• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
First of all, nobody has made any claim that anything unkown has to be considered alien.
Click to expand...


ufology said:
In fact, the presumption only happens if you use the word UFO, because UFOs, by definition, are not mundane in the first place, and some definitions even include the presumption of an alien craft as part of the definition.
Click to expand...


Hmm.
 
Perhaps recognizing that he wasn't going to get away with redefining aliens into existence, he now chooses to accept the way everyone else defines UFO? He's acknowledging that redefining UFO is a fool's game? Just a guess.

ufology, are you giving up on your redefinition fallacy?
 
Correa Neto said:
We geologists do assign "new" meanings to words. "Bookshelf", for example and "flower" are used for a specific type of structure ("bookshelf structure" and "flower structure"). Usually people grab names from Latin or Greek. Note however the use of "structure" after the word in question.

Geology, however, is a science; it has a scientific jargon. UFOlogy, on the other hand, is a pseudoscience and has a pseudoscientific jargon ... bla bla bla
Click to expand...


Correa:

You were doing so good until you trailed off into nonsense again. Simply because ufology has it's own jargon doesn't make it a pseudoscience. Rock n' Roll has it's own jargon too ... as does art and history. You just can't help but slap the pseudoscience label on ufology because you are so programmed to do it so buy your pseudoskeptical friends that you have forgotten how to see the logic ... the actual truth of the matter. Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience. It is a simply a topic of interest that many people enjoy.
 
ufology said:
Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience. It is a simply a topic of interest that many people enjoy.
Click to expand...


Just dropped by and see that you are still trying to argue this nonsense, despite the fact your arguments were torn to shreds in the pseudoscience thread.

I'll give you one thing--you are persistent.
 
UFOlogy is definitely a pseudoscience and you prove it with every post.

Back on topic. ufology, did you finally understand the purpose and nature of a null hypothesis? Did you have someone local explain it to you or something? I'm glad that you do finally understand it. Was it the "coin into butterflies" analogy that finally got you to understand it?

So, do you think that the pseudoscience of UFOlogy should adopt a more scientific null hypothesis such as:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"?​
That might give UFOlogy some of the respectability that it is so sadly lacking right now. Then maybe UFOlogy could work on actually falsifying the null hypothesis. Wouldn't that be great?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Perhaps recognizing that he wasn't going to get away with redefining aliens into existence, he now chooses to accept the way everyone else defines UFO? He's acknowledging that redefining UFO is a fool's game? Just a guess.

ufology, are you giving up on your redefinition fallacy?
Click to expand...


Timbo:

How long are you going to pretend that you don't get it?
 
ufology said:
Correa:

You were doing so good until you trailed off into nonsense again. Simply because ufology has it's own jargon doesn't make it a pseudoscience. Rock n' Roll has it's own jargon too ... as does art and history. You just can't help but slap the pseudoscience label on ufology because you are so programmed to do it so buy your pseudoskeptical friends that you have forgotten how to see the logic ... the actual truth of the matter. Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience. It is a simply a topic of interest that many people enjoy.
Click to expand...


Why aren't you posting this rubbish in the appropriate thread?

This thread isn't for failing to defend ufology from claims that it's pseudoscience, this is the failing to produce evidence thread.

Please try and get yourself organised.
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
Just dropped by and see that you are still trying to argue this nonsense, despite the fact your arguments were torn to shreds in the pseudoscience thread.

I'll give you one thing--you are persistent.
Click to expand...


Adman:

Sorry dude but you have it the other way around. The only thing my presentation was torn apart with was desperate attempts at mockery ... well not all were desperate ... some were fairly funny ... even artful. But in the end it was I who had provided the references and logic. Grant it, sometimes artful mockery trumps references and logic ... but not enough in this case for me to conceed defeat.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Go back and tell the person who started it. Start with this guy:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7588951&postcount=12565
Click to expand...

Have you given up any pretence to a rational argument? I'm not surprised, just wanting to make sure that you understand you've had no argument. If you want to talk about the null hypothesis, just let me know.

The UFOlogy is a pseudoscience thread pretty definitively proved that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience so it's entirely appropriate to refer to it as such here.
 
ufology said:
Adman:

Sorry dude but you have it the other way around. The only thing my presentation was torn apart with was desperate attempts at mockery ... well not all were desperate ... some were fairly funny ... even artful.
Click to expand...


Your presentation, if that's what you want to call it, would be unassailable if it contained some evidence.

I won't bother asking if that tells you anything, because it obviously doesn't.


ufology said:
But in the end it was I who had provided the references and logic.
Click to expand...





ufology said:
Grant it, sometimes artful mockery trumps references and logic ... but not enough in this case for me to conceed defeat.
Click to expand...


There is no 'this case'. You don't have one.

And I'd get rid of that Uflogogese spell checker if I were you, and install an English one.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
Nothing at all. It also has this:

What ufology was doing by referring erroneously to rock 'n' roll was Affirming the consequent*

*I think, although I'm still learning the fine details of all those logical fallacies out there :)
Click to expand...


Tauri:

Cool video ... but you have misinterpreted your own reference to affirming the consequent. In fact you have it backwards and what I was doing is using the Rock n' Roll analogy to point out the exact principle:

It was asserted that jargon indicates pseudoscience. I countered by illustratiing that if it were true that anything with its own jargon such as rock n' roll, would fall into the category of pseudoscience. The fact that rock n' roll has it's own jargon and doesn't fall under pseudoscience invalidates the assertion made.

Where you went wrong is that you presumed I was making a statement that if jargon = pseudoscience and rock n' roll has jargon, therefore it must also be pseudoscience ( that would be affirming the consequent ). That is not what I did. Instead I pointed out the fallacy which is perfectly logical and reveals the error in the original assertion.

Try to get your allegations straight please if you are going to use them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom