Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

That isn't accurate at all!

It's more like:

ufology: I wrote this definition of pseudoscience.

others: Oh, cool, does that mean [insert other pseudoscience here] is a pseudoscience? How is that different from UFOlogy?

ufology: I'm not here to talk about [named pseudoscience] so I'm going to ignore you.

I see you've become the victim of more misrepresentation. Unfortunately I've just been warned that I can't point people to my actual posts where my reasoning has been clearly and logically stated anymore, such is the nature of this forum. Misrepresentations, off topic commentary, faulty logic, mockery and ridicule are what the others have defended their claims with, yet they go unmoderated ( up to this point anyway ). If you are fair minded and actually do take the time to go back and review my posts, you will find this to be true.

j.r.

 

[R.A.F.]

Misrepresentations, off topic commentary, faulty logic, mockery and ridicule are what the others have defended their claims with, yet they go unmoderated ( up to this point anyway ). If you are fair minded and actually do take the time to go back and review my posts, you will find this to be true.

Hogwash....you need to get over yourself...your posts are simply not as important as you think they are.

Not important at all...

 

[Akhenaten]

If you are fair minded and actually do take the time to go back and review my posts, you will find this to be true.

I've been reviewing them and I can't find the one where you cited an example of a field that you'd describe as pseudoscience.

Got a link handy?

 

[RoboTimbo]

That isn't accurate at all!

It's more like:

ufology: I wrote this definition of pseudoscience.

others: Oh, cool, does that mean [insert other pseudoscience here] is a pseudoscience? How is that different from UFOlogy?

ufology: I'm not here to talk about [named pseudoscience] so I'm going to ignore you.

I see you've become the victim of more misrepresentation.

j.r.

No, that is exactly on target with what you've been doing. You redefined the word pseudoscience. You were asked for examples of disciplines that matched your redefinition of pseudoscience. You dishonestly pretended to not understand, you dishonestly pretended that you couldn't answer them for fear of moderation, and finally you dishonestly ignored them.

Can you give an example of a discipline that you would consider to be pseudoscience using your redefinition?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Unfortunately I've just been warned that I can't point people to my actual posts where my reasoning has been clearly and logically stated anymore...

j.r.

If you were warned, you probably meant that it was for spamming the forum with links and not engaging in meaningful discussion. Weren't you also warned not to use old threads to broaden the reach of your single minded agenda? And suspended when you didn't listen? Doesn't seem to have stopped you doing that, has it?

 

[ufology]

No, that is exactly on target with what you've been doing. You redefined the word pseudoscience. You were asked for examples what what disciplines matched your definition of pseudoscience. You dishonestly pretended to not understand, you dishonestly pretended that you couldn't answer them for fear of moderation, and finally you dishonestly ignored them.

Can you give an example of a discipline that you would consider to be pseudoscience using your redefinition?

Another misrepresentation above:

You can see the post in this set of links where I show my references for defining pseudoscience ... and a number of other issues that have never been fairly or logically addressed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7349104&postcount=88
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7354053&postcount=125
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7354126&postcount=127
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7354245&postcount=131
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

Damn the torpedoes ...

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, you were asked for an example of a discipline that you consider to be pseudoscience matching your redefinition of the term. Not links to your apologetics.

 

[John Albert]

I see you've become the victim of more misrepresentation. Unfortunately I've just been warned that I can't point people to my actual posts where my reasoning has been clearly and logically stated anymore, such is the nature of this forum.

Sounds like you're misrepresenting something.

It's not forbidden to link to past posts for reference sake. What is forbidden is making a canned response out of repeatedly linking to the same post that has already been rebutted by others.

You have been parroting the same few faulty arguments for weeks now, and for the most part refused to address challenges in any meaningful, logical way. Instead of answering the challenges with logical reasoning, you simply repeat the same assertions ad nauseam.

