Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Stray Cat]

Where do hoaxes fit in? What are a hoax's "defined characteristics"? I think you've mentioned color,

Hoaxes are usually red... or maybe that's just the colour of the flags they put out.

shape,

Definitely always circular... except when they're not.

size,

That's a tough one... about the same size as a wing mirror

speed,

Ah, well Hoaxes tend to travel very fast.
One in Jeruslem this year travelled all the way round the world in less than 2 hours. Even the space shuttle can't do that.

 

[zooterkin]

In years to come when people ask "Are you ever wrong about anything?" I'll be able to point people to this exact spot.
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/STRAY-CAT-WRONG.jpg[/qimg]
Yes, thanks, silly me... my bad, sorry spitfire fans.

 

[John Albert]

Where do hoaxes fit in? What are a hoax's "defined characteristics"?

He had an answer for that, which is just as untenable as his "null hypothesis": he simply dismissed the possibility of hoaxes as "statistically insignificant."

He contends that various ufologists (the USAF's J. Allen Hynek of Project Blue Book and Allen Hendry of CUFOS) have reported in their analyses of UFO reports that only 0.5 - 2% of the sightings were attributable to hoaxes or psychological abnormalities:

“For example, the USAF's Project Blue Book concluded that less than 2 % of reported UFOs were "psychological" or hoaxes; Allen Hendry's study for CUFOS had less than 1 %” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object)

Blue Book’s Dr Hynek (The Hynek UFO Report) has “Hoax” at 0.9% and “Psychological” at 0.5% (p. 259).

He insists this is an accurate representation of reality, despite having absolutely zero information about the collection process or how these statistics were arrived at. Project Blue Book is known to have used a "screening process" to determine which cases to include in the study. Yet no specific information is available about that process either, a process that would undoubtedly have considerable impact on such a broad assumption regarding the significance of hoaxes. So again we have some vague, unsupported and highly dubious information that originates entirely from the ufology community. Surprise, surprise!

I raised the question whether those figures represented cases of admitted and/or known and verified hoaxes. The reason I ask, of course, is because there's no reliable way to quantify hoaxes where no material evidence is concerned. The very definition of a hoax is something fake that appears real unless the subterfuge is discovered. If a given UFO hoax was successful (ie. the ufologists fell for it), then they would have come away convinced it was real and would not have categorized it as a hoax in the first place.

So if the stats do indeed represent confirmed hoaxes, the actual number of hoaxes certainly must be higher. It very well may be significantly higher, depending on the cleverness of the hoax, the credibility of the witnesses and the credulity of the researchers. Remember, we're talking about ufologists here. These are folks who really want to believe, so I'm betting they wouldn't be all that hard to fool if you give them what they're looking for.

When others and I raised these questions to Rramjet, we were greeted by crickets. Of course he merely ignored our challenges and just kept right on insisting:

The statistics on hoaxing (delusion, etc) are insignificant (<1%). So that will not really be a factor in any analysis.

As for the statistics on hoaxes, delusions, insanity etc, then I think you will find that the percentage is actually tiny (statistically insignificant). Unless of course you have any information that would support your own contentions in that regard?

Ah, yes, the good old argument from ignorance that we hear so often from all manner of pseudoscientists. "I'm just going to quote this highly dubious information from a questionable authority here, and expect you to accept it as fact unless you can find some other authority to quote to refute it."

So we have yet another example of a pseudoscientist ignoring the process of actual science (methods and hypotheses being questioned by peers in the community) and instead hiding behind the trappings of science (statistics and the like), arguments from ignorance, and his own pretense to authority.

 

[RoboTimbo]

He had an answer for that, which is just as untenable as his "null hypothesis": he simply dismissed the possibility of hoaxes as "statistically insignificant."

I was referring to his strawman null hypothesis where he had deliberately misstated wollery's wording. Rramjet's false wording was "All UFO sightings are the result of misidentified mundane objects." You can see why he felt it necessary to dishonestly reword it to include the word "objects" so that it would not include hoaxes, hallucinations, etc. Things that aren't objects.

