Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Akhenaten]

Because ufology is a title for an entire field of interest with huge impact on modern culture, ufology culture cannot be logically ignored ...

 

[Resume]

how long is it going to take you to see the logic?

j.r.

Perhaps a few more doobies.

 

[AdMan]

By that bizarre logic, a ghost hunter could bring up The Sixth Sense and Ghostbusters to show that ghost hunting isn't a pseudo science.

 

[RoboTimbo]

By that bizarre logic, a ghost hunter could bring up The Sixth Sense and Ghostbusters to show that ghost hunting isn't a pseudo science.

That's why he's running away from answering whether he considers those to be pseudosciences. He knows if he says they are, then he's being hypocritical in not applying the same "logic" to them. If he says they aren't, that means that his real argument is that nothing is a pseudoscience.

He's painted himself into a corner.


ufology, is homeopathy a pseudoscience?

 

[Stray Cat]

 

[Akhenaten]

The nominations thread is lookin' good.

 

[carlitos]

special pleading 101

...

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.

By your argument, an example of homoeopathy in fiction or film makes homoeopathy not pseudoscience.
....

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.

By that bizarre logic, a ghost hunter could bring up The Sixth Sense and Ghostbusters to show that ghost hunting isn't a pseudo science.

That's a handful, and - why not? - I'll add my own.

Boxing is called the sweet science. Watching Rocky III is not boxing. Ergo, watching movies about something is not part of that something (unless you came out of Rocky III with your nose flattened and cauliflower ear, which I doubt).

Please explain using logic why your logic makes sense, that broadening "the study of ufos" (aka ufology) to include popular culture somehow legitimizes your OMG aliens pseudoscience.

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. ......

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.

Your refusal to compare your criteria for how pseudosciencey "ufology" is vis a vis other "ologies" has a name:

 

[Lucian]

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.

The film Shakespeare in Love deals with English literature, but it has nothing to do with the study of English literature. It is not an example of English literary scholarship at work. It is not historically accurate, and it suggests some weird literary interpretations, but it is not pseudohistory or (what I am going to call) pseudoEnglishology because it is itself a work of fiction, and its authors are not pretending to engage in the study of history or English.

If you want to talk about the "culture" of ufology--if you just want to talk about cool movies, novels and television shows--then fine, but you might want to get rid of the "-ology," because watching The X-Files doesn't really count as studying UFOs. Also, I think there might already be a name for such films and books (science fiction).

To use another analogy, Roland Emmerich's upcoming Anonymous also deals with English literature. It is based on the dopey assertion that Shakespeare's works were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and that Oxford was Queen Elizabeth I's lover (also possibly her son) and that the Earl of Southampton was their son. Many people really believe and promote this nonsense, so it would be completely fair to say that Anonymous is at least based on pseudohistory and pseudoEnglishology.

Finally, after reading this thread, I (an amateur threadologist) have become convinced that UFOlogy is not pseudoscience. Oh, sorry, I misstyped. I'm convince that it is not just pseudoscience: it is also pseudohistory, pseudofolklore, pseudomythology, pseudojournalism. In short, it is a pseudo-discipline.

 

[Marduk]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

what do I win ?

 

[ufology]

The film Shakespeare in Love deals with English literature, but it has nothing to do with the study of English literature. It is not an example of English literary scholarship at work. It is not historically accurate, and it suggests some weird literary interpretations, but it is not pseudohistory or (what I am going to call) pseudoEnglishology because it is itself a work of fiction, and its authors are not pretending to engage in the study of history or English.

If you want to talk about the "culture" of ufology--if you just want to talk about cool movies, novels and television shows--then fine, but you might want to get rid of the "-ology," because watching The X-Files doesn't really count as studying UFOs. Also, I think there might already be a name for such films and books (science fiction).

To use another analogy, Roland Emmerich's upcoming Anonymous also deals with English literature. It is based on the dopey assertion that Shakespeare's works were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and that Oxford was Queen Elizabeth I's lover (also possibly her son) and that the Earl of Southampton was their son. Many people really believe and promote this nonsense, so it would be completely fair to say that Anonymous is at least based on pseudohistory and pseudoEnglishology.

Finally, after reading this thread, I (an amateur threadologist) have become convinced that UFOlogy is not pseudoscience. Oh, sorry, I misstyped. I'm convince that it is not just pseudoscience: it is also pseudohistory, pseudofolklore, pseudomythology, pseudojournalism. In short, it is a pseudo-discipline.

The thing is, we're not talking about English literature, or cool movies in general, or pseudo anything else ... just this question, "Is Ufology Pseudoscience?", and that implies ufology as a whole ... which includes ufology culture, books, history, documentaries, reports, personal experiences, studies, psychology, mythology, fiction, fashion ... whatever. Clearly it isn't plausible to apply the definition of pseudoscience to all these things simultaneously, and therefore it isn't plausible to class the entire field of ufology as a pseudoscience. We should open another separate thread called "Pseudoscience In Ufology", which can properly deal with pseudoscience in ufology on a case by case basis.

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

The thing is, we're not talking about English literature, or cool movies in general, or pseudo anything else ... just this question, "Is Ufology Pseudoscience?", and that implies ufology as a whole ... which includes ufology culture, books, history, documentaries, reports, personal experiences, studies, psychology, mythology, fiction, fashion ... whatever. Clearly it isn't plausible to apply the definition of pseudoscience to all these things simultaneously, and therefore it isn't plausible to class the entire field of ufology as a pseudoscience. We should open another separate thread called "Pseudoscience In Ufology", which can properly deal with pseudoscience in ufology on a case by case basis.

j.r.

don't be ridiculous, we did that already
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156375
261 pages of cases and everyone clearly pseudoscientific to the point that their proponent became very dishonest in an attempt to make them look real
how much of that thread have you actually read ?

 

[carlitos]

Your refusal to compare your criteria for how pseudosciencey "ufology" is vis a vis other "ologies" has a name:

The thing is, we're not talking about English literature, or cool movies in general, or pseudo anything else ...

No.

 

[GeeMack]

The thing is, we're not talking about English literature, or cool movies in general, or pseudo anything else ... just this question, "Is Ufology Pseudoscience?", and that implies ufology as a whole ... which includes ufology culture, books, history, documentaries, reports, personal experiences, studies, psychology, mythology, fiction, fashion ... whatever. Clearly it isn't plausible to apply the definition of pseudoscience to all these things simultaneously, and therefore it isn't plausible to class the entire field of ufology as a pseudoscience. We should open another separate thread called "Pseudoscience In Ufology", which can properly deal with pseudoscience in ufology on a case by case basis.

So what we've seen in this thread is several attempts to dishonestly redefine pseudoscience, science, truth, objective, reality, and a handful of other terms to try to slither "ufology" out from under the humiliating moniker "pseudoscience". And all of those attempts failed, mostly because the dishonesty was transparent and consequently failed. And since that strategy hasn't worked, where are we now? Going back around to the beginning with another dishonest attempt to redefine the term "ufology".

You know, if an argument can't be supported without resorting to dishonest redefinition of nearly all the relevant terms, it has failed. And this argument that "ufology" isn't pseudoscience? Failed, completely and repeatedly.

 

[AdMan]

The thing is, we're not talking about English literature, or cool movies in general, or pseudo anything else ... just this question, "Is Ufology Pseudoscience?", and that implies ufology as a whole ... which includes ufology culture, books, history, documentaries, reports, personal experiences, studies, psychology, mythology, fiction, fashion ... whatever.

This is an absurd argument. You are claiming that an episode of The Simpsons in which aliens appear, or the Men in Black movies, or Independence Day are all "ufology," just because they show UFOs or aliens?

So any episode of Scrubs or House, MD or MASH should be considered medicine because there are doctors apparently doing medical stuff in them?

You are truly scraping the bottom of your argument barrel if you really mean to be taken seriously with such idiocy.

