Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

Which aspect of UFOlogy would you propose to discuss first?

Hi RoboTimbo ... Welcome to this thread,

I didn't have a particular topic in mind. Because of my long time involvement I take a lot of things for granted. Others who haven't reflected that much on it might see me as jumping way to far ahead. Besides, part of this process is for me to test my own assumptions based on how other people evaluate them. I might learn more myself by following someone else's chain of logic from the ground up than just putting mine out there. Did you have any suggestions?

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

In many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is. It's based on direct observation of the phenomenon. There is no filter or third party for the data to pass through before it hits the witness's retina and becomes a stimulus for optical observation. It's pretty rare that people actually see something for which no stimulus has been provided.

To quote Dr. David Morrison in "UFOs: A scientific debate":

...we humans do not immediately perceive the world as it is; rather, we are elaborate computers with an enormous preset routine and much programming, both genetic and cultural; and we have to interpret all the data we get. That interpretation, whatever it is, is subject to error

As stated previously, a majority (if not a significant majority) of all UFO reports are misperceptions and hoaxes. How can you put any significant weight to such an unreliable instrument? That is NOT critical thinking.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hi RoboTimbo ... Welcome to this thread,

Thanks, good luck with it not going south.

I didn't have a particular topic in mind. Because of my long time involvement I take a lot of things for granted. Others who haven't reflected that much on it might see me as jumping way to far ahead. Besides, part of this process is for me to test my own assumptions based on how other people evaluate them. I might learn more myself by following someone else's chain of logic from the ground up than just putting mine out there. Did you have any suggestions?

j.r.

That's why I asked what you would do differently from Rramjet. How do you see this thread proceeding? Where do you see your path diverging from Rramjet's approach?

 

[John Albert]

The critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence.

We're only 3 posts into the topic, and there you go abandoning critical thinking right off the bat.

See how quickly your vaunted dedication to science goes right out the window when you see there's a chance it might interfere with promulgating your preexisting belief?

Critical thinking is a discipline, not just a moniker you can tack onto any argument to add validity to it.

In many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is. It's based on direct observation of the phenomenon. There is no filter or third party for the data to pass through before it hits the witness's retina and becomes a stimulus for optical observation.

Sorry, but this is flat out wrong. Anecdotal evidence has been proven time and again to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence there is. It's also unfalsifiable in most cases, so it cannot be taken seriously as evidence for or against the existence of anything.

Imagine if Sir Isaac Newton's only proof for the Laws of Thermodynamics were "my brother-in-law told me so." That wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

It's pretty rare that people actually see something for which no stimulus has been provided.

On the contrary, it happens all over the world every night, just a few hours after bedtime.

Regarding simple ignorance. We can help overcome that by posting up clarifications and working it out in a constructive manner. We can deal with fallacies in logic the same way.

Not if you start inserting loopholes and special pleadings into the rules of critical thinking, like:

The critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence.

Statements like that are basically reserving the right to make up the rules as you go along, to fit your own argument.

As for lies and deception, let's smoke them out and expose them for what they are. We don't need them in ufology any more than anyone else does.

In most cases, it's impossible to falsify anecdotal evidence on the basis of human error or deception. Add to that the well-known fact that human memory and perception is notoriously faulty, and you see the reason why anecdotal evidence is too unreliable to be taken seriously as evidence.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Hi RoboTimbo ... Welcome to this thread,

I didn't have a particular topic in mind. Because of my long time involvement I take a lot of things for granted. Others who haven't reflected that much on it might see me as jumping way to far ahead. Besides, part of this process is for me to test my own assumptions based on how other people evaluate them. I might learn more myself by following someone else's chain of logic from the ground up than just putting mine out there. Did you have any suggestions?

j.r.

I have a suggestion. Perhaps you should take some time and reflect seriously on why it is that scientists don't consider anecdotal evidence to be valid. There are very solid reasons for this. As long as you refuse to take the time to understand those reasons, you will not progress.

Special pleading, in your case the desire to admit testimonials as valid evidence, is a fallacy. It is just the way things are. This type of evidence is not, should not, and shall not be accepted as valid.

Until you understand this, and I doubt you will, simply due to your lifelong commitment to ufology, you will keep treading the same old ground as all bleevers in woo.

It's not too late for you, but as long as you keep dodging the reality that anecdotal evidence and witness testimony are invalid for extraordinary claims, you will be liable to believe all sorts of nonsense.

