Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[John Albert]

More misrepresentations ... As mentioned several times already, I used 4 ( four ) separate independent definitions that all show that pseudoscience is something that is presented as science in some way shape or form

I've already pointed out many times that you're erroneous in your interpretation of that one condition ("presented as science") in the strictest possible terms, so as to disallow the definition from identifying pretty much anything.

Let's look up what "science" means, so we can maybe get a handle on what it is that pseudoscience is misrepresenting itself as:

sci·ence

noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
- the world of science and technology

A particular area of this
- veterinary science
- the agricultural sciences

A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject
- the science of criminology

Knowledge of any kind

See? Nowhere does the definition of "science" say anything about published in treatises or any kind of special formatting.

For something to be a pseudoscience, it only has to present the appearance of systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, yet make claims that are not backed up by honest scientific methodology.

Do most, if not all, UFOlogists do this? You bet they do. I have yet to meet, read or watch on TV a single UFOlogist who doesn't make scientific-sounding claims with no scientific basis.

We've even caught you doing it numerous times yourself, right here on these forums, presenting information that is intended to sound scientific but is clearly outside the realm of actual science (like certain "facts" about human genetics, "plasma trails," "maneuverability" of UFOs, unknowable assumptions about the velocity of an object without any objective scale of measure, the effects of "antigravity propulsion technology" on air molecules, the contention that radio transponders prevent unidentified objects from appearing on RADAR... you know for a fact that I could go on and on here).

including consistent formatting that is intended to convey a scientific approach, but again doesn't meet accepted scientific standards.

"Consistent formatting" is not necessary for something to be presented as scientific. For an activity or ideology to be pseudoscience, it only has to present the appearance of systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, yet make claims that are not backed up by honest scientific methodology.

Despite the fact that "formatting" is not a prerequisite for something to be judged a pseudoscience, we've even provided numerous examples of UFOlogy books and materials dishonestly exploiting the "formatting" consistent with science—even examples of UFOlogists making explicit verbal claims to be doing science—and you have just dismissed them out of hand with a mere "so what" and the assumption that they meant something other than what they said in their own words.

This is no "redefinition."

You've redefined the word by willfully misinterpreting its definition.

You cherry-picked the first sentence out of a very descriptive and concise encyclopedia article, and then discarded everything else in the article which describe the criteria of pseudoscience. Those criteria clearly define UFOlogy as practiced by yourself and most other UFOlogists, as a pseudoscience.

As for the definition of ufology. I've mentioned that the Oxford Dictionary, traces the etymology back to 1959, "The articles, reports, and bureaucratic studies which have been written about this perplexing visitant constitute ‘ufology’ ( no mention of it being a science unto itself )."

The OED doesn't call "ufology" "a science unto itself," because it is not a science unto itself. It is but a pseudoscience.

And that since then, thousands of ufology books and articles have been published, and ufology has had a significant influence on entertainment, marketing, the arts and modern culture in general, plus I've used famous examples to back this up.

But it has had zero impact on our understanding of the real, material Universe because (say it with me now) UFOlogy is a pseudoscience!

UFOs, like ghosts, bigfoot, martial arts magic, vampires, werewolves, elves, angels, fairies, dragons, unicorns, and all sorts of of other imaginary things have had a significant an influence on entertainment, marketing, the arts and modern culture. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think it's great.

None of those things are pseudoscientific, unless somebody pretends to study them and present their findings as facts, like yourself and other UFOlogists do. When somebody attempts to prove that fantasy is real by citing false evidence, observations, "theories" and other fake pretenses to science, that's a pseudoscience.

Ufology Culture and ufology books for the general public ( non-scientifc ) consumption are facts and a large part of ufology ... and they don't apply to the definition of pseudoscience

UFO culture is not UFOlogy culture. You're dishonestly conflating the two to try and bolster an erroneous argument that makes no sense. "UFOlogy" means "the study of UFOs," not the attending of science fiction conventions, the watching of TV shows, cartoons, or Hollywood movies about aliens.