 

[Marduk]

So any episode of Scrubs or House, MD or MASH should be considered medicine because there are doctors apparently doing medical stuff in them?
.

you missed out "casualty", "holby city", "only when I laugh" and "Doctor Finlay's Casebook" all fine examples of British medicine in practice


as for America, you missed out Quincy and Dr Kildare

 

[John Albert]

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.

So you're saying that watching movies and TV shows about UFOs constitutes the practice of ufology?



I'm sorry, but that really is idiotic!

By that reasoning, watching Indiana Jones makes me an archaeologist, watching Sherlock Holmes makes me a detective, watching Iron Man makes me a high-tech weapons engineer, and watching Bruce Almighty would make me what... God?!?

It really is unsettling to watch a grown man stoop to such undignified mental contortions to defend such an irrational belief system. I mean, you're virtually groveling in the trash like a kicking junkie, scratching and digging for any horrid old argument you can find.

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.

So you've picked up on Rramjet's little "plausibility" game. They say great minds think alike, but I guess it must work the same way in reverse, too.


Now that I've had a little fun at your expense (you're such a good sport), I'm going to point out to you exactly how dishonest of a liar you are.

Two weeks ago, a very meaningful and well-considered response was given to the question you posited above, the very same question that you've been parroting ad nauseum for the past month.

Of course you just totally ignored this luminous post that so clearly exposes the depth of your illogic. This great post went virtually unnoticed with not so much as a single word of response from you. I personally goaded you repeatedly to address the many excellent points made in this post, but after several prods you arrogantly dismissed it as a "rant." I can't blame you for wanting to forget about it and hope it goes away, but I just can't let you off the hook that easily.

I've seen examples of how shoddy your memory can be, so here I'll provide you with a refresher:

It seems to me that ufology's main argument against ufology being pseudoscience is that ufology covers a far broader group of disciplines than merely attempting to identify UFOs.

To this end I'd like to ask ufology a simple question.

I'm a professional astronomer, I collect observational data of stars, process the data into a meaningful, measurable form, study it, obtain quantifiable results, calculate error margins, compare the results to previous works as well as to theory, form conclusions based on these results and comparisons, make predictions about what further research will uncover, and publish all of this for scrutiny amongst the wider astronomy community.

My friend Sean studies the history of astronomy, from its very beginnings as myth used for mnemonics, navigation and divination, through the renaissance and the separation of astronomy from astrology, to the modern day and the exploits of astronomers through the ages, including their lives outside of their work. When he finds something new or contentious he tries to find corroborating evidence.

A former colleague of mine, Daniel, although trained as a professional astronomer, now studies astronomical archaeology. Simply put he looks at ancient sites, such as Stonehenge, and tries to work out how they could have been used for astronomical measurements, and what their overall purpose might have been. Part of this involves creating scale replicas and using them to make measurement. He also compares different sites around the world looking for similarities and differences in their alignment and construction.

I have another friend, Amy, who studies the psychological and social impacts of astronomy on the public. She's particularly interested in the effects of astonomical findings and news reports on people with strongly held religious beliefs.

My question for ufology is this - of the four people detailed above, myself, Sean, Daniel and Amy, who is doing astronomy, and if anyone isn't doing astronomy, what is it that they are doing?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7403943#post7403943

You himmed and hawed and beat around the bush, but never came out and stated that by your reckoning, all those people he described were involved in the practice of astronomy.

And so here's where Wollery provided the very lucid and meaningful response that you dishonestly claim nobody has yet given you:

Hey Wollery ....

First, just razzin' a little, but it sure took you a long time toget to that "simple" question ... and it's not quite so simple. Consequently my answer isn't going to be quite so simple.

Actually the question is that simple. Unfortunately, like Rramjet, you avoid answering the actual question. In your case I think that (unlike Rramjet) it's because you understand the implications of the question and the answer.

Second. Thank you for taking the time to consider the issue and ask my point of view. I once took an introductory astronomy course in university, but now only enjoy it from in an armchair capacity. So getting the chance to exchange views with a genuine astronomer is certainly a privilege.

Thanks, but flattery will get you nowhere.

