RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Are you saying that you know of captured ETs or spacecraft? Keep in mind the null hypothesis is:
"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
Are you saying that you've falsified that?
Are you saying that you know of captured ETs or spacecraft? Keep in mind the null hypothesis is:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
No I wasn't saying I've falsified anything. I'm asking Resume to explain how he knows what he said is a fact. Are you going to answer it for him?
j.r.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Oh, then you hinting that you knew something about some captured ETs or spacecraft was... what? Remember the null hypothesis.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Try to remember that mr firefly is coming from the perspective that Roswell was real, the government is probably in contact with alien races and that the US Air force has in its possession several crashed UFOs which it is reverse engineering at Hanger 18 in Area 51
of course he has evidence, it was in a book, and in some movies and someone drew some pictures,
THEY ARE ALL RELEVANT TO THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UFOLOGY
Last edited:
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
It's an undeniable fact that nobody has ever produced a captured ET or alien spacecraft for examination in any public or academic forum.
That is not to say we know for a fact that ET don't exist (science doesn't work that way, you know), but on the other hand there's absolutely no evidence to support a belief in them, either.
Which is about as close as science can come to saying, "it's not even worth bothering with."
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Hey there Mr. Albert ... forget Mr. Facts back there, let's carry on with where we were. You will notice that because of your genuine effort with the definitions, I set aside the ufology culture issue and focused on ufology studies as you wanted. I stated my case and am waiting for your response. Here's the link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7477309&postcount=2170
j.r.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Unlike ufology, the real world only has one version of the truth, which means that until the null hypothesis is falsified it's a fact, no matter who states it.
That's just one of the ways we can tell that ufology is pseudoscience.
Simples.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
How gracious of you.
You've set aside what is not part of the definition of ufology, except according to yourself, and focused on what everyone else agrees is the definition.
What a gentleman.
Last edited:
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 387
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
So it seems to me the next point of contention from our previous discussions was how to determine whether something is "presented as science."
From my point of view, any statement or idea that purports to describe the objective nature or functioning of the physical Universe is already encroaching on the realm of science. Of course that's not to say that it necessarily is science, but it could be considered as "occupying the same territory," or operating "within the jurisdiction" of science.
Of course, every ideology that concerns the nature and functioning of the physical world is not scientific. Whether or not a given statement or idea is actually scientific depends on the method by which the idea has been realized, tested and proven consistent with observable reality.
Specifically, the litmus test for science is whether it has been conceived through an informed understanding of the Universe, proven through the testing of empirical evidence, and verified through independent testing of other researchers unconnected with the original discoverer. That is the procedure which we call science.
Now, if some statement, idea or belief is promoted as being consistent with objective reality but is in fact not consistent with the proper scientific method of reasoned verification, then how do we characterize that notion?
Is it necessarily pseudoscience? Or are there other categories it can fall under?
I personally am inclined to just call a spade a spade and say that if it purports to tell us about the objective reality without properly verifying its claims, then it's 'pseudoscience".
What do you guys all think?
From my point of view, any statement or idea that purports to describe the objective nature or functioning of the physical Universe is already encroaching on the realm of science. Of course that's not to say that it necessarily is science, but it could be considered as "occupying the same territory," or operating "within the jurisdiction" of science.
Of course, every ideology that concerns the nature and functioning of the physical world is not scientific. Whether or not a given statement or idea is actually scientific depends on the method by which the idea has been realized, tested and proven consistent with observable reality.
Specifically, the litmus test for science is whether it has been conceived through an informed understanding of the Universe, proven through the testing of empirical evidence, and verified through independent testing of other researchers unconnected with the original discoverer. That is the procedure which we call science.
Now, if some statement, idea or belief is promoted as being consistent with objective reality but is in fact not consistent with the proper scientific method of reasoned verification, then how do we characterize that notion?
Is it necessarily pseudoscience? Or are there other categories it can fall under?
I personally am inclined to just call a spade a spade and say that if it purports to tell us about the objective reality without properly verifying its claims, then it's 'pseudoscience".
What do you guys all think?
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It appears that I am now being completely ignored by ufology.
Try dashing about the room in a figure-eight pattern at 25 km/sec.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
It appears that I am now being completely ignored by ufology.
I'm sorry Wollery, sometimes it just isn't meant to be.
Better you find that out now, rather than a year from now, or after realizing you've wasted 5 or even 10 years with the wrong pseudoscientist.
There are plenty of fish in the sea. Another one will come along soon enough. You just put on a brave face, get back out there and hit that woo scene like it's never been hit before! Just get out there and have some fun!
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
you started off ignoring the facts,
now you're ignoring their anthropomorphic Master
you must be one of the facts familyIt appears that I am now being completely ignored by ufology.
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
I'm a third cousin on Auntie Edna's side. We're the awkward truths branch of the family.you started off ignoring the facts,
now you're ignoring their anthropomorphic Master
you must be one of the facts family
Seriously, you do realise anyone reading these posts is also capable of reading the rest of the thread?
Produce one of these items please. Falsify Robo's hypothesis please. Do something besides relate anecdotes please.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
To tell the truth, it sounds a lot like religion. Or just 'delusion'.
If I was a ufologist I think I'd be copping it sweet with 'pseudoscience' in preference to a lot of other, less complimentary descriptions that could be applied.
Yep. Setting aside all the silly claims to include TV, movies and other peripheral stuff, pseudoscience comes closer than anything.
An explanation without content. I like that description.