Not so fast. You should get your facts straight if you don't want to do pseudoscience.
Your error no.1: This thread is about pseudoscience, critical thinking and UFOlogy. So, its a good place to discuss issues related to evidence, evidence gathering, evidence evaluation, the conclusions built over it and how these conclusions were built among other things. This is where the boundaries between pseudoscience and science are drawn.
Your error no.2: You should have written "I don't have reliable evidence" instead of "I don't have objective physical empirical evidence that can be put to the test under the scientific method".
Your error no.3: Reliable evidence is not necessarily of physical nature (like a flying saucer or an alien); it might as well come as imagery (from a reliable source and preferentially sharp, detailed) for example.
Your error no.4: No skeptic will actually "deny that alien craft exist". The universe is a big place, after all. What we actually say is that there are no reliable pieces of evidence that alien craft are at the root of UFO phenomena. We say there's no good reason to believe alien craft are visiting Earth and causing parts of the UFO phenomena.
Now, the MUFON folks at UFOhunters displayed what they claim to be bonna fide physical evidence of UFOs. You say you don't think such thing is available. So, are they fooling people? Are they mistaken? Are they doing pseudoscience?
Again, what about UFOlogists talking about links between UFOs and energy vortexes, time and faster-than-light travels, magnetic fields, radiation, paralell universes, wormholes, portals, convergent evolution, plasma, holograms, etc.? Are they doing pseudoscience or just outright fiction or crackpottery?
Regarding Above: "Reliable evidence is not necessarily of physical nature (like a flying saucer or an alien); it might as well come as imagery (from a reliable source and preferentially sharp, detailed) for example."
Apparently the poster above is then less skeptical than I am. I don't think videotaped images prove anything. They are just pictures. Perhaps a live feed of some kind might prove
something, but only if it can be shown that the live feed is verifiable by independent civilians. But even then, all it amounts to are
images on a monitor of some kind. Pixels of color and luminosity on a matrix. There's no physical proof. However I would be inclined to think it would be
reasonable evidence ... but not much more reasonable than an Air Force pilot's account of his pursuit of a flying saucer in broad daylight.
So far as I'm concerned, real material objective physical evidence that can be studied using the scientific method is the best you can get. If you want to start accepting less based on what you think is reasonable, then things aren't so clear-cut anymore. That's the realm I live in constantly with ufology, and it's why, contrary to the skeptical opinion, that I think reliable eye-witnesses are the best evidence we have. Hoaxed videos are so easy to make now that I don't even bother keeping up with them. Also, because we are out of the loop where the military is concerned, we don't have access to unsanitized, unfiltered data, or access to equipment. So we're down to civilian accounts ... everyday people. Their reports are complicated further by the fact that modern technology has become so amazing that it's getting harder and harder to differentiate extraordinary sightings from what we could conceivably have created ourselves. But once in a while you'll get a really good account, and they're worth waiting for.
Regarding what the MUFON and UFO hunter people regard as objective physical evidence. Perhaps they do have something that can be studied empirically, but all that proves it that they have some odd metal fragments. It doesn't prove where they originated. I don't think they can draw the conclusion that it came from an alien craft.
Regarding the supposition that, "No skeptic will actually 'deny that alien craft exist'." I wouldn't be so sure
all skeptics won't deny that alien craft exist. Perhaps the poster really means "No true skeptic". In this regard I'm most impressed with Robo's constant insistence on the "null hypothesis". He has stated that from his perspective, UFOs ( alien craft visiting Earth ) could exist, but that their existence still needs to be proven. So he's reserved judgement pending "falsification" of his "null hypothesis". It's not the way I look at the issue, but at least his point of view is logically coherent.
Q: Are Ufologists doing pseudoscience when they are talking about links between UFOs and energy vortexes, time and faster-than-light travels, magnetic fields, radiation, paralell universes, wormholes, portals, convergent evolution, plasma, holograms, etc.?
A: It depends on whether or not they are talking informally with respect to the topics ( like we are now ), or whether they are presenting it as some sort of bona fide science, as in, "It's a scientific fact that UFOs come from a parallel universe." Otherwise it's just talk and I wouldn't call it crackpottery. It's all interesting and we're all entitled to explore topics we find interesting in an informal way without being persecuted, at least to the extent that we aren't hurting anyone else.
j.r.
