies on anecdotes to believe in OMG PseudoAliens.

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

You forgot FLIR again. LOL! Only a pseudoscientist would do that repeatedly and dishonestly like you.

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

Well, no. It's been proved by you! LOL. You finally accepted the burden of proof that you have been trying to shake for two years.

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.

Birds of a feather...

…and yet quacks and charlatans abound…

...in UFOlogy. I can't think of any examples of non-quacks or non-charlatans, can you?

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

Because it's a pseudoscience.

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

Because you're pseudoscientists.

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!

No need. You and ufology stepped up to the plate and took on the entire burden of proof in proving that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. Well done! LOL.

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).

Easy peasy. Look at the links that have been provided a few times.


If you don't want to be a pseudoscience, why do you not want to use a falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

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

Simple and falsifiable, you only need just one confirmed ET. Why do you run like a rabbit from that null hypothesis? It makes none of the idiotic assumptions that your pseudoscientific one does, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Correa Neto]

There is no empirical scientific evidence that can be presented here. As for the assumption that objective, unbiased criteria means different people will return similar results, the assumption doesn't take into account that different people can always interpret the criteria based on their personal bias.

As for a particular case, I mentioned one way back about the USAF pilot who chased a disk shaped object for over 2 minutes during the day and closed to about 500 yards where it was clearly visible. No ifs or maybes. The report comes from the USAF, not some spurious informant. The essential part of the case is outlined below. The skeptics here have only made unfounded and illogical claims that the story is a fabrication or the result of temporary insanity brought on by stress or any number of other poorly formed hypotheses that lack both depth and clarity.

=================

"Again the pilot pushed the nose of the F-86 down and started after the object. He closed fairly fast, until he came to within an estimated 1,000 yards. Now he could get a good look at the object. Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely round and flat saucer-shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole."
As his rate of closure began to drop off, the pilot knew that the object was picking up speed. But he pulled in behind it and started to follow. Now he was right on the deck.
About this time the pilot began to get a little worried. What should he do? He tried to call his buddy, who was flying above him somewhere in the area at 20,000 feet. He called two or three times but could get no answer. Next he tried to call the ground controller but he was too low for his radio to carry that far. Once more he tried his buddy at 20,000 feet, but again no luck.
By now he had been following the object for about two minutes and during this time had closed the gap between them to approximately 500 yards. But this was only momentary. Suddenly the object began to pull away ..."

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/BD_003-004.htm

=================


So what it will be now ... let me guess, more irrational attacks on the competence and character of the pilot ( if his existence is even ackowledged at all ) and the USAF officer who wrote the report, and probably me as well. And then of course there will be the chanters on the sidelines with their tired "show me the proof" routine.

j.r.

So, you mean the UFO cases I listed, yours included, would not make it?

Now, what have you presented as a substitute? A second-hand account, allegedly built over decades-old memories, backed by what? More anecdotes?

Its bad journalism. Its bad research. That's what I -and other skeptics here- are actually attacking. The bad methodology UFOlogists display, be it when they pose themselves as (pseudo)scientists or as (tabloid)journalists or as(pseudo)historian. Its the the frauds, the faked credentials, the special pledges, the redefinitions, the make-believe. Its the tired routine of bad methodology, the flawed debate tactics UFOlogists (among which Rramjet and you are included) constantly are displaying.

Remember, when you started to post here, I warned you about not falling in the traps UFOlogists and other fringe subjects proponents fall. You felt in all of them.

ETA- Where is the unbiased methodology to evaluate sighting reports? If it can't be created, then these anecdotes are pretty much useless, as well as their interpretations.

 

[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 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.

No, actually you refused ro answer a simple yes no question. Everyone here sees what you are doing. It's intellectually dishonest. I don't believe your stated reasons for avoiding a clear answer, based on your pattern of obfuscation here. Folks who communicate in vague terms rather than clarity always have an ulterior motive.

Speaking of which, you referred to UFOs as "a transient phenomena." Of course, phemomena is plural. Which is accurate; blimps, car headlights, lucid dreams, weather ballons and lies are indeed many things, not just one. That you choose to arbitrarily group these things into one categorization doesn't do anything to convince us that the scientific method no longer applies. Not to mention that there are loads of actual transient phenomena that have been studied amd explained. Lightning and hurricanes come to mind.

