Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Pixel42]

The phenomena that gives rise to belief in ghosts is something real. What it is I don't know.

No-one can know for certain, but the most likely explanation is that it's the same human error and cognitive biases which give rise to belief in several other supposedly paranormal phenomena for which there is the same standard of evidence, but which have been experimentally shown not to exist.

 

[John Albert]

If there were nothing to give people the impression there were ghosts, there wouldn't be so many ghost reports. Similarly if there was nothing to give rise to UFO reports, there would be far fewer UFO reports.

Human credulity and pop culture memes are the most likely causes that "gives rise" to UFO and ghost reports. Same thing as ET abduction reports, cryptid reports, various and sundry urban myths, etc.

Until somebody comes up with some material evidence, there's no compelling reason to believe any such tall tales.

 

[ufology]

If you accept that the standard of evidence for ghosts and ET-piloted UFOs is no better than the standard of evidence for phenomena which have been experimentally shown not to exist (and you just did) then yes: the same human errors and cognitive biases which led to perfectly intelligent and sensible people believing in the phenomena which have been shown not to exist are also the most likely explanation for them believing in ghosts and ET-piloted UFOs. The more time and effort is devoted to discovering better evidence without success, the more likely it becomes that that is indeed the explanation. A reasonable person would certainly by now take it as their working assumption in both cases, until and unless better evidence is eventually produced.

It seems you didn't really read my entire post before answering, although it is possible that you did and just chose not to address it. Here is an example of the kind of bias I mentioned. To Quote: "... believing in the phenomena which have been shown not to exist."

The bias above is the presumption that things have been shown not to exist. In actual fact there is no way to show ( as proof ) that these things don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Additionally, it is a fact that there is more information suggesting they do exist. However because the skeptic has so much to lose by acknowledging the existence of such things, there is a natural bias toward dismissing the existence of the information as well, and when they can't do that, then they turn to dismissing the validity of the information, and when they can't attack the information, all they are left holding onto is this tiny little thread that affirms to them that everyone else is crazy or misled or suffering from some delusion ... anything but what the information actually suggests.

And they do it over and over and over again; and the more times they do it the more they convince themselves they must be right, and they dismiss any rationale to the contrary and demonize it with labels like pseudoscience. And the more they can demonize it the better they feel about what they are doing, which isn't really skepticism, but pseudoskepticism, which the use of arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism.

Naturally the skeptic will try to refute that they are engaged in pseudoskepticism. Even when it is pointed out that ufology falls outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing & knowledge, and therefore is not applicable to scientific skepticism, they simply dodge or deny or engage in any of a number of other things rather than accept the truth that their paradigm is flawed. It has been logically shown numerous times within this thread that ufology is not in and of itself a pseudoscience, yet the thread continues. Why ... if not to allow the skeptics to cement their faulty logic with repeated proclaimations to the contrary.


j.r.

 

[Aepervius]

People have been claiming to see "ghosts" for tens of thousands of years. I'm certain the sheer numbers of ghost sightings on record dwarf UFO sightings by several orders of magnitude.

Therefore, by Rramjet's own "Weight of Evidence" argument, ghosts are far more likely than ET to actually exist.

Knowing Ufology, does that surprise you that he would much more readily accept the existence of Ghost, devil, bigfoot and other creature rather than accept his reasoning is flawed ?

 

[Humanzee]

Im sorry but what?
If ufology falls outside the realm of empirical testing in what way can it be a science?

I must have missed something. I don't feel people who believe in alien visitations, etc. are necessarily delusional, crazy or misled. Just that they haven't presented any evidence that out-weighs other equally probable possibilities. You must think they have?

 

[John Albert]

He's trying to forward the argument that because ufology isn't "claiming to be" a science (I know ), then it can't possibly be a pseudoscience.

However because the skeptic has so much to lose by acknowledging the existence of such things

 

[Humanzee]

Ah...HA.

Indeed

 

[Pixel42]

It seems you didn't really read my entire post before answering, although it is possible that you did and just chose not to address it.

I did read it, most of it was either irrelevant to the point I was making, or had been addressed multiple times before my myself and others.

Here is an example of the kind of bias I mentioned. To Quote: "... believing in the phenomena which have been shown not to exist."

The bias above is the presumption that things have been shown not to exist.

Homeopathy has been shown not to exist. Dowsing has been shown not to exist. Astrology has been shown not to exist. Every supposedly paranormal phenomenon which is amenable to experimental verification has been shown not to exist. All of these phenomena had the same standard of evidence available for them prior to being subjected to such testing as have ghosts and ET-piloted UFOs.

Despite the best efforts of generations of investigators, the additional evidence a reasonable person would expect to have been discovered if either ghosts or ET-piloted UFOs are real remains elusive. The reasonable working assumption is therefore that belief in them is due to the same sources of error as belief in homeopathy, dowsing and astrology.

 

[Aepervius]

I won't comment on the rest of your post which can be summarized by "I am not doing science so I can spout any nonsense I want without rhyme, reason and logic".

But this take the cakes as other pointed out above :

However because the skeptic has so much to lose by acknowledging the existence of such things,

Yeah. Suuuuure. Please tell me, what *me*, an anonymous aepervius skeptic on this forum have to lose ? Please note that in numerous thread I have been demonstrated wrong and never felt "bad" afterward, if anything I feel much better when cavemonster or lothian or anybody correct my nonsense and teach me something.

The truth ? the truth is almost certainly that you feel you would lose out by moving an inch out of your position, or by admitting that part of what you said is non sense. Since you are acting on faith that would probably mean a great deal to your ego. So you simply ascribe the same feeling to the skeptic thinking they would feel wounded or bad or whatever , that is they have something to lose, if proven wrong.

Nothing is further from the truth. Stop projecting your own feeling unto us.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Everything that is said above is fine up to the point where it is claimed that "The only reasonable assumption ... ".

How does one "reasonably assume" that "human errors and cognitive biases" can explain how a USAF pilot can chase a UFO in a jet for 2 minutes during the daylight, come to as close as 500 yards, see it clearly as a flying disk, and watch it zoom off leaving his jet behind in a matter of seconds. If there was human error, the pilot would not have been able to fly his jet, let alone stay on the tail of a UFO for 2 minutes. That takes coherent, conscious, action and fast accurate reflexes over an extended time. So it isn't reasonable to conclude there was any human error or misperception.

Is this a first-person account of what happened? It could have been a tiny piece of debris in the cockpit which he mistook for something larger and further away outside of the airplane.

 

[Akhenaten]

Nothing is further from the truth. Stop projecting your own feeling unto us.

It seems to be a common theme with believers in stuff. They automatically assume that their opponents have the same emotional investment in thair pet subject as they do, which is pretty illogical.

As a group, it seems that we're just as happy arguing about who's the best fictional starship captain as we are about whether there are real starships.

It's only the believers, I think frustrated by their lack of anything resembling proper evidence, who regularly get their knickers in a twist.

For my own part, I find the idea of people who believe in ghosties and ghoulies, bigfeets, flying saucers and bearded sky fairies to be quite hilarious, and much more a source of amusement than something to lose sleep over.

Then again, I'm not an accredited sceptic either, so maybe I don't count.

 

[catsmate]

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?

It's a standard wooster tactic, just look at the anti-evolution posters.

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

Good idea. It seems to be the same nonsense.

 

[Aepervius]

J.L. Picard is the better capitain, and anybody pretending the contrary will be a pseudoscientist, a pseudoskeptic and a low life debunker.

 

[catsmate]

Well, believe whoever and whatever you want but whatever you do, don't drink the Kool-Aid man...

AD

Jonestown actually used Flavor Aide.

 

[GeeMack]

Even when it is pointed out that ufology falls outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing & knowledge, and therefore is not applicable to scientific skepticism, [...]

