• 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.

Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

Oh and why UFOlogy is a pseudoscience:

Because any explanation for what ever a UFO may be when identified will be described by established science. Dinosaurs were once mysterious to many, but have been described by paeleontology, which is a specialisation of established fields. It was not described by people deciding they were dinosaurologists who ignored the current fields of knowledge in favour of their pet theory that dinosaurs are the fossilised remains of martions all of whom once lived in the great city of Albert and were definately man made bio-engoneered machines.

Ufology is bunk that pretends to play by the rules of science, it is not science. The scientists who study the phenomona, even those who speculate on the nature of alien intelligence and machines beyond our ken do so as a member of an established field. Normally in a defined specialisation within a field.
 
ufology said:
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Acronyms [I]are[/I] words:[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][B]ac·ro·nym[/B] [ákr?nim] (plural ac·ro·nyms) noun[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][B]word formed from initials[/B]: a word formed from the initials or other parts of several words, for example, “NATO,” from the initial letters of “North Atlantic Treaty Organization”[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...
Interesting. So you're saying that UFO means Unidentified Flying Ojbect.

Yes, ufology (the pseudoscience) is a pseudoscience.
 
ufology said:
BTW: No "shoehorning" here. I ran across this completely by accident while doing an unrelated search and found it interesting because of all the insistence by skeptics that we must interpret the word UFO to mean exactly what the literal translation of its constituent words suggest. Here we find evidence that some people recognize that enforcing such a rule as policy isn't always correct and that context is very important.
Click to expand...

And yet it still doesn't mean 'alien spacecraft' however much you wish it did.
 
Regarding the bumping of this indeed very old thread.

Hi all,
It’s funny how my return coincides with the return of this thread! For the record my urge to resume my active participation came from elsewhere.

So it seems, Ufology, that you have been poring over this old thread and then decided to quote one of my posts, which was made in one of the early pages of a very long thread. Of all the posts you could analyze and learn from over these long months, this is the one you choose as a point of contention?!? This is astonishingly mind boggling. How about the main points?

If you are going to choose my posts as targets (you probably think I’m an easier target, and you could easily be correct), why not go over these instead?




Originally Posted by ufology
Hi RoboTimbo ... Welcome to this thread,

I didn't have a particular topic in mind. Because of my long time involvement I take a lot of things for granted. Others who haven't reflected that much on it might see me as jumping way to far ahead. Besides, part of this process is for me to test my own assumptions based on how other people evaluate them. I might learn more myself by following someone else's chain of logic from the ground up than just putting mine out there. Did you have any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Me:
I have a suggestion. Perhaps you should take some time and reflect seriously on why it is that scientists don't consider anecdotal evidence to be valid. There are very solid reasons for this. As long as you refuse to take the time to understand those reasons, you will not progress.

Special pleading, in your case the desire to admit testimonials as valid evidence, is a fallacy. It is just the way things are. This type of evidence is not, should not, and shall not be accepted as valid.

Until you understand this, and I doubt you will, simply due to your lifelong commitment to ufology, you will keep treading the same old ground as all bleevers in woo.

It's not too late for you, but as long as you keep dodging the reality that anecdotal evidence and witness testimony are invalid for extraordinary claims, you will be liable to believe all sorts of nonsense.

Without actual acceptable evidence, no one should believe that you were on a spaceship, or that you travel outside of your body [thinking without neurons], for example.

Take the time to understand why... I did, and I am probably half as smart as you are. Good luck.
Click to expand...

To me, this is the most important issue in this entire thread. It is at the heart of the matter regarding Ufology as a pseudoscience, a religion, a pointless hobby, or whatever it really is.

And then there are the following posts:

Critical thinking, which you profess to value, also seeks to eliminate logical fallacies, such as special pleading, et al.
Click to expand...
Critical thinking and scientific principles go hand in hand. I would venture that if you accept a fallacy, or are swayed by anecdotal evidence, you are no more using critical thinking than you are doing science.
Click to expand...
But you have to [dismiss anecdotal evidence]. It is absolutely reasonable to dismiss anecdotal evidence. It's unthinkable not to. You have to.
Click to expand...
So, this is the thread where Ufology and Rramjet tell us what critical thinking means, and what evidence it admits?

