Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

Anecdotes are not the best evidence. Even if an anecdote is sincere (i.e. it is not a made-up tall tale), at best it represents a single, uncontrolled observation that is subject to a significant number of possible biases and sticking points. And besides, how do we establish its sincerity in the first place?

There's a reason that when scientists gather data they control the observations in some way.

At this point I should clarify my position on what constitutes "anecdotal evidence". When I refer to anecdotal evidence, I don't mean the typical casual offhanded comment that might be overheard in a bar. I don't even mean the kind that is considered to fall under generally assumed definitions of unreliability. I'm talking more about first hand accounts from reputable and reliable witnesses, and other accounts similar in nature to case reports. By case reports I mean those used in medicine based on anecdotal evidence ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_report

j.r.

 

[ufology]

If one could summon up Superman for a whole crowd to see, that would be something. Can you summon up a UFO for everyone to see?

Even if I could it wouldn't "prove" anything.

The point of critical thinking is to determine when it is reasonable to believe something. Suppose you were in the position of assessing two reports as follows. Please tell me you wouldn't think they were equally unreliable and worthless.

Case One:

Phone call from unknown woman who reported seeing a blue suited caped man jump a tall building in a single bound.

Case Two:

Source: Head of USAF Project Bluebook
Specific dates and names witheld for security reasons.

Summer 1952:

About ten o'clock in the morning, a radar base picked up an unidentified target. It was an odd target in that it came in very fast -- about 700 miles per hour -- and then slowed down to about 100 miles per hour. The radar showed that it was located northeast of the airfield, over a sparsely settled area.

The radar operators reported the target, and two F-86's were scrambled. The radar picked up the F-86's soon after they were airborne, and had begun to direct them into the target when the target started to fade on the radarscope.

The F-86's were told to go up to 40,000 feet. But before the aircraft could get to that altitude, the target had been completely lost on the radarscope.

The F-86's continued to search the area at 40,000 feet, but could see nothing. After a few minutes the aircraft ground controller called the F-86's and told one to come down to 20,000 feet, the other to 5,000 feet, and continue the search. The two jets made a quick letdown, with one pilot stopping at 20,000 feet and the other heading for the deck.

The second pilot, who was going down to 5,000 feet, was just beginning to pull out when he noticed a flash below and ahead of him. He flattened out his dive a little and headed toward the spot where he had seen the light. As he closed on the spot he suddenly noticed what he first thought was a weather balloon. A few seconds later he realized that it couldn't be a balloon because it was staying ahead of him. Quite an achievement for a balloon, since he had built up a lot of speed in his dive and now was flying almost straight and level at 3,000 feet and was traveling "at the Mach."

Again the pilot pushed the nose of the F-86 down and started after the object. He closed fairly fast, until he came to within an estimated 1,000 yards. Now he could get a good look at the object. Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely round and flat -- saucer-shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole."

As his rate of closure began to drop off, the pilot knew that the object was picking up speed. But he pulled in behind it and started to follow. Now he was right on the deck.

About this time the pilot began to get a little worried. What should he do? He tried to call his buddy, who was flying above him somewhere in the area at 20,000 feet. He called two or three times but could get no answer. Next he tried to call the ground controller but he was too low for his radio to carry that far. Once more he tried his buddy at 20,000 feet, but again no luck.

By now he had been following the object for about two minutes and during this time had closed the gap between them to approximately 500 yards. But this was only momentary. Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it wondered what to do next. When the object traveled out about 1,000 yards, the pilot suddenly made up his mind -- he did the only thing that he could do ... "

============================

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

Anecdotes are not the best evidence.

I think we can all agree on that.
Still, as you imply, they are evidence (no matter what you may think of their quality).

Even if an anecdote is sincere (i.e. it is not a made-up tall tale), at best it represents a single, uncontrolled observation that is subject to a significant number of possible biases and sticking points. And besides, how do we establish its sincerity in the first place?

Luckily we have the science of psychology to guide us. The study of perception and the factors that lead us into misperception of why people deceive and in what contexts is well documented. We can use that knowledge to assess anecdotal evidence. It is not enough to simply state that eyewitnesses can misperceive or deceive, therefore all eyewitnesses misperceive or deceive - because clearly that is not the case in the real world.

The art of critical thinking and critical analysis is in being able to draw on the reserves of established knowledge in order to make critical assessments.