After all the discussion about it, I'm just amazed that he actually thought he could sneak it by.

 

[John Albert]

Yeah, that's a major point of dishonesty in his entire argument, both here and in the Evidence thread. Whenever he's been called on that point, he inevitably responds with his quote-mined reply that hoaxes, insanity, lies, etc. are "statistically insignificant."

I also find it ironic that he mined the quote from Wikipedia, a source he often likes to disparage whenever skeptics use it.

 

[Correa Neto]

"If UFO reports result from mundane explanations then we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics between known and unknown reports"

Yes, the first hit it takes is the fact it fails to take in to account hoaxes and psychologic/psychiatric issues such as hallucinations.

But lets ignore this big error, restric ourselves to misidentifications and take a closer look at this part:

we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics between known and unknown reports

This is a flawed assertion! Why? Because it ignores the facts that several different things can be misidentified, misidentifications may happen by different causes and that the perceptions, the interpretations of these things can be quite similar. A jet liner could, for example, be confunded with or perceived (interpreted if you preffer) as a point light source, a triangular craft, a sombrero-tipe saucer, a cigar-shaped craft and a formation of lights, among other shapes. Fireballs can generate point light source, classic saucers, cigar-shaped craft, formations of lights and craft with other shapes and attached lights. Satelites, helicopters, baloons, chinese lanterns, clouds and birds, among other things, can be and have been interpreted as the "nuts-n'-bolts" craft reported among UFO lore. If it is (or seem to be) in the sky it may be misperceived, misinterpreted.

So the conclusion is that this is bad science, this is also pseudoscience. I can imagine very few cases where a trained scientist, peer-reviewed published author in scientific journals would build such a flawed case:

1. Heavy bias creating a huge blind spot where critical thinking shuts down.
2. Rusty critical thinking.
3. Bad training.

Option 1 means pseudoscience. Options 2 and 3 mean just bad science; one might argue 2 may also be the result of pseudoscience. Note that all the four options presented above are not exactly unheard in UFOlogy.

Of course, there's also another option- the person presenting such case is not really a trained scientist, peer-reviewed published author in scientific journals. This would again mean pseudoscience.

Now, what sort of null hypothesis we could buid to explain constant mis-use of science?

 

[John Albert]

"If UFO reports result from mundane explanations then we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics between known and unknown reports"

Yes, the first hit it takes is the fact it fails to take in to account hoaxes and psychologic/psychiatric issues such as hallucinations.

The first thing I'd hit him with is improper grammar.

"...we would expect no difference on defined characterisitics"?

"...on defined characterisitics"?

What does that even mean?

 

[ufology]

The vast majority of so called "ufologists," including the largest ufologist organizations, do claim to be doing science, or at least that is their objective, as has been shown repeatedly in this thread.

That a few "ufologists" like you two claim not to does not prove any point at all.

The above is misleading in that there is a difference between a ufologist doing science and ufology being science. For example an astronomer can be a ufologist, and when he or she is using science to determine if the planet Venus was in the sky at the same location a UFO was reported, then they are doing science, but the science they are doing isn't ufology ... it's astronomy, and if it's being done properly, there is nothing pseudoscientific about it.

Also, there is a difference between advocating the use of science within a field and claiming the field is a science unto itself. For example the MUFON motto doesn't say "The Science of Ufology", it is simply advocating the use of science to study UFOs.

Another factor to consider is that the vast collection of informal ufology works are simply collections of experiences destined for public consumption and are not claiming to be science or pretending to be science and therefore don't fall under any meaningful definition of pseudoscience. The few works that do claim to be doing science don't suddenly change the rest into science or pseudoscience.

Lastly, a significant portion of ufology is completely fictional and culture based. For example, motion pictures including Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Earth vs The Flying Saucers, X Files and many more are all deeply embedded in ufology culture and any rational person can see it would be ridiculous to call these either science or pseudoscience ... and yet this is exactly what would be required in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all ufology. Clearly, there is no plausible rationale to advocate such a ludicrous position. Therefore it isn't plausible to create a rational argument to support the notion that ufology itself is a pseudoscience.

