Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[R.A.F.]

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".

So who gets to "pick" the cases...you?

You are hardly unbiased about this.

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.

There is no need to start another thread to answer that question. Of course there are NO cases that meet accepted scientific standards or else we would all accept the existence of visiting aliens...we do not.


DUH

 

[ufology]

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??

The above is not correct and demonstrates prejudice and bias. First the definition of pseudoscience requires that the investigation be presented as scientific, so an informal investigation based on opinion and speculation is not pseudoscience. Therefore the idea that "any investigation" counts is false. Secondly, it is entirely possible that genuine science can come to an erroneous conclusion, without it being pseudoscience. So the entire statement is false and demonstrates an overconfident bias in favor of the idea that science is never wrong. Oh yes ... and typing in upper case doesn't make the point valid either.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Hello, Stray Cat http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/rosysparkle/xlirt.gif

Nominated.



Just kidding.

 

[John Albert]

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

So UFOlogy isn't a pseudoscience because they have conventions?

Well...

Ghost hunters have conventions, Homeopaths have conventions, Astrologers have conventions, Psychics have conventions...

Seems like a lot of pseudoscientists like to get together for conventions and conferences, just like real scientists do, and any other groups of people who all share a common interest.

Holding conventions does not prove that UFOlogy isn't a pseudoscience.

 

[Akhenaten]

If ufology culture isn't part of ufology, then what's it a part of?

It's part of your spectacularly failed attempt to legitimise your own particular definition of ufology by making it inclusive of things that wouldn't be seen dead in the same room with it.

 

[Agatha]

The above is not correct and demonstrates prejudice and bias. First the definition of pseudoscience requires that the investigation be presented as scientific, so an informal investigation based on opinion and speculation is not pseudoscience. Therefore the idea that "any investigation" counts is false. Secondly, it is entirely possible that genuine science can come to an erroneous conclusion, without it being pseudoscience. So the entire statement is false and demonstrates an overconfident bias in favor of the idea that science is never wrong. Oh yes ... and typing in upper case doesn't make the point valid either.

j.r.

You have some nerve lecturing people on netiquette after you altered a post of mine upthread.

How's that definition of ufology coming along? I didn't rrealise rredefinition was such an arduous task.

 

[ufology]

So who gets to "pick" the cases...you?

You are hardly unbiased about this.

There is no need to start another thread to answer that question. Of course there are NO cases that meet accepted scientific standards or else we would all accept the existence of visiting aliens...we do not.

DUH

Well if we used another thread like the Evidence thread, then by all means pick whatever cases you want. I'll play the the part of the defense, which means that each case must be presented by the writer as being scientific, or if they don't call it a scientific study outright, it must be shown to make a sufficient scientific impression through the use of consistent scientific formatting and other trappings of science. Then it must be demonstrated how the report fails to meet accepted scientific standards. If it can be shown that the report presents itself as being scientific and fails to meet accepted scientific standards, then it counts as pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

The above is not correct and demonstrates prejudice and bias. First the definition of pseudoscience requires that the investigation be presented as scientific, so an informal investigation based on opinion and speculation is not pseudoscience.

Yes it is, if the conclusion flies in the face of science. And aliens in flying saucers certainly flies in the face of science (they certainly don't fly over Cape Otway on new years eve)

Therefore the idea that "any investigation" counts is false.

So watching alien movies is UFOlogy, but investigations into unidentified flying objects isn't?

Secondly, it is entirely possible that genuine science can come to an erroneous conclusion, without it being pseudoscience.

Yes, and when it does it holds it's hands up to it's mistake.
This is because of a rigorous process of repeatability, verification, peer review etc.
UFOlogy on the other hand, uses the same faulty methods and come to the same faulty conclusion it has been coming to for over 60 years. Because of the lack of repeatability, verification, peer review etc.

So the entire statement is false and demonstrates an overconfident bias in favor of the idea that science is never wrong.

Strawman.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ufology culture is a fact.

No.

Examples have been provided that include film and celebrations ( e.g. the film Close Encounters & The Roswell UFO Festival ).

No. Examples have been provided of you referring to those things as ufology culture.

Not at all the same thing.

Just because concise dictionaries don't recognize these things doesn't mean they aren't there.

The No True Dictionary fallacy.

How novel.

Or would you deny that the Roswell UFO festival is part of ufology culture?

It's part of a much wider culture than the nonsense one you've made up.

 

[R.A.F.]

I don't think you understand....I am unimpressed with your arguments....they are simply not convincing.


UFOlogy is pseudo-science, and no amount of re-defining what UFOlogy "is" is going to change that.

 

[R.A.F.]

So UFOlogy isn't a pseudoscience because they have conventions?

Kindly point out just where I said that.

 

[Stray Cat]

Well if we used another thread like the Evidence thread, then by all means pick whatever cases you want. I'll play the the part of the defense, which means that each case must be presented by the writer as being scientific, or if they don't call it a scientific study outright, it must be shown to make a sufficient scientific impression through the use of consistent scientific formatting and other trappings of science. Then it must be demonstrated how the report fails to meet accepted scientific standards. If it can be shown that the report presents itself as being scientific and fails to meet accepted scientific standards, then it counts as pseudoscience.

Sorry I don't trust the "Defense Lawyer" to look objectively at the evidence.
I have reason to suspect his perception is particularly poor.

 

[ufology]

I don't think you understand....I am unimpressed with your arguments....they are simply not convincing.


UFOlogy is pseudo-science, and no amount of re-defining what UFOlogy "is" is going to change that.

Maybe you missed this response:

Well if we used another thread like the Evidence thread, then by all means pick whatever cases you want. I'll play the the part of the defense, which means that each case must be presented by the writer as being scientific, or if they don't call it a scientific study outright, it must be shown to make a sufficient scientific impression through the use of consistent scientific formatting and other trappings of science. Then it must be demonstrated how the report fails to meet accepted scientific standards. If it can be shown that the report presents itself as being scientific and fails to meet accepted scientific standards, then it counts as pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[R.A.F.]

Then it must be demonstrated how the report fails to meet accepted scientific standards.

Bullcrap...what you "want" to do is subvert the burden of proof.

Nice attempt...try not to be so obvious next time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is not correct and demonstrates prejudice and bias. First the definition of pseudoscience requires that the investigation be presented as scientific, so an informal investigation based on opinion and speculation is not pseudoscience. Therefore the idea that "any investigation" counts is false. Secondly, it is entirely possible that genuine science can come to an erroneous conclusion, without it being pseudoscience. So the entire statement is false and demonstrates an overconfident bias in favor of the idea that science is never wrong. Oh yes ... and typing in upper case doesn't make the point valid either.

j.r.

Suppose you stop running away for a minute and answer the question. Give an example of something that you do consider to be a pseudoscience.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well if we used another thread like the Evidence thread, then by all means pick whatever cases you want.

Oh no you don't. That thread is for talking about blimpology and geese.

Mitts off.

I'll play the the part of the defense, which means that each case must be presented by the writer as being scientific, or if they don't call it a scientific study outright, it must be shown to make a sufficient scientific impression through the use of consistent scientific formatting and other trappings of science.

So it'll be you against Rramjet then.

That'll end well.

Still, he's been a bit quiet lately so you're in with a chance, at least.

Then it must be demonstrated how the report fails to meet accepted scientific standards. If it can be shown that the report presents itself as being scientific and fails to meet accepted scientific standards, then it counts as pseudoscience.

Done and dusted already, I'm afraid to say.

 

[ufology]

Sorry I don't trust the "Defense Lawyer" to look objectively at the evidence. I have reason to suspect his perception is particularly poor.

So you don't have any cases then?

j.r.

 

[R.A.F.]

Maybe you missed this response...

No...you missed mine...


eta..care to address that post?...the subject is who has the burden of proof.

 

[John Albert]

First the definition of pseudoscience requires that the investigation be presented as scientific, so an informal investigation based on opinion and speculation is not pseudoscience.

Wrong.

The part that I bolded is the exact definition of pseudoscience, especially when it is presented as fact or truth.

 

[R.A.F.]

So you don't have any cases then?

Irrelevant....