• 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.
Hmm. I get the squiggly red underline for misspelling in both Safari and Chrome on the Mac, and on ie on the PC. I never "turned on" any settings; in any case, my bad for assuming that everyone else had this too. The only time I ever post typos here is from my android tablet. Interesting.
 
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...

are we reading the same thread
http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/9112-UFOS-the-Research-the-Evidence./page3?p=123482
from what I can see, everyone (including Rramjet) is telling you that you can't redefine terms to suit yourself and Rramjet is attempting to steer the conversation around to the Tehran UFO incident, that's one of his favourites you know. Its been done to death earlier in this thread

:p
 
23_Tauri said:
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,
Click to expand...


The common meaning of UFO is:


UFO noun (plural UFOs)
  • 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.
Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object

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

And it is indeed a word. Its origin ( as above ) is an acronym. The word itself is a noun ( also part of the definition above ).

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

noun


Grammar
  • a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things ( common noun ), or to name a particular one of these ( proper noun ).
==============

So stop making it sound as though Im making things up when I'm the one quoting references ... in this case Oxford Dictionaries. There are lots more as well and past examples have also been backed up with references.


UFO (plural UFOs) noun


unidentified flying object: a flying object that cannot be identified and is thought by some to be an alien spacecraft.​

Origin: [Mid-20th century. Acronym formed from unidentified flying object.]​


Why don't you stop merely proclaiming without any evidence and back up your assetions with facts or examples? Also stop confusing the word origin as an acronym with the definition of what the word UFO means.​
 
Last edited:
lulz. "Im" "assetions"

I'm not even kidding. Download the ***** firefox or safari. Until you prove otherwise, I'll assume that you:

1 - don't care enough to make your message easy to understand.
2 - are misspelling things to score points and annoy "skeptics."

Given your other personality-disorder-related behaviors as noted by AlaskaBushPilot, I'll go with #2 as a null hypothesis. As always, feel free to prove me wrong. We "skeptics" love to learn things and be proven wrong.
 
carlitos said:
As always, feel free to prove me wrong. We "skeptics" love to learn things and be proven wrong.
Click to expand...


Carlitos:

It's been my experience here that when cornered all the skeptics do here is resort to denial, mockery, ridicule or silence. You've become so desperate that now you're name calling and picking on typos. Why don't you actually back up your assertions with some examples other than my typos?
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

It's been my experience here that when cornered all the skeptics do here is resort to denial, mockery, ridicule or silence. You've become so desperate that now you're name calling and picking on typos. Why don't you actually back up your assertions with some examples other than my typos?
Click to expand...


How's that evidence coming?
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

It's been my experience here that when cornered all the skeptics do here is resort to denial, mockery, ridicule or silence. You've become so desperate that now you're name calling and picking on typos. Why don't you actually back up your assertions with some examples other than my typos?
Click to expand...

It's been my experience that when asked for evidence you change the subject.
 
RoboTimbo said:
It's been my experience that when asked for evidence you change the subject.
Click to expand...


Robo:

That's what you just did ... how clever of you. We've already been through the issue of evidence and it's the opinion of the skeptics here that there is no evidence. So what's the point in discussing evidence that you simply deny has value?
 
ufology said:
Robo:

That's what you just did ... how clever of you. We've already been through the issue of evidence and it's the opinion of the skeptics here that there is no evidence. So what's the point in discussing evidence that you simply deny has value?
Click to expand...

By mentioning evidence in this thread with the word "Evidence" in the title, I'm changing the subject?

How's that running away from questions working out for you?
 
You posted:
ufology said:
Understanding the semantics is essential to the research.
Click to expand...
On which I commented:
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...
And you objected:
The above statement is entirely in error. Every field of study has its own nomenclature and it is essential to understand it in order to properly comprehend it. For example the word "erosion" in geology has a very specific meaning, the word "star" in astronomy has a very specific meaning, the word "articulate" has a very specific meaning in physiology. Entire dictionaries are created just for these specialized disciplines. That in no way makes them pseudoscience.

The statement by TjW ( above ) is so under considered that it is obviously nothing more than an offhanded crack ... along with the one about ufology being a pseudoscience, which it's not. That issue has already been discussed to death and the skeptics lost the debate a long time ago on it. All they are left with is the usual hand waving, mockery and proclaimations ... here it comes now ...
Click to expand...
Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and without even objecting to the outright falsehood, I expanded and gave examples of what I meant.

