Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

Rramjet said:
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).

Perhaps I could amend that statement of mine then:

Something is only pseudoscientific if it claims – either explicitly or implicitly - to be scientific in the first place.
Click to expand...
At least you admit that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience now that you recognize that there are both implicit and explicit admissions from UFOlogy that they attempt to do science. Good show!

So yes, homeopathy definitely is a pseudoscience because it has no foundation in science yet claims to be using science (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/) – and possibly the Hollow-earthers – but I have no idea really I have never encountered their theories - but no to the rest. Naturopathy actually has a recognised foundation in science (http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59), the Flat–earthers are interesting in that they use the logic of science against itself (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) – interesting but not pseudoscientific - and the rest do not claim to be doing science either explicitly or implicitly )
Click to expand...
You've proven that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience just like homeopathy. You continue to prove it every time you post. UFOlogy is definitely a known and provable pseudoscience, as this thread has amply demonstrated.

ETA: Oh I forgot Ghost hunters - yes they may claim to use scientific methodology - but you have to demonstrate that they do so spuriously (http://www.spinvestigations.org/).
Click to expand...
Well, no. :) The null hypothesis is that ghost hunting is a pseudoscience. They have to demonstrate that it isn't. Why would you think the burden of proof is reversed from what critical thinking says it is? Is it because you are deep in the pseudosciences yourself?

No wonder you cringe every time "null hypothesis" is mentioned.

I think your problem is that you tend to over-generalise - considering anything that may not conform to your own personal belief system to be “pseudoscientific”. Perhaps you should do a little closer investigation and recognise that not all those with whom you disagree are practicing pseudoscience?
Click to expand...
Well, no. :) You are so deep in the pseudosciences yourself that you can't be objective about it. Your religion like belief system in OMG PseudoAliens has given you blinders that you either can't or, more likely, won't take off.
 
Rramjet said:
Something is only pseudoscientific if it claims – either explicitly or implicitly - to be scientific in the first place.
Click to expand...


Yep. The explicit claims by groups like MUFON...

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.
Click to expand...

... and the implicit claims by groups like the USI...

Our aim is to illuminate the truth by presenting accurate, objective, and verifiable information that can be enjoyed by all our visitors. To achieve this goal, content from multiple sources is distilled into concise articles for a general audience. This methodology greatly contributes to accuracy and economy because cross checking facts and eliminating redundant data are a natural part of the distillation process.
Click to expand...

... makes it clear that "ufology" is pseudoscience according to a range of definitions.
 
Yep. I've been hinting on how... Uh... OK, madness. There's no other word to describe what the whole Kecksburg case was turned in to. One could build a case study on how pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theorists, tabloid-style journalism, snake oil salesmen and pure unadultered madness joined to build an UFO myth.

As time passes, new "revelations" appear and the tale becomes more and more weird as truth is hidden under a carpet of BS.

How many other UFO cases follow this trend?
 
Ufology could be a Science if they stuck to studying "Unidentified Flying Objects" with no preconceptions. I've seen a UFO and what I mean by that is that I saw an object in the sky that appeared to br flying that I could not identify. I have no idea what it was. Frankly the idea that I mispercieved something or I saw some unusual but basically ho-hum natural phenomena is vastly more likely than Aliens and space craft.

The default hypothesis for unusual objects / whatever in the sky is not Alien Saucers. Could UFOs be unusual phenomena in the atmosphere that we don't, yet, understand? Perhaps. However defaulting to Aliens doesn't help. Finally inexplicable phenomena is not unusual part of the reality of this world is that due to insufficent information there will always be a residue, detrius of "inexplicable" events.
 
Rramjet said:
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).
Click to expand...


Pseudoscience is any field of study or practice that seeks to authoritatively explain the operation and nature of the physical Universe through a false authority or source of knowledge that is not scientific.


Rramjet said:
Perhaps I could amend that statement of mine then:

Something is only pseudoscientific if it claims – either explicitly or implicitly - to be scientific in the first place.
Click to expand...


A claim of "doing science" is not necessary. All it has to be doing is making categorical statements about the physical Universe based on non-scientific authority.

That's why most lists of popular pseudosciences include such fields as psychic phenomena, spiritualism, naturopathy, ghost hunting, etc. that do not make overt claims to be doing science.

The false claims they promote as proven facts have no basis in science; that is to say they run contrary to scientific principles and/or have never been objectively determined to be real. Their unscientific methodology and false pretense to knowledge/authority are what define the practice of pseudoscience.


Rramjet said:
So yes, homeopathy definitely is a pseudoscience because it has no foundation in science yet claims to be using science (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/)
Click to expand...


Yes. Homeopathy definitely pseudoscience.


Rramjet said:
and possibly the Hollow-earthers – but I have no idea really I have never encountered their theories
Click to expand...


They believe the Earth is a hollow sphere with a whole other hidden world inside, populated by fantastical creatures. Yes, that's pseudoscience.


Rramjet said:
but no to the rest. Naturopathy actually has a recognised foundation in science (http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59)
Click to expand...


I'm talking about naturopathy, not naturalism.

A naturopathic website is not the best place to look for criticism of their practice.

Naturopathy is a pseudoscience. It's based in folklore, specifically the belief in an undetectable, immeasurable "life energy" that is enhanced by the use of "natural" treatments like herbs, massage, faith healing, aromatherapy, etc. and suppressed by "artificial" treatments like pharmaceuticals and surgery.


Rramjet said:
the Flat–earthers are interesting in that they use the logic of science against itself (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) – interesting but not pseudoscientific
Click to expand...


"Flat Earth Theory" is most certainly pseudoscientific. Like the "Hollow Earth" model, it rejects the majority of the earth sciences, positing instead a false worldview based entirely on denialism. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to back up their claims of a "flat Earth," yet they make the claim anyway on false authority. That's a pseudoscience.


Rramjet said:
ETA: Oh I forgot Ghost hunters - yes they may claim to use scientific methodology - but you have to demonstrate that they do so spuriously (http://www.spinvestigations.org/).
Click to expand...


Ghosts have never been proven by science to exist at all. Therefore, the "study" of them is spurious.


Rramjet said:
I think your problem is that you tend to over-generalise - considering anything that may not conform to your own personal belief system to be “pseudoscientific”. Perhaps you should do a little closer investigation and recognise that not all those with whom you disagree are practicing pseudoscience?
Click to expand...


This is an ad hominem and a strawman argument. I do not classify everything I disagree with as pseudoscience, only the things that are pseudoscience.

Definitions are determined by consensus, not the authority of just one or two persons. The meaning of words is based on common agreement and usage within the greater society, not just the small subsets like communities of ufologists or skeptics. That's why it is dishonest to cherry-pick, alter or abridge a definition to suit one's own purpose for a single discussion.

"Pseudoscience" is a word that originated within the scientific skeptic community, used to describe practices that compete with science for explanatory authority despite having little or no basis in evidence or objectivity. It was coined over a hundred years ago. Iits meaning is very well-established in our culture. It's widely associated by general consensus with a wide range of practices. I have already posted links demonstrating that all those other practices (and ufology too) fall under the consensus definition of "pseudoscience."

Yet you guys are still arguing your bastardized, neutered definition that fails to describe anything short of academic fraud within the discipline of science, which is not even recognizable to anyone else here in this dedicated community of scientific skeptics.

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
I hadn't seen the "History" channel stuff before. That was brutal.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it just?

Reporter guy: "It's look exactly like the base of this water tower here. What does that tell you?"
MUFON guy: "uh huh, yeah, well, they would do that wouldn't they? Make it look like a water tower so as to hide it in plain sight."

:boggled:
 
23_Tauri said:
Wasn't it just?

Reporter guy: "It's look exactly like the base of this water tower here. What does that tell you?"
MUFON guy: "uh huh, yeah, well, they would do that wouldn't they? Make it look like a water tower so as to hide it in plain sight."

:boggled:
Click to expand...

And then referring to it as a henge!
 
Nowadays the History Channel has more woo than History.

Come to think of it, maybe that's why there seems to be so much confusion between the practices of History and the practice of ufology.

A "henge"... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
Wasn't it just?

Reporter guy: "It's look exactly like the base of this water tower here. What does that tell you?"
MUFON guy: "uh huh, yeah, well, they would do that wouldn't they? Make it look like a water tower so as to hide it in plain sight."

:boggled:
Click to expand...
All this after the other guy had said "It don't look like a water tower" when they were at the derelict one... lol!!!
 
RoboTimbo said:
And then referring to it as a henge!
Click to expand...
"Next week on the History Channel, MUFON investigators visit Wiltshire, and discover that Stonehenge is the base of an ancient alien water tower, built by extraterrestrials during the Bronze Age."
 
I like how the MUFON guy argues it doesn't look like a water tower because "it's painted with green 'camouflage' paint."

Anyone looking at it, even on TV, can tell it's not camouflaged. It was obviously just painted a solid pale green color. But you know, who ever saw a water tower painted pale green? :boggled:

The structure is round (like a flying saucer), so it's gotta be some kind of a UFO something-or-other!


MUFON guy continues: "One of the other strange facts is that it has an unusually strong reinforcement, which says that there were very strong forces acting on it."

Well, duh!

It was a water tower, built for holding up a tank of water with a diameter of over 100 feet!

If the tank was 10 feet tall and 100 feet in diameter, it would hold a volume of 587,519 gallons. That's nearly the volume of an Olympic swimming pool.

That much water alone would weigh 2,190 Imperial tons, or 2,220 metric tons, not even considering the weight of whatever material the tank itself was constructed of.

But no, it has to be a "henge" for corralling a UFO! :eek:

What other explanation can there possibly be?!? :confused:
 
Last edited:
John Albert said:
If the tank was 10 feet tall and 100 feet in diameter, it would hold a volume of 587,519 gallons. That's nearly the volume of an Olympic swimming pool.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that with a little bit of modification, in 2012 when the UK hosts the Olympics we can greet Olympian swimming champions in Stonehenge? We need to get on this now!
 
Turgor said:
Are you saying that with a little bit of modification, in 2012 when the UK hosts the Olympics we can greet Olympian swimming champions in Stonehenge? We need to get on this now!
Click to expand...


I think the aliens might get a little upset when they see you're misusing their "henge" to prop up your swimming pool.
 
This may have already been said in the 40+ pages of this thread but it is the execution and method of an investigation that makes it science or pseudoscience.

In the same way that medicine can be studied scientifically or pseudoscientifically so can ufology, cosmology, or whatever. I imagine there would be a pitiful lack of credible evidence when it comes to alien visits to Earth but I suppose there are fields related to "ufos" that would be of great interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom