Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

But we know that the conjunction of multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence simply does not exist for the “myths” – yet such evidence does exist for UFOs. That should give you a BIG clue right there as to why your assertion might be unfounded.

You forgot FLIR again. LOL! Your dishonesty is showing again.

While it is certainly possible for anecdotal evidence to be unreliable, that does not mean that a particular anecdote is be unreliable in a particular instance. One must assess the anecdotal evidence for reliability on a case by case basis.

So what is zero multiplied by anything?

You just did, you are dismissing them out of hand as unreliable. No-one is claiming that anecdotes can provide proof of anything, however they can certainly add to a weight of evidence (which concept you should be familiar with by now - right?)

You should be familiar with the concept that anecdotes are unreliable and useless for validating extraordinary claims. For that you need extraordinary evidence, as Sagan so rightly said.

If one person said they saw something unusual at a given time and place, then that might be dismissed as a quirk of observation or personality. If two people claimed they saw the same thing, then we might pay more attention. If two people saw the same thing independently (say from a different location or at a different time) then we might give it even more attention. If more and more people see the same thing , now at different locations, here at different times, then a weight of evidence begins to build indicating something is going on.

Not being critically minded or a scientist you may not know the answer to this but what is zero multiplied anything?

Alternatively, you could respond to the post where there is more evidence for Santa Claus than there is for UFOs as pseudoaliens.

So it is baseless speculation to suppose that all such observations have plausible mundane explanations? I think you would find yourself in opposition to your compatriots on that score.

As you find yourself in opposition to yours who has defined you as a pseudoscientist and what you do as pseudoscience.

Sure, misidentifications occur. No-one is disputing that. However, we do seem to have a substantial body of cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

No, you are simply lying now. I've proven (well, you've proven) that your version of a process of elimination is fatally flawed and mine has never been shown to be wrong.

 

[tsig]

That was an awful lot of words to say that you want critical thinking to be redefined in such a way that accepting anecdotes as evidence is acceptable. Come to think of it, that is what you argue in most of your posts about this topic. The steadfast refusal by skeptical minded people to grant you this redefinition, including the reasons why this would be detrimental to critical thinking, should by now have let anyone who considers himself a "critical thinker" rethink their position.

Your refusal to do so is another reason why we can safely conclude that you do not engage in critical thinking when it comes to ufology as practised by you.

Your using the straw man tactic A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The misrepresentation is that you claim that I redefined critical thinking. which is not true. The actual definition I used came from the Foundation For Critical Thinking. The remainder of the introduction is simply a quick start for new posters.

It has been pointed out by other posters that there are several interpretations and definitions and that we should have a more clear definition of Critical Thinking for use in this discussion. My response was to concur but cautioned that it should not be narrowed so far as to make it synoymous with the scientific method, as that would derail the thread. Here are more points to consider.

Dr. Richard Paul is an internationally recognized authority on critical thinking, with eight books and over 200 articles on the subject. Among a lot of other things, he says that, "since critical thinking can be defined in a number of different ways consistent with each other, we should not put a lot of weight on any one definition. Definitions are at best scaffolding for the mind."

Here are some other thoughts:

Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way.

Critical thinking is also an important part of the scientist's toolbox, and conversely science can play an important role in the application of critical thinking. For example in determining which hypothesis ( either generic or scientific ) is the most reasonable. So science, as I have said before is not ruled out with respect to critical thinking and I've invited the presentation of scientific data.

In the spirit of Dr. Richard Paul's "scaffold for the mind" analogy, I have made the point that ultimately the common thread that runs through all definitions of critical thinking, although not always stated in these exact words is that critical thinking is an intellectual pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead, and whatever means helps advance that effort is reasonable to consider.

So I haven't "redefined" critical thinking. I've simply placed it into a context suited for the subject matter, and I've left it open for further discussion. In that context, science is most welcome in the realm of critical thought, but in the absence of purely scientific data, the discussion can still continue based on what available information we do have.

In the case of UFOs, there are firsthand accounts, some of which are backed by corroboration and detecting equipment such as cameras or radar. It does not seem reasonable ( at least to me ) to dismiss all such accounts. But this is only in relation to judging the objective reality of UFOs. There are other aspects of the field that can be discussed as well.

All in all I believe the above makes my position fair minded and as clear as possible under the circumstances. By all means the floor is open for further comment on how the thread can be improved.

j.r.

Your wall of text doesn't hide the fact that what Turgor said was correct.

 

[tsig]

So here we have both of our resident Flying Saucerers just wanting anecdotes to be accepted as evidence of something that has not been shown to exist.

And they both use the Wall o' Text tactic to hide what they're saying and confuse readers.