As if that's not obtuse and irritating enough, you've lately become so lazy in your thinking that you can't be bothered to even reply anymore. Instead you post a link to a previous post of yours and call your argument a proven fact.

That is the kind of dishonest, wilfull ignorance that is frowned upon around here.

 

[ufology]

ufology, you were asked for an example of a discipline that you consider to be pseudoscience matching your redefinition of the term. Not links to your apologetics.

I made no "redefinition" ... again you are misrepresenting my past posts and asking for off topic commentary.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I made no "redefinition" ... again you are misrepresenting my past posts and asking for off topic commentary.

j.r.

ufology, you were asked to name another discipline that matched your redefinition of the word pseudoscience. So far, you've dishonestly scurried away from answering it.

 

[Akhenaten]

I made no "redefinition" ... again you are misrepresenting my past posts and asking for off topic commentary.

j.r.

It's not off topic, and the more you twist and turn trying to make excuses like this for not answering a question that would cause no problem whatsoever for anyone who subscribes to the normal definition of pseudoscience the more you demonstrate that you do, in fact, have a non-standard definition that you wish to invoke.

 

[John Albert]

It isn't off-topic.

The topic of the thread is, "Is Ufology a Pseudoscience?"

In the pursuit of an answer to this question, you have forwarded a definition of pseudoscience which has met with general criticism.

So we're asking you to validate your definition with a few examples of practices or beliefs that would fit your definition of pseudoscience. It's as simple as that. There's nothing off-topic about it.

We're not asking you to go on a major tirade about some particular pseudoscience or other, but simply to successfully apply your own definition as proof of its practicality. If your argument has merit, you'll probably find that we'll generally agree and will modify the discussion on our end to accommodate your definition. If it has any particular problems, of course you know we're going to point those out as well.

We're arguing already, so what do you have to lose?

Please, just answer the question. What practices or fields of study actually fit your own definition of pseudoscience, and why?

 

[ufology]

It isn't off-topic.

The topic of the thread is, "Is Ufology a Pseudoscience?"

In the pursuit of an answer to this question, you have forwarded a definition of pseudoscience which has met with general criticism.

So we're asking you to validate your definition with a few examples of practices or beliefs that would fit your definition of pseudoscience. It's as simple as that. There's nothing off-topic about it.

We're not asking you to go on a major tirade about some particular pseudoscience or other, but simply to successfully apply your own definition as proof of its practicality. If your argument has merit, you'll probably find that we'll generally agree and will modify the discussion on our end to accommodate your definition. If it has any particular problems, of course you know we're going to point those out as well.

We're arguing already, so what do you have to lose?

Please, just answer the question. What practices or fields of study actually fit your own definition of pseudoscience, and why?

I made no "redefinition" and have posted my sources in the past so that you see where it comes from. I'm not going to do it every time or the moderators will get mad at me again, so you'll just have to go look it up yourself. As for off-topic examples ... they aren't necessary. I've already shown logically in the other past posts that the moderators won't let me link to, that ufology isn't a pseudoscience because large parts of it fall outside the definition. You know this to be true and yet you keep misrepresenting me and baiting me with off topic questions ... either moderators are also part of your little cabal or sooner or later they will see through your tactics and tell you to knock it off.

j.r.

 

[wollery]

I posted a logical and clearly worded refutation of your argument in this thread which you have simply refused, repeatedly, to respond to with anything more than out of hand dismissal. Rather than actually refute my points you just describe it as a "rant" and then proceed to make your argument by repeating the points I refuted.

If my post is refutable then you should be able to do so with ease. Instead you choose not, despite several people reposting it and asking why you haven't responded.

You keep getting asked about it and keep dismissing it without ever addressing it. If you can respond to it in detail then why don't you? The only good reason I can see for not doing so is because you can't.

 

[John Albert]

As for off-topic examples ... they aren't necessary. I've already shown logically in the other past posts that the moderators won't let me link to that ufology isn't a pseudoscience because large parts of it fall outside the definition.

