Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[ufology]

As for my own unexpected foray into ufology, I'm happy to report that after a couple phone calls and roughly half an hour dicking around on heavens-above.com, I managed to track down precisely the object we'd seen on Wednesday night.

Alas, no alien flying saucer. It was nothing more than a common hunk of space flotsam, an old Soviet research satellite from the late '80s. You can track its travels in real time here.

Good work. I've seen so many satellites that I don't bother looking them up anymore. But imagine watching what you think at first is a satellite, that instantly stops, pauses for a second, changes heading by instantly accellerating down about 20 degrees, stops instantly again, darts about at sharp angles and in straight lines over a distance of 30-40 degrees, and then streaks away off over the horizon in the opposite direction. Those are the kind of reports I've heard a couple of dozen times from people who I don't believe were fabricating a story. I've got no Earthly explanation for such sightings.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Isn't human fallibility an Earthly possibility?
People don't have to be dishonest to have been confused/tricked by their own mind.

 

[Pixel42]

I've got no Earthly explanation for such sightings.

A firefly is one earthly explanation that springs immediately to mind.

Don't forget it's impossible to estimate the size or distance of an object if you don't already know one or the other.

 

[ufology]

Isn't human fallibility an Earthly possibility?
People don't have to be dishonest to have been confused/tricked by their own mind.

I don't believe with these people it was human fallacy ( or fireflies ). But elaborating on that here would be getting into discussions of sightings and evidence and we've already been warned about that, so out of respect for the admin I have to decline further comment on that here.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

But you raise an important and on topic point about critical thinking.
It all boils down to you not believing the most probable explanation.

Such things as human fallibility can be (scientifically) demonstrated to be common place, to dismiss it as a possibility is to disavow science isn't it?

 

[tsig]

Good work. I've seen so many satellites that I don't bother looking them up anymore. But imagine watching what you think at first is a satellite, that instantly stops, pauses for a second, changes heading by instantly accellerating down about 20 degrees, stops instantly again, darts about at sharp angles and in straight lines over a distance of 30-40 degrees, and then streaks away off over the horizon in the opposite direction. Those are the kind of reports I've heard a couple of dozen times from people who I don't believe were fabricating a story. I've got no Earthly explanation for such sightings.

j.r.

Maybe they're misremembering.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't believe with these people it was human fallacy ( or fireflies ).

So it's not that you haven't got earthly explanations of such sightings, you just choose to dismiss them.

 

[John Albert]

Good work.

Thanks.

I've seen so many satellites that I don't bother looking them up anymore.

I'll probably always make at least some attempt to look them up, just so I know for sure what I was looking at. As a self-described UFO researcher, why the hell would you not even bother?

Are you so taken with the notion of ET "slumming it" in the unfashionable end of the Western spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy, that you're totally uninterested in any earthly explanations?

But imagine watching what you think at first is a satellite, that instantly stops, pauses for a second, changes heading by instantly accellerating down about 20 degrees, stops instantly again, darts about at sharp angles and in straight lines over a distance of 30-40 degrees, and then streaks away off over the horizon in the opposite direction. Those are the kind of reports I've heard a couple of dozen times from people who I don't believe were fabricating a story.

So you've never seen anything like that yourself, yet you accept those stories at face value? As an investigator, you must realize that the wilder those reports are, the higher the probability they're inaccurate or just didn't happen.

I've got no Earthly explanation for such sightings.

I can think of a few, and so can you. You seem to have a vested interest in not wanting to.

Maybe they're misremembering.

They may have been be hallucinating, they might be crazy, and there's always the possibility that they're just good ol' fashioned lying.

There are plenty of reasons one might fabricate a story. Maybe they want attention. They may be so enthusiastic about the mystery of UFOs that they want to contribute and become part of the "cool kids club" by having their own woo-woo story to tell. Maybe they're bored and want to try something new. Perhaps they figure there's a way to parley a hoax into some kind of financial payoff. They might be the kind of jerk who enjoy watching people get taken by tall tales. Maybe they feel contemptuous toward UFO believers and just want to mess with them. Maybe they're pathological liars. They might seem honest and sane, but people can be extremely deceptive and you can't possibly know what's going on in their minds.

But yeah, we all know the failings of anecdotal evidence. A few posts back, I even lied to myself about several details of my own story! How's that for human fallacy?

Wanting to believe—in other words, starting with a conclusion then working toward it—is one of the worst mistakes a researcher can make.

 

[ufology]

They could be hallucinating, they might be crazy, or lying, fabricating a story to get attention... They might seem honest and sane, but you can't possibly know what's going on in their minds.

But yeah, we all know the failings of anecdotal evidence. I even lied to myself about several details of my own story! How's that for human fallacy?

Wanting to believe—in other words, starting with a conclusion then working toward it—is one of the worst mistakes a researcher can make.

Certainly care needs to be taken. And I never offhandedly dismiss any explanation. I always look for natural or manmade possibilities first, and I err on the side of caution. In other words, if someone describes what sounds to me like a satellite or a bird or something readily explainable, I'll consider the story interesting and explain to them why I think it probably was something ordinary and that is the end of it. I don't have the time to confirm that every sighting is actually something mundane. So for all I know maybe something that looked like a staellite was actually a UFO, but I don't automatically draw that conclusion ... ever.

For the rest, the really unusual sightings. It is true that we can't rule out intentional lies and hoaxes or even hallucinations. But I am a pretty good judge of character and can usually tell when someone is lying or a little too far out there. If they seem normal and their story is internally coherent and they seem like good honest people, it is simply unfair to treat them as hoaxers or lunatics. The few I have spoken with are only a small fraction of the overall numbers. Perhaps we could write off some of them, but it isn't reasonable to dismiss all of them. I guess I'm just not that cynical yet about everybody else. I have some faith in humanity and I personally see genuine human experience as very valuable.

But again I've said too much and I apolgize to the admin ... how do I get out of this? Should I just stop responding? I've said about all I can say regarding my views on ufology as a pseudoscience. I'm not sure what else anyone else can do besides repeat what they already said, and the thread seems to be morphing into something else now. Not that I mind, I am enjoying the exchanges and we are all behaving, but we're going off topic.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This post is on topic

For the rest, the really unusual sightings. It is true that we can't rule out intentional lies and hoaxes or even hallucinations. But I am a pretty good judge of character and can usually tell when someone is lying or a little too far out there. If they seem normal and their story is internally coherent and they seem like good honest people, it is simply unfair to treat them as hoaxers or lunatics. The few I have spoken with are only a small fraction of the overall numbers. Perhaps we could write off some of them, but it isn't reasonable to dismiss all of them. I guess I'm just not that cynical yet about everybody else. I have some faith in humanity and I personally see genuine human experience as very valuable.

j.r.

Those things make it pseudoscience. The will to believe, rationalizing to yourself why there is no plausible mundane explanation, and overestimating your own capability in reading someone's character and motivation.

I asked you, twice, what you brought to the table that would be different. Your refusal to answer and this post give us the answer.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But I am a pretty good judge of character and can usually tell when someone is lying or a little too far out there. If they seem normal and their story is internally coherent and they seem like good honest people, it is simply unfair to treat them as hoaxers or lunatics.

However, this kind of thinking is pseudoscience. Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917215,00.html

Specifically:

We are not very good at detecting deception in other people. When we are trying to detect honesty, we look at the wrong kinds of nonverbal behaviors, and we misinterpret them. The problem is that there is no direct correlation between someone's nonverbal behavior and their honesty. "Shiftiness" could also be the result of being nervous, angry, distracted or sad. Even trained interrogators [aren't] able to detect deception at [high] rates. You might as well flip a coin to determine if someone is being honest.

Are all UFO witnesses liars? No. However, to claim that one can detect if a witness is being honest and not exaggerating or lying about what they saw is based on wanting to believe them and not on establishing facts. It is pseudoscientific.

 

[ufology]

Those things make it pseudoscience. The will to believe, rationalizing to yourself why there is no plausible mundane explanation, and overestimating your own capability in reading someone's character and motivation.

I asked you, twice, what you brought to the table that would be different. Your refusal to answer and this post give us the answer.

I've already stated why my view is different several times but you seem to keep missing it. The main rationale for calling something pseudoscience is that it must be presented as being science without following its rules. Because I make no claim to be doing science, and what I do doesn't fit the definition of science, what I do is neither science nor pseudoscience anymore than it would make a reporter who writes about science or UFOs a scientist or pseudoscientist. I can write as many articles as I want and talk to as many people as I want about whatever I want, including UFOs, but until I start calling what I do "science" you have no legitimate claim to say that what I'm doing is pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

I've already stated why my view is different several times but you seem to keep missing it. The main rationale for calling something pseudoscience is that it must be presented as being science without following its rules. Because I make no claim to be doing science, and what I do doesn't fit the definition of science, what I do is neither science nor pseudoscience anymore than it would make a reporter who writes about science or UFOs a scientist or pseudoscientist. I can write as many articles as I want and talk to as many people as I want about whatever I want, including UFOs, but until I start calling what I do "science" you have no legitimate claim to say that what I'm doing is pseudoscience.

So it's more like a religion where you just believe aliens are piloting craft around the skies based on faith, and the idea of objective evidence isn't even an issue?

 

[GeeMack]

Certainly care needs to be taken. And I never offhandedly dismiss any explanation. I always look for natural or manmade possibilities first, and I err on the side of caution. In other words, if someone describes what sounds to me like a satellite or a bird or something readily explainable, I'll consider the story interesting and explain to them why I think it probably was something ordinary and that is the end of it. I don't have the time to confirm that every sighting is actually something mundane. So for all I know maybe something that looked like a staellite was actually a UFO, but I don't automatically draw that conclusion ... ever.

Who cares? You're not concerned with your belief in aliens being science. You completely reject the notion in fact. And you're defending your belief in aliens against the moniker "pseudoscience", so it's just faith. And once you've admitted it's just faith, the difference between natural and man made explanations, truth and fables, anecdotes and objective evidence, none of that matters anymore.

 

[GeeMack]

So it's not that you haven't got earthly explanations of such sightings, you just choose to dismiss them.

Unless there's a severe problem with ufology's ability to communicate in an understandable way, that's what I'm getting, too.

Those things make it pseudoscience. The will to believe, rationalizing to yourself why there is no plausible mundane explanation, and overestimating your own capability in reading someone's character and motivation.

I asked you, twice, what you brought to the table that would be different. Your refusal to answer and this post give us the answer.

It appears you're understanding pretty much the same as everyone else. But with ufology's admission that the pursuit of the belief in aliens isn't scientific, and with the insistent rejection of the term "pseudoscience", maybe it is just a religions thing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've already stated why my view is different several times but you seem to keep missing it. The main rationale for calling something pseudoscience is that it must be presented as being science without following its rules. Because I make no claim to be doing science, and what I do doesn't fit the definition of science, what I do is neither science nor pseudoscience anymore than it would make a reporter who writes about science or UFOs a scientist or pseudoscientist. I can write as many articles as I want and talk to as many people as I want about whatever I want, including UFOs, but until I start calling what I do "science" you have no legitimate claim to say that what I'm doing is pseudoscience.

j.r.

If what you do is markedly different from the typical pseudoscientist UFOlogists, maybe you should start a thread that would be markedly different from what Rramjet is doing in the moderated UFO thread.

As I said earlier, I would be interested in such a discussion.

 

[ufology]

If what you do is markedly different from the typical pseudoscientist UFOlogists, maybe you should start a thread that would be markedly different from what Rramjet is doing in the moderated UFO thread.

As I said earlier, I would be interested in such a discussion.

I'm working on that. The problem is that the diferences are subtle but important ... less "marked" but still significant. I hope to be able to put something in place in the next few days. Thanks for your post.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm working on that. The problem is that the diferences are subtle but important ... less "marked" but still significant. I hope to be able to put something in place in the next few days. Thanks for your post.

j.r.

Looking forward to it!

 

[ufology]

Unless there's a severe problem with ufology's ability to communicate in an understandable way, that's what I'm getting, too.

It appears you're understanding pretty much the same as everyone else. But with ufology's admission that the pursuit of the belief in aliens isn't scientific, and with the insistent rejection of the term "pseudoscience", maybe it is just a religions thing.

Hey GeeMack ...

Glad to see you back. The other guy was depressing me.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

I can write as many articles as I want and talk to as many people as I want about whatever I want, including UFOs, but until I start calling what I do "science" you have no legitimate claim to say that what I'm doing is pseudoscience.

j.r.

This is where your confusion arises. You don't have to "call" it science for UFOlogy to become pseudo-science.

As long as the impression given is that some kind of research/investigation (eliminating mundane possibilities etc) has taken place and a conclusion reached based upon that research/investigation. When that conclusion flies in the face of science, it is pseudo-scientific.