Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[John Albert]

John Albert ...

Post all the definitions of pseudoscience you want. I've not disputed that certain instances that fit the defintion of pseudoscience might take place in ufology, but the most important part of the definitions above is:

"Assertion of scientific claims ..."

The claim itself has to be defined as a scientific claim and then be deemed as not in line with the scientific method.

and the opening line of the definition:

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific ...

So unless something is unambiguously presented as scientific first, it's not claiming to be "science", and is therefore not subject to the definition of pseudoscience ( how many times do we need to go through this? ).

Because ufology in and of itself represents an entire field, a large part of which isn't science in the first place, for example journalism and reporting, mythology and lore, history of the subject and social & cultural influence, it is simply inapropriate to forcibly jam ufology as a whole into the pseudoscience label. The only reason that skeptics attempt to do so is to suit their own bias and make it easy to slap a derogatory term over the entire field ... I'm sorry but it won't work. It's weak and shows a lack of fair mindedness.

Just because you've chosen the username "ufology" for this forum, that does not grant you the right to speak for the entire UFO research community as a whole. "Ufology" in and of itself is not a single person capable of making claims, nor is it a singular organization with a stated manifesto or ethical code. "Ufology" is an area of study pursued by many individuals.

I've addressed this issue to you before, wherein you assume the role of sole spokesman on behalf of "ufology" and purport to speak for all ufologists. This is a dishonest argument. It's a hasty generalization, and also an appeal to misleading authority because you are not the anointed spokesman for all ufologists.

It's also quite plainly a lie, and you know it. You know damn well that most other UFO researchers truly believe they are doing real science, and stand behind their work as being an honest pursuit of knowledge in accordance with what they believe the scientific method to be. For proof, take a look at the slogan on the masthead of the MUFON website, that somebody posted earlier:

That argument is dishonest and I've asked you before to stop promoting it, so if you continue doing it I will continue to call you out on your lie in bold text every time you tell it.


Ufology is, as you say, a "field of research" that makes categorical statements about material reality. In that sense, it certainly fits most definitions of a "science" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science). It conducts "research" and presents "findings" that purport to make statements about the nature of the material universe, therefore it is in fact purporting to practice science. The fact that it utterly ignores the scientific method in favor of collecting, categorizing and attempting to validate unsubstantiated tall tales—and consequently utterly fails at doing science—makes it a pseudoscience.


Your argument that ufology isn't pseudoscience because it incorporates lots of other non-scientific fields is also a big fat load of bovine excrement. many other pseudosciences also incorporate "journalism and reporting, mythology and lore, history of the subject and social & cultural influence." There are TV shows, movies, novels, magazines, history, and social/cultural influence behind ghosts, bigfoot, alchemy, ESP, and many other pseudosciences.

So, to answer your question, "How many times do we need to go through this?" That all depends on how soon recognize that those arguments are flawed and dishonest, and refrain from repeating them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That being said, by all means root out what you consider to be instances of pseudoscience within the field, and let's put them to the test using actual examples. That would be more constructive.

j.r.

This is another bit of your dishonesty. I've posted links to a thread on this forum where a poster is engaging in pseudoscience that matches your definition. I asked you to be honest and answer if you thought it was pseudoscience since it matched your definition.

Instead of answering honestly, you dodged the question. I've asked you a couple of times since then and you've dodged the question by trying to turn the discussion towards homeopathy.

Let's see if you can be honest now. Here's my post with the links in question: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7357131#post7357131

After reading those links, would you characterize him as a pseudoscientist engaged in pseudoscience since what he does matches your definition?

 

[John Albert]

...by all means root out what you consider to be instances of pseudoscience within the field, and let's put them to the test using actual examples. That would be more constructive.

Are you ******* joking?!?

That's exactly what we've been doing for the past week or two, and look how far it's gotten us!

Your pretense of cooperativeness is insultingly disingenuous. At every juncture, you've flatly refused to go along with the critical thinking approach, instead insisting on the same fallacious, magical thinking that is the very root cause of pseudoscience in the first place. You've ignored our commentary outright, attempted to redefine the English language at your whim, argued back with misapplied logical and scientific terminology, and accused us of character assassination for pointing out the dishonest arguments on your part. Not only that, but you've even tried to promote your intellectually crippled form of analysis as genuine critical thinking!

Forgive me for losing patience, but at some point one must either laugh it off or go totally bonkers with frustration. We've tried reasoning with you on every level, and you consistently refuse to cooperate. Now you're getting all indignant because we've resorted to scorn and ridicule.

Well, all I have to say to that is, "BOO ******* HOO."

 

[Access Denied]

So unless something is unambiguously presented as scientific first, it's not claiming to be "science", and is therefore not subject to the definition of pseudoscience…

Well, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy…

[since you're so adverse to science]

Science and Pseudo-Science
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

Philosophers and other theoreticians of science differ widely in their views of what science is. Nevertheless, there is virtual unanimity in the community of knowledge disciplines on most particular issues of demarcation. There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, and Velikovskian catastrophism are pseudosciences.

It would appear ufology fits best under the “wider sense” definition as follows…

(1) it is not scientific, and
(2″) it is part of a doctrine that conflicts with (good) science.

As opposed to the root “non-science posing as science” definition you're trying to avoid…

(1) it is not scientific, and
(2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.

Or the alternate “doctrinal component” definition…

(1) it is not scientific, and
(2′) it is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.

And as noted…

Common usage seems to vacillate between the definitions (1)+(2′) and (1)+(2″); and this in an interesting way: In their comments on the meaning of the term, critics of pseudoscience tend to endorse a definition close to (1)+(2′), but their actual usage is often closer to (1)+(2″).

So, clearly the consensus is ufology is a pseudoscience, regardless of whether or not a relatively insignificant minority (one?) of it’s proponents claim it’s not being presented as such.

That said, who cares what we call it? It’s still bunk as practiced by the vast majority of it’s proponents…

( how many times do we need to go through this? )

As many times as it takes for you to admit that a pig with lipstick is still a pig?

 

[ufology]

Just because you've chosen the username "ufology" for this forum, that does not grant you the right to speak for the entire UFO research community as a whole. "Ufology" in and of itself is not a single person capable of making claims, nor is it a singular organization with a stated manifesto or ethical code. "Ufology" is an area of study pursued by many individuals.

Fine, then maybe some individuals are practicing pseudo science. That doesn't mean the entire field is pseudoscience.

I've addressed this issue to you before, wherein you assume the role of sole spokesman on behalf of "ufology" and purport to speak for all ufologists. This is a dishonest argument. It's a hasty generalization, and also an appeal to misleading authority because you are not the anointed spokesman for all ufologists.

Appeals to popular sentiment don't have any value in a logical argument, so whether or not I "speak for ufology" is irrelevant. However even if that mattered ( which it doesn't ), I still represent a larger portion than you do and have direct experience in the field, which makes me more qualified to give an opinion.

It's also quite plainly a lie, and you know it. You know damn well that most other UFO researchers truly believe they are doing real science, and stand behind their work as being an honest pursuit of knowledge in accordance with what they believe the scientific method to be. For proof, take a look at the slogan on the masthead of the MUFON website, that somebody posted earlier:

So what if the MUFON motto advocates the use of science? Heaven forbid that ufologists might use actual science! As for ufology being an actual science unto itself, in their section titled "What Is Ufology", they do not say anything about ufology itself being a science.

http://www.mufon.com/FAQs.html#Q1

That argument is dishonest and I've asked you before to stop promoting it, so if you continue doing it I will continue to call you out on your lie in bold text every time you tell it.

More proclaimations without substance ... meaningless.

Ufology is, as you say, a "field of research" that makes categorical statements about material reality. In that sense, it certainly fits most definitions of a "science" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science). It conducts "research" and presents "findings" that purport to make statements about the nature of the material universe, therefore it is in fact purporting to practice science.

Misrepresentation above. What I actually say is this:

Ufology is a title used in reference to the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. Analysis of UFO sighting reports, on-site investigation, interviewing witnesses, and studying the history of the UFO phenomenon are primary activities. The study of ufology is an independent field of inquiry that is multidisciplinary in its approach, utilizing elements of science, history, religion, mythology, philosophy and anything else that can advance an understanding of the phenomenon. Within this context, the use of critical thinking is of key importance to ensure that the varied elements that make up ufology as a whole are considered and presented within their proper context. The primary objective of ufology is to establish the true nature of UFOs and from that determine if any of them constitute or are associated directly with alien technology or life. Those who pursue ufology as more than a pastime are known as ufologists.

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

The fact that it utterly ignores the scientific method in favor of collecting, categorizing and attempting to validate unsubstantiated tall tales—and consequently utterly fails at doing science—makes it a pseudoscience.

UFO investigations do attempt to validate ( validate: confirm the truthfulness of: to confirm or establish the truthfulness or soundness of something ), the rest of the accusations above are unsubstantiated proclaimation. But even if there are individual examples, how would that make a collection of stories pseudoscience ( rhetorical )? It wouldn't. Therefore you can't justify lumping it all into the same wastebasket no matter how hard you try.

