UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

The above included the quote: "It's argument by redefinition: you don't like the points people are making against you? Just redefine the words to mean something different."

Exactly how could I redefine the official definition when it was created before I was born? The official definition is quoted from official USAF files and they were the ones who created the word. I didn't redefine anything. What is the matter with you people?

Which bit of "This isn't the USAF Department of Flying Saucers in 1958, it's an internet forum in 2011" is giving you the most trouble?

Does that help?

 

[Resume]

The above included the quote: "It's argument by redefinition: you don't like the points people are making against you? Just redefine the words to mean something different."

Exactly how could I redefine the official definition when it was created before I was born? The official definition is quoted from official USAF files and they were the ones who created the word. I didn't redefine anything. What is the matter with you people?

U nidentified F lying O bject. What is the matter with you?

 

[AdMan]

The above included the quote: "It's argument by redefinition: you don't like the points people are making against you? Just redefine the words to mean something different."

Exactly how could I redefine the official definition when it was created before I was born? The official definition is quoted from official USAF files and they were the ones who created the word. I didn't redefine anything. What is the matter with you people?

Have you contacted MUFON asking them this and letting them know they should correct their definition?

 

[ufology]

Good for you.

Now if only you'd direct the same level of diligence at educating yourself in the practices of critical analysis and informal logic, we'd all be a lot better off.

In these discussions, ufology, you often make a particular point of evoking "context." Similarly, the point we've all been trying to make is one of context.

This is not the year 1958, and as far as I know, none of us are engaged in the official study of UFOlogy on commission from the United States Air Force under Project Blue Book. Such a situation is an example of a particular context.

Here's another, quite different context. The current year is 2011. February 5, 1958 was over 53½ years ago. Project Blue Book no longer exists.

Within our current context, the Cold War-era acronym "UFO" has long since entered the popular lexicon, and everybody understands exactly what one means when one invokes the term "UFO." There's simply no need, nor any justification to revert back to some archaic, disused military designation. Consequently, the "official" Project Blue Book definition is an irrelevant anachronism in the context of our current discussion.

As others have already pointed out, using that definition not only confuses matters, but it opens up a lexical gap which would require the creation of some new term to describe any unrecognized objects a person might see up in the sky (unidentified flying objects, natch), which are precisely the phenomenon the term "UFO" was originally coined to represent.

So, to avoid all that utter and complete nonsense, we're going with the standard definition of "UFO," the one literally represented by the words designated in the acronym itself.

UFO == "Unidentified Flying Object"

Period.

Any further attempts at changing this very obvious definition will be regarded as a dishonest attempt to obfuscate literal meaning through the logical fallacy of redefinition.

Mr. Albert:

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that are being referenced historically and today. I have not redefined anything and your continued threats to level accusations of dishonesty are nothing more than slanderous innuendo.

 

[ufology]

Does that help?

The above poster had quoted another poster as part of his response: To quote:

Which bit of "This isn't the USAF Department of Flying Saucers in 1958, it's an internet forum in 2011" is giving you the most trouble?

===========================================

RESPONSE:

Carlitos:

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that were being referenced then as they are today. Therefore, how old that definition is is not relevant . What part about that don't you get?

 

[AdMan]

The above poster had quoted another poster as part of his response: To quote:

Which bit of "This isn't the USAF Department of Flying Saucers in 1958, it's an internet forum in 2011" is giving you the most trouble?

===========================================

RESPONSE:

Carlitos:

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that were being referenced then as they are today. Therefore, how old that definition is is not relevant . What part about that don't you get?

Why is one of the world's largest and oldest ufology organizations not using your definition, if it is supposedly so plain to everyone that it is correct?

Have you contacted MUFON to tell them the definition they are using is incorrect and not relevant? What was their response?

 

[ufology]

No, you're just being dishonest by using the logical fallacy of redefinition of terms. Everyone here (and everyone who googles your name and organization) can see it clearly. UFO means "unidentified flying object." Your "area of study" is pseudoscience. Your continued dishonest debating tactics are not going unnoticed.

on edit - I'm being serious. If you want to talk about aliens in flying saucers, just say so. Lots of people do this. What is the problem?

Carlitos, you are mistaken if you think that everyone agrees with your position or that everyone who runs across the slanderous innuendos you are creating in an effort to disparage my name on Google thinks I am deserving of such poor treatment. In my view you are doing nothing but destroying the reputation of the JREF with your tactics. Please stop.

 

[Marduk]

Mr. Albert:

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that are being referenced historically and today. I have not redefined anything and your continued threats to level accusations of dishonesty are nothing more than slanderous innuendo.

really, one would think people are alien to the term "common usage", lets take the example of the word "Alien" itself, if you were using it before 1944 it just meant "foreigner", if you are using it after 1944 it meant "foreigner" or "extra terrestrial"

by your standard you are saying that we should only use it to refer to people from different countries and never to refer to extra terrestrials as the person who made that link was a sci fi author and not qualified to speak on the matter

Basically, by insisting that people use a favourite definition you are mocking the rules of language, which always defines a word as it is understood by the most people using it

so for any definition an up to date dictionary is the only correct source, as we are using English then we have a choice between two standards, firstly the oxford dictionary which defines ufo as

a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

or secondly the cambridge dictionary which defines the word as

an object seen in the sky which is thought to be a spacecraft from another planet

these are definitions only as the word is understood in common usage, wether the common usage has any relevance to the existence of extra terrestrials is another matter completely and must be decided on a case by case basis, which if you think about it logically makes the word itself completely superfluous as the second something is identified as "Alien" it receives a new name.

whats really important is the quality of evidence used to come to such a conclusion, and you my friend don't have any

Carlitos, you are mistaken if you think that everyone agrees with your position or that everyone who runs across the slanderous innuendos you are creating in an effort to disparage my name on Google thinks I am deserving of such poor treatment. In my view you are doing nothing but destroying the reputation of the JREF with your tactics. Please stop.

non sequiteur, (to quote an alien probe), the impression that anyone would get from google is that you are wasting your time arguing an erroneous point rather than getting on with your claimed agenda, in effect anyone would think that you (and a few others) are not interested in the facts because they find endless childish squabbling far more worthy of your valuable time, you are also emulating Rramjets opinion in claiming the JREF is responsible for the opinions expressed by private individuals posting here, thats a poor mans conspiracy theory and you know it

 

[AdMan]

whats really important is the quality of evidence used to come to such a conclusion, and you my friend don't have any

And this is why he needs to argue by choosing his own meanings for words, so that we end up uselessly arguing about semantics.

He wouldn't need to resort to this if he had any actual evidence to present.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos, you are mistaken if you think that everyone agrees with your position or that everyone who runs across the slanderous innuendos you are creating in an effort to disparage my name on Google thinks I am deserving of such poor treatment. In my view you are doing nothing but destroying the reputation of the JREF with your tactics. Please stop.

No thanks. I think that exposing dishonest debating tactics, manipulative covert-aggressive personality disorder tactics (like your claiming victimhood) and exposing pseudoscience are among the primary missions of the JREF.

Where could someone look to find the definition of slander, just out of curiosity? Are there PDFs of secret ABA memos from the 50's, is it Black's Law Dictionary, your website? What's the deal?

 

[ufology]

And this is why he needs to argue by choosing his own meanings for words, so that we end up uselessly arguing about semantics.

He wouldn't need to do this if he had any actual evidence to present.[/quote}


Adman:

You continue to misrepresent my position. Again, it was the USAF who created the word UFO and the definition. I am merely quoting it as it appeared in the official USAF regulation. So please stop making false claims that I am choosing my "own" meanings.

As for semantics, such is the way we communicate what we mean. I choose to use more precise meanings in the context they were created for, while the skeptics here use popular watered down out of context versions to support their misleading positions.

Clearly it would be wiser to adopt the correct terminology in a discussion about a given topic. Why are skeptics here so opposed to doing so? Instead they offer no meaningful reasoning and defer to hand waving and name calling ... even character attacks intended to disparage my name on Google. Excuse me but such behavior is disgraceful.

 

[carlitos]

Again, it was the USAF who created the word UFO and the definition. I am merely quoting it as it appeared in the official USAF regulation. So please stop making false claims that I am choosing my "own" meanings.

As for semantics, such is the way we communicate what we mean. I choose to use more precise meanings in the context they were created for, while the skeptics here use popular watered down out of context versions to support their misleading positions.

(blah blah blah)

Liar. Words mean what they mean. Your dishonest, cowardly evasions of my earlier questions about the etymology of the words "gay" and "faggot" were missed by no one.

 

[AdMan]

Adman:

You continue to misrepresent my position. Again, it was the USAF who created the word UFO and the definition. I am merely quoting it as it appeared in the official USAF regulation. So please stop making false claims that I am choosing my "own" meanings.

As for semantics, such is the way we communicate what we mean. I choose to use more precise meanings in the context they were created for, while the skeptics here use popular watered down out of context versions to support their misleading positions.

Clearly it would be wiser to adopt the correct terminology in a discussion about a given topic. Why are skeptics here so opposed to doing so? Instead they offer not meaningful reasoning and defer to hand waving and name calling ... even character attacks intended to disparage my name on Google. Excuse me but such behavior is disgraceful.

We are using the word as defined in most if not all modern dictionaries, Wikipedia, and by most ufologists including the Mutual UFO Network, J. Allen Hynek, etc., etc.

You, on the other hand, have gone back to a definition in a document that is over 50 years old. Even Ruppelt admits that the term "unidentified flying object" was used years before he "created" it, and yes, the word "unidentified" had a purpose and a meaning. Even if you choose to ignore it.

So, yes, you are choosing a definition to suit your purposes. That is dishonest.

 

[Toke]

And this is why he needs to argue by choosing his own meanings for words, so that we end up uselessly arguing about semantics.

He wouldn't need to resort to this if he had any actual evidence to present.

What?

Are you talking about evidence for flying saucers?
If so, well yes he have been rather miserly with that.
I wonder why?

 

[John Albert]

The confusion is occurring in the usage of the the word UFO as defined within the context of its area of study.

Yet another lie shamelessly promoted by Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International" on an open Internet forum. You'd think he would have learned his lesson by now.

In the above quote, the founder and proprietor of "Ufology Society International" dishonestly misrepresents an obscure, obsolete definition of the acronym "UFO" from a 1958 USAF memo as if it's the standard definition that all UFOlogists use by consensus. The reality of the situation is that Mr. J Randall Murphy's preferred definition is not significant to UFOlogy or any field whatsoever, unless you happen to be a USAF researcher for Project Blue Book between the months of February 1958 and February 1959.

Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International" is promoting this obscure definition of the acronym "UFO" in lieu of the far more self-explanatory "unidentified flying object" for the specific reason of obfuscating the argument with false allegations and nonsensical claims.

So if one is to suggest that a null hypothesis to be used ( even though such would be pseudoscientific with respect to ufology ), then it should use the terms as defined within the context they are meant to be used.

A null hypothesis must be used, if you intend to avoid the practice of pseudoscience.

Failure to use a proper, falsifiable null hypothesis (or using a non-falsifiable, pseudoscientific one instead) would mean pretending to do science without adhering to the proper logical procedure. In other words, it would be pseudoscience.

Again, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International" attempts to utilize dishonest redefinitions of terms to derail the discussion and avoid addressing the many logical and factual errors inherent in his position.

 

[Marduk]

okay, lets ask a real expert

A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object which has been identified as a
possible or actual alien spacecraft.

this was written by Dirk Biddle bbsc, a genuine ufologist who has published papers on the subject
is he wrong as well ?

 

[Toke]

okay, lets ask a real expert

A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object which has been identified as a
possible or actual alien spacecraft.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/UFO_Critical_Analysis.pdf

this was written by Dirk Biddle bbsc, a genuine ufologist who has published papers on the subject
is he wrong as well ?

I suspect you got it the wrong way around, although Dirk Biddle is a obviously well accredited flying-saucerologist it looks like he categorically rejects the above statement on UFOs being by default aliens. (and, no it does not support ufology either)
(the paper in the link is a bit unclear on who is the sceptic and who is the author.)

 

[Marduk]

I suspect you got it the wrong way around

suspect all you like, but unless you have read one of Mr Biddles early 2008 mails to me, how could you know

I am aware that he says exactly the opposite in his paper, theres a word for that
starts with an "H"

Funny thing, last time I posted that to Mr Biddle at this forum he went on the rampage and ended up getting himself suspended, but at no time did he deny saying it
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?p=7451974&highlight=dirk+biddle#post7451974

 

[Toke]

I am suitable spanked and admit my inexperience in flying-saucerology.

Guess I should just stick to the null hypothesis and assume that those unidentified lights in the sky is something mundane.
(Ok, I am a bit sore but then again, it could be me walking into the wrong bar, were those really girls?)

 

[John Albert]

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that are being referenced historically and today. I have not redefined anything and your continued threats to level accusations of dishonesty are nothing more than slanderous innuendo.

It's not slander, nor is it libel. You are being dishonest and I am pointing out that fact, as I am well within my legal rights to do.

That definition you're promoting is an archaic one that is no longer in use by anyone but yourself, yet here you are trying to impose it on us.

That definition is not, as you dishonestly claim, an accepted, standardized definition within the study of UFOlogy. Your own personal website is the only UFOlogy "authority" that promotes it as a general definition.

As I have already pointed out:

MUFON (the world's oldest and largest UFOlogy organization) defines a UFO thus:

In strictest terms, a UFO is just that - an apparent unidentified flying object, origin unknown. The best scientifically accepted definition of a UFO is probably that provided by the late astronomer J. Allen Hynek, who said that the UFO is simply "the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." (The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.)

http://www.mufon.com/FAQs.html#Q1


So you see, your arcane, obsolete USAF definition is not even agreed upon by the world's leading UFOlogy organization, let alone a consensus within the "field" of UFOlogy.

You're not fooling us for a second with all this doubletalk, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of "Ufology Society International."

Therefore your allegation is a bald-faced lie, asserted on your own misplaced authority.

There is nothing illegal, improper, or immoral about pointing that out.

Furthermore it is perfectly acceptable for poeple who study things to define their own words

How many terms or words do your "studies" require unique definitions for?

So far: UFO, anecdote, claim, evidence, psuedo, skeptic . . . it's begining to sound like the Tower of Babel around here.

Also ufology, science and pseudoscience. ETA: And null hypothesis.

It's argument by redefinition: you don't like the points people are making against you? Just redefine the words to mean something different.

It's quite obvious and disingenuous, really. And not very effective.

Don't forget "critical thinking," "proof," and above all, "truth."

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

As if anyone needed any further proof that J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of "Ufology Society International" is incapable of intellectual honesty, at least where the subject of UFOs is concerned.