There's a reason that when scientists gather data they control the observations in some way.

Sure, but you are talking about experimental data there. There are times when science has to sit back and simply observe to gather the data (think Tycho Brahe and Galileo for example).

 

[Pixel42]

To say that people's vision suddenly malfunctions in every time a UFO is spotted is not reasonable.

No-one's vision has to malfunction for them to misinterpret what they see.

Say I see a moving light in the night sky. I assume (perfectly naturally) that what I'm seeing is an aircraft-sized object at the sort of distance at which an aircraft usually flies. Then I see the light start making sudden movements in different directions. If I stick with my initial assumption I might conclude that such maneuvers are impossible, and that the object must therefore be some kind of alien craft.

But if I re-examine my assumption I realise that I actually have no justification for it whatsoever. What I'm looking at could be much smaller than an aircraft, and therefore much closer. In that case the maneuvers are not impossible at all. What I'm looking at could be a firefly in the next garden, or a model aircraft being remote controlled in a nearby park.

It's not malfunctions of their senses, it's not even their cognitive biases, that turn otherwise rational people into believers. It's their wilful refusal to consider the possibility that their interpretation of whatever it was they saw might be mistaken.

 

[Rramjet]

No-one's vision has to malfunction for them to misinterpret what they see.

Indeed, the factors that cause misinterpretations are well documented and are the product of the way our normal perception (in terms of both the physical structure of the eye and the brain and the psychological heuristics and biases used to process the information) operates.

Say I see a moving light in the night sky. I assume (perfectly naturally) that what I'm seeing is an aircraft-sized object at the sort of distance at which an aircraft usually flies. Then I see the light start making sudden movements in different directions. If I stick with my initial assumption I might conclude that such maneuvers are impossible, and that the object must therefore be some kind of alien craft.

Indeed, “sudden” movements from aircraft are impossible. No matter how close or far away, that fact remains. A person who applies critical thinking would not however leap to the “ET” conclusion merely on that basis. Most people are very reluctant to do that. Most people go through a process of elimination (Is it a bird, a plane, etc) and even if they reach a point where they cannot determine what the object is, they still show a reluctance to conclude “ET”. People know that it is probably still something they have not thought of. They are not stupid.

But if I re-examine my assumption I realise that I actually have no justification for it whatsoever.

Well …except of that “sudden” movement thing… but for “ET” you may be right even so…

What I'm looking at could be much smaller than an aircraft, and therefore much closer. In that case the maneuvers are not impossible at all.

Umm …”sudden” movements are still impossible for aircraft…

What I'm looking at could be a firefly in the next garden, or a model aircraft being remote controlled in a nearby park.

Ah …now a firefly is perhaps at a stretch a possibility… some wind blown debri that has caught the light may be better …a lighted kite or balloon of some sort flown up by some local teenagers and caught in gusts of wind even more plausible …all possibilities before ET…

It's not malfunctions of their senses, it's not even their cognitive biases, that turn otherwise rational people into believers. It's their wilful refusal to consider the possibility that their interpretation of whatever it was they saw might be mistaken.

I don’t think that “wilful refusal” is the correct term there. Perhaps it is simply that they don’t know how to apply critical thinking skills to the problem. I see the very same problem (that you outline for the object perception above) being displayed in your “motivation of others” perception – that of not being able to fully and critically consider alternatives. I think this is what this thread is all about. Being able to apply those critical thinking skills no matter what the subject of discussion is.

 

[ufology]

No-one's vision has to malfunction for them to misinterpret what they see.

Say I see a moving light in the night sky. I assume (perfectly naturally) that what I'm seeing is an aircraft-sized object at the sort of distance at which an aircraft usually flies. Then I see the light start making sudden movements in different directions. If I stick with my initial assumption I might conclude that such maneuvers are impossible, and that the object must therefore be some kind of alien craft.

But if I re-examine my assumption I realise that I actually have no justification for it whatsoever. What I'm looking at could be much smaller than an aircraft, and therefore much closer. In that case the maneuvers are not impossible at all. What I'm looking at could be a firefly in the next garden, or a model aircraft being remote controlled in a nearby park.

It's not malfunctions of their senses, it's not even their cognitive biases, that turn otherwise rational people into believers. It's their wilful refusal to consider the possibility that their interpretation of whatever it was they saw might be mistaken.