Without actual acceptable evidence, no one should believe that you were on a spaceship, or that you travel outside of your body [thinking without neurons], for example.

Take the time to understand why... I did, and I am probably half as smart as you are. Good luck.

 

[ufology]

To quote Dr. David Morrison in "UFOs: A scientific debate":

...we humans do not immediately perceive the world as it is; rather, we are elaborate computers with an enormous preset routine and much programming, both genetic and cultural; and we have to interpret all the data we get. That interpretation, whatever it is, is subject to error

As stated previously, a majority (if not a significant majority) of all UFO reports are misperceptions and hoaxes. How can you put any significant weight to such an unreliable instrument? That is NOT critical thinking.

OK this is as good a place as any to start. I'm assuming here that we are discussing anecdotal evidence as it pertains to the direct observation of the UFO phenomenon. With respect to your quote, I agree entirely with what it says, but as it points out, it is subject to "interpretation". For example, I don't see the quote as saying that the stimulus leading to the optical perception of the phenomenon doesn't exist, rather I see it as saying that the way the optical perception is interpreted can lead to different conclusions based on cultural and genetic programming.

The genetic programming for optical recognition is pretty consistent between cultures, with minor differences in field of view. We can subject any normal person from any culture to an eye examination and get pretty much the same results. The stimulus response is a genetic scientific fact. So again, the liklihood of a normal unimpaired person optically perceiving something without a stimulus is very unlikely.

Where it gets murky is in the interpretation. Let's use an example the mythical "star of bethlehem". Religious lore tells the tell of the star hovering over the birthplace of Jesus. Their cultural programming causes religious people to interpret it as a sign from heaven. Modern astronomers have interpreted it as a comet. Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis theorists propose it was some kind advanced craft.

What was it exactly? I ask the question, did it even exist at all? From my own investigations into the reality of JC, he seems to be pure myth, more like a composite character designed as disinformation to fool the Romans. If that's the case then the "star of Bethlehem" is also just another myth to add an element of mysticism.

That's my starter on the issue. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Rramjet]

To quote Dr. David Morrison in "UFOs: A scientific debate":

...we humans do not immediately perceive the world as it is; rather, we are elaborate computers with an enormous preset routine and much programming, both genetic and cultural; and we have to interpret all the data we get. That interpretation, whatever it is, is subject to error

As stated previously, a majority (if not a significant majority) of all UFO reports are misperceptions and hoaxes. How can you put any significant weight to such an unreliable instrument? That is NOT critical thinking.

I believe it is important in critical thinking not to overgeneralise. Sure perception is interpretive, but it is so in definable ways. We largely know and understand the factors that bias our perceptions, they have been well studied and documented. We can then use that scientific knowledge in our assessments of anecdotal evidence. We can look to see if any of the biasing perceptual factors are present. If there are such factors present, then we make an accounting of them and how they may have affected the observation. The less effective biasing factors, the more inclined we will be to take the observation seriously.

That is how critical thinking must work. Overgeneralisation is a huge trap that is easy to fall into. It is possible for eyewitnesses to be mistaken in their perceptions, but that does not mean that they always are.

 

[GeeMack]

The critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence. In many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is. It's based on direct observation of the phenomenon. There is no filter or third party for the data to pass through before it hits the witness's retina and becomes a stimulus for optical observation. It's pretty rare that people actually see something for which no stimulus has been provided.

Mental illness. Delusions. Hallucinations due to intentionally or accidentally consumed drugs. Hallucinations due to bacteria, viruses, molds, mildews, or various other environmental toxins. Lies. There are a whole host of explanations for why people believe they see things that they don't really see or why they would say they saw things even if they didn't. And every last one of those is known to occur, documented, and a lot more common than any objectively observed alien craft. If you really want to establish the truth, why do you hold the scientific method in such contempt?

Regarding simple ignorance. We can help overcome that by posting up clarifications and working it out in a constructive manner. We can deal with fallacies in logic the same way. As for lies and deception, let's smoke them out and expose them for what they are. We don't need them in ufology any more than anyone else does.

So you'll start by knocking off that dishonest tactic of blaming scientists and skeptics for your failure to demonstrate the existence of those aliens you believe in?

 

[ufology]

I have a suggestion. Perhaps you should take some time and reflect seriously on why it is that scientists don't consider anecdotal evidence to be valid. There are very solid reasons for this. As long as you refuse to take the time to understand those reasons, you will not progress.

Hi Maurice ...

This isn't a "scientific" debate. It's a discussion based on critical thinking. Scientific evaluation is valuable, but it's not all there is. I understand why anecdotal evidence is considered generally unrealiable in scientific studies, but I also know that the phnomenon of optical recognition is a proven scientific fact. That is why we have opticians. To say that people's vision suddenly malfunctions in every time a UFO is spotted is not reasonable. As for my own experiences, I'm just recording them for personal interest. I don't hold them up as proof of anything except to me personally and in the context they are intended.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hi Maurice ...

This isn't a "scientific" debate. It's a discussion based on critical thinking. Scientific evaluation is valuable, but it's not all there is. I understand why anecdotal evidence is considered generally unrealiable in scientific studies, but I also know that the phnomenon of optical recognition is a proven scientific fact. That is why we have opticians. To say that people's vision suddenly malfunctions in every time a UFO is spotted is not reasonable. As for my own experiences, I'm just recording them for personal interest. I don't hold them up as proof of anything except to me personally and in the context they are intended.

j.r.

If you're just going to puke out anecdote after anecdote and try to discuss them into reality to fuel your belief in pseudoaliens like Rramjet, that isn't any different. I was hoping you actually had something.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Hi Maurice ...

This isn't a "scientific" debate. It's a discussion based on critical thinking. Scientific evaluation is valuable, but it's not all there is. I understand why anecdotal evidence is considered generally unrealiable in scientific studies, but I also know that the phnomenon of optical recognition is a proven scientific fact. That is why we have opticians. To say that people's vision suddenly malfunctions in every time a UFO is spotted is not reasonable. As for my own experiences, I'm just recording them for personal interest. I don't hold them up as proof of anything except to me personally and in the context they are intended.

j.r.

It's not about whether you admit to doing science or not. It's about you understanding why this evidence is not acceptable, whether or not you are doing science.

Yes, a witness could very well be telling the truth about what he saw. And it could be that what he saw is exactly what he described. But that is just not enough. It never will be. You must stop accepting this evidence. And please don't say you don't. I'm not playing quote fishing to prove it, but you do. Consistently. It's special pleading all the way.

 

[ufology]

Mental illness. Delusions. Hallucinations ...

So you'll start by knocking off that dishonest tactic of blaming scientists and skeptics for your failure to demonstrate the existence of those aliens you believe in?

Hey there GeeMack

Certainly there are lots of abnormal things that can induce a stimulus response, but they are the exception, and I would agree that in such cases where those elements are in play, it would add doubt rather than certainty as to what we are dealing with.

Also please try to avoid the presumptions that I'm up to some sort of anti-science conspiracy based on contempt for science. Science is totally cool and I have great respect for scientists. I'm not disrespecting them here in any way. Quite the reverse.

When it comes to the scientific method and UFOs, it's just not well suited to exploring the mystery because of the lack of empirical evidence and repeatability. We're stuck with having to do the best we can what other tools we have at our disposal. Critical thinking fits that bill and is part of the JREF mandate.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

It's not about whether you admit to doing science or not. It's about you understanding why this evidence is not acceptable, whether or not you are doing science.

Hey Maurice

In discussions utilizing critical thinking, any evidence is acceptable and proven conclusions don't have to be reached. What we are doing is recognizing that there is something worth discussing and using critical thinking to come to a reasonable hypothesis that best fits the evidence we have. Science is not excluded from this process when it is applicable to the process. If you only want to discuss UFOs and the evidence with respect to empirical science, the "Research & Evidence" thread is a better place to go.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

In most cases, it's impossible to falsify anecdotal evidence…

…scientists don't consider anecdotal evidence to be valid.

…anecdotal evidence and witness testimony are invalid…

Once again I must point out the dangers of overgeneralisation within critical thinking.

It is of course entirely possible to falsify anecdotal evidence, just as it is possible to falsify any other type of evidence. All one requires is sufficient countermanding evidence.

It is not that scientists consider anecdotal evidence to be invalid, it is just that they place much lesser weight on it than other forms of evidence.

It is not that eyewitness testimony in invalid, it is just that it may contain potential errors of perception or outright deception.

None of those things make eyewitness or anecdotal evidence invalid or impossible to falsify, it is merely that we must understand the potential errors that such evidence inherently contains – but that is also true for any other type of evidence. No evidence is infallible – all types will contain the potential for error.

What we can say is that there is a greater potential for error in certain kinds of evidence over other types of evidence - and that in a straight up contest between types, the type less prone to error will have a greater weight, but that does not mean that the more potentially error prone type is invalid. All types of evidence have their uses.

 

[GeeMack]

Also please try to avoid the presumptions that I'm up to some sort of anti-science conspiracy based on contempt for science. Science is totally cool and I have great respect for scientists. I'm not disrespecting them here in any way. Quite the reverse.

So you say, and then you follow immediately with an attempt to justify abandoning science...

When it comes to the scientific method and UFOs, it's just not well suited to exploring the mystery because of the lack of empirical evidence and repeatability. We're stuck with having to do the best we can what other tools we have at our disposal. Critical thinking fits that bill and is part of the JREF mandate.

So you're admitting that the alien visitor conjecture can't stand up to the rigors of the scientific method.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Hi Maurice ...

This isn't a "scientific" debate. It's a discussion based on critical thinking. Scientific evaluation is valuable, but it's not all there is. I understand why anecdotal evidence is considered generally unrealiable in scientific studies, but I also know that the phnomenon of optical recognition is a proven scientific fact. That is why we have opticians. To say that people's vision suddenly malfunctions in every time a UFO is spotted is not reasonable. As for my own experiences, I'm just recording them for personal interest. I don't hold them up as proof of anything except to me personally and in the context they are intended.

j.r.

Is the highlighted area a deliberate understatement?
It's not "considered" generally unreliable. It is invalid. Worthless in support of an extraordinary claim. Every time. You seem very reluctant to even speak ill of such evidence.

Bonus opinion:
Critical thinking, which you profess to value, also seeks to eliminate logical fallacies, such as special pleading, et al.
Critical thinking and scientific principles go hand in hand. I would venture that if you accept a fallacy, or are swayed by anecdotal evidence, you are no more using critical thinking than you are doing science.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

So, this is the thread where Ufology and Rramjet tell us what critical thinking means, and what evidence it admits?

"Eh, this is a thread where we use critical thinking, and that means all evidence is acceptable. What do you think this is, science? Of course not. It's not even pseudoscience. We just having a discussion, is all."

Critical thinking and scientific principals go hand in hand.

 

[ufology]

I believe it is important in critical thinking not to overgeneralise ... Overgeneralisation is a huge trap that is easy to fall into. It is possible for eyewitnesses to be mistaken in their perceptions, but that does not mean that they always are.

Agreed, I have no problem with this whatsoever. When it comes to anecdotal evidence I think it's also important to recognize the bottom line of what the other posters here are getting at.

My ultimate position on anecdotal evidence is just becaue a million people say they saw something that couldn't have been made on Earth doesn't "prove" anyone actually saw anything, let alone something that couldn't have been made on Earth. Anecdotal evidence doesn't "prove" anything other than a lot of people are making claims to seeing something they think is out of this world.

The point of critical thinking with respect to these incidents is to determine whether or not it is reasonable to dismiss all these reports as mundane or out of the ordinary natural or manmade phenomena. Those of us in ufology generally don't believe that dismissing the experiences of so many people is reasonable.

j.r.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Agreed, I have no problem with this whatsoever. When it comes to anecdotal evidence I think it's also important to recognize the bottom line of what the other posters here are getting at.

My ultimate position on anecdotal evidence is just becaue a million people say they saw something that couldn't have been made on Earth doesn't "prove" anyone actually saw anything, let alone something that couldn't have been made on Earth. Anecdotal evidence doesn't "prove" anything other than a lot of people are making claims to seeing something they think is out of this world.

The point of critical thinking with respect to these incidents is to determine whether or not it is reasonable to dismiss all these reports as mundane or out of the ordinary natural or manmade phenomena. Those of us in ufology generally don't believe that dismissing the experiences of so many people is reasonable.

j.r.

But you have to. It is absolutely reasonable to dismiss anecdotal evidence. It's unthinkable not to. You have to.

 

[Rramjet]

It's not "considered" generally unreliable. It is invalid. Worthless in support of an extraordinary claim. Every time. You seem very reluctant to even speak ill of such evidence.

Obviously anecdotal or eyewitness evidence it is not invalid, but your second contention there is interesting.

I think you mean to say that when comparing “ordinary” claims with “extraordinary” claims, anecdotal and eyewitness evidence will have lesser weight in consideration of the extraordinary claim?