Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[wollery]

Wikipedia:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

Reread it with particular attention to the highlighted part. Evidence or consequences.

That would cover the readings from detecting instruments, including, but not confined to, CCD detectors, Radio antennae, microwave and gamma ray detectors, scintillation chambers, cloud chambers, voltmeters, ammeters, Geiger-Muller tubes, Scanning Electron Microscopes, Tunnelling Microscopes, ECGs, magnetometers, etc.

Unless you want to argue that almost all of modern science, including, but not limited to, nuclear physics, surface physics, quantum mechanics, microbiology, computer science, solid state physics, neurology, large parts of chemistry, virology, etc., aren't actually science.

Do you want to argue that?

 

[GeeMack]

It's become an established word in use for half a century now. So as much as I'm not really comfortable with the way it came into use and evolved, it's the best we have, it isn't practical to change it, and there is a future to improve upon.

Yet in all the times you've been asked to suggest how it might be improved upon, your only response seems to be that skeptics need to cooperate somehow. And of course you refuse to elaborate on that. Remember this?...

So should skeptics and scientists lower their standards to accept anecdotes, lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and other unsupported assertions and logical fallacies? What do you propose skeptics should do to bring "ufology" up out of the realms of religion where you put it, or pseudoscience where organizations like MUFON and USI put it? How would you propose to give "ufology" some sense of legitimacy?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Reread it with particular attention to the highlighted part. Evidence or consequences.

That would cover the readings from detecting instruments, including, but not confined to, CCD detectors, Radio antennae, microwave and gamma ray detectors, scintillation chambers, cloud chambers, voltmeters, ammeters, Geiger-Muller tubes, Scanning Electron Microscopes, Tunnelling Microscopes, ECGs, magnetometers, etc.

Unless you want to argue that almost all of modern science, including, but not limited to, nuclear physics, surface physics, quantum mechanics, microbiology, computer science, solid state physics, neurology, large parts of chemistry, virology, etc., aren't actually science.

Do you want to argue that?

Apparently, he is. If this is evidence of his "critical thinking", then what he seems to professing is that UFOlogy is not science and not pseudoscience. It is a religion that is based on faith and belief.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ufology, some pages ago I warned you about some common errors proponents of fringe subjects almost always make. Unfortunately you have not managed to steer away from them. You are repeating UFOlogy's mistakes and as expected, the perspectives are not very good for you.

You have:
- Brought forward old material, dead ends which have been discussed in depth before.
- Asked for special pledges regarding UFOlogy (evidence and methods).
- Appealed to semantic games.
- Made a huge methodologic error, by assuming to real aliens lie at the core of UFO phenomena.

You are repeating UFOlogy's errors. Rramjet's been doing this better for much more pages, presenting us with a detailed case study on UFOlogy's flaws. Its not a "type specimen" just because the esoteric aspects have not been, to date, well represented. So, try harder not to follow this dead end, OK?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've reviewed quite a few of Rramjets posts and haven't found anything to pick on him about. The links to the stuies are no longer valid, so I can't comment on the specifics. Here is something I would be tempted to class as pseudoscience if I were predisposed to slapping labels on entire groups:

<snipped attempted deflection to homeopathy>

Then you don't have anything different from what Rramjet is doing in the moderated UFO thread, which is pseudoscience. You made it sound as if you wanted to bring actual critical thinking to the table from a UFOlogist's perspective. I now understand that you really don't.

 

[JJM 777]

Aren't those people more commonly known as "air traffic controllers" and "military radar operators"?

Of these two, the former one more probably is a ufologist, he will not know everything about what is flying in the airspace, there wil be something that the latter one keeps as a secret.

 

[Stray Cat]

Of these two, the former one more probably is a ufologist, he will not know everything about what is flying in the airspace, there wil be something that the latter one keeps as a secret.

That's OK though because real UFO's don't show up on radar... unless they do.
Sometimes they show up on radar when they are invisible to the eye and sometimes they are seen by the eye and yet are invisible to radar... How will we ever capture such illusive blighters!

 

[Correa Neto]

Each of them most likely will know just what they are entilted to. Millitary aircraft tend to stay away from commercial flight lanes and I bet most millitary radar operators are not aware of the hot stuff even when they are seeing them at their radar screens. Actually the cool secret stuff may be at millitary and/or civillian radar screens, but just as a blip with some ID characters.

But you are right; imagine a radar operator managing to "see" the first SR-71 flights. Remember, its design was a bit stealthy.

 

[Psiload]

Went over to MUFON.com and thought these quotes were particularly apropos.




Looks like they're taking it all quite seriously and fully intend people to understand they are scientifically studying these phenomena.

MUFON previously appointed a science-minded individual as Director. His resignation letter pretty much tells the tale.