Okay, so you set up a premise that "ufology" isn't science and the UFO phenomenon can't be skeptically or scientifically tested. That's transparently nonsense. It's the same fraud religious zealots pull, an attempt to shield a pet fantasy from objective examination. It's the special pleading fallacy, and it is dishonest.

Notice how that dishonesty thing absolutely pervades "ufology" at every level? Everyone else does. Whether you deny it's science or not, the fact that "ufology's" participants pretend to apply critical thinking and objective scrutiny to their faith makes it pseudoscience by any reasonable definition.

[...] they simply dodge or deny or engage in any of a number of other things rather than accept the truth that their paradigm is flawed. It has been logically shown numerous times within this thread that ufology is not in and of itself a pseudoscience, yet the thread continues. Why ... if not to allow the skeptics to cement their faulty logic with repeated proclaimations to the contrary.

And here your argument is simply a flat out lie about the skeptical position, again to shield a pet fantasy from scientific examination. It is also a lie that "ufology" "has been logically shown numerous times within this thread" not to be pseudoscience. On the contrary, there have been repeated attempts by its adherents to drag it right up to the line of science in order to give it some validity and allow them to rationalize an otherwise irrational belief in aliens, but intentionally and dishonestly claimed not to be science in order to protect it from being tagged "pseudoscience". Again, that dishonest special pleading is a logical fallacy and the silly argument built on it can be dismissed.

You don't get to argue by tossing objectivity out the window at your whim in order to protect the aliens-exist belief from scientific scrutiny. Regardless of the lies, fraud, and deceit required to avoid the tag "pseudoscience", with its participants pretending there's some legitimacy to it and that it follows some objective principles, it is pseudoscience.

 

[Jocce]

How does one "reasonably assume" that "human errors and cognitive biases" can explain how a USAF pilot can chase a UFO in a jet for 2 minutes during the daylight, come to as close as 500 yards, see it clearly as a flying disk, and watch it zoom off leaving his jet behind in a matter of seconds. If there was human error, the pilot would not have been able to fly his jet, let alone stay on the tail of a UFO for 2 minutes. That takes coherent, conscious, action and fast accurate reflexes over an extended time. So it isn't reasonable to conclude there was any human error or misperception.

It would be nice if you presented some evidence that such things really has happened. Without that it's really hard to conclude anything.

 

[Stray Cat]

It would be nice if you presented some evidence that such things really has happened. Without that it's really hard to conclude anything.

'ufology' has already presented this 'case' (I don't remember if it was in this thread or one of the other UFO threads). It was shown at the time to be fallacious.

The fact that he presented it again as if it hadn't already been discussed and shown to be based upon nothing more than a story (unverifiable, written from someone's notes [or even from memory according to Astrophotographer] from a second hand account and the pilot un-named) shows once more the dishonest tactics and wild assumptions being made about it's veracity.

 

[GeeMack]

'ufology' has already presented this 'case' (I don't remember if it was in this thread or one of the other UFO threads). It was shown at the time to be fallacious.

The fact that he presented it again as if it hadn't already been discussed and shown to be based upon nothing more than a story (unverifiable, written from someone's notes [or even from memory according to Astrophotographer] from a second hand account and the pilot un-named) shows once more the dishonest tactics and wild assumptions being made about it's veracity.

Doesn't that dishonesty and wild assumption stuff, while pretending to be analytical, support the notion that "ufology" is pseudoscience? You know, just askin'.

 

[Jocce]

'ufology' has already presented this 'case' (I don't remember if it was in this thread or one of the other UFO threads). It was shown at the time to be fallacious.

The fact that he presented it again as if it hadn't already been discussed and shown to be based upon nothing more than a story (unverifiable, written from someone's notes [or even from memory according to Astrophotographer] from a second hand account and the pilot un-named) shows once more the dishonest tactics and wild assumptions being made about it's veracity.

Oh ic. I've been away from this discussion long enough to miss yet another fable. Thank god for that.

 

[Akhenaten]

J.L. Picard is the better capitain, and anybody pretending the contrary will be a pseudoscientist, a pseudoskeptic and a low life debunker.

No argument.