It's because we've already established that your definition is only a partial one. It's a single sentence deliberately excised in part from an entire encyclopedia article that goes on to describe the characteristics of pseudoscience, most of which which fit UFOlogy like a glove. That is why the mods won't let you keep reposting links to that same "definition." Doing so is dishonest and lazy, and serves to hinder rather than advance the discussion.

You know this to be true and yet you keep misrepresenting me and baiting me with off topic questions

I assure you, we are not trying to "bait" you into getting suspended again. What would any of us have to gain from that?

either moderators are also part of your little cabal or sooner or later they will see through your tactics and tell you to knock it off.

Aw, geez... Persecution complex much?

Why don't you have a look at this part of that pseudoscience definition that you discarded along with the other 99% of the article:

Personalization of issues

• Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy)

 

[ufology]

It's because we've already established that your definition is only a partial one. It's a single sentence deliberately excised in part from an entire encyclopedia article that goes on to describe the characteristics of pseudoscience

Again ... another misrepresentation. The post where I showed my references came from 4 ( four ) independent sources and they all include the same overriding condition. On the other hand you cherry picked alledged examples out of the WIkipedia article after the definition and tried to justify them as part of the definition. I've also shown how the characterization of ufology as a pseudoscience by the people referred to in the Wikipedia article makes no sense, and included a link to the actual writer ( Feist ) who is a psychologist with a completely skewed view of a definition of science in the first place. Ufology on the whole is simply too wide a field to all fit under the definition of pseudoscience, therefore it can't all be labeled as a pseudoscience ... consequently saying "ufology is a pseudoscience" is incorrect. Instead we should be concentrating on individual cases of pseudoscience within ufology on another thread, rather than asking for off topic examples in this one.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

Ufology on the whole is simply too wide a field to all fit under the definition of pseudoscience, therefore it can't all be labeled as a pseudoscience ... consequently saying "ufology is a pseudoscience" is incorrect.

And this is precisely why you don't want to name another pseudoscience. Because you know that virtually any field, pseudoscience or not, can be defined as "simply too wide a field to all fit under the definition of pseudoscience," therefore with your bizarre logic it can't be labeled as a pseudoscience either.

 

[ufology]

And this is precisely why you don't want to name another pseudoscience. Because you know that virtually any field, pseudoscience or not, can be defined as "simply too wide a field to all fit under the definition of pseudoscience," therefore with your bizarre logic it can't be labeled as a pseudoscience either.

Another misrepresentation above. I did answer your question in past posts on this thread, but you just keep insisting I haven't. If you can't find them, maybe a moderator moved them because they were off topic. If you want to talk about the other fields you mention then let's go over to those threads and talk about them there.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's because we've already established that your definition is only a partial one. It's a single sentence deliberately excised in part from an entire encyclopedia article that goes on to describe the characteristics of pseudoscience

Again ... another misrepresentation.

No, it's about as perfect a representation of the situation as one could hope for.

<blather>

Instead we should be concentrating on individual cases of pseudoscience within ufology on another thread, rather than asking for off topic examples in this one.

j.r.

Are you able to illustrate your definition of pseudoscience by giving an example of a field which it embraces or not? Will you claim that you are unable to see the utility of doing so in order that we, and those playing along at home, are able to determine if this definition applies equally to ufology?

Quite obviously this question is on topic - a topic, I might add, that was begun by someone else and only hijacked by you to circumvent a restriction on opening new threads on a topic while it was under review.

 

[AdMan]

Another misrepresentation above. I did answer your question in past posts on this thread, but you just keep insisting I haven't. If you can't find them, maybe a moderator moved them because they were off topic. If you want to talk about the other fields you mention then let's go over to those threads and talk about them there.

j.r.

Stop evading the question and name a pseudoscience.

And I'll show you that it too has conventions, inspires popular fictional stories, and has books written about it for the non-scientist.

And then you can tell me why that is a pseudoscience but ufology isn't.