Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think we're still in the the "Is it pseudoscience?" thread. If you want to discuss the evidence you need to go over to the moderated evidence thread ( sorry ).

j.r.

So are you going to report me for off-topic posting?

I ceased reading the RRamjet Against the World thread because it was getting somewhat repetitious. And, as I have noted, I have locked horns with "The Hero of His Nation" in the past in which he defended the Rendlesham panic over the lights of a lighthouse and other incidents just as easily proved mundane.

PS: A good book of case compilations is "Beyond Top Secret" by Timothy Good.

Pick one. I've now listened to a hour interview with the guy and read the first 90 pages of Need to Know. None of his cases appear to satisfy the criteria I asked for in a recorded visual case.

If UFOlogy is a science give me one visual case. The Phoenix Aircraft Flares dose not qualify.

 

[Correa Neto]

I suggest UFOsophia or UFOphilia.

UFOpseudology is also interesting.

All these terms, of course, are now copyrighted and you peasants must pay to use them.

 

[Rramjet]

It's really impossible to form a falsifiable null hypothesis if all you have to go on is nothing more than stories. How do you go about proving "human error or deception"? In many cases you really can't prove or disprove it unless you actually catch the "witness" in a lie, or find some evidence of hallucination, mental instability or the like.

That being the case, the study of UFO sightings cannot be reliably conducted according to strict scientific guidelines. Hence, making any kind of determination based on such "evidence" would be pseudoscience.

Here is a null hypothesis for you then:

If the debunkers are correct and all UFOs are primarily misidentified mundane objects, then a scientifically testable (falsifiable) hypothesis would be that there is no difference (in terms of definable parameters such as shape, speed, etc) between those reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here is a null hypothesis for you then:

If the debunkers are correct and all UFOs are primarily misidentified mundane objects, then a scientifically testable (falsifiable) hypothesis would be that there is no difference (in terms of definable parameters such as shape, speed, etc) between those reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation.

ufology, here is a repetition of a previous strawman hypothesis. Is this still how pseudoscience works?

 

[Psiload]

I suggest UFOsophia or UFOphilia.

UFOpseudology is also interesting.

All these terms, of course, are now copyrighted and you peasants must pay to use them.

I suggest bUFOonery, as practiced by bUFOonologists.

 

[Correa Neto]

And since sighting reports are nothing but anecdotes...

And since there's no way to actually validate decades-old cold-trail dead-end anectodes, quite often embellished by UFOlogists, one can not be sure they faithfully represent the events as told at UFOlogy lore...

Rramjet's null hypothesis is sown to be yet another example of pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I suggest bUFOonery, as practiced by bUFOonologists.

bUFOonatics?

 

[ufology]

I just explained to you what a null hypothesis is, in layman's terms.

OK I suppose that if it's OK to water down the criteria for what constitutes a null hypothesis for the sake of convenience to illustrate a point, then I'm willing to play along. But if this is some kind of sucker punch ... I'll ... well ... I'll ... I dinno actually ... maybe sneer a lot ... and insert lots of smilies ...

My baseline or "null hypothesis" would be considered that which is normal. In other words, can what I'm looking at be readily explained as a natural or manmade object or phenomenon? If the answer is no. Then I take a closer look and try to find an unusual natural or manmade explanation. I keep doing that until I either find a plausible and likely natural or manmade explanation, or all such explanations ( available to me ) have been ruled out. To date there are certain markers that still rule out natural or manmade explanations for objects which appear to be of appreciable size ( not an insect, remote control toy or suspended object ).

• Instantaneous high-angle changes in direction and speed, often at very high-speed.
• Silent operation combined with the above if at close range.
• In a historical context, craft that can be determined to have been beyond the capability of the technology of the day. To determine this I use textbooks and encyclopedias on flight and aircraft and aviation history ... all the way back to the Montgolfier's and so on.

Again, I don't claim to be doing science with this method, only doing my best to apply critical thinking to individual sighting reports.

j.r.

 

[Pixel42]

objects which appear to be of appreciable size

How do you estimate the size of an object in the sky if you don't know what it is?

It could be small and close or large and far away, you have no way of telling.

In most cases people simply make an assumption about either the size or the distance, and estimate the other accordingly. That's why chinese lanterns just above the trees and planets millions of miles away can both be mistaken for aircraft-sized objects at a few thousand feet.

 

[ufology]

Yes, but given that I am not about to reveal my identity (particularly) in this forum (where so much vitriol has been directed against me), then it becomes merely another unfounded assertion among the many which this forum seems so much to enjoy putting forward. You will therefore simply have to forgive my single lapse in judgement in that case. Sorry.

OK ... Thanks Rramjet.

For me, I'm easy to lookup and find. I've had my website for over 20 years, and I'm listed in the phone book. I even use my website in my resume as an example of my work. I get more compliments than criticism and I doubt that anyone here in the JREF is going to put a hit out on me. They have a passion in their beliefs that they believe is based on something good, and they have a right to try to defend that, perhaps even an obligation, or so people like Dawkins and Hitchens would contend. I respect that.

The tough part is that there is a prevailing attitude that it is OK to tar all contentious knowledge and the people who believe it with the same brush. Those of us who have had a genuine experience need the support of scientists, skeptics and critical thinkers. We are just people and we've had some out of the ordinary experience. We didn't ask for it to happen, it just happened; and they don't understand how it feels when someone seeks out their wisdom only to be outright dismissed, or written off as unstable or as a fraud. It isn't isn't fair. These people don't deserve that level of disrespect from those in our society who are supposed to be better than that.

If they really want to help fulfill the mission of the JREF, they need to earn the trust of the people they are trying to reach. I came here to try to be an agent of change for that process. I appeal to the better nature of those who understand what I'm talking about here to treat it seriously and participate in good faith.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, any chance of you answering my question about whether you think Rramjet is engaging in pseudoscience, given the parameters you specified earlier?

 

[GeeMack]

The tough part is that there is a prevailing attitude that it is OK to tar all contentious knowledge and the people who believe it with the same brush. Those of us who have had a genuine experience need the support of scientists, skeptics and critical thinkers.

But you still can't make a positive suggestion as to how you might get that support. Maybe if you were a little bit scientific in your pursuit instead of shunning legitimate science at every opportunity?...

Therefore what we actually have are the two extremes, science and pseudoscience, with ufology as the subject matter in between, which makes ufology itself neither science nor pseudoscience.

There are some flawed assumptions and incorrect statistics here. Ufology is an area of inquiry and study. It isn't science nor is it psudoscience.

Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience.

I'm not engaging in "science" nor am I engaging in "pseudoscience".

Again, ufology makes no claim to being science in and of itself. Therefore it is neither science nor pseudoscience.

Ufology on the whole makes no claim to be in and of itself "sceintific".

Ufology is ufology and science is science. I don't think the twain will ever meet, [...]

I've already stated why my view is different several times but you seem to keep missing it. The main rationale for calling something pseudoscience is that it must be presented as being science without following its rules. Because I make no claim to be doing science, and what I do doesn't fit the definition of science, what I do is neither science nor pseudoscience [...]

Clearly we see the prerequisite listed "... presented as scientific". Which I make no claim that ufology does, and neither is there a prevailing view among ufologists that it is ... that is something that is consistently done here by the skeptics.

[...]

Again, I make no claim that ufology mistakenly thinks or holds itself up as science, and neither is that a prevailing view among ufologists. Again, that is something that is consistently done by the skeptics.

[...]

Again, Neither I nor the ufology greater ufology community appears to hold any set of ideas it puts forth as scientific unless they actually are scientific ( for example, meteroites are from space ).

[...]

Again, Neither I nor the ufology greater ufology community appears to either with or without warrant presume to have a "scientific basis or application".

"Ufology" is not a scientific endeavor. Its participants don't engage in science. It is not presented as science. It's not being held up as science. "Ufologists" do not presume "ufology" to have a scientific basis. We have a massive, although not terribly diverse body of evidence to support this position. On that point we agree. What you do isn't science.

So how do you want scientists, skeptics, and critical thinkers to support those who believe without objective evidence that aliens are visiting the Earth? Isn't the faith you espouse antithetical to science and critical thinking?

Oh, and here's a suggestion: Stop blaming other people for your own failure...

If they really want to help fulfill the mission of the JREF, they need to earn the trust of the people they are trying to reach. I came here to try to be an agent of change for that process. I appeal to the better nature of those who understand what I'm talking about here to treat it seriously and participate in good faith.

It is not the fault of the scientists, skeptics, and critical thinkers that you are unable to present your position in a rational, honest, or cogent way. If you want to earn the trust of the people whose help you are soliciting, you need to recognize that the problem is with the steadfast refusal of the UFO/alien believers to consider their position in an objective, scientific way.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

OK I suppose that if it's OK to water down the criteria for what constitutes a null hypothesis for the sake of convenience to illustrate a point, then I'm willing to play along. But if this is some kind of sucker punch ... I'll ... well ... I'll ... I dinno actually ... maybe sneer a lot ... and insert lots of smilies ...

My baseline or "null hypothesis" would be considered that which is normal. In other words, can what I'm looking at be readily explained as a natural or manmade object or phenomenon? If the answer is no. Then I take a closer look and try to find an unusual natural or manmade explanation. I keep doing that until I either find a plausible and likely natural or manmade explanation, or all such explanations ( available to me ) have been ruled out. To date there are certain markers that still rule out natural or manmade explanations for objects which appear to be of appreciable size ( not an insect, remote control toy or suspended object ).

• Instantaneous high-angle changes in direction and speed, often at very high-speed.
• Silent operation combined with the above if at close range.
• In a historical context, craft that can be determined to have been beyond the capability of the technology of the day. To determine this I use textbooks and encyclopedias on flight and aircraft and aviation history ... all the way back to the Montgolfier's and so on.

Again, I don't claim to be doing science with this method, only doing my best to apply critical thinking to individual sighting reports.

j.r.

Any hard evidence of any of the above? Give me some sequential pictures from known, fixed locations, etc. I have seen enough wobbly, out of focus movies and videos.

That you have been evading this question while at the same time claiming that UFOlogy is a science and that you believe these things to be true shows that you are engaging in pseudoscience. Where is the irrefutable evidence?

The fact that you have not given me any qualifying example leads me to think that there aren't any.

 

[ufology]

ufology, here is a repetition of a previous strawman hypothesis. Is this still how pseudoscience works?

We're just having a discussion here, not doing science or pseudoscience. I've already stated that a "null hypothesis" isn't suitable for ufology. So we are just exploring ideas here, not measuring the validity of any genuine "null hypothesis".

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, is there anything that would cause you to finally admit that Rramjet is engaging in pseudoscience in the other (now non-moderated) UFO thread? You said that UFOlogists don't claim to do science so therefore UFOlogy couldn't possibly be pseudoscience. I showed you Rramjet's claim to be a scientist and where he claimed to be using the scientific method, with links. You couldn't mistake it for anythng other than evidence that Rramjet's version of UFOlogy is pseudoscience, according to what you had been insisting on for several posts.

Will you do the honest thing now?

 

[ufology]

Any hard evidence of any of the above? Give me some sequential pictures from known, fixed locations, etc

That you have been evading this question while at the same time claiming that UFOlogy is a science and that you believe these things to be true shows that you are engaging in pseudoscience. Where is the irrefutable evidence?

The fact that you have not given me any qualifying example leads me to think that there aren't any.

I mentioned that a null hypothesis isn't well suited to ufology because of the lack of controlled and repeatable conditions. I thought we discussing that in relation to "Is Ufology Pseudoscience". Now I get sucker punched with a request for hard evidence? Well you know what ... I promised there'd be some smilies if that happened. So here's your proof ... proof that I'm still cool ... and you have some catching up to do.

Now ... move yourself over to the moderated "evidence" thread if you want to discuss "evidence". This is the wrong place.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

ufology, is there anything that would cause you to finally admit that Rramjet is engaging in pseudoscience in the other (now non-moderated) UFO thread? You said that UFOlogists don't claim to do science so therefore UFOlogy couldn't possibly be pseudoscience. I showed you Rramjet's claim to be a scientist and where he claimed to be using the scientific method, with links. You couldn't mistake it for anythng other than evidence that Rramjet's version of UFOlogy is pseudoscience, according to what you had been insisting on for several posts.

Will you do the honest thing now?

You're confusing the concept of ufology on the whole as being a pseudoscience ( which is what we're talking about ) with individuals who may or may not be practicing pseudoscience within the field. I think that maybe it would be a good idea to have a separate thread titled "Which Ufologists are Practicing Pseudoscience". In such a thread individual cases could be discussed and some good might come of it. This would be similar to discussing "Which Medical Practitioners are Quacks". Not all medicine is Quackery. Not all ufology is pseudoscience. It isn't rationally possible to paint everyone and every facet of ufology with the same brush. Therefore it isn't rational to label ufology as a whole to be pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

ufology, any chance of you answering my question about whether you think Rramjet is engaging in pseudoscience, given the parameters you specified earlier?

I've only scanned Rramjets responses. I haven't really studied them. I have no corroboration that Ramjet is actually a scientist or that he has claimed that what he is engaing in is "hard science". It is possible for scientists to have infomed opinions and express them without it being an act of "science". Scientists are entitled to their opinions like anybody else. So out of respect for Ramjet I'm not going to be his judge here until I know more. Are these is educated opinions based on critical thinking or his scientific conclusions?

BTW: If Rramjet is actually a scientist then I would urge the JREF supporters to find a way to work with him instead of constantly against him. The JREF needs scientists who have an in-depth understanding of the topics to help people wade through the misconceptions and nonsense. The JREF needs to earn the trust and respect of those they are trying to reach. When you are dealing with smart educated people, you can't expect to gain their trust and respect by constntly dismissing and disrespecting them.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

BTW: If Rramjet is actually a scientist then I would urge the JREF supporters to find a way to work with him instead of constantly against him.

j.r.

This seems to be backwards, doesn't it? Shouldn't he be working towards finding actual evidence for his UFOs instead of practicing pseudoscience? A pseudoscientist with his anecdotes about UFOs as alien spaceships posting on a skeptics board? I applaud our efforts to try to get him to raise his game in spite of his fighting against it tooth and nail. No, he is practicing pseudoscience. I have no interest in encouraging that kind of muddled thinking. With my gentle encouragement, he has finally stopped the silly "positively defies plausible mundane explanation" mantra. We can occasionally teach a pseudoscientist to see his folly. Baby steps.

 

[Stray Cat]

BTW: If Rramjet is actually a scientist then I would urge the JREF supporters to find a way to work with him instead of constantly against him.

Excuse me?

So we do have to lower our standards?

I would suggest that if Rramjet increased his standards to at least scientific ones, no one would have any problem working with him. After all the JREF vs Rramjet long running debate isn't a personality clash, it's a criticism of his low standards of evidence and his constant attempt to use science to support his unevidenced PoV... Pseudo Science in action if you will.

The JREF needs scientists who have an in-depth understanding of the topics to help people wade through the misconceptions and nonsense.

We already have some of the best people available here who are more than capable of wading through the nonsense. There are plenty of scientists, astronomers, aviators, military experts (and me who's only had a 35 year interest in UFO's later developing into an interest in Urban Myth and other related subjects, but who has an indepth knowledge of photography, video and taking the micky ) who have put a lot of time and effort into researching the guff that Rramjet has been posting in his evidence thread. Everytime it has been shown he is not telling the whole story and most of what he does tell is found wanting in some way (mostly due to inaccurate reporting by UFOlogists).

The JREF needs to earn the trust and respect of those they are trying to reach. When you are dealing with smart educated people, you can't do it by constntly dismissing and disrespecting them.

Indeed and you'll find that with the vast majority of the JREF forum members, you are indeed dealing with smart educated people, people with whom it is hard to pull the wool over their eyes. We are not the usual credulous audiences that UFOlogists pray upon.
It is the UFOlogists that need to earn our respect in some very simple ways, mostly by increasing their standards of research and reporting or holding their hands up and admitting that when you strip away the layers of ambiguity, exaggeration and sometimes outright hoaxes and lies, they don't have much... But if they concentrated on what was left instead of hawking tall tales about 1940's crashed flying saucers and 1980s lighthouses in English forests as if they have conclusive proof, they would perhaps have more credibility if less book sales.