Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[GeeMack]

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.

Why is it you continue to blame other people and hold other people responsible for the abject failure of the UFO/alien believers to make a sane case for their belief?

What do you propose the scientists and skeptics do other than point out to the UFO/alien faithful that they're basing their belief in aliens on arguments from incredulity, lies, ignorance, and assorted other logical fallacies? Isn't that enough? Contrary to your continued effort to deflect responsibility to support your own position, it certainly isn't the critical thinkers' fault that the "ufologists" are too stupid or faithful or willfully ignorant to get it after literally thousands of attempts to explain it to them.

So what next? Should the skeptics lower their standard of evidence to the abysmally low level of the "ufologists" and just believe any old anecdote that comes along? Should scientists eliminate any rigor in their method and accept the silly incredulity and ignorance that pervades the "ufologists'" arguments? If you're going to continue to infer that the skeptics be held responsible for the "ufologists'" failure, the least you could do is make some suggestions as to what the skeptics should to accommodate your weaknesses.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.


http://www.ufopages.com/HRSmiley-01a.png


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

j.r.

Snicker.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Mr R. Jet first showed up in the JREFF in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130336

He does (or did not) think very much of Randi and soon did not think very much of me (still have me on ignore RR?).

In that thread I noted:

There are no photos in sufficient number, of sufficient quality, with accurate locations and time, taken in daylight that have been produced that prove anything abnormal. If you think you have such a case, let's see it.

I did not get an answer and gave up following the subsequent RR threads because I am only a dilettante with respect to caring about flying saucers and others with better experience and knowledge in the field have taken over.

Ufology is a pseudoscience because the only evidence it considers is poor evidence. When there is good evidence, the mundane explanations are obvious.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've only scanned Rramjets responses. I haven't really studied them.

I posted links to two that were germane to the issue. They directly addressed your criteria for pseudoscience. Did you not read them?

I have no corroboration that Ramjet is actually a scientist

You are in the majority.

or that he has claimed that what he is engaing in is "hard science".

That's the question at issue, isn't it? He's engaging in pseudoscience.

It is possible for scientists to have infomed opinions and express them without it being an act of "science".

Except he cited himself as a scientist in the context that he was engaging in a scientific endeavor.

Scientists are entitled to their opinions like anybody else.

Of course they are. They should be free to express their opinions on topics which they are not holding themselves out as experts on. I would like to hear his opinion of the Chiefs' chance at another Super Bowl.

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?

j.r.

So, despite meeting your stringent criteria for pseudoscience which you were so adamant about earlier, you are now backpedaling when presented with irrefutable evidence of pseudoscience in action.

You no longer need to answer this question:

ufology, is there anything that would cause you to finally admit that Rramjet is engaging in pseudoscience

You already have.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

That's not a null hypothesis, Rramjet, it's just a restatement of your multifaceted attempt to redefine 'UFO' to suit your own misguided purpose and a reintroduction of your failed concept of "debunkers".

UFOs are not misidentified mundane objects. They are unidentified (there's a clue in the first letter of 'UFO' if you look carefully) and to pretend that any other meaning is intended by your opponents is nothing more than a transparent strawman argument.

Your claim that there's no difference between "reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation" is beyond extraordinary, beyond pseudoscience and beyond ludicrous.

 

[Rramjet]

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?

Thank you ufology, I appreciate the way you think about and approach this topic.

In my own defence – in the other thread – I have been presenting UFO cases which I believe demonstrate that UFO cases exist that simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

As far as possible I have been pointing out the evidence in those cases that is verifiable – rarely have I presented a mere anecdote and contended that is the sole evidence we have. The only exception of course being the Venezuelan case – but that was a case I raised to demonstrate another point entirely, not to provide evidence for a case which defies plausible mundane explanation.

NEVER have I contended that an explanation for the cases I have presented that defy plausible mundane explanation is ET. I know that ufology is working from the hypothesis that ET is a plausible explanation for such cases – and I agree with him that ET is a plausible explanation – it is however not an explanation that we have direct evidence for – and therefore I cannot conclude that it is “the” explanation.

People claiming (making the unfounded assertion that) I am conducting pseudoscience miss the point altogether. As ufology pointed out, scientists are allowed to express their opinions just as anyone else is. However, just because scientists may choose to express an opinion, does not mean they are indulging in pseudoscience.

It would be entirely different if a scientist claimed that there was scientific proof for ET – as clearly that is not the case – and any such claim could legitimately be labelled as pseudoscientific. However, that is not what I (as an ordinary citizen) have been doing. I have (in the other thread) merely presented the multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence that I claim supports my argument that there exist UFO cases which defy plausible mundane explanation – and doing so is not pseudoscientific in the least.

Others may of course legitimately question the quality of the evidence I have been presenting – but the mere presentation of that evidence coupled with the claim that the evidence supports my contentions is not pseudoscientific. Indeed, science progresses in precisely that way. Evidence is presented in support of an hypothesis, others then argue over the merits of that evidence. Over time a consensus is often reached, but not necessarily so, there are legitimate differences in science, all based on the evidence.

ufology argues that UFOlogy is not a science to begin with, so how can it attract the label of pseudoscience? It is true however that in analysing UFO cases, scientific methodology can and is being utilised (indeed should be utilised wherever possible).

Some argue that it is simply not possible for UFO cases to be analysed using the scientific method – that is, that many UFOlogical claims are simply not falsifiable and thus not amenable to scientific exploration – and thus any attempt to claim scientific analysis will, by definition, be pseudoscientific.

This of course confuses the analysis of some UFOlogical claims (which are not ammenable to scientific analysis) with an analysis of UFO sighting reports (which are definitely ammenable to scientific methodology)...

However, while some UFOlogical claims are not ammenable to scientific analysis, that is certainly not true of all of them. I have proposed (for example) a scientifically testable (falsifiable) null hypothesis:

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.​

Yet that very inconvenient truth - the very existence of such an hypothesis - has been studiously ignored by all… and it has been ignored because the very existence of such a scientifically testable null hypothesis positively refutes the claim that UFOlogy is pseudoscience through and through.

Again as ufology notes:

"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.

 

[Rramjet]

Ah, so someone has at last noticed…

That's not a null hypothesis, Rramjet, it's just a restatement of your multifaceted attempt to redefine 'UFO' to suit your own misguided purpose and a reintroduction of your failed concept of "debunkers".

So you say, but what is the foundation of your objection there? Is it not a scientifically testable hypothesis? Is it not true that UFO debunkers claim that (apart from small percentage of hoaxes) the “unknown” cases are simply misidentified mundane objects? Is it not rue that if that is the case, then there should be no statistical difference (on defined characteristics such as speed, shape, colour, etc) between those UFO reports that have been positively identified as mundane objects and those UFO reports that have not been identified?

UFOs are not misidentified mundane objects. They are unidentified (there's a clue in the first letter of 'UFO' if you look carefully) and to pretend that any other meaning is intended by your opponents is nothing more than a transparent strawman argument.

Is it not true that UFO debunkers believe that those UFO reports that have not been identified are simply (and primarily) the result of a misidentification of mundane objects?

Your claim that there's no difference between "reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation" is beyond extraordinary, beyond pseudoscience and beyond ludicrous.

How so? Is not my hypothesis scientifically testable? If it is scientifically testable, then how can it be pseudoscience?

 

[Stray Cat]

Is it not true that UFO debunkers

A say what?

believe that those UFO reports that have not been identified are simply (and primarily) the result of a misidentification of mundane objects?

No, it's not true at all.
Sceptics think that UFOs are objects that have not been identified.

How so? Is not my hypothesis scientifically testable? If it is scientifically testable, then how can it be pseudoscience?

It is no more relevant than saying there should be no difference in the colour of the shirt that someone reporting a UFO will be wearing when compared to someone misreporting a mundane object.

 

[Rramjet]

I did not get an answer and gave up following the subsequent RR threads because I am only a dilettante with respect to caring about flying saucers and others with better experience and knowledge in the field have taken over.

If you had really been following the thread then you would have noted that I did provide the answers you were looking for – it is just that it is too easy for UFO debunkers to cry “Photoshop”, no matter how good provenance or the quality of any prospective photos. The digital age has thus practically rendered modern photos useless as evidence. There are exceptions of course, but that is not a debate for this thread. Please go back to the UFO thread and I will be only too happy to carry on this debate with you…

Ufology is a pseudoscience because the only evidence it considers is poor evidence. When there is good evidence, the mundane explanations are obvious.

You mean science can only be conducted when there is “good” evidence? What criteria do you have for this “good” evidence. What makes you believe you are the arbiter of what constitutes either “poor” or “good” evidence? Surely such an assessment can only be made on a case by case basis? Making sweeping generalisations as you have just done – could actually be considered pseudoscientific – at the very least, science frowns on the sweeping generalisation… Moreover, is it not true that many scientific hypotheses and theories are based purely on theoretical foundations (think cosmology and quantum physics for example)?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thank you ufology, I appreciate the way you think about and approach this topic.

In my own defence – in the other thread – I have been presenting UFO cases which I believe demonstrate that UFO cases exist that simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

As far as possible I have been pointing out the evidence in those cases that is verifiable – rarely have I presented a mere anecdote and contended that is the sole evidence we have. The only exception of course being the Venezuelan case – but that was a case I raised to demonstrate another point entirely, not to provide evidence for a case which defies plausible mundane explanation.

Ha ha! I knew I'd be able to get you to say it again! I win!

But I digress. I've proved that all of your cases positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation while you've proved that your version of a process of elimination is fatally flawed. You practice pseudoscience in your attempts.

NEVER have I contended that an explanation for the cases I have presented that defy plausible mundane explanation is ET.

That's because none of them defy mundane explanation, they all positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation leaving only "mundane". Your version of a process of elimination is pseudoscience.

I know that ufology is working from the hypothesis that ET is a plausible explanation for such cases – and I agree with him that ET is a plausible explanation – it is however not an explanation that we have direct evidence for – and therefore I cannot conclude that it is “the” explanation.

No, he is working from the hypothesis that ET is the explanation for such cases and his definitions paint you as a pseudoscientist.

People claiming (making the unfounded assertion that) I am conducting pseudoscience miss the point altogether. As ufology pointed out, scientists are allowed to express their opinions just as anyone else is. However, just because scientists may choose to express an opinion, does not mean they are indulging in pseudoscience.

Well, no. It is a well founded assertion that you are a psuedoscientist engaging in pseudoscience. Examples have been given with links. Did you not read them either?

It would be entirely different if a scientist claimed that there was scientific proof for ET – as clearly that is not the case

Clearly not! We agree on that much. See, we can have common ground.

– and any such claim could legitimately be labelled as pseudoscientific. However, that is not what I (as an ordinary citizen) have been doing. I have (in the other thread) merely presented the multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence that I claim supports my argument that there exist UFO cases which defy plausible mundane explanation – and doing so is not pseudoscientific in the least.

You've forgotten FLIR again. LOL. So, yes, you are being pseudoscientific.

Others may of course legitimately question the quality of the evidence I have been presenting – but the mere presentation of that evidence coupled with the claim that the evidence supports my contentions is not pseudoscientific. Indeed, science progresses in precisely that way. Evidence is presented in support of an hypothesis, others then argue over the merits of that evidence. Over time a consensus is often reached, but not necessarily so, there are legitimate differences in science, all based on the evidence.

Well, no. The very presentation of your "evidence" to support your contentions shows that you are engaging in pseudoscience.

ufology argues that UFOlogy is not a science to begin with, so how can it attract the label of pseudoscience? It is true however that in analysing UFO cases, scientific methodology can and is being utilised (indeed should be utilised wherever possible).

So, you're agreeing with ufology that UFOlogy is pseudoscience. You have even explained to yourself why. It isn't science but it tries to cloak itself in sciencey sounding words to try to justify its unfounded conclusions.

Some argue that it is simply not possible for UFO cases to be analysed using the scientific method – that is, that many UFOlogical claims are simply not falsifiable and thus not amenable to scientific exploration – and thus any attempt to claim scientific analysis will, by definition, be pseudoscientific.

This of course confuses the analysis of some UFOlogical claims (which are not ammenable to scientific analysis) with an analysis of UFO sighting reports (which are definitely ammenable to scientific methodology)...

Still trying to get your anecdotes in there. That also makes it pseudoscience.

However, while some UFOlogical claims are not ammenable to scientific analysis, that is certainly not true of all of them. I have proposed (for example) a scientifically testable (falsifiable) null hypothesis:

I'll propose a different one.

If the creduloids are correct and all UFOs are primarily unidentified non-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 non-mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation.​

Do you see anything wrong with that as your null hypothesis?

Yet that very inconvenient truth - the very existence of such an hypothesis - has been studiously ignored by all… and it has been ignored because the very existence of such a scientifically testable null hypothesis positively refutes the claim that UFOlogy is pseudoscience through and through.

Actually, it cements in the idea that you are a pseudoscientist engaging in pseudoscience and will fight tooth and nail to try to get words redefined to suit you. It's well known that you use that tactic.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mr R. Jet first showed up in the JREFF in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130336

He does (or did not) think very much of Randi and soon did not think very much of me (still have me on ignore RR?).

How did you limit him to three pages? Was there a rule against reposting repeated and failed arguments in effect at the time?

 

[ufology]

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.

It's pretty cool that you have a personal interest in UFOs and I have enjoyed our exchanges. I also agree that respect is earned ... mutually. The thing is, if someone in the public at large has a UFO sighting, they know they can talk with ufologists because they aren't going to be belittled and ridiculed.

If the JREF people feel they are "better" somehow than ufologists, why are people in the public at large who have had an experience more afraid of them? I'll tell you why.

Dismissal, ridicule and mockery are enough to make anyone leary of engaging in a discussion, yet these are the people the JREF is supposedly reaching out to. They are members of the public at large who need the help of the JREF the most ... and you can't reach out to them and expect to help them if they think you are just going to bite their head off. Here we recall the JREF mission:

"Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today."

You say it's up to the ufologists to "prove" cases, but we both no that is pretty much impossible. Is there not another option? In the absence of difinitive "proof", can we not discuss the topic using critical thinking and come to some common "most likely" conclusions? It doesn't always have to be based on adversarial, purely empirical science? Note the JREF Forum masthead:

"A place to dicuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way"

So nobody is suggesting that you should lower your standards. If anything, I am suggesting that you ( figuratively ) raise them. Leave the arrogance, prejudice and presumptions behind. We both know "proof" is elusive. Don't use it as an excuse to nail people to the wall and embarrass them. There is a better way to approach this that I'm sure it would reflect better on the JREF. If we can work constructively together, it can benefit everyone.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

You mean science can only be conducted when there is “good” evidence?

No, it means that bold statements like "defy plausible mundane explanation" can only be used when there is good evidence.

When science works with 'not much' evidence, it avoids such boldness until it has gathered enough good quality repeatable, falsifiable evidence through rigorous examination, analysis and cross referencing. What it doesn't do is pile up tons of poor quality evidence and pretend it makes a good case.

Ufologists haven't changed their methodology in the 60 odd years they have been researching UFOs. No attempt has been made to improve the accuracy of reporting, filtering out the obvious hoaxes or showing transparency.
A real scientist on the other hand would look at 60 odd years of not getting anywhere and make improvements to ensure the standard of evidence was improved. And that's evidence to follow regardless, not simply stuff that supports their presuppositions.

 

[Rramjet]

A say what?

Debunk: “ To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debunk)

Is it not true that UFO debunkers believe that those UFO reports that have not been identified are simply (and primarily) the result of a misidentification of mundane objects?

No, it's not true at all.
Sceptics think that UFOs are objects that have not been identified.

What does that mean? I could have sworn that your (so called) sceptics have argued up hill and down dale that the unidentified reports are simply the result of misidentified mundane objects. Of course they have: That is the principle contention of the debunkers/sceptics/cynics! And no amount of obfuscation on your part can or will obscure that fact.

Is not my hypothesis scientifically testable? If it is scientifically testable, then how can it be pseudoscience?

It is no more relevant than saying there should be no difference in the colour of the shirt that someone reporting a UFO will be wearing when compared to someone misreporting a mundane object.

It seems then you have simply misread the hypothesis. Here it is again. If you indicate to me what parts of it do you not understand I will of course attempt to clarify it for you:

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.​

 

[Rramjet]

When science works with 'not much' evidence, it avoids such boldness until it has gathered enough good quality repeatable, falsifiable evidence through rigorous examination, analysis and cross referencing. What it doesn't do is pile up tons of poor quality evidence and pretend it makes a good case.

“Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.”(http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If you had really been following the thread then you would have noted that I did provide the answers you were looking for – it is just that it is too easy for UFO debunkers to cry “Photoshop”, no matter how good provenance or the quality of any prospective photos. The digital age has thus practically rendered modern photos useless as evidence. There are exceptions of course, but that is not a debate for this thread. Please go back to the UFO thread and I will be only too happy to carry on this debate with you…

I followed the thread. It seems to be so convenient to cry “Photoshop” to explain why photographic evidence cannot be presented.

You mean science can only be conducted when there is “good” evidence? What criteria do you have for this “good” evidence. What makes you believe you are the arbiter of what constitutes either “poor” or “good” evidence? Surely such an assessment can only be made on a case by case basis? Making sweeping generalisations as you have just done – could actually be considered pseudoscientific – at the very least, science frowns on the sweeping generalisation… Moreover, is it not true that many scientific hypotheses and theories are based purely on theoretical foundations (think cosmology and quantum physics for example)?

Na. Fuzzy lights in some random direction in the sky = excellent pseudo- scientific evidence for UFOs. Clearly focused lights with known location, time and direction = excellent scientific evidence of something mundane (like meteors, aircraft, flares, balloons, etc).

What your sentence "Moreover, is it not true that many scientific hypotheses and theories are based purely on theoretical foundations (think cosmology and quantum physics for example)?" means I have no idea.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Debunk: “ To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debunk)

So you're saying that you post falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims. Good to know.

Is it not true that UFO debunkers believe that those UFO reports that have not been identified are simply (and primarily) the result of a misidentification of mundane objects?

It is true that you falsely, shamly, or exaggeratedly claimed that some anecdotes positively defy plausible mundane explanation. You are engaging in a textbook case of pseudoscience.

What does that mean? I could have sworn that your (so called) sceptics have argued up hill and down dale that the unidentified reports are simply the result of misidentified mundane objects. Of course they have: That is the principle contention of the debunkers/sceptics/cynics! And no amount of obfuscation on your part can or will obscure that fact.

A pseudoscientist would falsely, shamly, or exaggeratedly claim that some cases positively defy plausible mundane explanation.

Is not my hypothesis scientifically testable? If it is scientifically testable, then how can it be pseudoscience?

It seems then you have simply misread the hypothesis. Here it is again. If you indicate to me what parts of it do you not understand I will of course attempt to clarify it for you:

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.​

So were you able to glean anything from my replacement for you? Does it seem more fitting for you in your pursuit of pseudoscience?

 

[RoboTimbo]

“Weight of Evidence … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”

(…)

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.”(http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

If you're talking about extraordinary evidence is required for extraordinary claims, that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[Stray Cat]

It's pretty cool that you have a personal interest in UFOs and I have enjoyed our exchanges. I also agree that respect is earned ... mutually. The thing is, if someone in the public at large has a UFO sighting, they know they can talk with ufologists because they aren't going to be belittled and ridiculed.

If someone reports a UFO to me directly, I don't belittle or ridicule them. I am quite willing to investigate reports and relish the idea of investigating them first hand instead of reading about them on the internet.
The few I have been directly involved in investigating stand out from the usual reports because I find that talking first hand to the people, they are not usually telling tales of alien space craft, but simply things they saw that they didn't understand.
Now there are a few reasons for this: People who think they saw alien space craft will want validation and they will only get that from other people who believe in aliens, therefore they will seek out ufologists (in the same way that people who see images of Jesus in clouds, marmite lids and toilet doors seek out Catholics to validate their experience, they don't go to the local atheist group with it).
They are not looking for any critical analysis of their experience, but only confirmation that they are right.
They may not be wrong, but after the story has gone through the ufology grindmill, we will most likely never know because pertinent details will be left out and the story will be 'enhanced' slightly at every telling.

You say it's up to the ufologists to "prove" cases, but we both no that is pretty much impossible. Is there not another option? In the absence of difinitive "proof", can we not discuss the topic using critical thinking and come to some common "most likely" conclusions?

That's exactly what sceptics do. Rramjet often claims we are saying we have proved it was blimp or which ever case we've looked into, but in reality we are simply saying it was more likely a blimp than an alien space craft.
So I don't think ufologists should have to prove cases, but they need to prove the concrete conclusions they often come to (eg: "this defies plausible mundane explanation") or simply admit that when all the evidence is truly critically examined, the object is simply unidentified, which of course doesn't rule out the possibility of it being alien either and no one here to my knowledge has an issue with that.

It doesn't always have to be based on adversarial, purely empirical science? Note the JREF Forum masthead:

"A place to dicuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way"

Yes, friendly and lively, but hypocrisy and dishonesty is rarely rewarded with friendship and time after time we see 'believers' (in what ever subject be it mediums, ghosts, ufos, bigfoot) come here laying down some distorted law and expecting this forum to operate under their misconceived perceptions of 'concrete truth'. That doesn't create a climate for friendship.

So nobody is suggesting that you should lower your standards. If anything, I am suggesting that you ( figuratively ) raise them. Leave the arrogance, prejudice and presumptions behind. We both know "proof" is elusive. Don't use it as an excuse to nail people to the wall and embarrass them. There is a better way to approach this that I'm sure it would reflect better on the JREF. If we can work constructively together, it can benefit everyone.

"Proof" maybe elusive and yet ufologists generally make proclamations that require proof instead of speculations which don't.
We rarely ask for proof anyway, we ask for evidence to support a PoV, the two things are not the same.

 

[Akhenaten]

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 ...

'Watered down' is a pretty funny way of saying 'at odds with my agenda'. Is there an online glossary to help us untangle these alternate meanings?

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?

Apart from adding a little subjectivity to it, how does this differ from the explanation of a null hypothesis that you were given?

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 ).

This sounds like a restatement of Rramjets infallible process of elimination (iPoe). Are you going to repeat all of his fallacious reasoning or do you have some original outlandish claims of your own?

• Instantaneous high-angle changes in direction and speed, often at very high-speed.

Like the perception you get of these things when they're much closer than you imagined them to be, or do you have some unique and hitherto unknown ability to discern the size and distance of these objects? Maybe you'd be better off studying this useful ability rather than silly flying saucer stories.

• Silent operation combined with the above if at close range.

Again, your unique size and distance judging abilities are called into play.

• 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.

Isn't that kind of ignoring the fact that flight predates the Montgolfiers (the unapostrophied ones) by hundreds of millions of years?

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.

What you're doing, with your unfounded assumptions about the unknowable characteristics of things which in most cases you haven't even seen for yourself, trying to claim that accurate analysis of these things can yield useful data, and giving it a legitimate-sounding name like 'ufology' is pretty much definitive of pseudoscience.