As for the "nonscientific" UFOlogy books you refer to, most other pseudosciences publish and market the exact same kinds of books toward the general public. The quality that makes all such books pseudoscientific is not a profusion of charts, graphs, and figures, but the contention that the pseudoknowledge contained within their pages is just as real as anything known to science, and the allegation of mysterious, unproven physical mechanisms that defy the actual definition of science.

The presentation of pseudoknowledge as fact, and allegation of mysterious unproven physical mechanisms is what makes a pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm not saying it's off-topic to discuss the definition of pseudoscience. I'm saying it's off topic to discuss whether or not homeopathy or zoology or some other subject mater is pseudoscience. The topic of the thread is "Is Ufology Pseudoscience?".

j.r.

You've made it on topic by redefining the word pseudoscience. Now we need to see how your redefined word applies to other fields of interest.

What other field of interest can you think of that fits your redefinition of the word pseudoscience?

Also, if you could give a point by point rebuttal of wollery's post.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ufology]

I've already pointed out many times that you're erroneous in your interpretation of that one condition ("presented as science") in the strictest possible terms, so as to disallow the definition from identifying pretty much anything ... bla bla bla

Click the reference link to see the full text of this author's quote.

The above poster may have, "pointed out" that he thinks I'm wrong, but I'm the one who referenced the four ( 4 ) independent definitions and who actually makes sense.

The above poster says that scientific formatting isn't specifically part of the definition. To this I simply refer to the definitions that use similar phrasing such as "the trappings of science", which are synonymous enough with "formatting" and intended to show that even if the work doesn't blatantly call itself science, if it is dressed up as, or wears the trappings of, or is formatted as ( e.g. some fancy slide show with a bunch of graphs and charts and formulas ), then the case can still be made that it's being presented as science.

So contrary to the poster's misrepresentation of my position, I have neither redefined nor limited the definition to suit my liking. Add to that, that part of my earlier references included the definition from the Skeptic's Dictionary:

"A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific."​

In the above example we see the phrase "put forth as scientific", which is yet another way of saying "presented as".​

Furthermore you will see that this article from the Skeptic's Dictionary does not include Ufology as a whole in is list of examples, but concentrates on specific cases within the field ( as it should ) ... For example Orgone Energy. Here is the link to the site:​

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html​

So now I've added even more weight to the case against labeling all ufology pseudoscience ... using skeptical references nonetheless. Face it, grasp it, accept it. The field as a whole is not pseudoscience.​

But let's continue ... I used the phrase "consistent formatting" the poster uses the phrase, "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". What is systematic if not consistent?​

Additionally what the poster is trying to do is employ some watered down definition of science itself ( ironic ). Instead of simply saying "presented as science" he uses a watered down definition of science that is essentially incorrect. Quote: "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". The fact is that we can systematically study anything we want in an informal way and it doesn't mean we're doing science. I studied art in university. It's part of the physical world. I studied it systematically. Was I doing science ... no ... of course not.​

More correctly, science is the use of the scientific method, which empasizes empirical evidence and repeatability under controlled conditions.​

The poster above says I've been doing pseudoscience here ... again completely inapropriate. This is an informal discussion and anyone can make reference to whatever they want and have whatever opinion they want without it being called science or pseudoscience. Similarly anyone can write a book about people's experiences and other historical and cultural aspects of ufology without is being scientific or being presented as scientific or falling within the definition of pseudoscience. Consider the self-serving lack of logic shown by this statement:​

"The quality that makes all such books pseudoscientific is not a profusion of charts, graphs, and figures, but the contention that the pseudoknowledge contained within their pages is just as real as anything known to science, and the allegation of mysterious, unproven physical mechanisms that defy the actual definition of science."​

The poster removes the primary criteria ( presented as or wears the trappings of ) by which something is considered to presented as science ( profusion of charts, graphs, and figures ) and inserts his own criteria ... consisting of mere opinion ... so that now anyone who has an opinion that some unproven phenomena real is practicing pseudoscience. Clearly we the people are entitled to our opinions without being persecuted by technocrats and skeptics!​

To sum up ... everything the poster says above is a misrepresentation and it continues to ignore the logic presented in numerous posts by this author, and now including the Skepic's Dictionary itself. It's time to move along.​

j.r.​

 

[R.A.F.]

The above poster may have, "pointed out" that he thinks I'm wrong, but I'm the one who referenced the four ( 4 ) independent definitions and who actually makes sense.

No..you make NO sense...ask anyone here.

 

[AdMan]

It's time to move along.

I find it curious that you keep trying to shut down discussion in this thread. Don't you see that no one here agrees with you, and that you have convinced no one with your twisted logic and your wanting others to accept your own definitions of terms?

Remove your blinders--you really are making no sense. Try answering even one of the many, many questions that you have continually avoided.

 

[Stray Cat]

So contrary to the poster's misrepresentation of my position, I have neither redefined nor limited the definition to suit my liking. Add to that, that part of my earlier references included the definition from the Skeptic's Dictionary:

"A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific."​

In the above example we see the phrase "put forth as scientific", which is yet another way of saying "presented as".​

Furthermore you will see that this article from the Skeptic's Dictionary does not include Ufology as a whole in is list of examples, but concentrates on specific cases within the field ( as it should ) ... For example Orgone Energy. Here is the link to the site:​

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html​

So now I've added even more weight to the case against labeling all ufology pseudoscience ... using skeptical references nonetheless. Face it, grasp it, accept it. The field as a whole is not pseudoscience.​

​

Here is the paragraph directly underneath your cherry picked single sentence:

"Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based on empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and (h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth as infallible or inerrant."

UFOlogy (the study of Unidentified Flying Objects) is the opposite of all of these things.

 

[RoboTimbo]

​

Here is the paragraph directly underneath your cherry picked single sentence:

"Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based on empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and (h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth as infallible or inerrant."

UFOlogy (the study of Unidentified Flying Objects) is the opposite of all of these things.

Now that that's settled:

ufology, can you give an example of a field of interest which matches your definition of pseudoscience?

 

[John Albert]

Blah blah blah.

Again, you have attacked the semantics of what I'm saying without addressing the actual argument itself.

Presenting something "as science" can be done without using charts and graphs. The trappings of science come in many forms besides scientific journals and technical white papers. Presenting an idea or concept "as science" can simply mean stating it in an authoritative manner using language intended to sound scientific or highly technical.

Here, I'll present an example.

Here's an example of you, J. Randall Murphy, a self-proclaimed ufologist and founder of your own ufology organization called USI (Ufology Society International), an organization which you say does not make any pseudoscientific claims, promoting a pseudoscientific idea using scientific-sounding language:

A sonic boom is dependent on the production of a shock wave. A system capable of maipulating gravity wouldn't have to create a shock wave. The air molecules could simply be held in place up to a point near the object and then compressed together in place to compenstae for object's volume and then decompressed behind it without any change in the surrounding air pressure ... hence no sonic boom. And maybe the plasma glow or whatever it was has something to do with it as well ... some sort of ionization effect. But again this is simply speculation and I make not claim to it being actual science, just something to consider.

Despite that little disclaimer you stuck on there at the end, that explanation clearly exhibits the "trappings of science" and is entirely consistent with the kinds of pseudoscience typically promoted within the UFOlogy community as a whole.

Here's another example of you promoting pseudoscience by way of an explanation regarding UFOs:

For all we know they are being picked up more often, but civillian radar has transponder and anti-clutter technology that filters out returns traditionally associated with UFOs. Military radar doesn't do that, but civilians don't have access to the data.

When several people pointed out to you that this is an absurd explanation based on a general misunderstanding of how RADAR systems work, you argued we were wrong and it was not incorrect at all. On no authority but your own, you maintained your errant position that anti-clutter and transponders render civilian RADAR incapable of detecting any objects without a transponder attached, while military RADAR does not use either anti-clutter technology or transponders. You argued this position for almost two pages and never conceded that you were entirely mistaken on all three points, though you did finally admit to not wording your completely wrong ideas clearly enough. It is another glaring example of pseudoscience being promoted by you under the pretense of knowledge that you do not have, in technical language intended to sound scientific.

Here's another one:

the genetic differences between humans and dogs is only 25% and between humans and chimps 5%

Yet another ostensible scientific claim made by you, that is in fact not only incorrect, but the reason you used it was to beat another forum member over the head with a point about the importance of accuracy in details when discussing scientific matters.

How about this one, where you deny that a null hypothesis can be applied to UFOlogy, less than a mere week after somebody on this very forum first educated you about the definition of what a "null hypothesis" is:

Null hypotheses are used in scientific experiments under controlled conditions to calculate probabilities based on repetiton of experimentation. Abductions don't fit into this framework and therefore attempting to frame them inside non-applicable science is pseudoscientific. The problem needs to be looked at from a critical thinking point of view that doesn't involve watered down science.

I could go on and on for several pages with these, if I had nothing better to do on a Saturday night than Google "ufology" on the JREF forums.

Suffice it to say these are some pretty obvious examples of statements presented as scientific, but not derived from the use of actual science. It does not matter that these quotes were taken from an informal discussion on an Internet message board. What matters is that they illustrate the promotion of a bunch of nonsense as if it were scientific. Pseudoscientific nonsense, in other words.

This kind of material presented in a book marketed in the nonfiction section of a bookstore is pseudoscience, no matter whether that book contains charts and graphs or has the words "science" and "UFOlogy" in its title. UFOlogists have written a lot of these books since the 1950s, but not a single book nor a single UFOlogist has ever provided even the merest scrap of evidence to back up their paranormal claims about UFOs. That total lack of progress after 60-some-odd years of "practice" is yet another indication that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience of absolutely no use in determining anything real about the Universe.

UFOlogy is pseudoscience. Your own words and arguments have demonstrated as much from the moment you first showed up here. What an a propos choice you made in picking that username! You get to take the fall for the entire field of UFOlogy ...or are they all taking the fall for you?

 

[ufology]

Again, you have attacked the semantics ... bla bla bla

Use the link to read the actual quote ...

Again all I see in the quote referenced above are misrepresentations, exaggerations, out of context quotes and proclaimations rather than genuine fair minded rebuttals on the points made.

I'll also point out that the quote on my speculation for antigravity propulsion as a possible means of dampening a sonic boom was asked for twice by the skeptics after I made specific comments that it represents only an armchair opinion and not science. I also warned that eliciting my informal opinion so that it could be used out of context elsewhere would not be wise. The fact that it was done reveals the corrupt tactics used here. I was deliberately baited and then quoted out of context later ... this deceit should speak to how much anyone can trust what is said here by such posters.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

Again all I see in the quote referenced above are misrepresentations, exaggerations, out of context quotes and proclaimations rather than genuine fair mainded rebuttals on the points made.

j.r.

Once again, you are just waving away the contents of posts without responding to anything in them, and ignoring anything you don't want to answer. How surprising.

No wonder you want to close off discussion in this thread, even though you were the one to resurrect this three-year-old zombie thread in the first place. It's ironic that it's you who's now saying it should be closed, but I suppose you realize you really had nothing to add in the first place.

 

[ufology]

Once again, you are just waving away the contents of posts without responding to anything in them, and ignoring anything you don't want to answer. How surprising.

No wonder you want to close off discussion in this thread, even though you were the one to resurrect this three-year-old zombie thread in the first place. It's ironic that it's you who's now saying it should be closed, but I suppose you realize you really had nothing to add in the first place.

Anyone who actually reads the thread with a fair minded approach can see that my case is far superior than that of the skeptics, so if there's any hand waving from me it's because it's deserved.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

Anyone who actually reads the thread with a fair minded approach can see that my case is far superior than that of the skeptics, so if there's any hand waving from me it's because it's deserved.

j.r.

LOL

No.

Your arguments have been an utter failure, have convinced no one, and are built on your own personal bizarre interpretations and definitions of ufology and pseudoscience that no one else here buy, that are clearly built to support your own beliefs, and that I would bet no one outside of you and other similarly deluded pseudoscience supporters agree with.

We all can see through your b*******.

 

[carlitos]

Anyone who actually reads the thread with a fair minded approach can see that my case is far superior than that of the skeptics, so if there's any hand waving from me it's because it's deserved.