Q - what is ufology?
A - apologetic folklore.

 

[ufology]

No, actually you refused ro answer a simple yes no question. Everyone here sees what you are doing. It's intellectually dishonest. I don't believe your stated reasons for avoiding a clear answer, based on your pattern of obfuscation here. Folks who communicate in vague terms rather than clarity always have an ulterior motive.

I provided the the answer to the question that was asked by quoting the exact words of the UFO investigator who wrote the report. What could be more clear? There is no second hand "interpretation", no degradation of data, yet the poster above calls this "obfuscation" and suggests my answer implies an ulterior motive. If anything, it is the poster above who is obfuscating and drawing the reader away from the substance of the report.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

Was that a yes or a no?

 

[GeeMack]

I provided the the answer to the question that was asked by quoting the exact words of the UFO investigator who wrote the report. What could be more clear? There is no second hand "interpretation", no degradation of data, yet the poster above calls this "obfuscation" and suggests my answer implies an ulterior motive. If anything, it is the poster above who is obfuscating and drawing the reader away from the substance of the report.

The ulterior motive appears to be maintaining a weaseling, ever variable position in order to avoid the fact that the aliens-exist fantasy is ridiculoulsy untenable. It's dishonest, of course, but as we've seen throughout this thread, dishonest arguments are a mainstay in the "ufologists'" toolkit. If it weren't for the rampant arguments by dishonesty, there would be no argument at all.

And regarding your continued ignorance of my simple yes/no question and your silly defense of that ignorance, I understand the report did not conclude that the pilot saw an alien craft. That was the substance of the report. What still isn't clear given your persistent dodging and weaving, is whether you understand that. That's why I asked you in plain English to answer for yourself.

What is clear is the attempted, but failed, argument by ambiguity and obfuscation. It is an intellectually dishonest ploy which has been recognized by everyone involved in this discussion save perhaps those who are attempting to use it to support their belief in extraterrestrials.

What is also clear is that "ufology" is indeed definitively pseudoscience. Making up crap to try to counter that hasn't worked out too well for the "ufology" practitioners.

 

[John Albert]

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

My beef is with Mr. Murphy's reasoning and debating skills, not with him personally. It's not my fault that he seems entirely unable to speak honestly about this particular subject.

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.

"Unfounded assertions" my ass.

We've been over and over and over this literally hundreds of times in this and other UFO-related threads, and you know it. You just choose to ignore it.

So how about this: I'll restate my position one more time, and if you fail to adequately address my arguments with something other than the same old discredited garbage you've been pitching thus far, I'm putting you back on ignore. I'm sick and tired of repeating the same reasoned arguments over and over and having them ignored while you guys continue to reiterate the same nonsense without addressing my points. Sound fair?

Here goes:

The paranormal claims made by ufologists are presented as scientific, but are not scientific.

Ufologists make these claims; legitimate scientists do not. That's the reason why ufology is a pseudoscience that the scientific establishment does not professionally recognize as legitimate.

Now before you start your omnislashing, please kindly allow me to explain:

Any time ufologists (or any other persons) make allegations of paranormal activity without material, objective proof, they are engaging in pseudoscience.

That is the very definition of "pseudoscience," and it has nothing to do with whether they explicitly claim to be scientists. All other pseudoscientists do the exact same thing and many of them don't claim to be doing science.

For example: homeopaths, naturopaths, psychics, clairvoyants, psychokinetes, psychic surgeons, faith healers, shamans, crystologists, reiki practitioners, chi-healers, martial "Bullshido" artists, ghost hunters, flat-Earthers, hollow-Earthers, etc., etc.

Those are all legitimate examples of pseudoscience claimants who generally deign to identify themselves as "scientists." Thus, an explicit claim of doing science is not necessary for something to be identified as pseudoscience.


Paranormal claims of ufology are presented as scientific facts because:

• They are categorical claims about the nature and/or workings of the material Universe.

• They are presented along with ostensible "evidence" that supposedly "proves" they are real.

• The persons making the claims typically promote themselves as knowledgeable professional researchers and/or authoritative experts.

• Detailed information on the subject is presented, on the assumption that it was revealed through objective research or expert opinion.

• The vast majority of UFO organizations overtly purport to be practicing science. This is a fact.

Every self-described "ufologist" or "ufology" organization I have ever seen or heard of, promotes or endorses paranormal explanations for unidentified things seen in the sky.

If ufology rejects or ignores concepts of scientific methodology, then perhaps you can point those out as well.

No problem!

Paranormal claims of ufologists are in fact not scientific because:

• No verifiable, testable, objective evidence exists to support any claims of extraterrestrial life, or any other paranormal activity. Therefore, such claims are by definition unscientific.

• UFO "evidence" is seldom accurately measured by objective scales, and is usually lacking in quantitative elements altogether. Therefore, no meaningful statistical hypothesis can be drawn from the data.

• Ufology relies almost entirely on anecdotal evidence, from which it is impossible to formulate falsifiable hypotheses.

• Ufology ignores the principle of parsimony, instead assuming the existence of root causes for which no material evidence exists, and which are unnecessary to adequately explain the phenomena.

• Ufology makes unfalsifiable claims and employs unfalsifiable null hypotheses.

• Ufology promotes claims that are not supported by the evidence presented.

• Ufology typically "affirms the consequent" by beginning analyses with an unproven assumption, and then rejecting all viable, mundane explanations to justify a jump to that unproven conclusion.

• Ufology typically employs appeals to ignorance and incredulity to erroneously shift the burden of proof away from the ufologist proposing the hypothesis, instead demanding that skeptics prove the negative assertion that the ufologist's claim isn't true.

• UFO sighting cases are typically cherry-picked for the ones that are especially difficult to explain. Those highly atypical cases are presented as definitive UFO sightings, while obvious cases of fraud or human error are downplayed or ignored. This approach makes the unexplained cases appear statistically more significant.

• Imaginary explanations that defy known science are frequently presented by ufologists as detailed knowledge about things that have never been proven to exist in the first place, on the pretense of expertise or the assumption that such information was revealed through objective research.

• There are no refereed (peer-reviewed) journals in the practice of ufology.

• There is no academic establishment of ufology to provide for the independent testing and verification of claims made by ufologists.

• Despite over 60 years of practice and tens of thousands (if not more) of reported cases worldwide, ufology has never produced any definitive results or verifiable scientific findings whatsoever.

• Ufologists typically blame their detractors for their failure to produce results, alleging scientific prejudice, government conspiracy or other persecution.

No self-described "ufologist" or "ufology" organization I have ever seen or heard of, actually follows real scientific methodology and protocols and does not make unfounded assumptions based on flimsy anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.

I have yet to find a single organization that identifies itself as "ufologist," that honestly follows real scientific methodology and protocols and does not make unfounded assumptions based on flimsy anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.

But of course they will only be pseudoscientific if they claim to be scientific and then “reject or ignore” scientific principles.

Nope. This is wrong, as I've already proven above. If you have any doubts, just scroll up.

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.

How about ESP practitioners? Are any ESP practitioners not doing pseudoscience?

How about ghost hunters? Are any of those guys not doing pseudoscience?

How about bigfoot hunters? Any of them not doing pseudoscience?

Are any of these people and groups who chase after paranormal phenomena that have never been proven to exist not engaged in the self-deluded practice of pseudoscience?

As I've said numerous times over the last few pages, if you can point out to me a single organization that identifies itself as "ufologist," that does not promote or endorse paranormal explanations, actually follows real scientific methodology and protocols, and does not make unfounded assumptions based on flimsy anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, then I will gladly concede the point that all practitioners of ufology are not 100% engaged in the practice of pseudoscience.

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

Please scroll up.

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

MUFON's mission clearly states its aims to employ specific methods of science to the study of UFOs.

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

Its history statement clearly states it was founded on the mission to support scientific research into UFOs:

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

It claims tax-exempt status with the US government on the basis of being a scientific research organization:

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

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

Source

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

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 makes claims of dedication to scientific principles, but they don't follow through because they still promote findings of extraterrestrial visitation—a conclusion which is unscientific (as described above)—using methodology that is unscientific (also described above).

Therefore, they're making the pretense of doing science without actually doing science, hence the designation of "pseudoscience."

Unfortunately, for the reasons cited above, their idea of turning ufology into a legitimate science is a misguided pipe dream because science requires physical evidence to study, and even after 60 years of practice there's still no physical evidence of extraterrestrials or anything else "paranormal."

So it conducts scientific research. Is that what makes it pseudoscience now?

It does not. They may pretend to conduct scientific research, but what they're doing is not science.

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?

I already have. Please scroll up.

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?

Yes, History (a social science) is supported by Archaeology. It gathers the majority of its information from official documents scientifically proven to be authentic by way of physical, chemical testing and a chain of historical provenance. Ufology, by the way, has no such support.

History does rely to a certain extent on anecdotal evidence, but mere stories are never used to confirm the existence of paranormal occurrences, objects or beings. (That would be pseudoscience!) In History, anecdotal evidence alone is not enough to confirm the existence of anything that has never been verified through material evidence. Anecdotal evidence is only used in History as a jumping-off point to investigate matters further, or to add a personal viewpoint and provide more detail to events already known to exist.

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

• RADAR: Taken by itself, it proves nothing. Atmospheric disturbances and other conditions can cause anomalous RADAR patterns. RADAR "evidence" is entirely dependent on context and human interpretation. It's not reliable as conclusive evidence of something never proven to exist by material, objective evidence.

• Film: Motion pictures are easily hoaxed, therefore not reliable as conclusive evidence of something never proven to exist by material, objective evidence.

• Photography: Still photographs are very easily hoaxed, therefore not reliable as conclusive evidence of something never proven to exist by material, objective evidence.

• "Physical trace evidence" what exactly does this mean? Are you claiming you are in possession of some minuscule amount of testable, verifiable physical evidence that definitively proves the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life? Why would you keep such an Earth-shattering revelation all to yourself?!?
  
  ...or are you using this potentially misleading kind of language in a dishonest way, to represent some other kind of "evidence" that is just as easily hoaxed as photography, film, etc.?

• I think you forgot to mention FLIR again. I understand that technology is particularly effective at spotting oil well fires from altitude at a considerable distance.

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.

That they're presented objectively, in reference to the operation and state of the physical universe, means they're presented as scientific.

…and yet quacks and charlatans abound…

The practice of quackery is irrelevant to the practice of modern, science-based medicine, just as the practice of ufology is irrelevant to the practice of astronomy and physics.

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

Call all you want. Come find me when you manage to capture a real outer space alien or salvage a real extraterrestrial spacecraft. Then we can start talking about applying science to the issue.

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!

I've already proven that any individual or group that posits paranormal allegations is, by definition, practicing pseudoscience.

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).

Yeah, no sorry, but you're wrong about that. Plenty of charlatans promote pseudoscience without explicitly claiming to be practicing science.

For example: homeopaths, naturopaths, psychics, clairvoyants, psychokinetes, psychic surgeons, faith healers, shamans, crystologists, reiki practitioners, chi-healers, martial "Bullshido" artists, ghost hunters, flat-Earthers, hollow-Earthers, etc., etc.

 

[ufology]

My beef is with Mr. Murphy's reasoning, not with him personally. It's not my fault that he seems entirely unable to speak honestly about this particular subject. Yeah, no sorry, but you're wrong about that. Plenty of charlatans promote pseudoscience without explicitly claiming to be practicing science.

For example: homeopaths, naturopaths, psychics, clairvoyants, psychokinetes, psychic surgeons, faith healers, shamans, crystologists, reiki practitioners, chi-healers, martial "Bullshido" artists, ghost hunters, flat-Earthers, hollow-Earthers, etc., etc.

So the poster above takes a bunch of unrelated topics and mushes them all together, proclaims they are pseudoscience and then makes some ill conceived connection that because he thinks they are doing pseudoscience then ufology must be doing it too. There is no cohesive logical thought going on there, yet this poster claims to have a "beef" with my reasoning? All I can do is shake my head at the lengths the skeptics on this forum go to to maintain an adversarial and non-constructive approach to the topic.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, as you are interested in a constructive approach, perhaps it's time that we agreed on a falsifiable null hypothesis that UFOlogy could use going forward? One that isn't pseudoscientific or idiotic. I suggest one such as this:

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

Simple and easily falsifiable. You would only need just one confirmed ET. What would you think about using that as a falsifiable null hypothesis to start getting UFOlogy away from its current pseudoscientific trappings?

 

[carlitos]

So the poster above takes a bunch of unrelated topics and mushes them all together, proclaims they are pseudoscience and then makes some ill conceived connection that because he thinks they are doing pseudoscience then ufology must be doing it too. There is no cohesive logical thought going on there, yet this poster claims to have a "beef" with my reasoning? All I can do is shake my head at the lengths the skeptics on this forum go to to maintain an adversarial and non-constructive approach to the topic.

j.r.

As opposed to lumping together sightings of blimps, airplanes and headlights together with hallucinations, lucid dreams and lies, and calling it "ufology?". What a joke.

 

[Buckyball]

The study of "unidentified objects"

So, how many has he identified?

If he can identify them, then I guess it IS science!

 

[John Albert]

So the poster above takes a bunch of unrelated topics and mushes them all together, proclaims they are pseudoscience and then makes some ill conceived connection that because he thinks they are doing pseudoscience then ufology must be doing it too.

Try Googling "list of pseudosciences" and see what you get.

Matter of fact, I'll do it for you.

See?

All commonly-accepted pseudosciences, despite the fact that many of them never explicitly claim to be doing science.

What do you know? You're wrong again. Imagine that!

There is no cohesive logical thought going on there, yet this poster claims to have a "beef" with my reasoning?

You only see what you want to see, only understand what you want to understand, and refuse to consider anything else.

All I can do is shake my head at the lengths the skeptics on this forum go to to maintain an adversarial and non-constructive approach to the topic.

Hey, I'm just pointing out facts here. It's not my fault you're so offended and threatened by a few facts that get in the way of your biased opinion.

 

[ufology]

ufology, as you are interested in a constructive approach, perhaps it's time that we agreed on a falsifiable null hypothesis that UFOlogy could use going forward? One that isn't pseudoscientific or idiotic. I suggest one such as this:

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

Simple and easily falsifiable. You would only need just one confirmed ET. What would you think about using that as a falsifiable null hypothesis to start getting UFOlogy away from its current pseudoscientific trappings?

Because the UFO phenomenon itself cannot be studied under controlled conditions, attempting to apply scientific methodology that requires controlled conditions would be pseudoscientific.

However, perhaps a null hypothesis might be applied to the wider collection of the data for the purpose of some sort of statistical analysis. For example, perhaps we might propose that most people who believe UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin are less educated than those who don't.

here is a video starter on this idea ( with respect to the paranormal in general ):



j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Because the UFO phenomenon itself cannot be studied under controlled conditions, attempting to apply scientific methodology that requires controlled conditions would be pseudoscientific.

And yet you already have a null hypothesis. I admit, yours is pseudoscientific and unfalsifiable, whether by design or oversight. Wouldn't you better serve UFOlogy by adopting a falsifiable null hypothesis that could start to lift UFOlogy out of its pseudoscience role?

However, perhaps a null hypothesis might be applied to the wider collection of the data for the purpose of some sort of statistical analysis. For example, perhaps we might propose that most people who believe UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin are less educated than those who don't.

To what end? How would that advance UFOlogy up from remaining a pseudoscience? Wouldn't you agree that replacing your unfalsifiable null hypothesis with a falsifiable one would be a step on that road?

here is a video starter on this idea:



j.r.

Sorry, I don't watch linked YouTubes. Was there something in it that you could summarize here?

 

[Mojo]

Can't be bothered to read what has arrived here since I last posted in this thread, but:

If "UFOlogy" makes assumptions about what "Unidentified Flying Objects" might be, beyond that we don't know what they are, then it is a pseudoscience.

 

[John Albert]

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.

That's exactly what he expects us to pretend.

It's another example of that "pseudoscience" stuff we were just talking about:

Personalization of issues

• Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Personalization_of_issues

He's arrogantly positing himself as an authority figure for us all to look up to for guidance, even though he really hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about when it comes to proper research, science, or even pseudoscience for that matter.

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 hobby.

You know, I believe this is the most reasonable suggestion yet proposed in this entire thread.

 

[John Albert]

Because the UFO phenomenon itself cannot be studied under controlled conditions, attempting to apply scientific methodology that requires controlled conditions would be pseudoscientific.

However, perhaps a null hypothesis might be applied to the wider collection of the data for the purpose of some sort of statistical analysis. For example, perhaps we might propose that most people who believe UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin are less educated than those who don't.

here is a video starter on this idea ( with respect to the paranormal in general ):

Nice job there, quoting a pseudoscientist to tell us all about what isn't pseudoscience.

BTW, nobody ever said belief in pseudoscience was the result of stupidity. How many jumps to conclusion can you count over the course of this guy's 9 minute talk?