Now to begin. I take it that you're proposing an analogy between astronomy & ufology so as to compare how the two fields are defined and perhaps identify some logic that could be applied to both fields and shed some light on the topic of the thread ... "Is Ufology a Pseudoscience?"

Exactly.

Here is one way I way I would answer your question. You've proposed a few activities that take place under the general heading of Astonomy, as shown below, with a couple more categories added:

No, I didn't propose any activities under the general heading of Astronomy. I described the work of four people that involve, or are related to, Astronomy. That's the whole point of the question though. Is what those people do actually Astronomy, or is it something else?

To demonstrate the point I'm going to label your list with how I would define the discipline being applied in each of the cases on your list.

Astronomy:

• Study of the observable universe - Astronomy
• History ( people, advances, myth, legend, astrology etc. ). - History
  • Archaeology ( locating ancient artifacts and observatories ). - Archaeology
• Culture ( clubs, politics, alternative, religion ... etc. ) - Sociology
• Technology ( Telescopes, computers etc. ) - Engineering
• Education ( from leisure learning to academic ) - Education
• Entertainment ( Cosmos, Discovery, National Geographic etc. ) - Entertainment
• Journalism ( Science and astronomy magazines ). - Journalism

Only one of the above activities comes directly under the heading of Astronomy, and that's the practice of Astronomy itself. The others fall under different disciplines, although focussed on aspects of that discipline which are related to Astronomy. For instance, an historian who studies the history of astronomy is no more an astronomer than an historian who studies ancient Rome is a Roman. Studying the history of toys makes one a historian, not a toymaker. Similarly someone who studies cultural aspects of Astronomy is a sociologist, someone who studies ancient astronomical artifacts is an archaeologist.

Now you're implying by your question, a sort of distinction based on what people do, a kind of "we are what we do" approach, which seems logical at first, but really isn't. Why? Let's look at the list above with specific attention to a couple of items and apply the question "... who is doing astronomy ...?" As an example let's take my professor at university who was teaching my course. When he was teaching, was he doing astronomy? Obviously not. Does that mean we should take Astronomy 101 out from under the heading of "Astronomy" ... no, of course it doesn't, because although teaching astronomy is different than doing astronomy, it is still a valuable part of astronomy.

Let me add a little more context to this for you that I'm sure you'll appreciate. When I was taking my course and I was in the classroom, I had no doubt that I was involved in astronomy, and when we all got together up at the Rothney observatory to do our field work, I felt I was a small part of the astronomy culture as well ... but it wasn't until I sat down alone at the telescope in the chilled night air and looked into the scope and started recording what I saw, that I knew I was doing astronomy.

At this stage I'm going to turn the analogy around to demonstrate the fallacious nature of your reasoning.

As an Astronomer I spend most of my time in front of a computer analysing data. Am I a data analyst?

Sometimes I write computer programs for specific project applications. Am I a computer programmer?

Sometimes I use highly engineered equipment. Am I an Engineer?

Sometimes I have to solve extremely complex and involved mathematical problems. Am I a mathematician?

Sometimes I have to search through archived papers in order to find what has been done in the past. Am I an historian?

Sometimes I am required to disseminate information to other astronomers in the form of journal papers and book chapters. Am I an author?

Sometimes I am required to disseminate information to the general public. Am I a journalist?

The answer to all of those question is, of course, no, I'm none of those things.

They are all aspects of my job, and skills that I use, but they aren't what I do, and they aren't what I am. What I do is Astronomy, and what I am is an Astronomer.

Similarly a ufologist is someone who studies UFOs, not someone who studies the history, sociology or art associated with UFOs. Yes, whilst studying UFOs you may be required to do some historical research or some computer programing, or some engineering, but those are the tools needed for the job.

So now the question becomes, is the method by which UFOs are studied scientific in nature?

Returning to the topic. In ufology, we don't have empirical data that can be directly observed and measured repeatedly. So the scientific method can only be applied to the study of the data and not the object itself. Therefore we cannot make any scientific conclusions about the actual subject matter ( UFOs ). However the data can be studied scientifically using various statistical methods, from which some perfectly valid conclusions can be made. For example how the overall pool of sighting reports relates to various demographics.

For the rest, we can only do our best to apply critical thinking in an effort to determine the most reasonable explanations and look for further clues in that direction. Astronomers have been doing that for ages ... take the example of black holes. Once they were only exotic theory, yet the dogged pursuit of the clues has led us to accept them as real today, even though none have yet been directly observed ( that I know of ).

And here you are saying that ufology (specifically the study of UFOs) is essentially scientific in nature, directly comparing it to a science in it's methodology.

...

Do you have any testable falsifiable predictions about UFOs?

...

...Are you doing pseudoscience right now by discussing ufology with a ufologist? No. Am I doing science? No. But I am doing one of the things in ufology I enjoy most, which is having an intelligent discussion with someone.

But right now you aren't "doing" ufology, you're defending it on an open forum.


It appears that the problem you have is that you think that anything associated with ufology also counts as ufology. I hope I've demonstrated in this post that it doesn't.


Ufology is, at its heart, the study of UFOs and the data from UFO reports in order to try to determine what UFOs are. The approach to that study has got to be scientific in nature or it's just a colossal waste of time. If ufology isn't scientific in its approach then it isn't anything. The problem then comes in the number of ufologists who aren't scientifically trained, the number who are certain a priori of the conclusion, and the number who are willing to adhere to any explanation that doesn't agree with the official one. They are conducting pseudoscience, although most of them probably think they're conducting their research in a proper scientific manner.


Your problem isn't with the skeptics, it's with the rest of the ufologists. If you want ufology to stop being labelled as a pseudoscience then you have to stop the majority of ufologist from conducting pseudoscience. If it was only one or two (like Velikovsky and Sitchin in astronomy) then that could be dismissed as a couple of kooks, but it isn't, it's the majority. Stop blaming the skeptics for labelling ufology a pseudoscience, because as long as the majority of ufologists are doing pseudoscience that's what ufology is. However much you want it not to be, that's what it is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7410422#post7410422

(bolding, color, and italics mine. Sorry about that, Wollery...)


So there it is, the meaningful response that you denied ever existed.

Now are you going to dream up some dishonest pretense to dismiss it, or are you going to just ignore it again?

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.

That definition fits ufology to a "T."

Both the field of "study," and the JREF Forums poster who's adopted it as his pseudonym.

If you keep pushing the issue, I'll be forced to start posting more examples from your own posts.

 

[ufology]

This is an absurd argument. You are claiming that an episode of The Simpsons in which aliens appear, or the Men in Black movies, or Independence Day are all "ufology," just because they show UFOs or aliens?

So any episode of Scrubs or House, MD or MASH should be considered medicine because there are doctors apparently doing medical stuff in them?

You are truly scraping the bottom of your argument barrel if you really mean to be taken seriously with such idiocy.

Like it or not a large part of ufology culture involves entertainment, just like when Aerosmith played on the Simpsons it became a part of Rock Music culture, the aliens on the Simpsons are a wonderful example of ufology culture. But even if you don't want to deal with the huge part of ufology that is ufology culture, and only deal with the vast majority of published works, we've already covered that as well.

Most published ufology makes no claim to being scientific, and are simply accounts of experiences by people who have seen UFOs or are involved in ufology. So again ... you can't lump that in with pseudoscience either... which again means that ufology as a whole cannot be labeled pseudoscience.

So now not only can ufology culture not be lumped in with pseudoscience, neither can most of its published works. It doesn't matter that a small few might be pseudoscience, like Sagan's UFO's a Scientific Debate, or Klass's UFOs Explained. All we need to show is that ufology isn't all pseudoscience, which is extraordinarily easy if you don't reduce yourself to cherry picking out of context individual examples and try to claim that's all there is to ufology. So why not accept that reality instead of continuing with pointless illogcal off topic rebuttals?

j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Like it or not a large part of ufology culture involves entertainment, just like when Aerosmith played on the Simpsons it became a part of Rock Music culture, the aliens on the Simpsons are a wonderful example of ufology culture. But even if you don't want to deal with the huge part of ufology that is ufology culture, and only deal with the vast majority of published works, we've already covered that as well.

Most published ufology makes no claim to being scientific, and are simply accounts of experiences by people who have seen UFOs or are involved in ufology. So again ... you can't lump that in with pseudoscience either... which again means that ufology as a whole cannot be labeled pseudoscience.

So now not only can ufology culture not be lumped in with pseudoscience, neither can most of its published works. It doesn't matter that a small few might be pseudoscience, like Sagan's UFO's a Scientific Debate, or Klass's UFOs Explained. All we need to show is that ufology isn't all pseudoscience, which is extraordinarily easy if you don't reduce yourself to cherry picking out of context individual examples and try to claim that's all there is to ufology. So why not accept that reality instead of continuing with pointless illogcal off topic rebuttals?

j.r.

you got it the wrong way round, its not a small part of Ufology bringing the rest into disreputable pseudoscience, its most of it. You need to face reality and deal with it. Ramjet is the general standard, someone who on finding himself confronted by scientifically minded people will happily lie to make himself seem important to them, while not realising of course that his lies just make his claims irrelevant.

basically you don't need to show that some of it isn't pseudoscience, you need to show that none of it is. To do that you would need to travel back in time and assassinate 99.9% of the ufologists who ever existed

so stop wasting everybodies time here and come back when you've finished your flux capacitor

 

[John Albert]

Most published ufology makes no claim to being scientific, and are simply accounts of experiences by people who have seen UFOs or are involved in ufology. So again ... you can't lump that in with pseudoscience either... which again means that ufology as a whole cannot be labeled pseudoscience.

You keep harping on this deliberately broken definition of pseudoscience that you've stripped of all meaning.

When a Kung Fu expert claims he can use "qi" energy to knock somebody down without even touching him, or cause a man's heart to stop my laying a single finger on him, is that pseudoscience?

When a ghost hunter takes a tape recorder into a cemetery and captures audio in the hopes of hearing some ghosts, is that pseudoscience?

When a psychic healer claims he can feel the cancer inside a person's body, and claims he can squeeze it out with the force of his mind, is that pseudoscience?

Your definition has no explanatory power to define any of those very pseudoscientific things as pseudoscience unless the practitioners try to get published in science journals. It's an absurd abuse of language. Of course all those things are pseudoscience, and your definition is very wrong.

There are movies about aliens and UFOs.

So what?

There are movies and TV shows about martial arts magic as well. There are also movies and TV shows about ghosts. There are even movies and TV shows about psychics and faith healers. The fact that entertainers exploit the sensationalism around those practices does not exempt them from being pseudoscientific, and it doesn't absolve ufology either.

All the arguments you have presented on this subject have been deeply flawed, and the very fact that you're assuming such an authoritarian position on this matter while at the same time stooping to such illogic and magical thinking is further proof of a pseudoscientific approach.

 

[ufology]

You keep harping on this deliberately broken definition of pseudoscience that you've stripped of all meaning.

The above assetion is untrue and the rest of the post was irrelevant. The definition I use is a definition based on multiple definitions, ( rather than any single cherry picked one ) which all state that pseudoscence is something that in some way shape or fashion presents itself as science, but doesn't abide by accepted scientific methodology. There is nothing false or misrepresentational about it. I've posted the links to those definitions elsewhere in this thread ... they are not fictional and I didn't make them up to suit my case.

BEsides, just think about it, it makes perfect sense. You can't call something pseudoscience unless it's trying to be science or falsely portray itself as science, and the only way something can do that is to first present itself as science, and the only ways to do that are to outright call it science or pretend it's science by dressing it all up in scientific formatting to vamoozle people into presuming it's science.

The only reason the poster says I've "stripped the definition of all meaning" is that I've shown how the definition doesn't apply to ufology as a whole and therefore it has no meaning in that context. What would the poster prefer, that we change all the definitions to suit their bias so that they can apply it unfairly and make them feel like they won their argument?

j.r.