Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[John Albert]

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.

Off-topic? You brought it up:

...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..

Now you're going to cry "off-topic" when I call you out on your dishonest whinging?

To see that I'm not misrepresenting anything, readers can simply click back to page 9, post 337 of this thread and watch the entire sordid tale unfold for themselves.

Here's the post where you tried to redirect the attentions of the JREF Forum members in this thread away from your own claims and toward your preferred goal of debunking the Raelian cult.

 

[Brainache]

...Here's the post where you tried to redirect the attentions of the JREF Forum members in this thread away from your own claims and toward your preferred goal of debunking the Raelian cult.

Splitters!

 

[Cuddles]

Several posts have been removed to AAH. If you want to discuss issues related to forum management, do so in the appropriate section and do not derail this thread. Or any other threads for that matter.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Rramjet]

ufology stated:

Ufology is not and will never be a science unto itself and my group ( USI ) won't participate in promoting the idea.​

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

Actually, the classic flying saucer shape has become synonymous with UFOs. It is immediately recognisable as representing UFOs.

However, just because it has also been popular to associate UFOs and that shape with ET does not mean that it is pseudoscientific to use it in a logo of a Ufological society. Especially when that society does not claim to be a scientific society, nor does it claim to be promoting Ufology as a science.

It has been pointed out many times that one can adhere to scientific practice and principles without the discipline under which auspices you are conducting research necessarily being labelled a science (History is a good example here).

Moreover, just because there are quacks and charlatans that might engage in pseudoscience within (what may be termed as) ufology – that is true for any discipline (and medicine is a good example here). Just because there are quacks and charlatans in medicine does not mean we write of the discipline as pseudoscientific.

 

[GeeMack]

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

Sorry, J. Randall, but your alleged misunderstanding appears to be intentional and consequently not honest.

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.

Your words ring hollow. "Ufology", as promoted and hence condoned by your very own alien-believers club is "not adhering to accepted scientific standards". It is therefore definitively pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology stated:

Ufology is not and will never be a science unto itself and my group ( USI ) won't participate in promoting the idea.​

But his website says that he uses hard science to "illuminate the truth" "regarding alien visitation to planet Earth". Yes, that's pretty much the definition of pseudoscience, beginning with your conclusion without evidence and then trying to shoehorn evidence to fit that conclusion.

Actually, the classic flying saucer shape has become synonymous with UFOs. It is immediately recognisable as representing UFOs.

Well, no. It is immediately recognizable as representing a flying saucer.

However, just because it has also been popular to associate UFOs and that shape with ET does not mean that it is pseudoscientific to use it in a logo of a Ufological society. Especially when that society does not claim to be a scientific society, nor does it claim to be promoting Ufology as a science.

Yes, it is pseudoscience because it begins with its conclusion of flying saucers and says that it will use hard science. This really isn't that difficult to understand.

It has been pointed out many times that one can adhere to scientific practice and principles without the discipline under which auspices you are conducting research necessarily being labelled a science (History is a good example here).

Well, no. It has been asserted without evidence and has therefore been rightfully dismissed. It has been pointed out many times with evidence that UFOlogy is pseudoscience. You will notice that we've used a lot of your posts as examples.

Moreover, just because there are quacks and charlatans that might engage in pseudoscience within (what may be termed as) ufology – that is true for any discipline (and medicine is a good example here). Just because there are quacks and charlatans in medicine does not mean we write of the discipline as pseudoscientific.

And you've still never been able to think of even one UFOlogist who isn't a quack and a charlatan despite being given several opportunities. Nope, I can't think of any either.

 

[Akhenaten]

ufology stated:

Ufology is not and will never be a science unto itself and my group ( USI ) won't participate in promoting the idea.​

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

What do you reckon people are going to think, Rramjet, when they see how you've falsely associated my response above with a different post to the one for which it was originally offered as a response?

viz

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.

I reckon they'll think you're pretty dishonest, especially since this isn't the first time you've been busted for doing the same thing.

Actually, the classic flying saucer shape has become synonymous with UFOs. It is immediately recognisable as representing UFOs.

Nothing is immediately recognisable as representing an unidentified object, Rramjet.

The fact that ufologists are prone to associate UFOs with flying saucers, however, is what earns them the description of pseudoscientists (and other things) and it's jumping to this conclusion that UFO = flying saucer to which I was referring - not the completely different statement that you substituted.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Then take this opportunity to get back on topic. You give us some examples of pseudoscience in UFOlogy. I've already asked you once.

 

[ufology]

Then take this opportunity to get back on topic. You give us some examples of pseudoscience in UFOlogy. I've already asked you once.

I'm only here to speak to the issue of the thread which is that of ufology as a whole. If you want to address incidents of pseudoscience in ufology, then we should start another thread. Call it "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm only here to speak to the issue of the thread which is that of ufology as a whole. If you want to address incidents of pseudoscience in ufology, then we should start another thread. Call it "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

"Ufology" is pseudoscience, by definition.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm only here to speak to the issue of the thread which is that of ufology as a whole. If you want to address incidents of pseudoscience in ufology, then we should start another thread. Call it "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

j.r.

Since you are here to speak for the whole of UFOlogy, show me some examples where UFOlogy is practicing pseudoscience, as you've mentioned before.

If you have no honest interest in discussing it, we'll just leave it at UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm only here to speak to the issue of the thread which is that of ufology as a whole. If you want to address incidents of pseudoscience in ufology, then we should start another thread. Call it "Pseudoscience In Ufology".

j.r.

Ufology as a whole is, probably quite correctly, seen to be pseudoscience. It seems that you were being given the chance to refute this notion by citing specific examples of those aspects of ufology that are the cause of this perception and perhaps thereby making a case that the broad brush need not be applied.

I'd say your evasion of the issue has pretty well demonstrated that the brush we've selected is just about the right size after all.

 

[ufology]

Ufology as a whole is, probably quite correctly, seen to be pseudoscience. It seems that you were being given the chance to refute this notion by citing specific examples of those aspects of ufology that are the cause of this perception and perhaps thereby making a case that the broad brush need not be applied.

I'd say your evasion of the issue has pretty well demonstrated that the brush we've selected is just about the right size after all.

I've demonstrated logically and with examples why ufology as a whole cannot be called pseudoscience. But since the skeptics refuse to accept that logic, believeing they are still correct, I ask them to consider ufology culture, which is a significant portion of ufology as a whole and explain, using the definintion of pseudoscience, how Close Encounters of The Third Kind, Futurama ( episode: Roswell That Ends Well ), the X-Files, The Day the Earth Stood Still ( original ), Earth vs The Flying Saucers ... etc. fit the definition of pseudoscience: ( Something that is presented as science ( or in some way puts on a convincing act to fool people that it is actual science ), but doesn't follow accepted scientific standards. Only one serious successful illumination of one the cultural examples above would suffice ... tell me ... which one is pseudoscience? The first skeptic out there that gets it that it's not plausible wins.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've demonstrated logically and with examples why ufology as a whole cannot be called pseudoscience.

<snip>

Apparently not.

( or in some way puts on a convincing act to fool people that it is actual science )

Convincing? Don't flatter yourself. Ufology's pretence to be a scientific undertaking is pathetically unconvincing, but that does nothing at all to save it from earning its appelation as pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've demonstrated logically and with examples why ufology as a whole cannot be called pseudoscience.

It's been shown with examples and logic that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience just like homeopathy and all the other pseudosciences are. You are too close to the issue, too engaged in the pseudoscience of it to see it for yourself.

But since the skeptics refuse to accept that logic, believeing they are still correct, I ask them to consider ufology culture, which is a significant portion of ufology as a whole and explain, using the definintion of pseudoscience, how Close Encounters of The Third Kind, Futurama ( episode: Roswell That Ends Well ), the X-Files, The Day the Earth Stood Still ( original ), Earth vs The Flying Saucers ... etc. fit the definition of pseudoscience: ( Something that is presented as science ( or in some way puts on a convincing act to fool people that it is actual science ), but doesn't follow accepted scientific standards. Only one serious successful illumination of one the cultural examples above would suffice ... tell me ... which one is pseudoscience? The first skeptic out there that gets it that it's not plausible wins.

j.r.

You refuse to accept that you are a pseudoscientist engaged in the pseudoscience of UFOlogy, even though you claim to use science right on your own website. You also claim to illuminate the truth about alien visitation to planet Earth. That combination means that it is pseudoscience. The "discipline" of UFOlogy as a whole is engaged in the same thing as you espouse on your website. UFOlogy as a whole is a pseudoscience. They begin with their conclusion of aliens and then misuse science to try to make themselves believe it. That's pseudoscience.

You were given ample opportunity to show differences between other pseudosciences and UFOlogy. You declined. You were asked for examples of specific instances of UFOlogy practicing pseudoscience. You declined. You will simply defend your pseudoscience to your last breath despite the fact that it is a known and recognized pseudoscience and has been shown and proven in this thread and others and on your website and on others that it is a pseudoscience. You were given an opportunity to adopt an actual scientific null hypothesis. You declined. You've got nothing. It's pseudoscience.

If you finally admit that you are a pseudoscientist engaged in pseudoscience, you win the prize. I don't need you to show me that a UFOlogist eating his breakfast isn't engaging in pseudoscience. Show me where you and Rramjet and King of the Americas and the other pseudoscientists don't begin with your conclusion that "OMG It's PseudoAliens!"

 

[ufology]

Ufology Is Not Pseudoscience

No meaningful response has yet been given for the following and until there is one, ufology as a whole simply does not fit the definition of pseudoscience:

Ufology culture is a significant portion of ufology as a whole. Therefore, before ufology as a whole can be labeled pseudoscience, one must be able to apply the definintion of pseudoscience to such significant examples of ufology culture as Close Encounters of The Third Kind, Futurama ( episode: Roswell That Ends Well ), the X-Files, The Day the Earth Stood Still ( original ), Earth vs The Flying Saucers ... etc ... examples of obvious fiction and entertainment.

Only one serious successful illumination of one the cultural examples above would suffice ... tell me ... which one is pseudoscience? The first skeptic out there that gets it that it's not plausible wins.

Pseudoscience: Something that is presented as science, or in some way puts on a convincing act to fool people that it is actual science, but fails to meet scientific standards.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Snork!

You pseudoscientists copy each others' style. Nope, UFOlogy is a pseudoscience and you prove it every time you post.

 

[Akhenaten]

No meaningful response has yet been given for the following and until there is one, ufology as a whole simply does not fit the definition of pseudoscience:

<snip>

Says a ufologist by the name of ufology who runs a ufology club and has come here solely to spread the gospel of ufology.

How much traction are you hoping to get?

 

[ufology]

Says a ufologist by the name of ufology who runs a ufology club and has come here solely to spread the gospel of ufology.

How much traction are you hoping to get?

Address the argument not the arguer please.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

You want an example from the "Ufology culture" that is presented as science but is clearly pseudoscience?

That is easy: http://www.history.com/shows/ufo-hunters