Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Agatha]

It's a UFO festival, not ufology; it's part of the entertainment industry which has developed around the UFO genre.

Can you define the word ufology for us?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm betting if any of us went to the Roswell festival we would find countless examples of pseudo scientific material and pseudo scientists spouting nonsense about proof of alien flying saucers crashing.


Sorry to disappoint my friends here, it turns out I'm a UFOlogist

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Baker-Aliens.jpg[/qimg]

You're shorter than I imagined. Which one are you?

 

[R.A.F.]

Sorry you've got it backwards ... You're implying that all ufology is pseudoscience, but when I show it's not, then you claim only true ufology is pseudoscience.

We all accept that the culture, conventions, club meetings actually occur, but really...how important are those meetings?

The "important" question...the question of alien visitation is simply accepted without evidence by those in UFOlogy and that makes it a pseudoscience.

 

[ufology]

Okay, where in the movie or promotional material does the Close Encounters movie say anything about it being "ufology"? Where does the Roswell UFO Festival say it's doing "ufology"?

It's simply a well known fact that Close Encounters is deeply embedded in ufology culture. Hynek himself even made a cameo appearance. And how hard is it to figure out that a UFO festival is part of ufology culture? Do we need to get you a label maker for everything?

j.r.

 

[Agatha]

Ah, the appeal to "everyone knows".

UFO culture is not the same thing as ufology.

 

[Stray Cat]

You're shorter than I imagined. Which one are you?

If I said I never wear silver, that narrows it down a bit.

 

[R.A.F.]

Exactly ... the cute kid in the picture doesn't mean all medicine is made of Doogie Howsers. Similarly an instance of pseudoscience in ufology doesn't make all ufology pseudoscience.

Medicine is an actual proven SCIENCE. Continuing to equate UFOlogy to medicine only demonstrates your ignorance.

 

[Agatha]

Hello, Stray Cat

 

[ufology]

We all accept that the culture, conventions, club meetings actually occur, but really...how important are those meetings?

The "important" question...the question of alien visitation is simply accepted without evidence by those in UFOlogy and that makes it a pseudoscience.

All of what makes up ufology must be included ... it's just plain logic ... otherwise you are cherry picking individual incidents and using them to slap the label over everything. Clearly that would be wrong, and I've shown examples that demonstrarte it isn't even plausible. Only incidents within ufology that meet the definition on a case by case basis can be called pseudoscience. Genuine science is excluded, as are those activities that fall outside the definition altogether.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

And how hard is it to figure out that a UFO festival is part of ufology culture?

Perhaps it's a manifestation of an interest in UFOs and ufology. But it is not ufology.

 

[RoboTimbo]

All of what makes up ufology must be included ... it's just plain logic ... otherwise you are cherry picking individual incidents and using them to slap the label over everything. Clearly that would be wrong, and I've shown examples that demonstrarte it isn't even plausible. Only incidents within ufology that meet the definition on a case by case basis can be called pseudoscience. Genuine science is excluded, as are those activities that fall outside the definition altogether.

j.r.

So give an example of something that would be a pseudoscience.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's simply a well known fact that Close Encounters is deeply embedded in ufology culture. Hynek himself even made a cameo appearance. And how hard is it to figure out that a UFO festival is part of ufology culture? Do we need to get you a label maker for everything?

I'll just add 'fact' to the list of words you've Rredefined.

 

[Akhenaten]

All of what makes up ufology must be included ... it's just plain logic ... otherwise you are cherry picking individual incidents and using them to slap the label over everything. Clearly that would be wrong, and I've shown examples that demonstrarte it isn't even plausible. Only incidents within ufology that meet the definition on a case by case basis can be called pseudoscience. Genuine science is excluded, as are those activities that fall outside the definition altogether.

'Logic' added.

 

[GeeMack]

It's simply a well known fact that Close Encounters is deeply embedded in ufology culture. Hynek himself even made a cameo appearance. And how hard is it to figure out that a UFO festival is part of ufology culture? Do we need to get you a label maker for everything?

No, you have to knock off the unfounded, unsupported assertions and show us where in the movie or the promotional materials for Close Encounters it says anything about "ufology". You have to show us where the Roswell UFO Festival presents itself as having something to do with "ufology". You see, this is a big fat world out here that doesn't just roll over and change the meanings of all its words and phrases on your say-so. So if you can't support your contention that Close Encounters and the Roswell UFO Festival are engaged in or are somehow a principle component of "ufology", then you admit you're wrong. That is if you're going to be honest about it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

All of what makes up ufology must be included ... it's just plain logic ... otherwise you are cherry picking individual incidents and using them to slap the label over everything. Clearly that would be wrong, and I've shown examples that demonstrarte it isn't even plausible. Only incidents within ufology that meet the definition on a case by case basis can be called pseudoscience. Genuine science is excluded, as are those activities that fall outside the definition altogether.

j.r.

'Clearly' and 'wrong' also.

 

[ufology]

Perhaps it's a manifestation of an interest in UFOs and ufology. But it is not ufology.

If ufology culture isn't part of ufology, then what's it a part of? As I've explained numerous times already, if you want to focus on pseudoscience in ufology you can't focus on ufology as a whole because it simply doesn't apply. You need to focus on "Ufology Studies" and then you have to apply the definition of pseudoscience to those aspects of the studies that are in context. Genuine science is excluded as are all those things the definition isn't applicable to ( e.g. mere collections of personal accounts and so on ). You need to concentrate on work done in ufology that is presented as science but fails to meet the accepted standards ... it's just that simple. But this thread doesn't facilitate that. We need a new thread to discuss individual incidents. Even the Evidence thread would be better suited.

j.r.

 

[R.A.F.]

All of what makes up ufology must be included ... it's just plain logic.

Really?? Plain logic? Seems you're the only one to think so...

...otherwise you are cherry picking individual incidents and using them to slap the label over everything.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to use actual incidents in order to determine exactly what happened...what was I thinking.

Clearly that would be wrong, and I've shown examples that demonstrarte it isn't even plausible.

That is your opinion...it is not shared by others.



Aside....this line of reasoning is getting you nowhere...but if you decide to continue, know that it is very entertaining watching you re-defining words to suit your wishes. Too bad that the rest of us are not "fooled" by this tactic.

 

[R.A.F.]

...if you want to focus on pseudoscience in ufology you can't focus on ufology as a whole because it simply doesn't apply. You need to focus on "Ufology Studies" and then you have to apply the definition of pseudoscience to those aspects of the studies that are in context.

Any investigation that erronously concludes that aliens are visiting us is an example of pseudo-science. The rest of the things you are talking about ARE IRRELEVANT AND UNIMPORTANT.

Why are you having such a problem understanding this??

 

[R.A.F.]

You need to concentrate on work done in ufology that is presented as science but fails to meet the accepted standards ... it's just that simple.

In other words, any claim of alien visitation.

 

[ufology]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to use actual incidents in order to determine exactly what happened...what was I thinking.

The above is a misrepresentation. I said, "otherwise you are cherry picking individual incidents and using them to slap the label over everything." which is entirely different from determining "exactly what happened". Furthermore I advocated that a separate thread be used to examine individual incidents where reports are presented as scientific to see if they meet accepted scientific standards or not.

j.r.