 

[tsig]

You could substitute anything of course. But you are quoting me out of context. The context was concerning the question of what steps I used that represented critical thinking with respect to the phenomena. The number of cases I found was due to an investigation for information and evidence ( which is part of critical thinking ). Therefore it would have been completely irrational to substitute "Santa Claus" for UFOs when I was doing my information gathering. Furthermore, simply because we know Santa Claus is myth doesn't mean UFOs are myth. It is false logic.





You presume too much. I understand that you are trying to dismiss all information that has not been proven with empirical evidence by science to be real. However the pursuit of truth isn't about dismissing possibilities because they haven't yet been proven, it's about evaluating the avialable information to advance us toward the truth. In this regard, to dismiss all non empirical scientifically proven information would be irresponsible.

Addtionally, your premise is also flawed in its logic. Examples have already been provided to illustrate how multiple bits of incoclusive evidence can be pieced together to form much more valuable information. My main example was the use of software to assemble multiple partial fingerprint samples into a single print that can be used to identify a suspect. With ufology, it's harder because we don't know for sure what the finished picture looks like. But we do know that ( to use the analogy ) there are all these eyewitnesses who saw something and a whole bunch of partial fingerprints.

The sheer number of somethings seen has enabled investigators in the past to reasonably conclude that "the phenomenon is real", and they go on to make some other coclusions based on the observations and investigations of people they trusted, including military and commercial pilots. Comparing these people to cranks who would just as easily report Santa Claus is neither reasonable nor fair minded, both of which are elements of critical thinking.





Certainly anything is questionable. However in order to dismiss my account you will have no choice but to declare it as fiction or a hoax. This is because there was enough objective data from the sighting to judge distance size and speed with reasonable accuracy, and the numbers computed defy any Earthly craft in terms of performance. I have a hard time accepting it myself, but I know what we saw, and it was real. If you want more data to judge whether or not what I'm saying makes sense, I'd be happy to share, but it's getting late and I need to conclude this post. You can private email me or just ask in the forum.

So the question becomes at some point, how many people are you going to write off as cranks or hoaxers ... basically call liars. I'm not sure you appreciate the injustice of being falsely labled. I've already been attacked here as "dishonest". I have a pretty thick skin but if one considers themselves to be making an honest effort, it wears them down. It's not like you've lost a con game and your ego is wounded. It's is a personal hit and it has emotional consequences that are deeper.

So before you write off UFOs you should really get out and try to talk to real people who have had really good sightings. There are more of them than you think. Just start asking. If you don't come across all judemental to begin with, you can get some of them to open up and tell you their story. The human side is far more valuable than you are giving it credit for.

j.r.

You keep saying that we know that the vast majority of UFO reports were caused by people misperceiveing mundane objects so the ones we can't explain must be must be something real. That's turning logic inside out.

By your reasoning the more outrageous and unprovable the claim is the more probable it is to be true.

 

[tsig]

It's the Flying Saucery Wall o' Waffle Smackdown - 2011.

I imagine someone will be producing a poster to advertise the event fairly soon, depending on who finds himself with some spare time first.

Funny you should mention that because yesterday I saw a blimp with scrolling text that said "Flying Saucery Wall o' Waffle Smackdown - 2011" followed by "Gay Rodeo-2011 at the OK Corral" then an ad for "Squid fishing monthly-the truth behind those fishy stories".

 

[Correa Neto]

Sure, that is the question, What is the evidence indicating? But whatever hypothetical explanations are developed must be plausible. “Space Nazis” would not fit that criterion. I mean they might be “space Nazi’s”, but Occam’s razor would suggest that merely “ET” would be about as far as we would like to go in that direction. It would also suggest that ET might be preferred over time travellers for example (as would the fact that physics suggest grave problems with time travel (at least backwards) as a viable concept.

Hey, are you saying physics is dead? How can you possibly know what will be the future discoveries of theoretical and experimental physics? How can you possibly know what technologies an advanced civilization might have? Maybe they have a tech that makes easier to travel through time than through the vast abyss between the stars! <-that's standard UFOlogy reasoning.

Of course the psychosocial aspects must also be explored as plausible hypotheses. No one is suggesting they should not.

You should actually have written that it’s the best explanation available. You could even say you believe or think maybe there’s something else hidden among the unreliable pile of tales which compose UFO lore. It would be a speculation, a statement of belief. Now, if you are approaching the subject with critical thinking, then you can not say is that UFO lore supports ETH or anything other than the PSH. Unless you don’t know what critical thinking is, unless you are failing on its use, unless you are making pseudoscience.

That would be true if we did not have a significant proportion of cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

Please allow me to correct that sentence of yours: That would be true if we had a significant proportion of cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. We don’t have them. We would only have them if we lowered the evidence reliability bar to include unconfirmed anecdotes. We would have to accept the anecdotes’ contents as they were presented to build this body of cases. This would not be critical thinking, this would be pseudoscience.

As we do seem to have that body of cases, then hypothetical explanations do need to be explored – including the hypothesis that they are indeed misidentified mundane objects (and of course my null hypothesis is merely one test of that hypothesis).

Again, the correct use of critical thinking shows there’s no such a body of cases.

By the way, those UFOlogists showing up at certain UFO TV shows claiming Kecksburg incident was caused by a Nazi time machine… They are doing pseudoscience, right?

 

[ufology]

Yes the aircraft were real but the purported “science” wasn’t. It was just going through the motions without any substance and pretending that could make a difference. “an optical stimulus has causal consequences”? Guess what, that is exactly what they were doing. Trying to recreate the optical stimulus and thus the "causal consequences". However, it doesn’t work like that. Just because you can “see it” doesn’t make it real. You are engaging in the exact cargo cult science and “woofology” you so desperately seem to want to separate yourself from.

So much so you’re trying to redefine critical thinking to accept what has been demonstrated to be the most unreliable source of information, anecdotal accounts. The faux controller of those cargo cults had more substance than your faux critical thinking as at least theirs was made of something tangible and was intended to at least look something like what it was meant to represent. You’ve gone the complete opposite and simply attempt to assemble any semblance of credibility from only credulity.

Two main points. First:

Is your use of the straw man tactic intentional? A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The misrepresentation is that you claim that I am trying to redefine critical thinking, which is not true. The actual definition I used came from the Foundation For Critical Thinking. The remainder of the introduction is simply a quick start for new posters.

Following that it was pointed out by other posters that there are several interpretations and definitions and that we should have a more clear definition of Critical Thinking for use in this discussion. My response was to concur but cautioned that it should not be narrowed so far as to make it synoymous with the scientific method, as that would derail the thread. Here are more points to consider.

Dr. Richard Paul is an internationally recognized authority on critical thinking, with eight books and over 200 articles on the subject. Among a lot of other things, he says that, "since critical thinking can be defined in a number of different ways consistent with each other, we should not put a lot of weight on any one definition. Definitions are at best scaffolding for the mind."

Here are some other thoughts:

Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way.

Critical thinking is also an important part of the scientist's toolbox, and conversely science can play an important role in the application of critical thinking. For example in determining which hypothesis ( either generic or scientific ) is the most reasonable. So science, as I have said before is not ruled out with respect to critical thinking and I've invited the presentation of scientific data.

In the spirit of Dr. Richard Paul's "scaffold for the mind" analogy, I have made the point that ultimately the common thread that runs through all definitions of critical thinking, although not always stated in these exact words is that critical thinking is an intellectual pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead, and whatever means helps advance that effort is reasonable to consider.

So I haven't "redefined" critical thinking. I've simply placed it into a context suited for the subject matter, and I've left it open for further discussion. In that context, science is most welcome in the realm of critical thought, but in the absence of purely scientific data, the discussion can still continue based on what available information we do have.

In the case of UFOs, there are firsthand accounts, some of which are backed by corroboration and detecting equipment such as cameras or radar. It does not seem reasonable ( at least to me ) to dismiss all such accounts. But this is only in relation to judging the objective reality of UFOs. There are other aspects of the field that can be discussed as well.

All in all I believe the above makes my position fair minded and as clear as possible under the circumstances. By all means the floor is open for further comment on how the thread can be improved.

Second Point:

Your assertion: "Just because you can 'see it' doesn’t make it real." is highly dependent on the context of the relality in which the 'it' was seen. However the common thread that runs through all contexts is that there was some stimulus that had an effect on the visual cortex. Even hallucinations have some causal factor. However hallucinations in healthy unimpaired ( non chemical induced ) adults is very rare, and I've not found a case anywhere that has indicated a high probability of a hallucinated UFO sighting by such a person. The closest is the Mantell case, due to altitude ( hypoxia ), but even that case was backed up by multiple witnesses ... something was up there, possibly a Skyhook balloon, and it was seen by more than one observer, including ground observers. So although you are technically correct, it would be more precise of you to say that a visual observation does not mean that what was perceived is what we might assume it to be. Additionally there are conditions around such incidents that can help to assess the situation in greater detail. In other words, observation can and most often does provide useful information.

We use our eyes daily to accomplish many tasks successfully, and are living proof that good eyesight in healthy unimpaired people far more often than not, does indicate the material reality of things that are presumed to be materially real. For skeptics to cherry pick experiences they want to debunk and use them as exceptions in every case is unreasonable and pseudoskeptical.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Wow, now we're on "argument by copy & paste"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7386439&postcount=564

Your Wall o' Waffle™ acknowledged and duly ignored as it has already been shown to be false in the other thread you pasted it into.

 

[Akhenaten]

Two main points. First:

<snip>

One main point:


This rubbish is nothing but a copypaste of Post #564 In the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread.

Are you hoping for a different set of answers in this thread?

Perhaps this is an indication that we should be asking for a merge of the various ufailogy threads.

 

[Akhenaten]

heh heh.

 

[Turgor]

Two main points. First:

Is your use of the straw man tactic intentional? A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The misrepresentation is that you claim that I redefined critical thinking. which is not true. The actual definition I used came from the Foundation For Critical Thinking. The remainder of the introduction is simply a quick start for new posters.
<snip the rest of the wall 'o waffle>

You keep replying to our accusation that you want to redefine critical thinking by saying we're using a strawman. It has been demonstrated several times to you it is not a strawman. Critical thinking just doesn't include accepting anecdotes as evidence for claims, and to accuse us of using a strawman when we point this out to you is a very dishonest tactic.

 

[ufology]

One main point:


This rubbish is nothing but a copypaste of Post #564 In the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread.

Are you hoping for a different set of answers in this thread?

Perhaps this is an indication that we should be asking for a merge of the various ufailogy thread.

Would you rather that I retype it all by hand to address the repeated straw man attempts ( rhetorical )? When people stop misrepresenting my position then I'll stop calling them on it.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Would you rather that I retype it all by hand to address the repeated straw man attempts ( rhetorical )? When people stop misrepresenting my position then I'll stop calling them on it.

j.r.

No, we wish you'd stop being dishonest and just admit you are trying to redefine Critical Thinking.

The critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence. In many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is.

Source

 

[ufology]

By the way, those UFOlogists showing up at certain UFO TV shows claiming Kecksburg incident was caused by a Nazi time machine… They are doing pseudoscience, right?

Uh ... never heard that one before. It would be pseudoskeptical of me to simply conclude they are doing pseudoscience ... so go ahead call me pseudoskeptical.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Would you rather that I retype it all by hand to address the repeated straw man attempts ( rhetorical )? When people stop misrepresenting my position then I'll stop calling them on it.

j.r.

I don't care if you chisel it on a canary's kneecap with a crowbar. I'm simply making the point (as is everyone else, it seems) that claiming over and over again that people are misrepresenting your position won't work.

What you need to do is take a step back and have a look at what the problem is with your position, but of course you won't.

And so it goes, ad infinitum.

 

[Akhenaten]

At the moment, pseudoscepticism is but something to which you might aspire.

 

[John Albert]

I understand that you are trying to dismiss all information that has not been proven with empirical evidence by science to be real. However the pursuit of truth isn't about dismissing possibilities because they haven't yet been proven, it's about evaluating the avialable information to advance us toward the truth. In this regard, to dismiss all non empirical scientifically proven information would be irresponsible.

Ufology, regarding this discussion, I have two questions for you:

What is your definition of the word "truth"?

What is your definition of the word "proven"?

 

[dlorde]

... However hallucinations in healthy unimpaired ( non chemical induced ) adults is very rare

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But it turns out they're actually fairly common. For more information see Hallucinations in the Sane.

 

[ufology]

No, we wish you'd stop being dishonest and just admit you are trying to redefine Critical Thinking.

You are being prejudicial and are failing to address the points made in my initial response to the misrepresentations.

On my point that the critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence and in that many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is. We can certainly discuss that.

If you are proposing that anecdotal evidence is not allowed in the process of critical thinking. I would simply disagree. Anecdotal information is based on experience and experience is part of the data set in critical thinking. Nowhere can I find that anecdotal evidence must be excluded as part of the process. What I do find is that the value of all evidence should be evaluated using the principles of critical thought, which although useful in the scientific method, is not the same as the scientific method itself.

Certainly anecdotal information is of no use in scientifically proving the objective reality of the UFO phenomenon. However this discussion does not have to end there. Anecdotal information can be useful for generating probabilities of what the truth might be, thereby providing clues as to what direction we should take in the pusuit of scientific proof. In this context, as I pointed out above, it is some of the best evidence there is. Trace evidence and other alleged samples have yielded nothing substantial.

To sum this up, if you are posing for the topic of discussion the current findings regarding the ojective reality of UFOs as proven using empirical evidence and the scientific method, then I concur that there is no such proof that the public is aware of. However in critical thinking, the next step for us would be to ask, what is the next best most reasonable course of action, and for that I simply propose that we consider the available information rather than dismiss it, and further suggest that anecdotal evidence is some of the best ( under the circumstances ) that we have. If on this basis you feel it is pointless to continue being engaged in the discussion, then perhaps you might pose some other topic of ufology we can consider.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

The problem with copy/pasting stuff from one thread to the other is that you end up getting all cross threaded.

This is the Pseudo-Science thread. Anyone attempting to use pure anecdotes in a scientific way to support the existence of something that is yet to be shown to exist is engaging in pseudo science.