Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[John Albert]

The nature of the purpose of the word "ufology" is used in a similar context to the word "aviation."

No, it's not. As we've mentioned before, the suffix "-ology" denotes study, which implies science or academics.

There's a reason why aviation is called "aviation" and not "aviology."

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...

Gee, ya think?!?

Considering the arguments involved with the chemtrail claims, I'd categorize it as more of a conspiracy theory, but there's plenty of pseudoscience involved also.


Here's maybe a more apropos example:

The makers of magnetic bracelets declare that the design of their wristbands "balances internal energies," "aligns one's personal magnetic field," "promotes the circulation of iron in the blood" and such. These commercials usually feature testimonials by ostensible wearers of the bracelets, making claims that the things improved their health or make them feel better.

Maybe there really is some applied science involved in the production of these bracelets. They're typically made of metal, so metallurgy and chemistry are involved at some level, and they've been magnetized, the process and effects of which can be explained through physics.

They also claim that their bracelets are fashionable and aesthetically appealing, a subjective claim which has nothing to do with science. Some of them make reference to celebrities who wear their bracelets, which is an obvious appeal to pop culture and not science.

Most of the advertisements for these things never once mention doctors, the medical profession, scientists, or use the word "science" in any form. Does that mean they aren't promoting pseudoscience?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Chemtrails are a claim by a lot of people who do not even understand the concept of a contrail. They can not be considered part of aviation because there is no proof that the claims have any merit. The aviation community gives no merit to such claims. You might as well put UFOlogy in the aviation category as well.

BTW, isn't studying strange lights in the sky at night the same thing as studying known celestial objects in the sky at night? When amateur astronomers see a strange light at night and attempt to identify it, aren't they involved in doing something akin to UFOlogy? OR do you believe that astronomers see a strange light and just ignore it because they are not interested at all in what a strange light might be.

And you still refuse to answer the question. What do you call UFOlogy? Is your UFOlogy an investigation of a phenomenon that is honestly trying to use scientific (or any other) methods or is it a faith based system like a religion. I see no other possibility. If there is one, maybe you can be more clear on what it really is.

 

[John Albert]

BTW, isn't studying strange lights in the sky at night the same thing as studying known celestial objects in the sky at night? When amateur astronomers see a strange light at night and attempt to identify it, aren't they involved in doing something akin to UFOlogy? OR do you believe that astronomers see a strange light and just ignore it because they are not interested at all in what a strange light might be.

Exactly. The difference between ufologists and amateur astronomers (or any other scientists for that matter) is that they're only interested in unidentified flying objects inasmuch as they might possibly be explained by extraordinary, extraterrestrial, or paranormal causes. That, my friends, is what makes ufology a pseudoscience.

Ufology, you said yourself that you don't even bother to investigate the identity of satellites you observe in the sky. I'm perplexed that somebody who claims a dedication to the search for truth about UFOs would pass up such an easy opportunity to determine the truth about your own personal UFO experiences. It indicates a relativistic attitude regarding the "truth" about UFOs, something akin to, "If it ain't LGM, I don't even wanna know about it!"

 

[ufology]

Chemtrails are a claim by a lot of people who do not even understand the concept of a contrail. They can not be considered part of aviation because there is no proof that the claims have any merit. The aviation community gives no merit to such claims. You might as well put UFOlogy in the aviation category as well.

BTW, isn't studying strange lights in the sky at night the same thing as studying known celestial objects in the sky at night? When amateur astronomers see a strange light at night and attempt to identify it, aren't they involved in doing something akin to UFOlogy? OR do you believe that astronomers see a strange light and just ignore it because they are not interested at all in what a strange light might be.

And you still refuse to answer the question. What do you call UFOlogy? Is your UFOlogy an investigation of a phenomenon that is honestly trying to use scientific (or any other) methods or is it a faith based system like a religion. I see no other possibility. If there is one, maybe you can be more clear on what it really is.

The definition of ufology I use is located at: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

The aviation community may give no credence to assertions of chemtrails but that doesn't mean that it isn't an aviation concern or that they aren't related to aircraft, and piloting and so on. Aviation is also filled with aviation lore including encounters with ghost aircraft, foo-fighters and UFOs. The Ghost of Flight 401 is well established in aviation lore, but that doesn't make aviation a pseudoscience.

Returning to the concept of ufology being a subset of astronomy, although it is not an accurate analogy for the rationale I've been using, it might interest you to know that my introduction to astronomy at university included a mention about UFOs and the local science center/planetarium here in Calgary had a whole presentation focused on UFOs. You are probably also aware that Josef Allen Hynek was a professional astronomer who served as Scientific Advisor to the USAF during their first official investigations into flying saucers. But here is a reminder anyway just in case you don't think astronomy and ufology aren't connected.

A fellow of the Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, USA, Hynek received his doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Chicago in 1935. Between 1936 and 1941, Dr. Hynek was an instructor and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Ohio State University. Between 1941 and 1946 he supervised technical reports in applied physics at John Hopkins University. He returned to Ohio State in 1946 to become a full professor in physics and astronomy. In 1948 Edward J. Ruppelt enlisted Hynek as Astronomical Consultant to Project Grudge, and in 1952 he became Scientific Advisor to Project Blue Book. He later went on to found the Center For UFO Studies.

j.r.

 

[tsig]

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.

Really?

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.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The definition of ufology I use is located at: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

I have never seen a person so content at waffling on this topic. I see the following:

Analysis of UFO sighting reports, on-site investigation, interviewing witnesses, and studying the history of the UFO phenomenon are primary activities. The study of ufology is an independent field of inquiry that is multidisciplinary in its approach, utilizing elements of science, history, religion, mythology, philosophy and anything else that can advance an understanding of the phenomenon.

So you ARE applying science. How hard was that to admit? So by admiting that you are "utilizing elements of science" (using science/applying science/attempting to be scientific), then we can classify your approach as pseudoscientific because you seem to be picking and choosing what you want to do.

Of course, you also claim to be "using religion" as part of your UFOlogical analysis. So, I guess what you are describing here is the "faith based" acceptance of things associated with UFOlogy. How much "critical thinking" is involved when you simply accept things based on faith? IMO, whenever you mix religion and science, you are bound to get pseudoscience.

Do you really think such a methodology will ever "establish the true nature of UFOs and from that determine if any of them constitute or are associated directly with alien technology or life"? Because I forsee you just waffling about with no clear methodology, no clear standards of evidence/investigation, and a simple-minded belief that UFOs are alien spaceships. The only way you are going to "establish the true nature of UFOs" is if one lands for all to see. In that case, it would not be due to your efforts at all (unless you managed to communicate with them and convince them to land). I seriously doubt it is going to happen.

BTW, at least Hynek had the conviction to admit that he was attempting to apply science to UFOs. Why is USI so afraid to do the same?

 

[ufology]

Exactly. The difference between ufologists and amateur astronomers (or any other scientists for that matter) is that they're only interested in unidentified flying objects inasmuch as they might possibly be explained by extraordinary, extraterrestrial, or paranormal causes. That, my friends, is what makes ufology a pseudoscience.

No it doesn't, and you presume way too much about exactly what interests who. You are practicing pseudoskepticism ( look it up ). There are astonomers, amateur and otherwise who are also ufologists. One of the most noteworthy is J. Allen Hynek, mentioned above.

Ufology, you said yourself that you don't even bother to investigate the identity of satellites you observe in the sky. I'm perplexed that somebody who claims a dedication to the search for truth about UFOs would pass up such an easy opportunity to determine the truth about your own personal UFO experiences. It indicates a relativistic attitude regarding the "truth" about UFOs, something akin to, "If it ain't LGM, I don't even wanna know about it!"

It's not so perplexing that I don't catalog every satellite I see. I'm not a "satellite spotter". I've seen many satellites and confirmed their probable identity using satellite tracking software. I look up at the sky a lot and I'm not going to spend time checking into every satellite I see. It isn't what I do any more than I run and check a bird encyclodedia every time one flies by. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And since I can't prove it's not a duck, there isn't much point in calling it a UFO. I don't claim that my logic is a an act of "science", it's just how I handle apparently mundane sightings.

j.r.

BTW: We sure take mankind's accomplishments for granted these days. I'm old enough to remember when they thought space travel was pure fantasy. Now I'm calling the routine sightings of orbiting satellites "mundane".

 

[Astrophotographer]

The aviation community may give no credence to assertions of chemtrails but that doesn't mean that it isn't an aviation concern or that they aren't related to aircraft, and piloting and so on.

So if some group of conspiracy theorists make such claims, then they are suddenly associated with aviation? Are you really giving credence to "chemtrails" here just to state they can be put into a category of "aviation"? The next thing you are going to tell us is that all the wild stories about planet X, Nibiru, the SLO object near Comet Hale-Bopp, etc should be part of astronomy.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It's not so perplexing that I don't catalog every satellite I see. I'm not a "satellite spotter". I've seen many satellites and confirmed their probable identity using satellite tracking software. I look up at the sky a lot and I'm not going to spend time checking into every satellite I see. It isn't what I do any more than I run and check a bird encyclodedia every time one flies by. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And since I can't prove it's not a duck, there isn't much point in calling it a UFO. I don't claim that my logic is a an act of "science", it's just how I handle apparently mundane sightings.

But you are wrong. You are applying the scientific method in identifying these objects. You see the UFO. You propose that it was a satellite, which means you should be able to predict that it is on the list of satellites visible that night. You check the data of satellites that are visible that match the sighting and confirm it. This is all a scientific approach. Claiming it is not an act of science is just silly.

 

[ufology]

Really?

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.

Ya really, he sounds pretty burnt out, but he goes on to say that he will still be pursuing ufology.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

A fellow of the Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, USA, Hynek received his doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Chicago in 1935. Between 1936 and 1941, Dr. Hynek was an instructor and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Ohio State University. Between 1941 and 1946 he supervised technical reports in applied physics at John Hopkins University. He returned to Ohio State in 1946 to become a full professor in physics and astronomy. In 1948 Edward J. Ruppelt enlisted Hynek as Astronomical Consultant to Project Grudge, and in 1952 he became Scientific Advisor to Project Blue Book. He later went on to found the Center For UFO Studies.

Linus Pauling, who is widely considered to be the greatest chemist of modern times, used very unscientific methodology in his later years (mainly subjective personal experience and anecdotal evidence) to promote quack medicine. Even distinguished career scientists are capable of falling prey to common, very human failings of logic and critical thinking. Of course, the science eventually sorted it all out and revealed high-dose vitamin C therapy to be wrong.

Likewise, mathematician John Forbes Nash suffered from schizophrenia, and fell into paranoid, conspiratorial modes of thinking.

It's not really fair to exploit the personal failings of these men to tarnish their reputations as brilliant scientists, or by extension the endeavor of science as a whole.

But the converse is equally true also, that the reputation of a great scientist cannot be used to give credence to some pseudoscience he might have associated with.

 

[ufology]

But you are wrong. You are applying the scientific method in identifying these objects. You see the UFO. You propose that it was a satellite, which means you should be able to predict that it is on the list of satellites visible that night. You check the data of satellites that are visible that match the sighting and confirm it. This is all a scientific approach. Claiming it is not an act of science is just silly.

I'm not saying I think what I do is or isn't science. I'm just saying my armchair science and introductory courses don't make me a "scientist" and I'd rather remain humble than start making exaggertaed claims. If I can somewhere along the way earn the respect of the people here for my honest efforts, it would mean a lot to me.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Linus Pauling, who is widely considered to be the greatest chemist of modern times, used very unscientific methodology in his later years (mainly subjective personal experience and anecdotal evidence) to promote quack medicine. Even distinguished career scientists are capable of falling prey to common, very human failings of logic and critical thinking,and the science eventually sorted it all out and revealed high-dose vitamin C therapy to be wrong.

Likewise, mathematician John Forbes Nash suffered from schizophrenia, and fell into paranoid, conspiratorial thinking.

It's not really fair to exploit the personal failings of these men to tarnish their reputations as brilliant scientists, or by extension the endeavor of science as a whole.

But the converse is equally true also, that the reputation of a great scientist cannot be used to give credence to some pseudoscience he might have associated with.

None of the work Hynek has done tarnishes his reputation or the reputation of science. Everything I've read about the man is pretty cool. He is in no way an example of a "scientist gone bad"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Je3vlCAltI&feature=related

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, As for your story of Josef Allen Hynek and his consultancy work for the USAF, here's my own skeptical take on that entire period of UFO-related history:

The USAF is a military organization concerned with the defense of the nation against airborne attacks. During the period when UFO sightings first became popular (the late '40s and '50s), the military was highly concerned about the possibility of aerial surveillance or attacks by our primary adversary at the time, the Soviet Union.

Because the NORAD infrastructure wasn't in place yet, the USAF largely relied on more traditional methods of detecting possible aerial threats, including eyewitness reports from the citizenry. In that era of Cold War paranoia, US citizens were openly advised to keep an eye on the skies and report any suspicious activity to their nearest Air Force base. The USAF was also quite diligent about responding to eyewitness reports of unusual aircraft in the sky.

The Kenneth Arnold story of 1947 is the first widely-publicized report of a UFO "sighting." The Arnold report was the first mention of "flying saucers" in the public imagination. Appearing as it did within the context of the Cold War political climate, it immediately created a pop culture sensation and was seized upon by imaginative science fiction authors of that day. Sci-fi and fantasy books and magazines spun fanciful tales of extraterrestrial visitations and a secretive government with an official position of denialism.

These memes caught on in the imagination of the public, and the USAF soon found itself inundated with phone calls and correspondence from concerned citizens and crackpots alike. Of course, being a government agency responsible for airborne threats, they had to treat every report seriously and perform an investigation.

The USAF had to deal with all these crazy reports coming in all the time, so they hired actual scientists (astronomers and the like) for the job of sorting through and determining whether any of the accounts warranted further inquiry.

Some of those scientists found themselves in the enviable position of catering to a pop culture frenzy, so they took that opportunity and ran with it all the way to the bank.

The fact that some astronomer who worked for the USAF in the 1950s went on to found a UFO study group doesn't astound me, nor does it lend any particular credence to the claim that UFO reports indicate anything more extraordinary than cases of mistaken identity, fanciful imagination, or outright deception.

The fact that Josef Allen Hynek was a trained astronomer who went on to write about UFOs doesn't mean that "ufology" isn't a pseudoscience.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

A whole lot of alcoholics don't label themselves alcoholics either. But you start with the preconceived notion that UFOs are some sort of craft piloted by aliens or under their control. You take it on faith, since there is no objective evidence to support the notion that such things exist. Then you purport to study the alleged sightings of alien craft under the pretense of applying scientific methodology. Clearly the endeavor isn't scientific, so it's not rational to call it science. Even you admit that. It fits somewhere within the general definition of pseudoscience and/or religion. But you don't seem to like those more accurate terms either, and you won't say what you think it actually is.

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.

Since you admit that you've started with a preconceived notion that alien craft exist, what you're doing surely isn't science. It's pseudoscience and/or a religious pursuit. If that's not the message you intend to put forward, you might shed that preconceived notion and state clearly, other than the pseudoscience or religion that it appears to be, what exactly this "ufology" stuff is.

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.

I'm beginning to believe you actually can't see that you're blaming the skeptics and science for your failure, but that is what you're doing indeed. How about we reconsider what you just said above? How about the "ufologists", instead of simply dismissing the many plausible mundane possibilities offered that could explain virtually every heretofore unidentified flying object, how about the "ufologists" have a look at whatever evidence there is available and use whatever skeptical skills they have to put it to the test? Simply dismissing all rational plausible mundane possibilities that might explain UFOs, and letting ignorance and incredulity lead to the answer that it's aliens, is neither critical thinking nor the spirit of the kind of skepticism that the JREF endorses.

 

[ufology]

The fact that Josef Allen Hynek was a trained astronomer who went on to write about UFOs doesn't mean that "ufology" isn't a pseudoscience.

You are absolutely right. It doesn't mean ufology is a pseudoscience either. Why ufology isn't a pseudoscience has already been explained.

