Hey Wollery ....
First, just razzin' a little, but it sure took you a long time toget to that "simple" question ... and it's not quite so simple. Consequently my answer isn't going to be quite so simple.
Actually the question
is that simple. Unfortunately, like Rramjet, you avoid answering the actual question. In your case I think that (unlike Rramjet) it's because you understand the implications of the question and the answer.
Second. Thank you for taking the time to consider the issue and ask my point of view. I once took an introductory astronomy course in university, but now only enjoy it from in an armchair capacity. So getting the chance to exchange views with a genuine astronomer is certainly a privilege.
Thanks, but flattery will get you nowhere.
Now to begin. I take it that you're proposing an analogy between astronomy & ufology so as to compare how the two fields are defined and perhaps identify some logic that could be applied to both fields and shed some light on the topic of the thread ... "Is Ufology a Pseudoscience?"
Exactly.
Here is one way I way I would answer your question. You've proposed a few activities that take place under the general heading of Astonomy, as shown below, with a couple more categories added:
No, I didn't propose any activities under the general heading of Astronomy. I described the work of four people that involve, or are related to, Astronomy. That's the whole point of the question though. Is what those people do
actually Astronomy, or is it something else?
To demonstrate the point I'm going to label your list with how I would define the discipline being applied in each of the cases on your list.
Astronomy:
- Study of the observable universe - Astronomy
- History ( people, advances, myth, legend, astrology etc. ). - History
- Archaeology ( locating ancient artifacts and observatories ). - Archaeology
- Culture ( clubs, politics, alternative, religion ... etc. ) - Sociology
- Technology ( Telescopes, computers etc. ) - Engineering
- Education ( from leisure learning to academic ) - Education
- Entertainment ( Cosmos, Discovery, National Geographic etc. ) - Entertainment
- Journalism ( Science and astronomy magazines ). - Journalism
Only one of the above activities comes directly under the heading of Astronomy, and that's the practice of Astronomy itself. The others fall under different disciplines, although focussed on aspects of that discipline which are related to Astronomy. For instance, an historian who studies the history of astronomy is no more an astronomer than an historian who studies ancient Rome is a Roman. Studying the history of toys makes one a historian, not a toymaker. Similarly someone who studies cultural aspects of Astronomy is a sociologist, someone who studies ancient astronomical artifacts is an archaeologist.
Now you're implying by your question, a sort of distinction based on what people do, a kind of "we are what we do" approach, which seems logical at first, but really isn't. Why? Let's look at the list above with specific attention to a couple of items and apply the question "... who is doing astronomy ...?" As an example let's take my professor at university who was teaching my course. When he was teaching, was he doing astronomy? Obviously not. Does that mean we should take Astronomy 101 out from under the heading of "Astronomy" ... no, of course it doesn't, because although teaching astronomy is different than doing astronomy, it is still a valuable part of astronomy.
Let me add a little more context to this for you that I'm sure you'll appreciate. When I was taking my course and I was in the classroom, I had no doubt that I was involved in astronomy, and when we all got together up at the Rothney observatory to do our field work, I felt I was a small part of the astronomy culture as well ... but it wasn't until I sat down alone at the telescope in the chilled night air and looked into the scope and started recording what I saw, that I knew I was doing astronomy.
At this stage I'm going to turn the analogy around to demonstrate the fallacious nature of your reasoning.
As an Astronomer I spend most of my time in front of a computer analysing data. Am I a data analyst?
Sometimes I write computer programs for specific project applications. Am I a computer programmer?
Sometimes I use highly engineered equipment. Am I an Engineer?
Sometimes I have to solve extremely complex and involved mathematical problems. Am I a mathematician?
Sometimes I have to search through archived papers in order to find what has been done in the past. Am I an historian?
Sometimes I am required to disseminate information to other astronomers in the form of journal papers and book chapters. Am I an author?
Sometimes I am required to disseminate information to the general public. Am I a journalist?
The answer ro all of those question is, of course, no, I'm none of those things.
They are all aspects of my job, and skills that I use, but they aren't what I do, and they aren't what I am. What I do is Astronomy, and what I am is an Astronomer.
Similarly a ufologist is someone who studies UFOs, not someone who studies the history, sociology or art associated with UFOs. Yes, whilst studying UFOs you may be required to do some historical research or some computer programing, or some engineering, but those are the tools needed for the job.
So now the question becomes, is the method by which UFOs are studied scientific in nature?