Thanks Pixel

Even if it isn't in keeping with the context of the original post. Yours is a well thought out answer. These are the things that UFO investigators consider ( or at least are supposed to consider ) during an interview. Allow me to realy a story I heard.

A former RCAF pilot told me about an incident he had after he had retired and began selling real estate. He was with his aide in a new residential suburb preparing to show a home. The home was on the edge of town and across the street was farmland. He and his aide pulled up to the house and as they were getting their stuff out of the car they noticed a circular metallic craft about 35 or 40 feet wide and 15 or so feet tall, about 50 yards out in the field. Three short beings he described as child like were milling around in the grass. Curious about this sight they ( the two of them ) stood and watched for several minutes as the beings gathered up samples, went into the craft, and took off, straight up, instantaneously at high speed, without any sound.

This person was completely coherent and had flown aircraft in World War II. I didn't get the impression he was playing a practical joke or in any way being incincere. He did not ask for any money for his account, nor did he want any recognition. If we are to accept his story at face value, how could any tricks of vision or known Earthly technology explain this sighting?

j.r.

 

[armageddonman]

The focus here is on cooperative participation through the use of critical thinking as applied to any aspect of ufology, including ufology culture, belief, methodology, mythology, various hypotheses ... whatever you find interesting and worth pursuing in a genuine and constructive manner.

Do you have to believe that Aliens exist and have visited Earth to be an Ufologist?

 

[wardenclyffe]

snip

Certainly there are lots of abnormal things that can induce a stimulus response, but they are the exception...

snip
j.r.

I would suggest that seeing a UFO is also an exceptional event. Perhaps there's a correlation between the two.

Ward

 

[Pixel42]

Well …except of that “sudden” movement thing… but for “ET” you may be right even so…

You misunderstand. The assumption that is unjustified is that the object is the size and distance of an aircraft. It could be smaller and closer (or, indeed, larger and further away). It is impossible to know, despite many UFO spotters insistence otherwise.

And movements that appear sudden may look much less so seen from a different angle, e.g. what looks like a 90 degree turn from a particular line of sight may actually be much shallower. Again, the mistake is assuming that there's only one possible interpretation of what you're seeing.

I don’t think that “wilful refusal” is the correct term there. Perhaps it is simply that they don’t know how to apply critical thinking skills to the problem.

When I say 'wilful' I'm referring to the sort of people who come to this site to share their anecdotal experiences (not just about UFOs) and, despite patient explanations about cognitive biases, the unreliability of their perceptions and the application of critical thinking, simply refuse to consider any other interpretation except the one they arrived with.

 

[ufology]

Do you have to believe that Aliens exist and have visited Earth to be an Ufologist?

Nope. Even the legedary J. Allen Hynek never formally admitted to "believing" in aliens. The only real requirements to get started are a genuine and constructive interest in the phenomenon and the drive to pursue it as more than a pastime. Some groups like MUFON offer a course. The group I'm with ( USI ) recognizes MUFON graduates as qualified field investigators.

j.r.

 

[wardenclyffe]

snip

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?

It seems very reasonable. However, I would suggest that many upstanding citizens regularly see and hear JC. Presidents, presidential candidates, high ranking military officials, teachers, etc. have all heard from or seen Jesus Christ. I think it's possible that more people would claim to have heard Jesus speaking to them than would claim to have seen an alien craft.

And yet you believe that JC seems to be pure myth.

Why is that?

Ward

 

[armageddonman]

Nope. Even the legedary J. Allen Hynek never formally admitted to "believing" in aliens. The only real requirements to get started are a genuine and constructive interest in the phenomenon and the drive to pursue it as more than a pastime.

j.r.

Allright.

Do Ufologists apply the scientific method? Have they formulated any scientific theories or at least a hypothesis?

What kind of scientific work is it that constitutes "Ufology"?

 

[Pixel42]

If we are to accept his story at face value, how could any tricks of vision or known Earthly technology explain this sighting?

Clearly such explanations are ruled out in this particular case. However this ...

Curious about this sight they ( the two of them ) stood and watched for several minutes as the beings gathered up samples, went into the craft, and took off, straight up, instantaneously at high speed, without any sound.

... makes the story completely unbelievable. No-one would simply have stood and calmly watched such a sight.

Some people have a very dry sense of humour, and are capable of telling tall tales to someone they've heard has a particular interest with a completely straight face. Without further information or evidence I see no reason to look further for an explanation.

 

[ufology]

It seems very reasonable. However, I would suggest that many upstanding citizens regularly see and hear JC. Presidents, presidential candidates, high ranking military officials, teachers, etc. have all heard from or seen Jesus Christ. I think it's possible that more people would claim to have heard Jesus speaking to them than would claim to have seen an alien craft.

And yet you believe that JC seems to be pure myth.

Why is that?

Ward

I've questioned many people about their "talks with God" and every single one of them has meant it in a metaphorical sense. They didn't actually "hear" any voice telling them anything. The other thing is that even if they did hear a voice that seemed to come from noplace, the CIA has had a device that broadcasts focused sound waves that the receiver perceives as a "voice in their head" for decades now. Since their disclosure, they have begun to be used in street advertising in NYC. You can stand outside displays and if you are in just the right place you can hear the advertising beamed right into your head. So the phenomenon can be readily produced with available Earth technology by someone impersonating JC or God. Then there are the just plain audio hallucinations. I drank a bunch of ouzo once and swore I was listening to Supertramp. My buddy thought we were listening to Zeppelin. Nothing was on the turntable. On the other hand, there are corroborated sightings by independent trained elite witnesses like military jet pilots backed by RADAR and ground visual observation. UFOs exist as much as the aircraft chasing them. Exactly what they are is another story.

j.r.

 

[Pixel42]

I've questioned many people about their "talks with God" and every single one of them has meant it in a metaphorical sense.

You've clearly never talked to any Mormons.

 

[ufology]

Clearly such explanations are ruled out in this particular case. However this ...

... makes the story completely unbelievable. No-one would simply have stood and calmly watched such a sight.

Some people have a very dry sense of humour, and are capable of telling tall tales to someone they've heard has a particular interest with a completely straight face. Without further information or evidence I see no reason to look further for an explanation.

Good point, but consider that they didn't see the craft land. It was already there, and the beings were humanoid. It may have looked like some kind of new fangled playground or structure. A lot of hayfields have circular silvery buildings on them. A few minutes can go by pretty fast and it wasn't until the thing took off straight up that they really knew it wasn't anything from "around here".

When I had my own sighting, none of us jumped up and panicked. We just kind of looked at each other with a "did you see that" expression and nodded. We didn't even know what to say at first. Finally my girlfriend actually said "did you see that", and we started to talk about it. People don't always act like you would expect them to when they see these things.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

You've clearly never talked to any Mormons.

I let them and the Jay-Dubs in when they come knocking. I've had many converstaions with them. They are in their own way to trying to understand or seek out something greater. I don't despise them like so many others.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Sure, but you are talking about experimental data there. There are times when science has to sit back and simply observe to gather the data (think Tycho Brahe and Galileo for example).

Those weren't anecdotes. They were measured observations, applied to mathematical formulas that proved their hypothesis that the planets moved around the Sun in elliptical orbits.

It's only unthinkable in situations where absolute precision is critical for health and safety reasons, like how much pressure a tire will take before it explodes in someone's face, or how much medication it takes to overdose, or how strong a bolt needs to be to keep an airplane engine from falling off.

When your objective goal is the honest pursuit of the objective truth, basing your conclusion solely on unverified claims (like anecdotal evidence) is unthinkable.

Critical thinking means using our firmly established, common knowledge of how the Universe works—knowledge which has been determined and verified through the methodology of science—to make objective value judgments. A major component of critical thinking is not to take unverified claims at face value, but to look for substantial, verifiable evidence to back them up.

In other words, when examining a claim (especially one that challenges what science has proven to be true), we must be critical of that claim. We must put that claim to the test against the standard of objective evidence. That's what critical thinking means.

 

[Pixel42]

I let them and the Jay-Dubs in when they come knocking. I've had many converstaions with them. They are in their own way to trying to understand or seek out something greater. I don't despise them like so many others.

Maybe next time you let them in you should talk to them about their direct communications from God, which are guaranteed to Mormons (provided they believe, of course). One I chat with on another board torpedoes any discussion about the absurdity of the church's teachings by simply insisting that their truth has been confirmed to him by God himself.

 

[John Albert]

I usually just tell them, "No thanks, I'm a boxers man myself."

That usually puts them off, or at the very least gets a chuckle.