"Eh, this is a thread where we use critical thinking, and that means all evidence is acceptable. What do you think this is, science? Of course not. It's not even pseudoscience. We just having a discussion, is all."

Critical thinking and scientific principles go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
There is never any other type of evidence in the field. Stories. That's it. And no, they cannot add to a "weight of evidence". Useless.
Click to expand...
You have been on an alien spaceship. You met MIB's. You speak of psi research as though it were credible, not to mention regressive hypnosis, OBE, orbs, hauntings and iconic religious manifestations. It has been fun reading your posts and I commend you on your eloquence, but I can no longer give a shred of credibility to what you write
I'm sure we'd all love to take a friendlier approach, but this is dragging on, and we are at an impasse. You want to bring credibility and critical thinking to ufology, but refuse to understand the true (non)value of anecdotes. This element is crucial. There is no critical thinking wiyhout an understanding of the value of different types of evidence.
Click to expand...

You asked early in this thread for suggestions. I asked you to take the time to research and understand WHY anecdotes have little to no value. I understand that you have a lot riding on this and will never come to grips with reality on this issue.
Click to expand...
You were not on an alien spaceship as a child (sorry for bringing it up again, but this really bothered me when I read it).
Click to expand...
]
What I am suggesting is that the ball is in your camp. Understand that anecdotal evidence is worthless when it comes to drawing conclusions. Understand that the ET hypothesis is one of the more remote possibilities out there, not anywhere near a reasonable default position.
Click to expand...
When everyone can agree that a conclusion can only be drawn using valuable evidence, and with no anecdotal evidence whatsoever, this can actually turn into a positive discussion. That's the point. Without this understanding, ufologists are doomed to exist on the fringe, with no credibility.
Click to expand...
You have chosen not to make the effort to understand the value of anecdotes.
You don't eliminate anecdotes so that you can call your conclusion scientific. You eliminate them because you have to. Otherwise your conclusion is worthless, let alone scientific. Ufology cannot have it both ways. You can't propose serious conclusions based on anecdotes and be taken seriously. C'est la vie.
Click to expand...


Nitpicking over the semantics of PHD or UFO is meaningless, especially compared to the hundreds of crucial elements open for discussion in this long thread. And this is only about my own points. Let alone the many points of contention raised by other, more competent foreros. Your choice for a topic after all this time away is hardly justifiable and shows little “critical thinking”.

Bonus opinion (reiteration): You were never on an alien spaceship as a child.
 
Last edited:
I had forgotten about that. I went back to read it again. Wow... Critical thinking has a different meaning in some areas.

The first thing I noticed revisiting the site was their use of Carl Sagan's name and image. If there ever was an example of secular blasphemy, that's got to be it. Not to mention the oblivion to irony... ☻☺☻

Quote: "I distinctly heard it (the giant rabbit) say 'hello'. Not realizing that rabbits could talk, I said hello back."

They, uh, like, uh, can't... There is nothing to realize.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. To be honest, I can't even wrap my head around it. At least monkey suit enthusiasts have some sort of communal reinforcement. This is just so far beyond preposterous, I want to rant on and on, but what can one really say? I'm just floored. There's no smiley for that feeling.

Then I'm supposed to be able to have a nice, polite chat with this fellow. About rational thinking of all topics.
 
Last edited:
Maurice Ledifficile said:
Yeah. To be honest, I can't even wrap my head around it. At least monkey suit enthusiasts have some sort of communal reinforcement. This is just so far beyond preposterous, I want to rant on and on, but can one really say? I'm just floored. There's no smiley for that feeling.

Then I'm supposed to be able to have a nice, polite chat with this fellow. About rational thinking of all topics.
Click to expand...

Even the jaw drop smiley doesn't do it justice.

The fellow can not be reached, but any lurkers or non participating readers may get something out of it.
It can also be seen as an exercise in self control. Irrational characters provide ample opportunity for this.
 
Daylightstar said:
Even the jaw drop smiley doesn't do it justice.

The fellow can not be reached, but any lurkers or non participating readers may get something out of it.
It can also be seen as an exercise in self control. Irrational characters provide ample opportunity for this.
Click to expand...

Actually, the talking bunny story is a useful analog for the flying saucer / witches on broomsticks phenomenon. People generally see things from popular culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom