Come on man, let's be honest here. First of all, whether or not your case is "compelling" is not an opinion for you to decide. Of course you find it compelling; it's your case! Promoting such a judgment about your own ideas is presumptuous and arrogant.
Look around you, ufology has become deeply engrained in modern culture and has a subculture all it's own ... I'm part of it and so are many other people. To back up my position I've provided examples of festivals and works such as famous films, books, advertising and humor. These things exist, and they are not merely my
opinion. What's more, they are obvious and self-evident to anyone who lives in the civilized world. Ufology culture and history are as much a part of ufology as ufology studies. All you've done to dispute this evidence and logic is resort to name calling and quote outdated definitions that only cover the part of ufology you want to focus on.
That may all be true, but does it prove that all those ancillary activities constitute the actual study of UFOs? Of course not. UFOlogy is "The study of UFOs." We use the standard dictionary definition of "pseudoscience," and the standard dictionary definition of "UFOlogy." That's how it works. I'm sorry, but no, it's not irresponsible to use the dictionary definition. It's right, proper, and fair.
The subject has evolved, and the dictionaries need to catch up. Most dictionaries are simply too narrow and don't apply to the field as a whole, which is what this thread is about. So no, it's not proper or fair to use an outdated definition that isn't accurate. Ufology
culture and
history are as much a part of ufology as ufology
studies.
We are talking about a word, "UFOlogy," with a common definition. As others and I have pointed out before, we as individuals don't get to define words however we choose. Word definitions are determined by consensus of the population of speakers. Guess what? You're outnumbered about 1,500,000,000 to 1. This round goes to the English-speaking world.
We use the standard definition. "UFOlogy" is "The study of UFOs."
Your appeal is to the popular vote ... an argument purely from authority, and that doesn't make it true. I've accepted the Skeptics own definition of pseudoscience, so I'm not being unreasonable. Again,
ufology culture and
ufology history are as much a part of ufology as
ufology studies. Because we are focusing on ufology in general, it isn't fair to exclude certain aspects of ufology and cherry pick only a subset that is self serving to your argument.
Furthermore, your suggestion that my defense of ufology as a whole limits the application of pseudoscience to other fields isn't relevant to this discussion. The other fields will have to defend themselves. Certain ones will have a much harder time doing so because they don't merely advocate the use of science like the MUFON motto or the stated position of USI with respect to ufology studies, but they outright call themselves a science
unto themselves. I've even provided you with the example everyone kept harping for me to name ( orgonomy ).
So not only have I provided fair definitions backed by real life examples, I've even provided an example of pseudoscience that is part of ufology history. Plus I've conceeded that cases of pseudoscience have taken place in ufology and it would be a good idea to discuss them in the proper context under another thread such as, "Scientific Ufology and Pseudoscience". Your insistence on continuing this particular debate in order to slap the derogatory label over the entire field isn't justified.
j.r.