Some selected quotes from said letter:

http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/2010/04/goodbye-ufology-hello-truth.html

MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2010

Goodbye Ufology, Hello Truth

***snip***

What I discovered was that the phenomenon is based in deception – of the human kind –and that there is no way ANYONE will understand the real truth unless they are willing to first accept that. No, I am not talking about some grandiose cover-up of alien visitation, but instead the documented manipulation of people and information for purposes that I can only speculate on.

***snip***

All of these cases have a common thread: they are based on half-truths, and outright manipulation that predictably draw in the believer but have also drawn in a number of Ufologists into their web of deception.

***snip***

All of this has led me to where I am at today – squarely outside of Ufology – away from the polarized beliefs, the three ring circus of sideshows and illusion acts that has created nothing but a hall of mirrors and dead ends and which has produced no definite answers despite 60 years of accumulated investigation.

***snip***

That in a nutshell is the sad state of Ufology today, humans deceiving humans. If there is a real phenomenon, I have yet to see any evidence of it that would stand under scientific scrutiny.

 

[ufology]

Yet in all the times you've been asked to suggest how it might be improved upon, your only response seems to be that skeptics need to cooperate somehow. And of course you refuse to elaborate on that. Remember this?

What do you propose skeptics should do to bring "ufology" up out of the realms of religion where you put it, or pseudoscience where organizations like MUFON and USI put it? How would you propose to give "ufology" some sense of legitimacy?

Aw c'mon Gee ... you know neither I nor USI call ufology a religion or pseudoscience and not that it is my place to defend MUFON, but I don't see it there either. The labeling and mislabeling has all been coming off that notepad of yours. It's time for an update there.

Regarding cooperation between ufologists and skeptics, I would say that here at the JREF there has already been some cooperation. Even your participation has been helpful. The constant challenge has made me take a closer look at the issues to determine why I'm not getting my point across and to work on a better and clearer definition. Our refined definition is now posted on our website. I'd ask for your opinion on possible improvements, but so far it's only been your constant heckling that has had any positive effect.

On the issue of cooperation, what I'm hoping to do is eliminate the adversarial approach, at least to the extent that we get rid of the "us vs them" attitude between ufologists and skeptics. Certainly a healthy and friendly debate toward the common goal of better understanding the truth is something that can still be very useful.

For one example, I think it was Stray Cat who posted up a video earlier of an alledged UFO and how easy such a video would be to fake. So when we have some sighting for example, instead of simply dismissing it, have a look at whatever evidence there is available and use whatever skeptical skills you have to put it to the test. Simply dismissing all UFOs as nonsense is neither critical thinking nor the spirit of the kind of skepticism it seems that the JREF endorses.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

MUFON previously appointed a science-minded individual as Director. His resignation letter pretty much tells the tale.

He's just stepping down after three years to take on a different position. It's not as if he's thrown the towel in in disgust. There do seem to be some embedded frustrations though, and probably for good reason.

j.r.

 

[Psiload]

He's just stepping down after three years to take on a different position. It's not as if he's thrown the towel in in disgust. There do seem to be some embedded frustrations though, and probably for good reason.

j.r.

He held the position for four years, and if you read his blog, you'll see that he is a man who was, and remains, CLEARLY disgusted with MUFON.

http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/

Seriously? MUFON has an ethics committee? After what I have witnessed as blatant unethical behavior on the part of the MUFON Board over the last two years, I am astounded by its hypocrisy!

 

[John Albert]

He's just stepping down after three years to take on a different position. It's not as if he's thrown the towel in in disgust. There do seem to be some embedded frustrations though, and probably for good reason.

Yeah, I read on Monster.com that whenever you're seeking to make a lateral move within the organization, it's a good idea to publish a scathing open letter on the Internet accusing your employer of fraud and deception.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's a not-science. So, he will be getting a not-science degree for studying not-stuff.

Well, if you can get a doctorate in divinity....

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Good work. I've seen so many satellites that I don't bother looking them up anymore. But imagine watching what you think at first is a satellite, that instantly stops, pauses for a second, changes heading by instantly accellerating down about 20 degrees, stops instantly again, darts about at sharp angles and in straight lines over a distance of 30-40 degrees, and then streaks away off over the horizon in the opposite direction. Those are the kind of reports I've heard a couple of dozen times from people who I don't believe were fabricating a story. I've got no Earthly explanation for such sightings.

j.r.

I hesitate to ask this question, as when I asked RogerR in a thread that proceeded the current marathon thread to give me his best case we ended up in the woods chasing a lighthouse, but can you give me an example of a video of such a sighting? One where the direction of the camera is known the entire time, preferably with some fixed landmarks? Bonus points given if the picture stays in focus.

Thank you.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Aw c'mon Gee ... you know neither I nor USI call ufology a religion or pseudoscience....

So what do you call it? Historical documentation without investigation/inquiry? Philisophical discussion? You have to label it somehow and you already deny it is not science in any way. We are trying to pin you down on what you think UFOlogy is and the best I can see is you comparing it to philosophy. Come now, certainly somebody who seems convinced that UFOs are something "not of this earth" or "alien" (pick your poison) could make a firm answer on what he considers his UFO group is doing. If it isn't science, what is it? Can you answer that simple question?

 

[ufology]

Another Analogy Illustrating Why Ufology Is Not Pseudoscience

During the course of this thread I've used a number of examples and analogies to try to explain why ufology is not a pseudoscience. Most of the people following my posts probably understand that the reason is due to the context of usage as applied to the wording and definitions, but there is still a tendency to look beyond that to instances within the field where it could validly be said that pseudoscience is taking place and then slap that label over everything and everyone. So I offer the following analogy for further clarification.

The nature of the purpose of the word "ufology" is used in a similar context to the word "aviation", not that we are actually comparing ufology and aviation here, but that we are comparing how the titles are used. Aviation is made up of many facets including aircraft design, manufacturing, operation, history, business, art and entertainment. Aviation is in and of itself not a science. However within the array of activities and interests we call aviation, the hard science is called aeronautics. Also within aviation are fringe-science ideas that might very well be considered to be pseudoscience. For example "chemtrails", the discharge of chemicals from an aircraft for some nefarious purpose. We don't know for sure what all the "chemtrails" are, maybe they are what the conspiracy theorists say they are, or maybe they aren't ... maybe the chemtrail conspiracy is pseudoscience, but even if it is, that doesn't make aviation itself pseudoscience.

The same line of thinking holds true for ufology. Just because pseudoscience may take place in certain instances where someone claims that science is being done, but really isn't, doesn't mean that ufology on the whole is pseudoscience. I'm not denying that there are instances of pseudoscience within ufology. I'm saying that it isn't applicable to the term itself.

The only purpose in calling all of ufology a pseudoscience is to slap a denigrating label on it for some sense of personal satisfaction that is nothing short of prejudice.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

The only purpose in calling all of ufology a pseudoscience is to slap a denigrating label on it for some sense of personal satisfaction that is nothing short of prejudice.

Then are we back to my request for you to provide an example of a UFO case investigated by a UFOlogist which couldn't be called pseudoscientific?

Just one example will do. Not a hypothetical one though, one that's published on the interweb, one we could look into.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Aviation has its basis in science. The history, art, business, manufacturing, etc. all have the science of aviation supporting them. Placing "chemtrails" in the category of aviation is an insult since it has nothing to do with the scientific background associated with aviation. That is like making UFOlogy a subset of Astronomy. They are not the same thing and your attempt to do this demonstrates a certain degree of desperation.

You are still dodging the question. Once again, what do you call UFOlogy? If it is NOT science or attempting to be scientific, what is it? You can state that UFOs, in your opinion, are ET spaceships but you can't give us a clear cut defintion of what UFOlogy is or how it approaches the subject. At this point, I see a person so confused that he does not know where he stands.

Maybe you should try politics and leave UFOs to the people who have conviction in what they believe/understand. At least we can count on Rramjet to call what he is doing scientific (even though a majority of the forum members disagree with that classification). It seems you don't know what you are doing or believe.

 

[ufology]

Aviation has its basis in science. The history, art, business, manufacturing, etc. all have the science of aviation supporting them. Placing "chemtrails" in the category of aviation is an insult since it has nothing to do with the scientific background associated with aviation. That is like making UFOlogy a subset of Astronomy. They are not the same thing and your attempt to do this demonstrates a certain degree of desperation.

You are still dodging the question. Once again, what do you call UFOlogy? If it is NOT science or attempting to be scientific, what is it? You can state that UFOs, in your opinion, are ET spaceships but you can't give us a clear cut defintion of what UFOlogy is or how it approaches the subject. At this point, I see a person so confused that he does not know where he stands.

Maybe you should try politics and leave UFOs to the people who have conviction in what they believe/understand. At least we can count on Rramjet to call what he is doing scientific (even though a majority of the forum members disagree with that classification). It seems you don't know what you are doing or believe.

So air shows and nose art and published aviator stories and magazines aren't a part of aviation then? Aircraft discharging chemicals to put out forest fires is OK but if it seems the chemicals might be for some illegal use it is an insult and nothing to do with avaiation. You are doing the same kind of cherry picking that skeptics slam pseudoscientists for. Aviation is a catch all term, it's not a science. Aeronautics is a science. It has nothing to do with making ufology a subset of astronomy. You are just bouncing around throwing out ill considered assertions and being plain unreasonable ... ( or maybe I should have said plane unreasonable ).

j.r.