• 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.
Its, Goddammit. "its!"

ETA - Oh, nice job dishonestly editing the "it's" out of your post after I noted it.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
Ufology, others are filling in a bit of time while they're waiting for some evidence to be presented.

What's your excuse?
Click to expand...


Akhenaten

We're having a meaningful discussion about the evidence over on the Paracast forum. Nobody here is interested in discissing the evidence because they don't believe the available evidence even qualifies as evidence. I can't change anyone's mind about that so I'm just discussing issues related to research. If I see something I need some help debunking though, I'll be sure to ask.
 
TjW said:
Yes, that's one of the things that makes Ufology pseudoscience. In science, understanding the process -- such as having a falsifiable null hypothesis -- is essential. Jargon can be a useful shortcut sometimes, but it's not essential.
Click to expand...

ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, there's your problem. That wasn't what was asserted at all. I have here bolded the part of my post that makes it clear that the use of jargon, by itself, is not why Ufology is pseudoscience. It's the elevation of jargon over process that makes Ufology pseudoscience.
 
TjW said:
Well, there's your problem. That wasn't what was asserted at all. I have here bolded the part of my post that makes it clear that the use of jargon, by itself, is not why Ufology is pseudoscience. It's the elevation of jargon over process that makes Ufology pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


TjW:

Sorry but again: The jargon has nothing to do with whether or not ufology is a pseudoscience. Ufology simply doesn't fit the definition of pseudoscience as pseudoscience is defined, and I've presented the evidence for that time and again. Now since you missed out on the entire debate. I'll point out that I have never claimed that instances of pseudoscience have never taken place within the field of ufology, for example orgonomy, or alien channelling, but instances within an overall field do not make the whole field a pseudoscience. I suggest you go back and review the "Is ufology Pseudoscience?" thread. It is only of peripheral interest here as it relates to part of the research side of this thread. I don't want to go over it all again here.
 
carlitos said:
ufology,

Please please please download a web browser with a spell checker.
Click to expand...


Carlitos:

I spell check after I post and usually I catch them. There is no preview mode here, so if you want to nab me on spelling wait until the editing period is over.
 
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're asserting that just because something uses jargon doesn't mean it's pseudoscience and therefore you leap to the conclusion that UFOlogy can't be pseudoscience. This is a logical fallacy (not sure which one, where is John Albert when you need him?). Inappropriate of jargon is one of the characteristics of pseudoscience, but on its own it doesn't make something pseudoscience. To quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untestable_claims
Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
Click to expand...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_misleading_language
Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways
Click to expand...
 
23_Tauri said:
You're asserting that just because something uses jargon doesn't mean it's pseudoscience and therefore you leap to the conclusion that UFOlogy can't be pseudoscience. This is a logical fallacy (not sure which one, where is John Albert when you need him?). Inappropriate of jargon is one of the characteristics of pseudoscience, but on its own it doesn't make something pseudoscience. To quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untestable_claims

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_misleading_language
Click to expand...


Tauri:

Sorry but you're still all messed up on that. The first part is correct, "... just because something uses jargon doesn't mean it's pseudoscience." The part about using that to leap to a conclusion is not what I did. The reason ufology is not a pseudoscience is posted in detail on another thread.
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

I spell check after I post and usually I catch them. There is no preview mode here, so if you want to nab me on spelling wait until the editing period is over.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean, and I'm not trying to "nab" you. Preview mode? What? When I type "discissing" I see a squiggly line under the word. When I click "Preview Post" it shows me a preview of the post.



This forum uses standard English. It's a courtesy to your fellow posters.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Tauri:

Sorry but you're still all messed up on that. The first part is correct, "... just because something uses jargon doesn't mean it's pseudoscience." The part about using that to leap to a conclusion is not what I did. The reason ufology is not a pseudoscience is posted in detail on another thread.
Click to expand...

Not one on this forum, unfortunately. On this forum there is a thread where it was definitively shown that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. You and Rramjet provided most of the evidence. You keep providing it every time you post.
 
carlitos said:
I have no idea what you mean, and I'm not trying to "catch" you. Preview mode? What? When I type "discissing" I see a squiggly line under the word. When I click "Preview Post" it shows me a preview of the post. This forum uses standard English. It's a courtesy to your fellow posters.
Click to expand...


Carlitos:

Hey wait a minute ... there is a preview mode button on this stupid thing. Stupid me for not noticing. You win this round Carlitos :mad: ( just kidding ) ... ( about being mad that is ... you still win ) ;)
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

I spell check after I post and usually I catch them. There is no preview mode here, so if you want to nab me on spelling wait until the editing period is over.
Click to expand...

Preview-Button.jpg



Maybe yours was abducted by aliens?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Not one on this forum, unfortunately. On this forum there is a thread where it was definitively shown that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience. You and Rramjet provided most of the evidence. You keep providing it every time you post.
Click to expand...


Mere unsubstantiated proclaimations.
 
ufology said:
Akhenaten

We're having a meaningful discussion about the evidence over on the Paracast forum. Nobody here is interested in discissing the evidence because they don't believe the available evidence even qualifies as evidence. I can't change anyone's mind about that so I'm just discussing issues related to research. If I see something I need some help debunking though, I'll be sure to ask.
Click to expand...

If by meaningful, you mean that a lot of believers tell each other stories to reinforce the conclusion that they've started with, that's great. We had a treehouse when we were kids and told each other ghost stories.

So, back to the topic of this thread. Did you ever find any evidence for UFOs as alien spaceships that is actual evidence to falsify the null hypothesis?

You do understand the null hypothesis now, right?
 
ufology said:
Tauri:

Sorry but you're still all messed up on that. The first part is correct, "... just because something uses jargon doesn't mean it's pseudoscience." The part about using that to leap to a conclusion is not what I did. The reason ufology is not a pseudoscience is posted in detail on another thread.
Click to expand...
But you cannot escape the fact that what you are attempting to do with the word acronym UFO is give it a completely new meaning unrelated to its common meaning. Science doesn't do this. Correo Nato gave the example of where, in geology, geologists will use the suffix 'structure' to denote that they're not talking about actual bookshelves embedded in rock strata. They don't redefine the meaning of the word 'bookshelf'. No science does this but it's what I believe you want to do with UFO.

Returning to Stray Cat's question,
Stray Cat said:
Perhaps you would be so kind as to give one single example of a word which, when used in any of the areas of; geology, astronomy or physiology (or any other science), means the opposite of what it means in general usage?
Click to expand...
 
ufology, I'm really not trying to be a prick here. Your web browser doesn't have the squiggly red lines under "proclaimations?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom