Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

So in your opinion, even when UFOlogy is involved in pseudoscience, it isn't proper to call it pseudoscience?

Why was this post not moderated?

To answer the first part above: To say that ufology is "involved in spseudoscience" is an innacurate way to frame the problem. The particular problem is the word "it" ... as in, "it isn't proper to call it pseudoscience?" What is the "it" referring to? Is it the field as a whole, or the individual incident(s) of pseudoscience within the field as a whole?

A better way to shape the question would be, "So in your opinion, even when pseudoscience takes place in ufology, it isn't proper to call the whole field of ufology pseudoscience?" To this I would agree that it would not be proper to label the whole field the same based on instances within a sub-component the field.

To answer the second part of the quote above, I don't know what rationale the moderators used back when I first started posting, or for that matter even why I was suspended recently. I hadn't done anything different from when I first started posting, so your guess is as good as mine.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

To answer the first part above: To say that ufology is "involved in spseudoscience" is an innacurate way to frame the problem. The particular problem is the word "it" ... as in, "it isn't proper to call it pseudoscience?" What is the "it" referring to? Is it the field as a whole, or the individual incident(s) of pseudoscience within the field as a whole?

A better way to shape the question would be, "So in your opinion, even when pseudoscience takes place in ufology, it isn't proper to call the whole field of ufology pseudoscience?" To this I would agree that it would not be proper to label the whole field the same based on instances within a sub-component the field.

No, my question was the one I wanted an answer to, not the one you wished I had asked.

To answer the second part of the quote above, I don't know what rationale the moderators used back when I first started posting, or for that matter even why I was suspended recently. I hadn't done anything different from when I first started posting, so your guess is as good as mine.

j.r.

Well, no. Your guess was based on your feeling sorry for yourself while mine wasn't a guess at all.

So, do you think homeopathy is a pseudoscience?

 

[John Albert]

To answer the first part above: To say that ufology is "involved in spseudoscience" is an innacurate way to frame the problem. The particular problem is the word "it" ... as in, "it isn't proper to call it pseudoscience?" What is the "it" referring to? Is it the field as a whole, or the individual incident(s) of pseudoscience within the field as a whole?

A better way to shape the question would be, "So in your opinion, even when pseudoscience takes place in ufology, it isn't proper to call the whole field of ufology pseudoscience?" To this I would agree that it would not be proper to label the whole field the same based on instances within a sub-component the field.

I think I get it.

Ufology itself isn't a pseudoscience, but something far bigger that encompasses an entire lifestyle; although ufologists occasionally practice pseudoscience, it's not fair to tarnish the reputation of the entire field because of a few isolated cases of fake science that may get practiced here and there.

That makes some kind of sense.

So by the same reasoning, homeopathy as a whole is not a pseudoscience, though a homeopath only engages in an individual incident of pseudoscience whenever he claims that a particular homeopathic nostrum is effective for curing a particular disease.

Likewise, all of parapsychology isn't pseudoscience, although a parapsychologist might occasionally be engaged in an individual incident of pseudoscience whenever he conducts a study or writes an article that tries to prove the existence of precognition or telekinesis.

Nor is the entirety of astrology a pseudoscience, though an astrologer may engage in an individual incident of pseudoscience whenever he draws up a chart, writes a horoscope, or makes a prediction.

It's also unfair to tarnish creationism as a pseudoscience just because a creationist may engage in an individual incident of pseudoscience when he researches and writes a chapter for a science book that promotes intelligent design.


What you're basically saying is, the whole field of ufology isn't a pseudoscience because ufologists only engage in the practice of pseudoscience when they're actually doing ufology, and not when doing other ufology-related things like running a ufology-based website, promoting ufology on an Internet message board, reading a book by Richard C. Hoagland, riding a bicycle with a UFO sticker pasted on the sissy bar, watching Howard the Duck on cable TV with his kids, etc.

Is this a fair assessment of your position?

 

[ufology]

I think I get it.

Ufology itself isn't a pseudoscience, but something far bigger that encompasses an entire lifestyle; although ufologists occasionally practice pseudoscience, it's not fair to tarnish the identities of all ufologists because of a few isolated cases of fake science that may get practiced here and there.

That makes some kind of sense, but by the same reasoning parapsychology isn't a pseudoscience, although a parapsychologist might occasionally be engaged in an individual incident of pseudoscience whenever he conducts a study or writes an article that tries to prove the existence of precognition or telekinesis.

Likewise, creationism itself isn't a pseudoscience, but a creationist may be engaged in an individual incident of pseudoscience when he researches a chapter for a science book that promotes intelligent design.