TjW said:
No. Jargon is a shortcut. The concept behind the jargon is what is essential. It's a lot simpler to say "I stalled the wing" than it is to say: "I increased the angle of attack of the wing to the point where flow separation occurred."

That use of the word 'stall' is certainly different than its use in an automotive or equestrian context. It's jargon.

But the word 'stall' isn't essential. What's essential to understanding is the aerodynamic fact that if you increase the angle of attack of a wing, eventually there will come a point where the airflow over that wing separates from the surface of the wing.

It doesn't really matter what you call a stall -- mushing, separation, high alpha + regime. It's still the same thing, and still needs to be studied the same way, using a valid null hypothesis.

It doesn't really matter what you call a flying saucer -- UFO, alien craft, Fred. It's still the same thing, and still needs to be studied the same way, using a valid null hypothesis.

The Ufology argument seems to be "If I define this jargon word in a clever-enough way, people will have to admit that I'm right in my belief that flying saucers exist."
Justifying a pre-existing belief is pseudoscience. Science tries to show that its pre-existing belief isn't true. That's why science requires a falsifiable null hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Now, how could anyone honestly interpret that as me contending that the use of jargon makes something a pseudoscience, when I go to the trouble of giving a counterexample?
But you make the attempt anyway:

ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Justifying a null hypothesis rather than falsifying a null hypothesis is pseudoscience, and that is what Ufology does. Doing that makes it pseudoscience. Science tries to falsify its null hypothesis, not justify it.
The use of jargon as a barrier rather than an aid to communication is simply another symptom, though not the defining characteristic, of a pseudoscience.
 
ufology said:
So what's the point in discussing evidence that you simply deny has value?
Click to expand...


The point for us is that it's an opportunity to show the readers of the forum that there's no evidence to support the fantasy of alien flying saucers.

For those who actually subscribe to the fantasy, there's no point at all, yet still they come.

Funny old world.
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

It's been my experience here that when cornered all the skeptics do here is resort to denial, mockery, ridicule or silence. You've become so desperate that now you're name calling and picking on typos. Why don't you actually back up your assertions with some examples other than my typos?
Click to expand...

No. I won't dance to your jig. Maybe I'll post at the other site if I have time this week.
 
ufology said:
Carlitos:

It's been my experience here that when cornered all the skeptics do here is resort to denial, mockery, ridicule or silence. You've become so desperate that now you're name calling and picking on typos. Why don't you actually back up your assertions with some examples other than my typos?
Click to expand...

Congratulations on your successful use of the apostrophe. I appreciate you providing more evidence for my hypothesis.
 
Clearly with too much time on my hands, I have been watching some of a UFO documentary called "Fastwalkers". There are lots accounts by respectable types like pilots that sound credible, but in language laden with presupposition that they are looking at alien craft. It repeatedly jumps the shark with the inclusion of people like George AdamskiWP. Right now, at around 30 minutes in, there is a nuclear physicist called Charles Hall taking soberly to the camera about the way an alien race matures and even their eating habits.

Wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtEIIMQQSPU
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
Tauri's assetions require no backing up.
Click to expand...
This is true. My ample assetions are quite capable of holding themselves up of their own accord without any support. :D

Akhenaten said:
Your silly flying saucer stories, however . . .
Click to expand...
Indeed. The definition of UFO has been covered and several posters here have shown, through links and citations, that not only is ufology's dictionary definition of UFO as alien spaceship cherry-picked, so too was his superseded 1958 USAF definition.

ETA: and because I am being particularly helpful this morning, here is the link to Puddleduck's post where he had gone to the bother of retrieving all those other USAF definitions, y'know all the ones that didn't support ufology's "UFOs are my aleeuyn friends" belief system:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7548552#post7548552

ETA2: and look, here's John Albert to the rescue a whole nineteen days ago with a collection of dictionary definitions of the acronym UFO:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7529624#post7529624
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Carlitos:

It's been my experience here that when cornered all the skeptics do here is resort to denial, mockery, ridicule or silence. You've become so desperate that now you're name calling and picking on typos. Why don't you actually back up your assertions with some examples other than my typos?
Click to expand...

You should stop projecting onto us.

ETA: and don't confuse desperation with boredness. You have been repeating yourself maybe 5 times over dozen of pages and have brought nothing up new , contradicted yourself, and resorted to all sort of fallacy including argumentum ad populum...
We are not desperate we are bored of you. Come up with something new please.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom