UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

I suppose it's only fitting that a pseudo science has its own pseudo language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0LqZMsfTQ

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above poster misrepresents my position entirely. As anyone who follows the conversation will discover. Not only have I asked for skeptical input, and have noted the apparent hoaxing of the MIG UFO chase video, I've also pointed out the official USAF definition of UFO for which many mundane objects had to be ruled out before the object in a UFO report was considered to be a UFO, and I've openly advocated the use of science when possible and critical thinking when it's not possible. I've also offered a relatively mundane explanation for one of the sightings presented by another poster. Simply because I also advocate a proper understanding of the word UFO by those who use it, is in no way assuming all UFO reports are caused by UFOs.

Let's see you offer a mundane explanation for your own alleged sighting. Let's see you agree that UFO means Unidentified Flying Object and is not a synomym for "alien". If you can do neither of those things, you are a close-minded pseudoscientist.

If skeptics want to pursue the study of the phenomenon using a null hypothesis, then at least state it correctly.

It is stated correctly. Why would you think it isn't?

Because UFOs themselves, as defined, are not mundane phenomena,

Only as you define them. UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects and none of them have falsified the null hypothesis.

and UFO reports and UFOs themselves are two separate things, they could use something like: "All UFO reports stem from mundane objects or phenomena."

But we're talking about the UFOs themselves. The null hypothesis then is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

and it's never been falsified.

Even so, as I've mentioned in the past, any null hypothesis is meant to be used in a controlled experiment where probabilities can be established through repetition.

No, your null hypothesis is meant to let you think aliens are flying spaceships in our skies.

UFOs do not offer us that opportunity, so insisting on using a null hypothesis in any way other than informally, is not in keeping with standard scientific practice.

That's why we all agree that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

Yet the skeptics insist that it should be used ... are they themselves then not advocating pseudoscience?

The non-study of UFOs is a pseudoscience like atheism is a religion.

 

[Stray Cat]

The above poster again misses the context and presumes incorrectly that if he sees something in the sky and can't identify it immediately it's automatically a UFO. However that is not the case. It would be correct to say that the object is an unidentified object, light, shape or whatever in the sky ... or simply ask, "What's that thing up there?" To jump to the conclusion that it is a UFO automatically rules out a whole host of mundane objects, and as skeptics point out, that is not such a good way to start.

So you're saying that if someone sees an object flying, which they can't identify, that they can not call it an unidentified flying object?

How very bizarre.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above poster again misses the context and presumes incorrectly that if he sees something in the sky and can't identify it immediately it's automatically a UFO.

You have got to be kidding.

However that is not the case. It would be correct to say that the object is an unidentified object, light, shape or whatever in the sky ... or simply ask, "What's that thing up there?"

Have we somehow ended up in an episode of Sesame Street?

To jump to the conclusion that it is a UFO automatically rules out a whole host of mundane objects, and as skeptics point out, that is not such a good way to start.

Are you just going to pretend that the generally accepted meaning of 'unidentified' doesn't even exist any more?

Lastly, simply because the word UFO is often used as a convenience term in casual conversation, doesn't make it a correct usage, and when it is used in casual conversation the context should be clarified so as to differentiate it from what the official definition implies ... which is something alien to our civilization, knowledge or understanding. Again, in this context, the word "alien" is not synonymous with "extraterrestrial".

Poppycock.

 

[ufology]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0LqZMsfTQ

Thanks for that bit of humor ... I fully empathize ...

I didn't create the word UFO or the official definition, I just have to contend with it and I've proposed a much simpler definition based on what the official definition clearly implies and what the word UFO was meant as a replacement for in the first place.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above poster again misses the context and presumes incorrectly that if he sees something in the sky and can't identify it immediately it's automatically a UFO. However that is not the case. It would be correct to say that the object is an unidentified object, light, shape or whatever in the sky ... or simply ask, "What's that thing up there?" To jump to the conclusion that it is a UFO automatically rules out a whole host of mundane objects, and as skeptics point out, that is not such a good way to start.

The above pseudoscientist wishes that he could make his pseudoscience's language rules apply to everyone and is frustrated that he can't.

Lastly, simply because the word UFO is often used as a convenience term in casual conversation, doesn't make it a correct usage, and when it is used in casual conversation the context should be clarified so as to differentiate it from what the official definition implies ... which is something alien to our civilization, knowledge or understanding. Again, in this context, the word "alien" is not synonymous with "extraterrestrial".

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. If the above pseudoscientist is saying that in some sightings it might not be Flying (oil well fires), it might not be an object (reflection), and it might not be unidentified (hoax) then I would agree with the above pseudoscientist. If the above pseudoscientist is saying that UFO means aliens, then the above pseudoscientist is really living in a fantasy land of his own making and nobody will follow the pseudoscientist down that rabbit hole. When we use the term UFO on this forum, it means Unidentified Flying Object. If pseudoscientists mean something alien to our civilization, then those pseudoscientists need to choose a different term. UFO is already taken.

Simply put. Unless you are reasonably sure that the object you see can't be explained as a mundane object or phenomenon, you should not be calling it a UFO.

Pseudoscientists don't make the rules for rationally minded people. They don't have to agree to reality's rules. UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects.

 

[Akhenaten]

I didn't create the word UFO or the official definition, I just have to contend with it and I've proposed a much simpler definition based on what the official definition clearly implies and what the word UFO was meant as a replacement for in the first place.

Garbage. You're using UFO as an equivalent for 'flying saucer' and you want the rest of the world to start doing the same thing just so you won't be the only one out of step.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thanks for that bit of humor ... I fully empathize ...

I didn't create the word UFO or the official definition, I just have to contend with it and I've proposed a much simpler definition based on what the official definition clearly implies and what the word UFO was meant as a replacement for in the first place.

You mean where you said that "UFO" was coined to replace the words "Flying Saucer"? Did you just make that up on the spot or is it something that another pseudoscientist UFOlogist told you and you believed?

 

[John Albert]

I suppose it's only fitting that a pseudo science has its own pseudo language.

From the Wikipedia entry on Pseudoscience:

Use of misleading language

• Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO) and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.

• Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

 

[ufology]

You have got to be kidding.

Have we somehow ended up in an episode of Sesame Street?

Are you just going to pretend that the generally accepted meaning of 'unidentified' doesn't even exist any more?

Poppycock.

Obviously the above poster simply rejects the facts regarding the history and meaning of the word UFO and defers to his own bias in order to justify his offhanded comments. Is this the way to discuss research? No. Is ignoring the official terminolgy used in a subject of inquiry responsible? No. Furthermore the above poster has said that he is not a skeptic. So is his purpose merely to be a one sided heckler? That seems fairly self-evident.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Obviously the above poster simply rejects the facts regarding the history and meaning of the word UFO and defers to his own bias in order to justify his offhanded comments. Is this the way to discuss research? No. Is ignoring the official terminolgy used in a subject of inquiry responsible? No. Furthermore the above poster has said that he is not a skeptic. So is his purpose merely to be a one sided heckler? That seems fairly self-evident.

The above pseudoscientist will need to provide a link to where "UFO" was coined to replace the words "Flying Saucer".

 

[John Albert]

I can help there. I believe I created this GIF for just this thread (albeit as a result of the OP's debating technique).

Beautiful!

 

[23_Tauri]

Poppycock.

The above poster implies that the word 'poppycock' means nonsense and is interchangable with synonyms such as bladderdash and claptrap. However, if we look at the etymology of the word 'poppycock' we can see that it stems from 1865 Dutch dialect meaning 'animal faeces'.

Which is ironic, because I'm sure that's what I could smell only a minute ago.....

 

[John Albert]

The above poster is correct and clever in her assessment of the situation.

 

[Akhenaten]

Obviously the above poster simply rejects the facts regarding the history and meaning of the word UFO and defers to his own bias in order to justify his offhanded comments.

Horse feathers, ufology. I'm just one of 375 million people who have English as a first language and know exactly what UFO means.

Is this the way to discuss research?

Research what? You can't even describe what it is that we should be researching in any language that we all have in common.

No. Is ignoring the official terminolgy used in a subject of inquiry responsible?

At least I can spell terminology.

No. Furthermore the above poster has said that he is not a skeptic. So is his purpose merely to be a one sided heckler? That seems fairly self-evident.

You're as bad at running a smear campaign as you are at arguing in favour of your ridiculous definitions.

 

[ufology]

The above pseudoscientist will need to provide a link to where "UFO" was coined to replace the words "Flying Saucer".

For all the claims that you all here are so well informed about ufology, how is it that you miss the basics? Here is your reference:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BK/TRUFO/BD_001-002.htm

The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects - E.J. Ruppelt.

"I know the full story about flying saucers and I know that it has never before been told because I organized and was chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the special project set up to investigate and analyze unidentified flying object, or UFO, reports. ( UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words " flying saucers." ).

You can read a more in depth account of the Etymology here:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/UFO-01a.htm

Lastly, I kindly ask again that you stop with the personal slights. I am not a pseudoscientist. Nor am I a scientist. Thank you.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above poster implies that the word 'poppycock' means nonsense and is interchangable with synonyms such as bladderdash and claptrap. However, if we look at the etymology of the word 'poppycock' we can see that it stems from 1865 Dutch dialect meaning 'animal faeces'.

Which is ironic, because I'm sure that's what I could smell only a minute ago.....

The above poster is correct and clever in her assessment of the situation.

The above posters are so on my Christmas card list.

 

[Marduk]

Simply put. Unless you are reasonably sure that the object you see can't be explained as a mundane object or phenomenon, you should not be calling it a UFO.

so the more uneducated someone is, the more likely that something they see is a UFO
got it thanks

 

[Spektator]

(snip)

At least I can spell terminology.


(snip)

Umm...never mind. My comment would go to AAH anyway, and no, O Pharaoh, it was not aimed at you.

 

[R.A.F.]

The above poster again misses the context and presumes incorrectly that if he sees something in the sky and can't identify it immediately it's automatically a UFO. However that is not the case. It would be correct to say that the object is an unidentified object, light, shape or whatever in the sky ... or simply ask, "What's that thing up there?" To jump to the conclusion that it is a UFO automatically rules out a whole host of mundane objects, and as skeptics point out, that is not such a good way to start.

If it can't be identified immediately, THEN IT IS BY DEFINITION A UFO.

Are you really going to deny that??