Because the CIA is technically a wing of the Department of Defense, it is correct ( in that sense only ) that the military was concerned about a Soviet threat. The thing about Hynek is that he was pretty much of the same opinion as you are when he began consulting with the USAF, citing a belief in "post war nerves". But he changed his views considerably the more he studied it. He was a genuine scientist with more credentials and direct experience in an official and unofficial capacity than anyone on this forum. Dismissing his work would be irrational; and disparaging his character as "opportunist" is just throwing insults. It will not gain you any respect.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

It's not so perplexing that I don't catalog every satellite I see. I'm not a "satellite spotter". I've seen many satellites and confirmed their probable identity using satellite tracking software. I look up at the sky a lot and I'm not going to spend time checking into every satellite I see.

If you were really interested in ascertaining the "truth" about UFOs, then I would think "satellite spotting" should be a routine part of your work. Aircraft identification should be, as well. Until you identify it, an object in the sky is, by definition, a UFO. If its identity can reasonably be ascertained simply by looking it up, then why would you neglect to do so?

I just don't get it. If identifying UFOs is your passion, why don't you make an effort to identify all of them?

Earlier in this thread you were lamenting that you haven't done enough "field work" to call yourself a "ufologist" in good conscience. Now you're admitting that you've seen unidentified, fast-moving objects in the sky and haven't even bothered to investigate them.

Maybe one of those things you've blithely written off as "just another boring old satellite" might have been the ET visitation you've been yearning for all your life. I just don't get why you wouldn't at least make a token effort to figure out what it is.

It indicates to me that identifying UFOs is not really a concern of yours, unless you can find some compelling reason to claim ET or another paranormal cause.

It isn't what I do any more than I run and check a bird encyclodedia every time one flies by. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. And since I can't prove it's not a duck, there isn't much point in calling it a UFO. I don't claim that my logic is a an act of "science", it's just how I handle apparently mundane sightings.

But you claim to be a UFO researcher. I'd expect you to at least take more of an interest in the skies above you.

If you were a "crypto-ornithologist," (assuming such a field exists), I would certainly expect you to make an effort to identify every bird you see. I'd expect such a researcher to do it just out of curiosity, let alone the obvious interest of differentiating it from possible unknown species that might represent a breakthrough in his chosen field.

 

[John Albert]

The fact that Josef Allen Hynek was a trained astronomer who went on to write about UFOs doesn't mean that "ufology" isn't a pseudoscience.

You are absolutely right. It doesn't mean ufology is a pseudoscience either.

Uh, OK?

I was refuting your allegation that Josef Hynek being a legitimate scientist meant that ufology wasn't a pseudoscience.

Try to keep up with the discussion at hand, please?

Why ufology isn't a pseudoscience has already been explained.

Not satisfactorily, it hasn't.

He was a genuine scientist with more credentials and direct experience in an official and unofficial capacity than anyone on this forum. Dismissing his work would be irrational...

Lots of credentialed people have made major errors in judgment. Earlier in this thread, I already cited the cases of Jacques Valee, Linus Pauling, and John Forbes Nash. Citing Hynek's credentials as proof of UFOs being scientifically proven would consitute an appeal to misleading authority.

On the contrary, Hynek's advocacy of UFOs being real, unexplainable objects can rationally be dismissed on the simple fact that to this date, absolutely no material proof has ever been produced that UFOs constitute anything paranormal. On the lack of material evidence, we must resort to the null hypothesis of observer error or fabrication. That alone is enough to dismiss his work, along with the entire field of ufology as a whole.

Tell me, what is your "null hypothesis" regarding UFOs?

If you've been researching this for 40+ years, please tell me you've at least worked out a null hypothesis.

 

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>
j.r.

BTW: We sure take mankind's accomplishments for granted these days. I'm old enough to remember when they thought space travel was pure fantasy. Now I'm calling the routine sightings of orbiting satellites "mundane".

1. j.r. Are you J. Randall Murphy?

2. You are actually old enough, according to your profile here, to recall when near space was just being explored, but not many people thought of it as pure fantasy. A few years after your were born, man walked on the moon for the first time. But never let a little hyperbole get in the way of a good paragraph, eh?

 

[ufology]

A whole lot of alcoholics don't label themselves alcoholics either. But you start with the preconceived notion that UFOs are some sort of craft piloted by aliens or under their control.

You presume to know what I preconceive
and proclaim as if true what you think I believe.
By adding those together with your self-serving notes
and ignoring the contrary within my quotes,
you can build any illusion to fit your conclusion
and pretend to yourself that it floats.

j.r.