Nor is astrology itself a pseudoscience, but an astrologer may be engaged in an individual incident of pseudoscience whenever he draws up a chart, writes a horoscope, or makes a prediction.

So basically, ufology itself isn't a pseudoscience, and ufologists only engage in the practice of pseudoscience when they're actually doing ufology, and not when doing other ufology-related things like running a ufology-based website, promoting ufology on an Internet message board, reading a book by Richard C. Hoagland, riding a bicycle with a UFO sticker pasted on the sissy bar, or watching Howard the Duck on TV with their kids, etc.

A lot of progress has been made with the above post, but it still assumes to much by comparing it to other activities that are really quite different in both practise and presentation.

For example one can write a ufology book such as a UFO encyclopedia or a more focused collection of sightings, perhaps by pilots and military people, or a personal reflection on a variety of facets of ufology, including various incidents and what they seem to add up to, and in these cases, no pseudoscience is taking place. Most ufology falls into this category.

However there are probably incidents where someone is claiming to be doing science under the ufology banner, or is putting on some kind of show to convince the unsuspecting public that what they are doing is actual science, when in fact they are not adhering to accepted scientific standards. When that happens, I can't condone it.

Now the last part being said above, I also think it is important to be fair minded and not slap the pseudoscience label on every book that has a pie chart or mentions genuine science in a genuinly respectful way. I think clear infractions need to be shown. For example, simply stating. "Because of all the investigations and personal experiences out there, I believe UFOs are probably alien craft." isn't pseudoscience. However saying something like, "All the past research and personal experiences out there represents conclusive scientific proof of extraterrestrial visitation." would be going over the line ( unless of course it were true ).

Similarly some fancy powerpoint presentation filled with formulas and scientific jargon and formatted in a scientific manner may also qualify as pseudoscience, even if it wasn't presented as "science" in the first place.

It all depends on the context. I don't want to discourage genuine science, but at the same time I don't advocate the idea that just because someone hangs out a "ufologist" shingle it suddenly means they are doing science ... I mean there is just no way. Ufology is not and will never be a science unto itself and my group ( USI ) won't participate in promoting the idea.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

It all depends on the context. I don't want to discourage genuine science, but at the same time I don't advocate the idea that just because someone hangs out a "ufologist" shingle it suddenly means they are doing science ... I mean there is just no way. Ufology is not and will never be a science unto itself and my group ( USI ) won't participate in promoting the idea.

The context is in the claims of "ufology" nutters that they are engaging in some kind of objective methodology in an effort to illuminate the truth that aliens exist. That makes "ufology" pseudoscience. If you have a problem with that, get those crackpots who write those "ufology" web sites to change their wording to something more truthful, like just say they get a kick out of believing in aliens and stop all the lying about being objective.

 

[GeeMack]

However there are probably incidents where someone is claiming to be doing science under the ufology banner, or is putting on some kind of show to convince the unsuspecting public that what they are doing is actual science, when in fact they are not adhering to accepted scientific standards. When that happens, I can't condone it.

You don't condone it? Your alien believers club does it. 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...

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.

It would be untrue to suggest you don't condone it. It's what your club is about.

 

[Marduk]

do you see yourself as a scientist Ufology ?
do you hold any scientific qualifications ?

 

[John Albert]

A lot of progress has been made with the above post

For a guy who alleges to possess such an astute judgment of human character, you're notably bad at detecting sarcasm.

I feel it's only fair to disclose, since your superhuman powers of human perception have failed you yet again in detecting an obvious subterfuge: All those fields I mentioned above (homeopathy, parapsychology, astrology, and creationism) are definitive examples of pseudosciences, as is ufology.

but it still assumes to much by comparing it to other activities that are really quite different in both practise and presentation.

The premise holds. Though they are all very different in practice, all those fields share one major trait in common with each other, and with ufology also: they all practice quasi-scientific activity and make authoritative claims to knowledge of the objective world on a patently unscientific basis. That means all those practices fit the definition of pseudoscience, ufology included.

For example one can write a ufology book such as a UFO encyclopedia or a more focused collection of sightings, perhaps by pilots and military people, or a personal reflection on a variety of facets of ufology, including various incidents and what they seem to add up to, and in these cases, no pseudoscience is taking place.

If they use false science or quasi-scientific methods to explain those events, or attribute those events to ETs or other paranormal causes, then yes they are promoting pseudoscience, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

Most ufology falls into this category.

The we agree. Most ufology falls into the category of pseudoscience. The difference is, you've dishonestly excised your own personal definition of pseudoscience to specifically exclude the characteristics of what you believe ufology to be, which itself is another dishonestly modified definition.

However there are probably incidents where someone is claiming to be doing science under the ufology banner, or is putting on some kind of show to convince the unsuspecting public that what they are doing is actual science, when in fact they are not adhering to accepted scientific standards.

No ****, Sherlock! I'd say there are quite a few such "incidents"; that is to say a hell of a lot; that is to say damn near 100% of all ufology. I've certainly seen it to be true of every ufologist I've ever met, spoken to, read in a book, magazine, website or blog, or conversed with on the Internets, including Rramjet and yourself.

When that happens, I can't condone it.

Then why oh why can't you bring yourself to quit, or even admit when you've done it yourself?

Now the last part being said above, I also think it is important to be fair minded and not slap the pseudoscience label on every book that has a pie chart or mentions genuine science in a genuinly respectful way.

If that book is calling anecdotes "evidence," using supposed analysis of figures and pie charts to establish something patently unscientific like the notion that UFOs have extraterrestrial origin, then there's no doubt they're pseudoscientific. Also, if they engage in serious discussions of fictional, scientific-sounding subjects (like antigravity propulsion systems, ancient societies being influenced or informed by ET intelligence, or secret military bunkers where alien corpses are stored) as if those things were real, then yes, they are absolutely pseudoscientific.

I think clear infractions need to be shown.

What do you think the skeptics here on the JREF Forums have been doing all this time?

I find it extremely disingenuous for you of all people to call for a pseudoscience witch-hunt within your own community when you yourself are notably guilty of promoting some of the most obvious pseudoscientific information I've ever seen around here.

You need to take a lesson from Michael Jackson and start looking at "The Man in the Mirror."

For example, simply stating. "Because of all the investigations and personal experiences out there, I believe UFOs are probably alien craft." isn't pseudoscience. However saying something like, "All the past research and personal experiences out there represents conclusive scientific proof of extraterrestrial visitation." would be going over the line ( unless of course it were true ).

Similarly some fancy powerpoint presentation filled with formulas and scientific jargon and formatted in a scientific manner may also qualify as pseudoscience, even if it wasn't presented as "science" in the first place.

It all depends on the context. I don't want to discourage genuine science, but at the same time I don't advocate the idea that just because someone hangs out a "ufologist" shingle it suddenly means they are doing science ... I mean there is just no way. Ufology is not and will never be a science unto itself and my group ( USI ) won't participate in promoting the idea.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A lot of progress has been made with the above post, but it still assumes to much by comparing it to other activities that are really quite different in both practise and presentation.

For example one can write a ufology book such as a UFO encyclopedia or a more focused collection of sightings, perhaps by pilots and military people, or a personal reflection on a variety of facets of ufology, including various incidents and what they seem to add up to, and in these cases, no pseudoscience is taking place. Most ufology falls into this category.

However there are probably incidents where someone is claiming to be doing science under the ufology banner, or is putting on some kind of show to convince the unsuspecting public that what they are doing is actual science, when in fact they are not adhering to accepted scientific standards. When that happens, I can't condone it.

Now the last part being said above, I also think it is important to be fair minded and not slap the pseudoscience label on every book that has a pie chart or mentions genuine science in a genuinly respectful way. I think clear infractions need to be shown. For example, simply stating. "Because of all the investigations and personal experiences out there, I believe UFOs are probably alien craft." isn't pseudoscience. However saying something like, "All the past research and personal experiences out there represents conclusive scientific proof of extraterrestrial visitation." would be going over the line ( unless of course it were true ).

Similarly some fancy powerpoint presentation filled with formulas and scientific jargon and formatted in a scientific manner may also qualify as pseudoscience, even if it wasn't presented as "science" in the first place.

It all depends on the context. I don't want to discourage genuine science, but at the same time I don't advocate the idea that just because someone hangs out a "ufologist" shingle it suddenly means they are doing science ... I mean there is just no way. Ufology is not and will never be a science unto itself and my group ( USI ) won't participate in promoting the idea.

j.r.

How about you show us examples of UFOlogy as a pseudoscience?

 

[Akhenaten]

The above quote is almost correct. The part that isn't correct is the assumption that ufology is habitually jumping to conclusions.

The picture of a classic flying saucer on the USI badge tells a different story.

Historically, UFOs that after investigation have not been identified as any known or manmade object or phenomenon, have been classed as "unknown". Therefore in those cases, no pseudoscience is taking place.

j.r.

Except for the speculation about cloaking devices, anti-gravity drives, sonic boom supressors and similar hooey.

 

[ufology]

You don't condone it? Your alien believers club does it. From the USI pseudoscience web site...

It would be untrue to suggest you don't condone it. It's what your club is about.

Sorry Gee but you just aren't making any sense there.

 

[ufology]

The picture of a classic flying saucer on the USI badge tells a different story.

We've been through the issue of the anomalous object on the USI emblem already ... so it is actually you who jumped to the conclusion that it represents a flying saucer. The first time we went through this I demonstrated with a photograph that it also matches the outline of an aircraft seen head on. If I had wanted it to look like a flying saucer I would have made it look like Stray Cat's Flying Saucery emblem saucer.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

We've been through the issue of the anomalous object on the USI emblem already ... so it is actually you who jumped to the conclusion that it represents a flying saucer. The first time we went through this I demonstrated with a photograph that it also matches the outline of an aircraft seen head on. If I had wanted it to look like a flying saucer I would have made it look like Stray Cat's Flying Saucery emblem saucer.

j.r.

so, you designed the emblem did you
interesting
how many members does the society have ?
how long ago was it set up ?
who owns the site ?

I would find out for myself, but google analytics tells me that the site doesn't get enough traffic to warrant a report. I did notice however that the site is being used to sell books, which means that if you own the site, you have broken the forum rules

6. You will not spam, flood or otherwise post in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum, this includes using disruptive formatting in your posts and also includes using the Forum for commercial purposes

 

[ufology]

so, you designed the emblem did you
interesting
how many members does the society have ?
how long ago was it set up ?
who owns the site ?

I would find out for myself, but google analytics tells me that the site doesn't get enough traffic to warrant a report. I did notice however that the site is being used to sell books, which means that if you own the site, you have broken the forum rules

I've mentioned before that USI is my website, and how many members we have and other things related to the thread topics, but I haven't made a single post advertising anything. However I did extend an offer of cooperation in the hopes that I could write up a positive review of my experiences here and do some genuine and constructive networking with skeptics. Unfortunately my experiences here haven't worked out that way.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

I've mentioned before that USI is my website, and how many members we have and other things related to the thread topics, but I haven't made a single post advertising anything. However I did extend an offer of cooperation in the hopes that I could write up a positive review of my experiences here and do some genuine and constructive networking with skeptics. Unfortunately my experiences here haven't worked out that way.

j.r.

I think you're safe, none of the links work properly anyway

 

[John Albert]

I've mentioned before that USI is my website, and how many members we have and other things related to the thread topics, but I haven't made a single post advertising anything.

However, on several occasions you have dishonestly cited your own website as an objective and authoritative third party reference in debates.

However I did extend an offer of cooperation in the hopes that I could write up a positive review of my experiences here and do some genuine and constructive networking with skeptics. Unfortunately my experiences here haven't worked out that way.

Why not just come clean with the whole story?

You specifically attempted to enlist our help in disparaging a certain UFO cult which you oppose on the grounds that they are causing damage to some imagined credibility you believe ufology to have.

In fact, you have mentioned on several occasions that you believe adherence to the scientific method is not necessary to give credibility for the field of ufology, but the perception that critical thinking is being employed might be good enough to validate it. Then of course you proceeded to disembowel the definition of "critical thinking" in an effort to bully us into lowering our didactic standards to allow your particular brand of woo to flourish here unchallenged.

That's the kind of "cooperation" you offered.

 

[ufology]

However, on several occasions you have dishonestly cited your own website as an objective and authoritative third party reference in debates.

Why not just come clean with the whole story?

You specifically attempted to enlist our help in disparaging a certain UFO cult which you oppose on the grounds that they are causing damage to some imagined credibility you believe ufology to have.

In fact, you have mentioned on several occasions that you believe adherence to the scientific method is not necessary to give credibility for the field of ufology, but the perception that critical thinking is being employed might be good enough to validate it. Then of course you proceeded to disembowel the definition of "critical thinking" in an effort to bully us into lowering our didactic standards to allow your particular brand of woo to flourish here unchallenged.

That's the kind of "cooperation" you offered.

The above is simply another off topic out of context misrepresentation.

 

[Stray Cat]

I would have made it look like Stray Cat's Flying Saucery emblem saucer.

No you wouldn't... it's copyrighted.

 

[ufology]

No you wouldn't... it's copyrighted.

Perhaps I might have paid the copyright holder.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

No you wouldn't... it's copyrighted.

And as for the term 'Flying Saucery' . . .