Your argument that ufology isn't pseudoscience because it incorporates lots of other non-scientific fields is also a big fat load of bovine excrement. many other pseudosciences also incorporate "journalism and reporting, mythology and lore, history of the subject and social & cultural influence." There are TV shows, movies, novels, magazines, history, and social/cultural influence behind ghosts, bigfoot, alchemy, ESP, and many other pseudosciences.

Again nothing above but baseless proclaimations backed by pointless exclaimatory name calling.

So, to answer your question, "How many times do we need to go through this?" That all depends on how soon recognize that those arguments are flawed and dishonest, and refrain from repeating them.

Again nothing above but baseless proclaimations backed by pointless exclaimatory name calling.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Mostly just complaining snipped. * ]Again nothing above but baseless proclaimations backed by pointless exclaimatory name calling.

You missed Access Denied's post above. "Ufology" is pseudoscience. You do not get to redefine words to suit your own whim and fancy. That is dishonest. You aren't very good at it, and you will be busted every time you try it here. This is the JREF where pointing out and correcting stupid and dishonest arguments is what the skeptics do. Again, "ufology" is pseudoscience, your steadfast willful ignorance notwithstanding.

 

[Stray Cat]

I still represent a larger portion than you do and have direct experience in the field, which makes me more qualified to give an opinion.

Appeal to your own misplaced authority fallacy.

So what if the MUFON motto advocates the use of science? Heaven forbid that ufologists might use actual science!

But they don't, they misuse science in order to arrive at the conclusion "OMG, it's aliens"

As for ufology being an actual science unto itself, in their section titled "What Is Ufology", they do not say anything about ufology itself being a science.
http://www.mufon.com/FAQs.html#Q1

As has been pointed out to you several times, it has nothing to do with an outright claim of doing science, the slightest hint that it is, is enough and their masthead tag line gives more than a slight hint.

 

[Access Denied]

UFO investigations do attempt to validate ( validate: confirm the truthfulness of: to confirm or establish the truthfulness or soundness of something )...

Can't be done subjectively (without science) ergo psuedoscience.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Can anyone actually tell me if there has been any rational or logical argument presented to demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience - or has it merely been proclaimed by the UFO debunkers?

Really, have the debunkers simply redefined "pseudoscience and made unfounded assertions based on that redefinition? I really want to know - what are the arguments to support the debunker case? Surely there must be at least one?

So what if the MUFON motto advocates the use of science?

j.r.

lol.

Seems you had it backwards, Rramjet.

 

[ufology]

lol. Seems you had it backwards, Rramjet.

The above was in response to, "So what if the MUFON motto advocates the use of science?" and left out the part where MUFON goes into detail on "What Is Ufology" and doesn't claim anywhere that it is a science unto itself.

Anyone can advocate the use of science ... that doesn't make them pseudoscientists. This website is founded on the work of an illusionist and advocates science ... maybe we should start calling all this pseudoscience too? I certainly don't see any scientific method being applied here in this forum to huge array of topics and discussions, but it clearly has "science" advocated on the masthead. So be reasonable. It will look better on you.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above was in response to, "So what if the MUFON motto advocates the use of science?" and left out the part where MUFON goes into detail on "What Is Ufology" and doesn't claim anywhere that it is a science unto itself.

Yes it is. That's what everyone has been telling you. "Advocating the use of science" makes it pseudoscience. Let me ask it another way: Is there anything that would sway you in your opinion that UFOlogy is a pseudoscience or is your mind slammed firmly shut and the lock welded? Since I've shown you examples that met your definition of pseudoscience and then you ran like a rabbit from admitting that the examples I gave were, in fact, pseudoscience, your credibility is down among the wine and spirits.

Anyone can advocate the use of science ... that doesn't make them pseudoscientists. This website is founded on the work of an illusionist and advocates science ... maybe we should start calling all this pseudoscience too? I certainly don't see any scientific method being applied here in this forum to huge array of topics and discussions. So be reasonable.

j.r.

Good plan. New thread. Off you go then.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] I still represent a larger portion than you do and have direct experience in the field, which makes me more qualified to give an opinion.

Actually we, all the people who have participated in this thread...

