Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

ufology said:
Address the argument not the arguer ... and if you claim that the argument itself is "pathetic" then you are obligated to demonstrate that the logic is false.
Click to expand...


But the argument has been demonstrated to be pathetic.

That you alone fail to see it is neither here nor there.

And cut it out with the pseudomoderator crap.


ufology said:
The logic is: To put all of ufology under the pseuoscience label, then all ufology has to fall under the definition ... not just the parts that suit your bias.
Click to expand...


All of ufology does fall under the pseudoscience label. The label itself - "ufology" - marks indelibly as something trying to pretend that it's something it can never be. Hence, it's pseudoscience

If you weren't so entrenched in it you'd be able to see this with the same clarity as everyone else.


ufology said:
So again address the argument made in the post:

<spam>

NOTE: Vallees book is not part of the examples in the post above.

j.r.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is. You just want to pretend it's not inextricably linked to Close Encounters of the Third Kind because it spoils your attempted argument, but that kind of pseudoscientific trick is pretty transparent and you'll never get away with them here.
 
ufology said:
The paramers in my post are all that is needed to answer the question posed by this thread. If all ufology is to be labelled pseudoscience, then all ufology must be shown to be pseudoscience ... including the significant examples I gave as part of ufology culture ... all I need is 1 ( one ) example of ufology that is not pseudoscience to eliminate it from being labelled pseudoscience as a whole. I've already demostrated numerous examples in books and films ... how long is it going to take you to see the logic?

j.r.
Click to expand...


No.

You've based your entire argument on the wrong paramers, I'm afraid, and you'll have to start again.
 
ufology said:
how long is it going to take you to see the logic?
Click to expand...
There is no logic. What I (and others here) see is dishonest dodging, redefining of terms and blatant denial.

If a cereologist watches "Signs" does that magically make cereology not a pseudo science?

The same can be said of any pseudo science... watching movies is watching movies. Now if it was moviewatchyology™ that was being called pseudo science, you'd have a point perhaps, but it's not, so you don't.
 
ufology said:
The paramers in my post are all that is needed to answer the question posed by this thread.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Ignoring your incorrect paramers for a moment, I'll just point out that since the question asked by this thread, as you put it, wasn't asked by you, then you aren't in any sort of postion to be trying to tell anyone what they need to do in order to answer it, now are you?
 
Stray Cat said:
There is no logic. What I (and others here) see is dishonest dodging, redefining of terms and blatant denial.

If a cereologist watches "Signs" does that magically make cereology not a pseudo science?

The same can be said of any pseudo science... watching movies is watching movies. Now if it was moviewatchyology™ that was being called pseudo science, you'd have a point perhaps, but it's not, so you don't.
Click to expand...


Come the revolution, I'm going to institute a new category in the Language Awards for Best New Word of the Month and I'll be insisting that "moviewatchyology™" is the inaugural winner.
 
android-bug-emoticon-2.gif
 
ufology said:
The logic is: To put all of ufology under the pseuoscience label, then all ufology has to fall under the definition ... not just the parts that suit your bias. So again address the argument made in the post:

j.r.
Click to expand...
By your argument, an example of homoeopathy in fiction or film makes homoeopathy not pseudoscience.

What ufologists purport to do is to study UFOs. That's what it is, no matter how you try to redefine the word by widening it to include fiction about the phenomenon.

I watched MIBII the other night, that doesn't make me a ufologist nor does it mean Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are ufologists.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
By your argument, an example of homoeopathy in fiction or film makes homoeopathy not pseudoscience.

What ufologists purport to do is to study UFOs. That's what it is, no matter how you try to redefine the word by widening it to include fiction about the phenomenon.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

That is why I said the argument was pathetic.
 
ufology, if you feel that asking if homeopathy or reiki or astrology is off topic, report the posts. If they aren't moderated within 24 hours, you may answer. Does that sound fair?

The reason we ask (as I'm sure you know) is to see if you are consistently applying your criteria for something to be labeled a pseudoscience. I suspect that you are avoiding answering so that your hypocrisy won't be noted.
 
ufology, you failed to read this post.

RoboTimbo said:
ufology, if you feel that asking if homeopathy or reiki or astrology is off topic, report the posts. If they aren't moderated within 24 hours, you may answer. Does that sound fair?

The reason we ask (as I'm sure you know) is to see if you are consistently applying your criteria for something to be labeled a pseudoscience. I suspect that you are avoiding answering so that your hypocrisy won't be noted.
Click to expand...
 
ufology said:
RoboTimbo said:
ufology, is homeopathy a pseudoscience?
Click to expand...


Homeopathy is not the topic of this thread. Please stick to the topic of this thread.

j.r.
Click to expand...


Enquiring as to whether you might refer to another field of endeavour as pseudoscience and the criteria by which you so adjudge it and investigating whether those same criteria ought properly be applied to ufology is exactly on topic.

Now answer the bloody question before you make Wilbur cry.
 
Akhenaten said:
No.

You've based your entire argument on the wrong paramers, I'm afraid, and you'll have to start again.
Click to expand...


My parameters are logical and correct. Again: Because ufology is a title for an entire field of interest with huge impact on modern culture, ufology culture cannot be logically ignored ... it is a fact and a factor of ufology as a whole. Therefore if ufology is to be called a pseudoscience, then all ufology must fall under the definition of pseudoscience. So again I ask that a meaningful answer be provided for this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7460851&postcount=1736


j.r.

P.S. I'm not going to engage in comparisons of off-topic subject matter. It isn't necessary and it proves nothing with respect to the question at hand. Also if assertions are to be made that my logic is not correct, then make a logical case as to why. Simple dismissal is not a meaningful answer.
 
Last edited:
ufology, you've still failed to read this:
RoboTimbo said:
ufology, if you feel that asking if homeopathy or reiki or astrology is off topic, report the posts. If they aren't moderated within 24 hours, you may answer. Does that sound fair?

The reason we ask (as I'm sure you know) is to see if you are consistently applying your criteria for something to be labeled a pseudoscience. I suspect that you are avoiding answering so that your hypocrisy won't be noted.
Click to expand...

Until you do, you're just another pseudoscientist who engages in hypocritical pseudoscience.
 
ufology said:
Again ... I'm not here to talk about off-topic subject matter or whether or not you think I am being hypocritical. Please address the argument, not the arguer by providing a meaningful answer to this post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7460851&postcount=1736
Click to expand...


The argument, that "ufology" isn't pseudoscience because you say so? It stinks. The argument that "ufology" isn't pseudoscience because you choose to focus on some very narrowed definition of pseudoscience and insist on denying how the bulk of "ufology" still fits under that umbrella? That argument stinks, too. There, arguments addressed directly.
 
ufology said:
My parameters are logical and correct. Again: Because ufology is a title for an entire field of interest with huge impact on modern culture, ufology culture cannot be logically ignored ... it is a fact and a factor of ufology as a whole. Therefore if ufology is to be called a pseudoscience, then all ufology must fall under the definition of pseudoscience. So again I ask that a meaningful answer be provided for this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7460851&postcount=1736
Click to expand...
I've answered it twice now, you've ignored both of my answers.
Here's the last one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7461076&postcount=1764

It provides a logic which clearly shows you are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom