Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Akhenaten]

Certainly anecdotal information is of no use in scientifically proving the objective reality of the UFO phenomenon.

And to attempt to use it for that purpose is therefore pseudoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

You are simply trying to redefine critical thinking so that you can count anecdotes as evidence for your extraordinary claim. It's this kind of thinking that makes UFOlogy a pseudoscience.

Perhaps we should call it pseudothinking.

ETA: Akhenaten beat me by that much.

 

[Turgor]

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.

To sum this up even shorter, you think anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is, but it is of no use in science. You also think that if physical evidence does not support a claim, that means that the anecdotal evidence supports that claim.

This is basically the opposite of critical thinking, except the part where anecdotes are of no use in science.

ETA: I just realized that by my own admission I am engaging in a pointless activity

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Really?
It seems ufology must update with UFOlogy's latest advances...
Try catching up with UFOhunters. Those guys... At least one one them could be taken as being among UFOlogy's elite, right?

The whole Nazi time machine "research"... Do you think those guys used critical thinking?

How do you evaluate the evidence they used? Would you used it? Why?

Are they doing pseudoscience in your opinion?

 

[John Albert]

Ever stop to question why science doesn't accept unsupported anecdotes as evidence, or why it's not critical thinking to believe something just because somebody said it?

 

[ufology]

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"?

Truth:

I go with a tweak on the correspondence theory, that is to say something is true if it corresponds with the initial premise ... the tweak being that it must also be within the same context. For example it may be true that we won the lottery in a dream, but that doesn't make it true that the money is actually in our bank. Or it may be true that Superman has amazing powers in a fictional setting, but that doesn't mean that it is true in the context of reality.

Proof:

Again, the concept of proof requires a corresponding context. In politics, according to one of our Prime Ministers, when asked what he considered to be proof, his response was. Well ... a proof, is a proof, is a proof ... what more can I say? So you see, it's not just US politicians that have mastered the art of weasel wording. Sometimes I think the only real proof they relate to is the number on the side of their favorite bottle of booze.

But more seriously, what I personally consider to be proof depends on context. There are mathematical proofs that are based totally on the abstract logic of the matematical model itself. Such proofs can be as simple as the rationale for 2 + 2 = 4 or they can be very complex. The complex ones tend to be used as rationale for pseudoscience, for example, "quantum physics says other dimensions exist, therefore these dimensions could be Heaven or Hell or whatever".

So logical proof within a self contained model is one kind of proof, but somehow my psychic ability is telling me that isn't really what you want to get at with respect to proof. My psychic ability is telling me that what you really want is my version of what constitutes proof for the existence of some thing or another. However my vision on just what is meant by thing in this context isn't completely clear. Nevertheless I'm sensing it has to do with paranormal phenomena, and because some paranormal phenomena aren't material the concept of things is nebulous.

To address the issue of things my precognitive powers sense that we will be talking about the ojective material reality of things rather than etherial mystical powers. So the question becomes, what constitutes proof for the objective material reality of some thing or another?

By now my psychic powers have also detected that most skeptics aren't really paying much attention to what has just been said and will use the preamble to level some slam or another. They don't realize or accept the depth of thought that is required to define something as absolute proof for the objective reality of anything, let alone some particular thing.

Those skeptics who do understand what I'm getting at will be able to accept the following answer. There is no such thing as absolute proof for the objective material existence of anything, and consequently whatever may or may not happen in a given circumstance. There are only probabilities based on past observations that suggest that it is either more or less likely that a certain thing will happen under the same conditions in the future. Naturally some skeptics will fail to believe this fact, but I'm not going to do their homework for them.

I will however address ( very loosely ) the issue of what constitutes reasonable proof for scientific purposes. In science, things are generally considered to be proven when the results of repeated experimentation enables accurate consistent predictions to be made for future outcomes. There are a whole host of other considerations including the methods of testing, statistical analysis, controlled conditions and so on, but I think by now most readers will have gotten the point and can lookup the scientific method for themselves.

So if everything involving scientific proof boils down to probablities, then is it not reasonable to propose that statistics from transient phenomena can be examined in terms of probablities? Some say yes and some say no. But in the end it still comes down to what is reasonable to believe.

Scientific proofs are very reasonable to believe because their statistics for successfully demonstrating practical results is very high. On the other hand, we cannot make precise predictions for things of a transient nature and therefore the predictions are less reliable. However they may still be more reasonable than they are less reasonable, and to determine this we have at our disposal the elements of critical thinking.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Scientific proofs are very reasonable to believe because their statistics for successfully demonstrating practical results is very high. On the other hand, we cannot make precise predictions for things of a transient nature and therefore the predictions are less reliable. However they may still be more reasonable than they are less reasonable, and to determine this we have at our disposal the elements of critical thinking.

Science studies, measures, tests and makes predictions from many transient phenomena, why are 'UFOs as aliens' any more transient than say super novas?

 

[ufology]

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.

There could be exceptions provided the context is correct. For example a scientifically conducted study of anecdotal evidence to determine patterns that are self evident within the data itself could be performed. In this context the "thing" that could be proven to exist could be a resulting statistical pattern ... so for example a group of sighting reports could be studied, and some useful data extracted ( such as demographical information ).

But if you are speaking of an objective material thing, then you have a valid point. It would not be accurate to present a scientific study of purely statistical data from anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence for the objective reality of something. Granted there may a strong correlation, but in my mind it still would not ( in a strict interpretation ) constitute scientific proof of a material reality. It seems to me that it is this delineation that becomes the real point of contention. In a lot of cases I also don't think there is an intent of decepetion. Rather I think there is a general lack of understanding where the boundaries are.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

There could be exceptions provided the context is correct.

<wafflesnip>

None of them, however, apply here where the context is quite specifically 'ufology'.

Stop trying to muddy the water with irrelevant sidetracks about what might be the case if we were discussing something that we're not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

None of them, however, apply here where the context is quite specifically 'ufology'.

Stop trying to muddy the water with irrelevant sidetracks about what might be the case if we were discussing something that we're not.

Pharaoh, you've been around longer than I have. Are all UFOlogists poured from the same mold? The only two I know of seem to be WoW^tm twins.





ETA: I just checked Wikipedia and there is absolutely no entry for Wall O' Waffle^tm!

 

[Stray Cat]

ETA: I just checked Wikipedia and there is absolutely no entry for Wall O' Waffle^tm!

We obviously haven't collected enough anecdotes about Wall O' Waffle™ yet.
As soon as we have, it will start to exist.

 

[GeeMack]

Truth:

I go with a tweak on the correspondence theory, that is to say something is true if it corresponds with the initial premise ... the tweak being that it must also be within the same context. For example it may be true that we won the lottery in a dream, but that doesn't make it true that the money is actually in our bank. Or it may be true that Superman has amazing powers in a fictional setting, but that doesn't mean that it is true in the context of reality.

So you just make your definition of truth so weaselly that you can dishonestly apply it to anything any way you like. That's, well, dishonest. Notice a common theme here? And please spare us the GeeMack-is-a-meanie nonsense. You're not being persecuted. You're being caught. Notice that everyone else has busted your arguments-by-dishonesty, too?

 

[Akhenaten]

Pharaoh, you've been around longer than I have. Are all UFOlogists poured from the same mold? The only two I know of seem to be WoW^tm twins.

I only just beat you in here, my friend.

As soon as I read your question, however, I was immediately reminded of what I was I mostly involved in before I started spending my forumating time here - the fight against scientology.

Scientology is often referred to as a UFO cult and bugger me if they don't have this excruciatingly annoying tech of dealing with difficult questions by trying drown the inquisitor in a sea of pseudscientific babble.

Eerily familiar.

ETA: I just checked Wikipedia and there is absolutely no entry for Wall O' Waffle^tm!

Heh heh.

Ever since the Attack of the Misidentified Mundane Objects started here, whenever I see the abbreviation for World Of Warcraft I do a little double take. Maybe one day there'll be enough people playing Ufailogy and doing Flying Saucery that we can make a claim on the WoW™ acronym.

 

[Akhenaten]

ETA: I just checked Wikipedia and there is absolutely no entry for Wall O' Waffle^tm!

We obviously haven't collected enough anecdotes about Wall O' Waffle™ yet.
As soon as we have, it will start to exist.

Cruel.

 

[Rramjet]

I'd say that the quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for myths such as homeopathy and astrology, for example, is if anything better than that for UFOs being piloted by alien entities. It's just that in those cases it's easier to do experiments that show that the conclusions drawn by the hard of critical thinking from such evidence are mistaken.

How can the evidence for any of those things be “better”? Either there is evidential support for something or there is not. The evidence for any conjecture, claim or hypothesis (etc) must be assessed on its own merits.

If however you are claiming to have assessed the evidence for homeopathy (or astrology) and have found it to be more compelling than the evidence for UFOs, then you will be able to support that contention with evidence or logical argument. The mere statement that such evidence is “better “ does not somehow magically make it so.

If in fact you intended the logic of your argument to be that because it is easier to research one thing as opposed to another, and that then has a bearing on the quality of the available evidence, then you are sadly mistaken. The difficulty of conducting research has no bearing whatsoever on either the existence or the quality of evidence.

If you are proposing that there exist some hypotheses that are untestable (UFOs = ET), then it is actually impossible (not just difficult) to directly conduct research according to that hypothesis. However, we may still be able to construct falsifiable hypotheses to test the underlying assumptions of the untestable hypothesis, and thus approach the problem indirectly. While this can never result in a proof of the hypothesis, if it can be shown that the underlying assumptions are sound, then that means that the hypothesis is at the very least a plausible hypothesis.

Once again, it is critical thinking that can provide resolutions to seemingly intractable problems. But of course critical thinking alone does not guarantee the ability to come to a solution – that often also takes expertise in the area of investigation and in the methodology of science and of how to practically apply it.

Just because you personally (Pixel42) may not be able see any solutions or a way forward, does not mean that those solutions or ways forward do not exist.

…you want critical thinking to be redefined in such a way that accepting anecdotes as evidence is acceptable.

Anecdotes are evidence – no matter what you may think of their quality. Of course the quality of any anecdotal evidence can be assessed and we have the knowledge and the methodological tools to do just that. As was the case with Pixel42 above, just because you personally don’t have that knowledge, does not mean it cannot be done.

…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.

If that is the case then there should be no significant difference between the ones we can explain and the ones we cannot explain on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, etc).

Are you willing to test that null hypothesis in order to see if your beliefs in that regard are supported? No?

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.

It is reasonable to assume that we don’t know all there is to know about physics and that advanced civilisations may have technologies that would seem to us indistinguishable from magic. We know this has happened in our own history – so what makes us so arrogant as to assume that we are the pinnacle of knowledge in that regard?

Nevertheless there is nothing in our current knowledge of physics that precludes interstellar travel.

You should actually have written that it’s the best explanation available.

If you believe that psychosocial explanations for UFOs play a significant role, then you will be able to provide the evidence or logical argument demonstrating that to be the case. There is no doubt that psychosocial factors will play a role – but the significance of that role will only be determine by properly constituted research.

Certainly such research has been conducted on the role of such factors (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) You may be interested in the conclusions of that research? ...and speaking of Condon, of course we can follow that up with (http://www.cohenufo.org/nicapcondon.htm).

You could even say you believe or think maybe there’s something else hidden among the unreliable pile of tales which compose UFO lore.

I have no doubt that the explanations for UFOs will be derived from many factors, and of course misidentified mundane objects, hoaxes, delusions and psychosocial factors will figure among them. However, the body of unexplained cases begs the question: Are they the only explanations? And of course when those unexplained cases are examined and it is found that no such plausible mundane explanations are forthcoming, then that also begs a question: If not mundane, what then?

It would be a speculation, a statement of belief.

One can legitimately propose hypotheses (speculate) - but as for “belief” - if the belief is to be anything other than merely faith-based, then those hypotheses must be tested according to accepted scientific standards before one can come to any conclusions.

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.

I have no idea what “PSH” is - nevertheless, the multiple eye witness, the radar, the film and photographic and the physical trace evidence cannot simply be dismissed with the proverbial wave of a hand as “lore”. To do that one must have the evidence and logical argument to support the contention. Do you have that?

Can you not see that the mere statement of unfounded assertions in the expectation that the mere statement of them will somehow magically confer veracity on them - does not constitute critical thinking?

“If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFOs are merely misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (speed, shape, etc) between reports that have been identified as mundane objects and those reports that have not.”

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.

According to the largest official study of its kind, the Battelle Study, more than 20% of UFO cases defy plausible mundane explanation (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf).

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.

Anecdotes are evidence – no matter what you may think of their quality. Of course the quality of any anecdotal evidence can be assessed and we have the knowledge and the methodological tools to do just that. Just as was the case with Pixel42 and Turgor above, merely because you personally don’t have that knowledge, does not mean it cannot be done.

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

How does critical thinking show us that? It is not critical thinking (nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be critical thinking) to assert a mere statement of belief (an unfounded assertion) and expect that the mere statement of the belief will somehow magically confer veracity on it.

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?

Anyone may legitimately propose any hypothesis they like. The mere proposal of an hypothesis is niether scientific nor pseudoscientific. It is the methodology of support for that hypothesis that may be considered pseudoscientific. If a claimant states that they have used the methodology of science to support any hypothesis - when they have in fact not done so - then that is pseudoscientific. Nothing more, nothing less.

Science studies, measures, tests and makes predictions from many transient phenomena, why are 'UFOs as aliens' any more transient than say super novas?

Scientific methodology can be applied to the study of many things. History for example is not a science, yet it applies scientific methodologies and often relies on anecdotal evidence to draw its conclusions. You would not consider History an illegitimate discipline of study and research would you?

As for the “transience” of things, are you contending that “transience” is a real factor in existence? Surely to be transient, by definition, must entail existence?

So you just make your definition of truth so weaselly that you can dishonestly apply it to anything any way you like. That's, well, dishonest. Notice a common theme here? And please spare us the GeeMack-is-a-meanie nonsense. You're not being persecuted. You're being caught. Notice that everyone else has busted your arguments-by-dishonesty, too?

<SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[GeeMack]

I have no doubt that the explanations for UFOs will be derived from many factors, and of course misidentified mundane objects, hoaxes, delusions and psychosocial factors will figure among them. However, the body of unexplained cases begs the question: Are they the only explanations? And of course when those unexplained cases are examined and it is found that no such plausible mundane explanations are forthcoming, then that also begs a question: If not mundane, what then?

There hasn't been a UFO anecdote for which no plausible mundane explanation exists. There have been efforts among the aliens-exist faithful to dishonestly redefine "plausible" and "mundane", and to completely bastardize the concept of evidence and explanations in order to support a preconceived notion. And it may be that dishonesty is a common trait among "ufologists". But no, most sane and rational people, applying objectivity and critical thinking, could come up with plausible mundane explanations for any UFO ever described, the dishonest dismissal of those plausible explanations by the aliens-exist crowd notwithstanding.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How can the evidence for any of those things be “better”? Either there is evidential support for something or there is not. The evidence for any conjecture, claim or hypothesis (etc) must be assessed on its own merits.

If however you are claiming to have assessed the evidence for homeopathy (or astrology) and have found it to be more compelling than the evidence for UFOs, then you will be able to support that contention with evidence or logical argument. The mere statement that such evidence is “better “ does not somehow magically make it so.

I've assessed the evidence for Santa Claus and it is more compelling than any evidence you've presented for UFOs as pseudoaliens. You were unable to mount a defense against it but it is still there if you care to give it a go.

If in fact you intended the logic of your argument to be that because it is easier to research one thing as opposed to another, and that then has a bearing on the quality of the available evidence, then you are sadly mistaken. The difficulty of conducting research has no bearing whatsoever on either the existence or the quality of evidence.

If you are proposing that there exist some hypotheses that are untestable (UFOs = ET), then it is actually impossible (not just difficult) to directly conduct research according to that hypothesis. However, we may still be able to construct falsifiable hypotheses to test the underlying assumptions of the untestable hypothesis, and thus approach the problem indirectly. While this can never result in a proof of the hypothesis, if it can be shown that the underlying assumptions are sound, then that means that the hypothesis is at the very least a plausible hypothesis.

Once again, it is critical thinking that can provide resolutions to seemingly intractable problems. But of course critical thinking alone does not guarantee the ability to come to a solution – that often also takes expertise in the area of investigation and in the methodology of science and of how to practically apply it.

Wanting anecdotes to equal pseudoaliens is not critical thinking.

Just because you personally (Pixel42) may not be able see any solutions or a way forward, does not mean that those solutions or ways forward do not exist.


Anecdotes are evidence – no matter what you may think of their quality. Of course the quality of any anecdotal evidence can be assessed and we have the knowledge and the methodological tools to do just that. As was the case with Pixel42 above, just because you personally don’t have that knowledge, does not mean it cannot be done.

Can you give an example of an anecdote?

If that is the case then there should be no significant difference between the ones we can explain and the ones we cannot explain on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, etc).

Which is an idiotic thing to say. You are now claiming that all mundane explanations that will ever be discovered as the cause of UFOs have been discovered. Why do you think such an idiotic thing after your flaw in thinking has been pointed out to you?

Are you willing to test that null hypothesis in order to see if your beliefs in that regard are supported? No?

Your idiotic one?

It is reasonable to assume that we don’t know all there is to know about physics and that advanced civilisations may have technologies that would seem to us indistinguishable from magic. We know this has happened in our own history – so what makes us so arrogant as to assume that we are the pinnacle of knowledge in that regard?

"We don't know everything, therefore pseudoaliens" is no way to go through life, son.

Nevertheless there is nothing in our current knowledge of physics that precludes interstellar travel.

There is nothing in our current body of knowledge that says aliens are visiting us.

I have no doubt that the explanations for UFOs will be derived from many factors, and of course misidentified mundane objects, hoaxes, delusions and psychosocial factors will figure among them. However, the body of unexplained cases begs the question: Are they the only explanations? And of course when those unexplained cases are examined and it is found that no such plausible mundane explanations are forthcoming, then that also begs a question: If not mundane, what then?

HOAX. Have you forgotten your total smackdown over Delphos so soon, where you said that it defied plausible mundane explanation?

One can legitimately propose hypotheses (speculate) - but as for “belief” - if the belief is to be anything other than merely faith-based, then those hypotheses must be tested according to accepted scientific standards before one can come to any conclusions.

Yes, you have a religion-like belief in pseudoaliens because you are a pseudoscientist who shows now evidence of thinking critically about his pet pseudoscience.

Can you not see that the mere statement of unfounded assertions in the expectation that the mere statement of them will somehow magically confer veracity on them - does not constitute critical thinking?

I've tried to counsel you to stop but you will continue with it.

“If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFOs are merely misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (speed, shape, etc) between reports that have been identified as mundane objects and those reports that have not.”

Yep, still idiotic.

According to the largest official study of its kind, the Battelle Study, more than 20% of UFO cases defy plausible mundane explanation (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf).

I searched the pdf for the words "defy", "plausible" and "mundane" and it returned no matches. Is this another one of your lies?

Anecdotes are evidence – no matter what you may think of their quality. Of course the quality of any anecdotal evidence can be assessed and we have the knowledge and the methodological tools to do just that. Just as was the case with Pixel42 and Turgor above, merely because you personally don’t have that knowledge, does not mean it cannot be done.

I'm sure your ability in that direction equals your ability to eliminate plausible mundane explanations.

How does critical thinking show us that? It is not critical thinking (nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be critical thinking) to assert a mere statement of belief (an unfounded assertion) and expect that the mere statement of the belief will somehow magically confer veracity on it.

And yet you repeatedly do it despite my counsels to you to cease.

Anyone may legitimately propose any hypothesis they like. The mere proposal of an hypothesis is niether scientific nor pseudoscientific. It is the methodology of support for that hypothesis that may be considered pseudoscientific. If a claimant states that they have used the methodology of science to support any hypothesis - when they have in fact not done so - then that is pseudoscientific. Nothing more, nothing less.

Correct, it is your methodology that marks you as a pseudoscientist engaged in pseudoscience.

 

[tsig]

We obviously haven't collected enough anecdotes about Wall O' Waffle™ yet.
As soon as we have, it will start to exist.

We may be present as Wall O' Waffle becomes a new internet catch phrase.

 

[Rramjet]

Of course all the debunker's misrepresentations, lies, ridicule, denial, abuse, unfounded assertion and expressions of faith-based belief in the world won't get them any closer to addressing the actual question posed by this thread concerning whether UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

Ufology has claimed that UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it is not a science in the first place.

Think of the discipline of History for example. It uses applied scientific methodology in its research and also relies on anecdotal evidence to draw many of its conclusions. Would you consider History to be a pseudoscience?

The question becomes why would the respected displine of History be able to use anecdotes as evidence on which to base conclusions? The answer is of course that they have refined methodologies for ascertaining whether anecdotal evidence is relieable or not.

UFOlogy is not a pseudoscience because it has never claimed to be a science. it may legitimately use scientific methodologies in its research and it may also legitimately draw conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

However, it is not only anecdotal evidence that UFOlogy had to consider, there is also the radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence (and in some cases a conjunction of those types of evidence - incuding mutiple eyewitness) to consider - and of course it is just this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

 

[Access Denied]

Wall 'O Waffle © 2011 Akhenaten

All that effort to try and explain away the fact that no hard evidence of ET visitation exists when there should be lots of it by now if in fact it was occurring.

[mutli-sensor data fusion and all that good stuff]

So much for critical thinking...

AD