23_Tauri, Access Denied, AdMan, Aepervius, Agatha, Akhenaten, Andrew Wiggin, arthwollipot, Astrophotographer, Audible Click, beeksc1, Brainache, carlitos, catsmate1, Complexity, Correa Neto, Cuddles, dlorde, EHocking, Euromutt, Foolmewunz, Foster Zygote, Fred, fromdownunder, Frying Dutchmen, fuelair, Gawdzilla, Gord_in_Toronto, Humanzee, JJM 777, Jocce, John Albert, Kahalachan, Kotatsu, lionking, Lothian, Marduk, Maurice Ledifficile, Mojo, Mr. Purple, MRC_Hans, Muldur, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, Pixel42, Psiload, quarky, randman, Resume, RoboTimbo, Rramjet, Senex, sophia8, Spektator, Stray Cat, The Man, The Norseman, TjW, tsig, Turgor, ufology, UnrepentantSinner, wardenclyffe, Weak Kitten, wollery, Yeah_Right, and zooterkin​

... are nearly all skeptics. Out of almost 70 people, it looks like only Muldur, Rramjet, and yourself represent those with a preconceived belief that aliens exist. You three are not skeptics. And it's a virtually unanimous opinion among the skeptics that "ufology" does indeed fall under the common definition and common usage of the term pseudoscience.

We, by a huge margin, represent a larger portion of critical thinkers and of English speaking people than you. And you have demonstrated beyond any doubt, regarding "ufology", that you refuse to be objective about the alleged pursuit of the truth and about the terms that might be most appropriately used to describe it. Your opinion on the matter is wholly subjective, devoid of critical thinking, and therefore unqualified.

The result of this discussion so far is this: "Ufology" is pseudoscience.

If you have any desire to pose a new argument against this position, remember that nothing you've tried so far will work. Not the lies, not the arguments from incredulity and ignorance, not the dishonest twisting of definitions to suit your personal agenda, none of it. You have failed. If you can't start over with something different, objective, thorough, and honest, there is simply no hope of you recovering from that failure.

 

[ufology]

Actually we, all the people who have participated in this thread...

23_Tauri, Access Denied, AdMan, Aepervius, Agatha, Akhenaten, Andrew Wiggin, arthwollipot, Astrophotographer, Audible Click, beeksc1, Brainache, carlitos, catsmate1, Complexity, Correa Neto, Cuddles, dlorde, EHocking, Euromutt, Foolmewunz, Foster Zygote, Fred, fromdownunder, Frying Dutchmen, fuelair, Gawdzilla, Gord_in_Toronto, Humanzee, JJM 777, Jocce, John Albert, Kahalachan, Kotatsu, lionking, Lothian, Marduk, Maurice Ledifficile, Mojo, Mr. Purple, MRC_Hans, Muldur, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, Pixel42, Psiload, quarky, randman, Resume, RoboTimbo, Rramjet, Senex, sophia8, Spektator, Stray Cat, The Man, The Norseman, TjW, tsig, Turgor, ufology, UnrepentantSinner, wardenclyffe, Weak Kitten, wollery, Yeah_Right, and zooterkin
​

... are nearly all skeptics. Out of almost 70 people, it looks like only Muldur, Rramjet, and yourself represent those with a preconceived belief that aliens exist. You three are not skeptics. And it's a virtually unanimous opinion among the skeptics that "ufology" does indeed fall under the common definition and common usage of the term pseudoscience.

We, by a huge margin, represent a larger portion of critical thinkers and of English speaking people than you. And you have demonstrated beyond any doubt, regarding "ufology", that you refuse to be objective about the alleged pursuit of the truth and about the terms that might be most appropriately used to describe it. Your opinion on the matter is wholly subjective, devoid of critical thinking, and therefore unqualified.

The result of this discussion so far is this: "Ufology" is pseudoscience.

If you have any desire to pose a new argument against this position, remember that nothing you've tried so far will work. Not the lies, not the arguments from incredulity and ignorance, not the dishonest twisting of definitions to suit your personal agenda, none of it. You have failed. If you can't start over with something different, objective, thorough, and honest, there is simply no hope of you recovering from that failure.

Hey GeeMack ...

Let's have a look at a specific case that purports to be scientifc, and see what we can find out about how much actual science is taking place. Here is an example with a video:

http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=5956

I look forward to the comments from your skeptical community.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

From Chem1:

Some examples: astrology (from ancient Babylonian culture,) UFO-ology (popular culture and mistrust of government), Creation Science (attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible), "structure-altered" waters (commercial quackery.)

From Biocab.org:

By quoting to well-known scientists, ET's activists misinform people, who usually end believing that the Ufologists' fibs are facts based on science.

From RationalWiki:

Popular pseudosciences

Alternative medicine
Astrology
Creation science
Homeopathy
Supernatural
Ufology
Woo

Absolute Astronomy:

Ufology has sometimes been characterized as a partial or total pseudoscience, which many ufologists reject. Pseudoscience is a term that classifies studies that are claimed to exemplify the methods and principles of science, but that do not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lack supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lack scientific status.

Feist thinks that ufology can be categorized as a pseudoscience because, he says, its adherents claim it to be a science while being rejected as being one by the scientific community.

The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method...and because, he says, the field lacks a cumulative scientific progress; ufology has not, in his view, advanced since the 1950s.

ufology, what do you think about UFOlogy not having anything to show for its efforts for the past 60 years? Not one alien. Not even a raygun, spaceship, or body, any of which would be extraordinary evidence.

 

[ufology]

An Instance Of Pseudoscience?

From Chem1:


From Biocab.org:


From RationalWiki:


Absolute Astronomy:


ufology, what do you think about UFOlogy not having anything to show for its efforts for the past 60 years? Not one alien. Not even a raygun, spaceship, or body, any of which would be extraordinary evidence.

I've never disputed that there are probably instances of pseudoscience going on in the field of ufology any more than I would deny they go on in medicine. In medicine we call it quackery, in ufology let's call it woofology ( in honor of James Randi ) ... seem reasonable? Truce? Proposal ...

Let's have a look at a specific case that purports to be scientifc, and see what we can find out about how much actual science is taking place. Here is an example with a video:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7403070&postcount=613

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

Hey GeeMack ...

Let's have a look at a specific case that purports to be scientifc, and see what we can find out about how much actual science is taking place. Here is an example with a video:

http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=5956

Your example, because there is the preconceived notion that aliens exist, and for the very reason that it purports to be scientific, refutes all the whining you've done so far denying that "ufology" is pseudoscience.

But if refuting your own arguments and showing how "ufology" is definitively pseudoscience is your new approach to demonstrating that "ufology" isn't pseudoscience, it certainly is novel. Failed before you even started, but novel.

I look forward to the comments from your skeptical community.

You have recieved just about 500 comments from the skeptical community addressing your claim that "ufology" isn't pseudoscience. It is the nearly unanimous position of this particular skeptical community that your arguments have failed.

 

[GeeMack]

Let's have a look at a specific case that purports to be scientifc, and see what we can find out about how much actual science is taking place. Here is an example with a video:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7403070&postcount=613

Purports to be scientific. That's exactly what makes it pseudoscience. Apparently you've changed your position on the matter because you are now demonstrating very positively that "ufology" is indeed pseudoscience. Or your arguments have hit the rock bottom of stupidity. I won't embarrass you by asking which.

 

[RoboTimbo]

They were misusing science. I noted that they talked about "landing sites", having reached their conclusion that there were craft flying which landed but they were only filming lights. Also that there was a patch of ground dug up "with laser precision". Again, jumping to the conclusion that the two separate events are related.

At the end of the video, I noted that they conflated the lights that they had captured on video with other UFO reports from different times and areas which had no apparent relationship to the ones they were filming in Norway. One of the reports that they referenced was the Phoenix Lights. LOL.

The title of the video said something about "from the early 80's" but in the video I think I remember a reference to the year 1999. Quite a discrepancy. What has subsequent investigation revealed? I'm not familiar with this one.

 

[ufology]

They were misusing science. I noted that they talked about "landing sites", having reached their conclusion that there were craft flying which landed but they were only filming lights. Also that there was a patch of ground dug up "with laser precision". Again, jumping to the conclusion that the two separate events are related.

At the end of the video, I noted that they conflated the lights that they had captured on video with other UFO reports from different times and areas which had no apparent relationship to the ones they were filming in Norway. One of the reports that they referenced was the Phoenix Lights. LOL.

The title of the video said something about "from the early 80's" but in the video I think I remember a reference to the year 1999. Quite a discrepancy. What has subsequent investigation revealed? I'm not familiar with this one.

Thanks Robo.

In the video they do say that they haven't reached any definitive conclusion regarding the lights other than they ( the lights ) are real, so maybe the conclusions you mention were more like informal opinions for the sake of the video article. Might we not be able to look at the video article as more of a mini documentary, like a "Discovery Channel" article, which is science journalism ... or is Discovery pseudoscience too in your mind? It seems to fit just as well ... even moreso actually ( interesting ).

Anyway ... what about the actual data and reporting, the stuff they do "as science" ... not simply as part of some informal interview for a popular science interest story?

Here is a link to an actual report:

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/Reb3.pdf

Would you consider the above pseudoscience as well?

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Without even looking at the video I'm guessing you're referencing the Hessdalen Lights.
Yes, it's pseudo science. They are trying to prove their conclusion, which is all kind of arse about tit as far as the scientific method goes.
The "UFO Observatory" has been set up working 24/7 for many years, with zero results in advancing what was observed (exaggerated, misidentified and misreported) many years ago.