Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[R.A.F.]

Everyone is entitled to their informal opinions.

But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

The study of non-existent aliens is pseudo-science. It doesn't matter that you don't agree as it is obvious that your opinion is a biased, uninformed opinion.

Knowing that we know this, why would you further embarrass yourself by continuing??

 

[R.A.F.]

...not in a derogatory sense...

Why not? intentional liars deserve what they get...yourself included.

 

[R.A.F.]

Ya know, even if we were to totally agree that UFOlogy is a science, it would in no way change the fact that there is no credible evidence for the idea of alien visitation.

So, again...what was the point of this thread??

 

[RoboTimbo]

This wasn't an informal opinion.

And because UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spaceships), and UFOlogy starts with their conclusion that UFOs are alien spaceships, then UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. Looking at MUFON's and USI's websites, we can see that they even want to appear scientific. Burying your head in the sand and plugging your ears won't make that go away.


No, it really doesn't hurt science's feelings that UFOlogy is a known pseudoscience. Why would you think it did? Beginning with your conclusion that UFOs are alien spaceships and pretending to use science to study them makes it pseudoscience.


No harm will be done by UFOlogy continuing to be known as a pseudoscience, just like homeopathy and astrology are. When UFOlogists continue to claim that they support the scientific method to prove their conclusion that UFOs are alien spaceships, that pretty well cements it that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.


No, in spite of your attempts at redefinition, UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spaceships) and it matches the definition of pseudoscience. It begins with its conclusion that UFOs are alien spaceships, it attempts to pretend to use science to study anecdotes, and it has accomplished nothing in the last 60 years. The very definition of pseudoscience.

You just can't get away from it. UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

Nor have you addressed it or the flaws in your arguments.

ufology, being known as a pseudoscience, do you think UFOlogy will attempt to raise its game? Can you point to any study of UFOs (as alien spaceships) that is no longer pseudoscience? A good start would be if UFOlogy adopted a falsifiable null hypothesis such as:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

You've run away from choosing to adopt such a null hypothesis, confirming that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. Will you be reconsidering that position soon?

 

[Aepervius]

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

You've run away from chosing to adopt such a null hypothesis, confirming that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. Will you be reconsidering that position soon?

Probably not. You can't reason somebody out of a conclusion they did not reason them in using rationality and logic.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Probably not. You can't reason somebody out of a conclusion they did not reason them in using rationality and logic.

So his claim to want to meet skeptics half way just meant that he wanted them to believe his flying saucery story? He had no intention of even trying to think more rationally?

 

[John Albert]

I respect that Mr. Albert has a personal inclination to impart a quick judgement based on loose definitions and probably basic common sense, as he says "call a spade a spade".

It's not a "quick judgment," and it's not "based on loose definitions."

The phrase, "call a spade a spade" does not mean "jump to a conclusion." It means to describe something honestly and straightforwardly without reservations.

However with respect to the bottom line of this thread, "Is Ufology a Pseudoscience?", we need to be more precise. Not anything merely promoted as being "consistent with objective reality" is applicable. The interpretation is unbalanced. The idea that the proper scientific method should be used is fine, so to be balanced, one would need to say, "promoted as using the proper scientific method, but isn't consistent with the proper scientific method."

NO, all that is necessary for pseudoscience is for its claims to be presented as science; in other words, as an objective fact (or as you're fond of saying, as "the truth") along with some pretense of research, or explanation by way of a scientific-sounding mechanism. The lack of proper methodology is what differentiates the two.

For example, when a practitioner of TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) invokes the existence of undetectable, immeasurable chi "energy fields" to explain his techniques, that is pseudoscience. When a bigfoot researcher presents a plaster casting of a footprint, that's another example of pseudoscience because it involves the promotion of spurious "evidence" as proof. Likewise, when a UFOlogist claims that UFOs make no noise because they employ anti-gravity propulsion mechanisms that hold the air molecules in stasis around them, that is pseudoscience.

Merely expressing our informal opinions doesn't count.

You seem to be somewhat confused about the difference between opinion and fact. When you make a categorical statement about the state or function of the objective Universe, that statement is going to fall into either one of two categories: proven fact, or unsupported opinion. The former is the realm of science; the latter is the realm of pseudoscience.

We experience things regularly that are objectively real and surely we are free to share our experiences with our fellow human beings without being grouped under some derogatory label, whether we can scientifically prove them or not. We are also encouraged to share and discuss our opinions in an open and friendly manner without similar persecution.

There you go again with that typical pseudoscientist's persecution complex. Nobody here argued that sharing your experiences is forbidden. It's when you make these jumps to the conclusion of ET (or other "paranormal" causes) with no evidence to back them up, that you start engaging in pseudoscience. If you don't like the so-called derogatory label of "pseudoscience," then all you have to do is simply avoid engaging in pseudoscience and you won't receive that label any more.

And we must be free to informally study the world around us and come to our own decisions without being accused of attempting to do science when we're not

Before you can even begin to study the world around you, you need to learn the proper methods of study. If you mean to study the physical Universe, then you must employ science or else you're not conducting real study at all but merely pretend study, ie. pseudoscience.

Of course, you're free to "informally study" anything you want. Nobody's stopping you. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that your "informal" studies constitute anything more than pseudoscience, or expect your work to ever gain the respect of real scientists.

otherwise what is happening is prejudice and a suppression of our right to personal inquiry, all in the name of science, and that would hurt the reputation of science.

There you go again with more of that persecution complex thing again, a well-recognized hallmark of pseudoscience.

 

[Aepervius]

So his claim to want to meet skeptics half way just meant that he wanted them to believe his flying saucery story? He had no intention of even trying to think more rationally?

This is naturally *ONLY* my opinion, and in no way meant as an attack to Ufology (the forum user), but the way he is here , he Seems to be here to do proselythism with his faith, in the same exact manner as DOC and other believer come here. Really, the ressemblance is *striking* in my eye.

 

[ufology]

... all that is necessary for pseudoscience is for its claims to be presented as science; in other words, as an objective fact (or as you're fond of saying, as "the truth") along with some pretense of research, or explanation by way of a scientific-sounding mechanism.

NOTE: Use the link in this quote to view entire quoted content.

The above is not correct ... presenting something as science doesn't mean simply presenting it as an objective fact. To be be presented as science it must either make the statement that it is science or that it follows the scientific method through the use of accepted scientific practises and standards such as controlled and repeatable experiments with objective empirical evidence ... that's science.

As explained before, the quote above is an imbalance in the logic used to defend a biased opinion based on personal notions like "calling a spade a spade", when in fact they are not calling a "spade a spade", they are saying the mere opinion that something is an objective fact is the same as science ... sorry but it doesn't wash.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

NOTE: Use the link in this quote to view entire quoted content.

What's this nonsense all about then?

 

[John Albert]

The above is not correct ... presenting something as science doesn't mean simply presenting it as an objective fact. To be be presented as science it must either make the statement that it is science or that it follows the scientific method through the use of accepted scientific practises and standards such as controlled and repeatable experiments with objective empirical evidence ... that's science.

As explained before, the quote above is an imbalance in the logic used to defend a biased opinion based on personal notions like "calling a spade a spade", when in fact they are not calling a "spade a spade", they are saying the mere opinion that something is an objective fact is the same as science ... sorry but it doesn't wash.

Again, you cherry-picked out part of my statement and ignored the other part.

...all that is necessary for pseudoscience is for its claims to be presented as science; in other words, as an objective fact (or as you're fond of saying, as "the truth") along with some pretense of research, or explanation by way of a scientific-sounding mechanism. The lack of proper methodology is what differentiates the two.

For example, when a practitioner of TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) invokes the existence of undetectable, immeasurable chi "energy fields" to explain his techniques, that is pseudoscience. When a bigfoot researcher presents a plaster casting of a footprint, that's another example of pseudoscience because it involves the promotion of spurious "evidence" as proof. Likewise, when a UFOlogist claims that UFOs make no noise because they employ anti-gravity propulsion mechanisms that hold the air molecules in stasis around them, that is pseudoscience.

See?

Presented as science means it is presented as an objective fact, backed up by some spurious proof or unsupported claim of a scientific-sounding mechanism.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is not correct ... presenting something as science doesn't mean simply presenting it as an objective fact. To be be presented as science it must either make the statement that it is science or that it follows the scientific method through the use of accepted scientific practises and standards such as controlled and repeatable experiments with objective empirical evidence ... that's science.

Then the USI and MUFON websites, who specifically call for the use of the scientific method, are responsible for UFOlogy being a pseudoscience? Claiming to use science but using unfalsifiable and unrepeatable anecdotes to arrive at your foregone conclusion is pseudoscience. Like UFOlogy.

As explained before, the quote above is an imbalance in the logic used to defend a biased opinion based on personal notions like "calling a spade a spade", when in fact they are not calling a "spade a spade", they are saying the mere opinion that something is an objective fact is the same as science ... sorry but it doesn't wash.

j.r.

No, you have asserted it before. There is no imbalance in the logic. Why do you continue to say so?

UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spaceships). They use unfalsifiable anecdotes to validate to themselves their conclusion of aliens. That's pseudoscience. No matter how you want to whitewash it, it's pseudoscience.

 

[John Albert]

So, ufology, I take it you're just going to ignore my last post?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Yes, that's his/her speciality. As well as lying about what others said and then ignoring corrections. This one is a lost cause, stuck in a circular whirlpool of nonsense.

 

[ufology]

Presented as science means it is presented as an objective fact, backed up by some spurious proof or unsupported claim of a scientific-sounding mechanism.

The above is not correct. Only science is science and the above definition of science is merely an opinion, although "scientific sounding" goes a little further than before. But it's still not good enough.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is not correct. Only science is science and the above definition of science is merely an opinion.

j.r.

That's why UFOlogy is not science. It merely purports to be. See the USI and MUFON websites. They are actually pseudoscience. UFOlogy is the study of UFOs (as alien spaceships) and it begins with its conclusion and uses unfalsifiable anecdotes to justify its pre-determined conclusion to itself.

How is that not pseudoscience?

 

[John Albert]

The above is not correct. Only science is science and the above definition of science is merely an opinion, although "scientific sounding" goes a little further than before. But it's still not good enough.

What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense.

I'm saying that pseudoscience is something presented as scientific but doesn't adhere to the proper practice of science. "Presented as scientific" means it contains the trappings of science—in other words, purporting to present evidence and/or scientific-sounding "theory"—without adhering to the actual practice of science.

What is so difficult to understand about that? I even presented examples of pseudoscience to make things even clearer:

For example, when a practitioner of TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) invokes the existence of undetectable, immeasurable chi "energy fields" to explain his techniques, that is pseudoscience. When a bigfoot researcher presents a plaster casting of a footprint, that's another example of pseudoscience because it involves the promotion of spurious "evidence" as proof. Likewise, when a UFOlogist claims that UFOs make no noise because they employ anti-gravity propulsion mechanisms that hold the air molecules in stasis around them, that is pseudoscience.

The above is a definition of "pseudoscience" that fits in with its common usage in the English language and adequately describes all practices commonly referred to as "pseudoscience."

If you think that definition is wrong, then why don't you present your own definition along with an explanation of your interpretation and some examples, just as I did?

As expected, we're back to mincing words again.

 

[ufology]

I'm saying that pseudoscience is something presented as scientific but doesn't adhere to the proper practice of science. "Presented as scientific" means it contains the trappings of science—in other words, purporting to present evidence and/or scientific-sounding "theory"—without adhering to the actual practice of science.

The above still doesn't hit the mark. I'm fine with the part, "pseudoscience is something presented as scientific but doesn't adhere to the proper practice of science." and that "Presented as scientific" means it contains the trappings of science ..." but, it's this "in other words" part that I have the problem with, to continue the quote; "in other words, purporting to present evidence and/or scientific-sounding "theory", without adhering to the actual practice of science."

What would be more accurate would be to say, "in other words, claiming to adhere to the scientific method without adhering to accepted scientific standards." Why? Because merely expressing informal opinions with "scientific-sounding" theory isn't good enough. We can all do that. It isn't pseudoscience until you call your "scientific-sounding" theory actual science.

So what happens if you don't outright call it science? How far does it have to go before it becomes pseudoscience? This is perhaps the real crux of the issue.

I contend that one needs to do more than just study it informally or share opinions. For example saying, "I think UFOs are real" isn't pseudoscience. Neither would writing an informal study on the topic of UFOs in which such informal opinions are expressed and backed up with information and statistics from historical cases. Even genuine science can be used to back up informal opinions. For example, if an astronomer rules out the planet Venus as a possible explanation for a sighting, then it's perfectly valid to say, " An astronomer determined Venus was not in the location the object was reported, therefore the object was not Venus". However I think we cross the line if we say, "Astronomers determined the object was not Venus, therefore it was an alien spacecraft."

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

It isn't pseudoscience until you call your "scientific-sounding" theory actual science.

This is patently silly. If this were the case, then anyone could claim not to be doing pseudoscience by simply not using the word "science" in any of their work, despite using terms and tools normally associated with science in an obviously pseudoscientific way.

If I do homeopathy, and claim its virtues and how it supposedly treats diseases, and explain the mysterious ways it is supposed to work, but just don't use the word "science", then it's not pseudoscience?

No, as has been explained to you numerous times, a field does not need to claim it is a science for it to be pseudoscience. Despite how blatantly you try to defend your own brand of "ufology" through this subterfuge (and even though much of ufology does claim to be "science"), it ain't gonna fly.

Ufology is pseudoscience.

 

[John Albert]

What would be more accurate would be to say, "in other words, claiming to adhere to the scientific method without adhering to accepted scientific standards." Why? Because merely expressing informal opinions with "scientific-sounding" theory isn't good enough. We can all do that. It isn't pseudoscience until you call your "scientific-sounding" theory actual science.

Then please present some examples of fields you would consider to be pseudoscience and indicate where the practitioners "claim to adhere to the scientific method."

So what happens if you don't outright call it science? How far does it have to go before it becomes pseudoscience? This is perhaps the real crux of the issue.

I already pointed out exactly where that line is drawn: whenever somebody presents spurious "evidence" or "theories" to support their extraordinary claims, without actual scientific practices and verification to back them up.

I contend that one needs to do more than just study it informally or share opinions....

You've already told us your opinion of what doesn't constitute pseudoscience (ie. UFOlogy). You've been doing that all along throughout this entire thread. What you haven't done is give us an explanation of precisely what does constitute pseudoscience by your interpretation of the word.

So why don't you present some examples of pseudoscientific practices, to show that your definition has actual meaning? Be sure to point out in your examples precisely where the practitioners make their specific claims to following the scientific method.

If you are unwilling or unable to do this, then I shall have to conclude that you are deliberately misinterpreting the word in the interest of nullifying its meaning so it doesn't apply to any practice at all, let alone UFOlogy.