To close this post; ufology is simply too wide a field and a large portion of its subject matter falls outside the boundaries of the definition of pseudoscience. At best, all that can be done is to focus attention on individual instances of pseudoscience within the field. This thread should not have been called "Is Ufology Pseudoscience", but rather "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above is misleading in that there is a difference between a ufologist doing science and ufology being science. For example an astronomer can be a ufologist, and when he or she is using science to determine if the planet Venus was in the sky at the same location a UFO was reported, then they are doing science, but the science they are doing isn't ufology ... it's astronomy, and if it's being done properly, there is nothing pseudoscientific about it.

There's nothing pseudoscientific about it because, as you say, it's not ufology. The ufologists have already done their bit by causing the UFO to be brought to the attention of a proper scientist in the first place.

In other words, the only need that ufology has of legitimate science is to refute the conclusions that it wouldn't be jumping to if it weren't pseudoscience.

 

[tsig]

The above is misleading in that there is a difference between a ufologist doing science and ufology being science. For example an astronomer can be a ufologist, and when he or she is using science to determine if the planet Venus was in the sky at the same location a UFO was reported, then they are doing science, but the science they are doing isn't ufology ... it's astronomy, and if it's being done properly, there is nothing pseudoscientific about it.

Also, there is a difference between advocating the use of science within a field and claiming the field is a science unto itself. For example the MUFON motto doesn't say "The Science of Ufology", it is simply advocating the use of science to study UFOs.

Another factor to consider is that the vast collection of informal ufology works are simply collections of experiences destined for public consumption and are not claiming to be science or pretending to be science and therefore don't fall under any meaningful definition of pseudoscience. The few works that do claim to be doing science don't suddenly change the rest into science or pseudoscience.

Lastly, a significant portion of ufology is completely fictional and culture based. For example, motion pictures including Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Earth vs The Flying Saucers, X Files and many more are all deeply embedded in ufology culture and any rational person can see it would be ridiculous to call these either science or pseudoscience ... and yet this is exactly what would be required in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all ufology. Clearly, there is no plausible rationale to advocate such a ludicrous position. Therefore it isn't plausible to create a rational argument to support the notion that ufology itself is a pseudoscience.

To close this post; ufology is simply too wide a field and a large portion of its subject matter falls outside the boundaries of the definition of pseudoscience. At best, all that can be done is to focus attention on individual instances of pseudoscience within the field. This thread should not have been called "Is Ufology Pseudoscience", but rather "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

j.r.

So your argument is that ufology isn't a pseudo science but utter BS?

 

[ufology]

So your argument is that ufology isn't a pseudo science but utter BS?

The assumption in the quote above is not correct. I presented a logical case why it isn't plausible to fairly call the entire field of ufology pseudoscience. With respect to what ufology is, I will add that ufology is a word, specifically a title, used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs, and that those who pursue ufology as more than a pastime are known as ufologists, and that the field is both fascinataing and entertaining to many people.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The assumption in the quote above is not correct. I presented a logical case why it isn't plausible to fairly call the entire field of ufology pseudoscience. With respect to what ufology is, I will add that ufology is a word, specifically a title, used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs, and that those who pursue ufology as more than a pastime are known as ufologists, and that the field is both fascinataing and entertaining to many people.

j.r.

The point is, UFOs can be all kinds of things - dust on a camera lens, reflections on window, squid boats, chinese lanterns, geese, blimps, anything at all really - but ufology isn't interested in those things, is it? Ufology is far more concerned with trying to demonstrate a connection between phenomena which lack positive identification and ETs/aliens, and it's starting from a position that accepts, a priori, that such a connection exists that earns ufology the epithet of pseudoscience.

Further, it's somewhat dishonest to claim that aspects of legitimate science such as astronomy may fall under the ægis of ufology when the fact is that those disciplines are only called into play to refute that which ufologists are predisposed to believe in. In other words, astronomers are only required to counter claims of "OMG . . . aliens!", and if there were fewer ufologists around there'd be more time to get on with real astronomy.

It might well be said that not only is ufology pseudoscience, but that it's actually hindering the real thing.

 

[Correa Neto]

I shall now propose the terms UFO"logy" and "UFO"logy to dismember and substitute "UFOlogy".

Pick one and it shall be the "study" and "collection of tales" about "aliens" form "beyond the borders of what we call nature"; the remaining term will be related to the pseudoscience of UFOlogy.

Good, eh?

Now, if you excuse me, my hot Pleiadenians girlfriends are awaiting me at their glowing VW Beetle-like saucer. We're going to a Venusian nightclub (Adamsky's). I've got some serious UFOlogy to do now.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is misleading in that there is a difference between a ufologist doing science and ufology being science. For example an astronomer can be a ufologist, and when he or she is using science to determine if the planet Venus was in the sky at the same location a UFO was reported, then they are doing science, but the science they are doing isn't ufology ... it's astronomy, and if it's being done properly, there is nothing pseudoscientific about it.

Also, there is a difference between advocating the use of science within a field and claiming the field is a science unto itself. For example the MUFON motto doesn't say "The Science of Ufology", it is simply advocating the use of science to study UFOs.

Another factor to consider is that the vast collection of informal ufology works are simply collections of experiences destined for public consumption and are not claiming to be science or pretending to be science and therefore don't fall under any meaningful definition of pseudoscience. The few works that do claim to be doing science don't suddenly change the rest into science or pseudoscience.

Lastly, a significant portion of ufology is completely fictional and culture based. For example, motion pictures including Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Earth vs The Flying Saucers, X Files and many more are all deeply embedded in ufology culture and any rational person can see it would be ridiculous to call these either science or pseudoscience ... and yet this is exactly what would be required in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all ufology. Clearly, there is no plausible rationale to advocate such a ludicrous position. Therefore it isn't plausible to create a rational argument to support the notion that ufology itself is a pseudoscience.

To close this post; ufology is simply too wide a field and a large portion of its subject matter falls outside the boundaries of the definition of pseudoscience. At best, all that can be done is to focus attention on individual instances of pseudoscience within the field. This thread should not have been called "Is Ufology Pseudoscience", but rather "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

j.r.

UFOlogists are practicing pseudoscience when they begin with their conclusion that it's OMG PseudoAliens and work backwards. Rramjet is a prime example of that. If you look at the other UFO thread you will find that he has begun with his conclusion that some UFO cases defy mundane explanation and therefore must be pseudoaliens. He then uses anecdotes which are unfalsifiable to "prove" it.

The actual real scientific falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin".​

Rramjet's pseudoscientific one is:

"Some UFO sightings are of non-mundane origin."​

Do you see why his is not falsifiable and is pseudoscience and displays absolutely no critical thinking skills at all?

 

[GeeMack]

The assumption in the quote above is not correct. I presented a logical case why it isn't plausible to fairly call the entire field of ufology pseudoscience. With respect to what ufology is, I will add that ufology is a word, specifically a title, used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs, and that those who pursue ufology as more than a pastime are known as ufologists, and that the field is both fascinataing and entertaining to many people.

You forgot to add that those who dabble "aim to illuminate the truth" by applying an objective methodology as you can plainly see in this nonsense from the USI pseudoscience web site...

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.

And those involved "know that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin"...

USI recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition and concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. 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.

Omission of those points, whether by neglect due to cognitive bias or just a shoddy, non-thorough argument, would be dishonest. When "ufology", the term and the practice, is considered honestly, without willful ignorance of those unambiguous statements of position and purpose, "ufology" is definitively pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

Do you see why his is not falsifiable and is pseudoscience and displays absolutely no critical thinking skills at all?

This thread is a merged discussion of "ufology" being pseudoscience and the question of whether critical thinking is a part of that pseudoscience. So far the only attempts to refute the notion that it is pseudoscience come from its very own proponents, who clearly hold a bias. For the most part those efforts have been dishonest attempts to redefine terms to pluck "ufology" out of the realms of pseudoscience. It should be noted that those efforts have failed completely.

And as far as critical thinking, the "ufologists" in this thread have provided a virtual Whitman Sampler of logical fallacies and flawed thinking. It has been informative, precisely because of those examples demonstrating time and again that critical thinking is not a notable component of the pseudoscience of "ufology". So while it's been quite successful at putting the "E" in JREF, it's been a total failure at demonstrating that "ufology" entails critical thinking.

 

[dafydd]

The assumption in the quote above is not correct. I presented a logical case why it isn't plausible to fairly call the entire field of ufology pseudoscience. With respect to what ufology is, I will add that ufology is a word, specifically a title, used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs, and that those who pursue ufology as more than a pastime are known as ufologists, and that the field is both fascinataing and entertaining to many people.

j.r.

Exactly. An entertainment,nothing more.

 

[ufology]

UFOlogists are practicing pseudoscience when they begin with their conclusion that it's OMG PseudoAliens and work backwards ... He then uses anecdotes which are unfalsifiable to "prove" it.

The actual real scientific falsifiable null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin".


Rramjet's pseudoscientific one is:

"Some UFO sightings are of non-mundane origin."


Do you see why his is not falsifiable and is pseudoscience and displays absolutely no critical thinking skills at all?

The quote above outlines a particular methodology that if it were used as part of a scientific treatise ( not part of an informal discussion such as is taking place here ), within the field of ufology, it might, if the context was also fitting, be argued as pseudoscientific. However the actual topic of this thread is "Is Ufology Pseudoscience", so even if such an instance were shown to constitute pseudoscience, it would not by extension make all ufology pseudoscience. So technically the above would be better suited to the "UFOs: The Research The Evidence" thread.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The quote above outlines a particular methodology that if it were used as part of a scientific treatise ( not part of an informal discussion such as is taking place here ), within the field of ufology, it might, if the context was also fitting, be argued as pseudoscientific. However the actual topic of this thread is "Is Ufology Pseudoscience", so even if such an instance were shown to constitute pseudoscience, it would not by extension make all ufology pseudoscience. So technically the above would be better suited to the "UFOs: The Research The Evidence" thread.

j.r.

It is, in fact, being used in the UFO Lack of Evidence thread. So do you think Rramjet's null hypothesis is pseudoscience? What null hypothesis would you choose in its place to avoid the pseudoscience label?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is misleading in that there is a difference between a ufologist doing science and ufology being science. For example an astronomer can be a ufologist, and when he or she is using science to determine if the planet Venus was in the sky at the same location a UFO was reported, then they are doing science, but the science they are doing isn't ufology ... it's astronomy, and if it's being done properly, there is nothing pseudoscientific about it.

Also, there is a difference between advocating the use of science within a field and claiming the field is a science unto itself. For example the MUFON motto doesn't say "The Science of Ufology", it is simply advocating the use of science to study UFOs.

Another factor to consider is that the vast collection of informal ufology works are simply collections of experiences destined for public consumption and are not claiming to be science or pretending to be science and therefore don't fall under any meaningful definition of pseudoscience. The few works that do claim to be doing science don't suddenly change the rest into science or pseudoscience.

Lastly, a significant portion of ufology is completely fictional and culture based. For example, motion pictures including Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Earth vs The Flying Saucers, X Files and many more are all deeply embedded in ufology culture and any rational person can see it would be ridiculous to call these either science or pseudoscience ... and yet this is exactly what would be required in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all ufology. Clearly, there is no plausible rationale to advocate such a ludicrous position. Therefore it isn't plausible to create a rational argument to support the notion that ufology itself is a pseudoscience.

To close this post; ufology is simply too wide a field and a large portion of its subject matter falls outside the boundaries of the definition of pseudoscience. At best, all that can be done is to focus attention on individual instances of pseudoscience within the field. This thread should not have been called "Is Ufology Pseudoscience", but rather "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

j.r.

Is homeopathy a pseudoscience?