Returning to the topic. In ufology, we don't have empirical data that can be directly observed and measured repeatedly. So the scientific method can only be applied to the study of the data and not the object itself. Therefore we cannot make any scientific conclusions about the actual subject matter ( UFOs ). However the data can be studied scientifically using various statistical methods, from which some perfectly valid conclusions can be made. For example how the overall pool of sighting reports relates to various demographics.
For the rest, we can only do our best to apply critical thinking in an effort to determine the most reasonable explanations and look for further clues in that direction. Astronomers have been doing that for ages ... take the example of black holes. Once they were only exotic theory, yet the dogged pursuit of the clues has led us to accept them as real today, even though none have yet been directly observed ( that I know of ).
And here you are saying that ufology (specifically the study of UFOs) is essentially scientific in nature, directly comparing it to a science in it's methodology.
So now let's suppose someone had come along and pointed to the theory of black holes, and the lack of empirical evidence, and the lack of direct observation, and because you said something like "we think there is a super massive object there that absorbs light", claimed that all astronomy is pseudoscience because you had drawn a conclusion without any proof? Skeptics do this all the time with ufology ... only people actually see the UFOs as well.
Well, to start with, nobody in the Astronomy community claimed that black holes existed without a very strong theoretical framework to back them up, and even then the idea was scoffed at by a large proportion of Astronomers. The observational evidence came later, because the theory was able to give testable falsifiable predictions about the effects of black holes.
Do you have any testable falsifiable predictions about UFOs?
Let's take another example. Suppose some skeptic pointed to the cultural aspect of astronomy dealing with alternative theories and ideas, say perhaps Velikovsky or Sitchin ( 12th planet ) and kept focusing on them over and over again in order to slap the pseudoscience label over all astronomy. Would that be fair? Again, this is done all the time to ufology by skeptics.
No, it wouldn't be fair, but since nutbars like Velikovsky are in an incredibly small minority it isn't even a reasonable comparison. Furthermore, Astronomers need qualifications, whereas ufologists require nothing, except a belief. This is why ufologists make such a big deal if someone with a PhD weighs in on their side. We've seen it from you in the last page of posts, you cited a paper "by a PhD", as though that gave it some sort of extra-special status. The fact that it's an un-refereed report given to a committee, and actually concludes that the lights in question were car headlights seems to completely evade you.
I could probably come up with even more ... like the Drake Equation, Was Drake a pseudoscientist for coming up with the Green Bank Formula? Certainly not. Does the formula meet the definition of pseudoscience? Probably.
And another very poor analogy. The Drake equation was never intended as a serious piece of research. Drake himself admitted that the vast majority of the parameters were completely unknown, and that it was just a way to open debate on a subject that many astronomers steered well clear of. And once more, even if you could twist the Drake equation to some definition of pseudoscience, it is just one small grain of sand on a vast astronomical beach. It's famous only because it captures the public imagination, which is almost the only place where it is discussed or considered to be important.
But even if it did does, so what? Does that make all astronomy a pseudoscience? Again ... certainly not. Are you doing pseudoscience right now by discussing ufology with a ufologist? No. Am I doing science? No. But I am doing one of the things in ufology I enjoy most, which is having an intelligent discussion with someone.
But right now you aren't "doing" ufology, you're defending it on an open forum.
It appears that the problem you have is that you think that anything associated with ufology also counts as ufology. I hope I've demonstrated in this post that it doesn't.
Ufology is, at its heart, the study of UFOs and the data from UFO reports in order to try to determine what UFOs are. The approach to that study has got to be scientific in nature or it's just a colossal waste of time. If ufology isn't scientific in its approach then it isn't anything. The problem then comes in the number of ufologists who aren't scientifically trained, the number who are certain
a priori of the conclusion, and the number who are willing to adhere to any explanation that doesn't agree with the official one. They are conducting pseudoscience, although most of them probably think they're conducting their research in a proper scientific manner.
Your problem isn't with the skeptics, it's with the rest of the ufologists. If you want ufology to stop being labelled as a pseudoscience then you have to stop the majority of ufologist from conducting pseudoscience. If it was only one or two (like Velikovsky and Sitchin in astronomy) then that could be dismissed as a couple of kooks, but it isn't, it's the majority. Stop blaming the skeptics for labelling ufology a pseudoscience, because as long as the majority of ufologists are doing pseudoscience that's what ufology is. However much you want it not to be, that's what it is.