No.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Again all I see in the quote referenced above are misrepresentations, exaggerations, out of context quotes and proclaimations rather than genuine fair minded rebuttals on the points made.

I'll also point out that the quote on my speculation for antigravity propulsion as a possible means of dampening a sonic boom was asked for twice by the skeptics after I made specific comments that it represents only an armchair opinion and not science. I also warned that eliciting my informal opinion so that it could be used out of context elsewhere would not be wise. The fact that it was done reveals the corrupt tactics used here. I was deliberately baited and then quoted out of context later ... this deceit should speak to how much anyone can trust what is said here by such posters.

j.r.

Can you point them out for us rather then Just proclaiming as you say?

 

[I Am He]

Anyone who actually reads the thread with a fair minded approach can see that my case is far superior than that of the skeptics, so if there's any hand waving from me it's because it's deserved.

j.r.

What?? You have said nothing a all that makes any sense what so ever. Every question about pseudoscience that has been asked you you have not given a coherent reply to. You go into your bobbin and weaving act mixed in with your tap dancing routine on every one of them. Anyone who reads your posts with a fair mind can see right through you and your dodging tactics and if you can't see that I think you should seriously seek some help.


I Am He

 

[ufology]

Newest Ufology Culture

Oh by the way I just enjoyed a diversion into some some light hearted ufology culture ... a little flick called Paul ... too bad you guys can't lighten up.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

What?? You have said nothing a all that makes any sense what so ever. Every question about pseudoscience that has been asked you you have not given a coherent reply to. You go into your bobbin and weaving act mixed in with your tap dancing routine on every one of them. Anyone who reads your posts with a fair mind can see right through you and your dodging tactics and if you can't see that I think you should seriously seek some help.


I Am He

The above poster doesn't think that quoting 4 ( four ) independent definitions, including the Skeptic's Dictionary is providing a coherent answer ... doesn't see that the actual state of modern ufology has been compared to that definition and it doesn't fit ... yet says I'm the one who's "tap dancing" ... then goes on to provide no constuctive input of their own while asserting that I'm the one who "needs help". Perhaps I should ask ... what help exactly do you think I need?

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Can you point them out for us rather then Just proclaiming as you say?

My post said, "the quote above", how much closer should I have pointed than to the direct quote I had included with my post? To trace it back further from there, just keep following the quoted links. Here was where I restated my case last: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

As was indicated, my post said, "the quote above", how much closer should I have pointed than to the direct quote I had included with my post? To trace it back further from there, just keep following the quoted links. Here was where I restated my case last: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7464884&postcount=1840

j.r.

Well then your case is wrong.

When a whole field aka UFOlogy has as it's base that an unknown is invading or zipping around the sky without fear. Is that pseudoscience? YES Are ufologists watching the sky for UFOs?

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.

Yes that's fiction not something saying it's a science or that it uses scientific methods in it's research.

A large portion of published ufology ( books, videos, articles ) are simply collections of personal experiences explored by an author or film maker for the public at large ( not for scientists ). They don't call themselves science, don't present themselves as science nor format themselves in any way to come across as science, and therefore they don't meet the first most important critereon for conforming to the definition of pseudoscience ... That they be presented as science.

That's terrible what about Stanton T. Friedman's book about Betty and Barny Hill? What about all these books about how these crafts fly? Or are you just going to willfully ignore those?

Advocating the use of science to study UFOs is not the same as calling ufology a science unto itself. Therefore things like the MUFON motto don't apply to field as a whole, but only to the scientific study of UFOs themselves. Context is also important in that simply because someone might use an actual scientific study as a point of reference, does not make an entire informal book or presentation into a science project.

They call it ufology if they aren't calling it a science then why call it ufology you know it's kinda like biology which is a science. Also your point that they are advocating the use of science to study UFOs is the same as saying it's a science.

I find it utterly amazing that you do all this mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible position.

 

[Pixel42]

Is it possible to add a poll to an existing thread?

I'd be curious to know if ufology's conviction that the argument he's made on this thread is convincing has any more basis in fact than his others convictions.