Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[23_Tauri]

Oh ... so the bolded part about the Drake Equation that we were talking about really meant you were actually taking about the use of a "null hypothesis". I see why you have the head banging animation going there.

j.r.

I considered my head-bang-y emoticon to be entirely appropriate last night, and even more so now. Let's try again:

This research is aimed at studying, by using the well-experimented methods of official physical science, the possible evidence of the visitation of probes, probably of robotic type, of exogenous origin inside our solar system

See how they're looking at the possibility of something? This is otherwise known as speculating. It's not utilising the scientific method. Add to that the point that SC and others have made about begging the question and what do you get? Hmmm.... might it be something pretending to be science when it isn't?

See Beelzebuddy and Wollery's post above for more on the Drake equation. I'm not going to repeat what others can say more eloquently then I, and I'm late for work as it is. Have a nice day.

 

[John Albert]

As for "cherry picking" ... hardly ... Wikipedia is the most common resource out there and is not biased in favor of pseudoscience. To be accused of cherry picking I'd have to be picking from sympathetic sources. These sources are not sympathetic sources ... if anything they are sympathetic to the skeptic's views:

Here's another: Skeptic's Dictionary

A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.

Here's another: Rational Wiki

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science.

How much longer must this pointless debate persist? Are we going to put every powerpoint presentation that uses a pie chart up on trial as pseudoscience? Do I have to quote 900 more definitions to before I'm no longer "cherry picking" because the common standard and the skeptics own definitions don't fit the bias here?

You copy-pasted the first sentence of the Wikipedia page and then ignored the rest of the entry, which explained and clarified the definition. That's cherry-picking.

As for your contention that "ufology does not purport to be science," that is a lie, and you know it.

Prominent ufologists are commonly known to promote their studies and conclusions as "scientific." Even if they don't rubberstamp "UFOLOGY IS SCIENCE!!!" on every page, they collect "evidence" that is not reliable, apply analysis that is not critical, formulate theories affirming a consequent that is totally unsupported by material evidence, and then promote explanations about the material universe that are not scientific. In other words, it's the trappings of science without the discipline. It's the exact same thing that all other pseudoscience practitioners do. Even the oldest and largest ufology organization in the world advertises their research as "scientific." It's right there in the tagline of their website header. You can play the semantics game all you want, but you're not fooling anybody but yourself (and probably Rramjet).

You are not the god of ufology and you do not speak for all ufologists. Brazenly declaring a hasty generalization of all practitioners of ufology from false, self-authority is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. That compound fallacy cannot even support its own weight, let alone overturn the obvious fact that ufology fits the general definition of pseudoscience to a T.

Ufology exhibits nearly all the standard criteria for a pseudoscience that you'll find on Wikipedia and elsewhere. As I pointed out in my previous post (along with over 20 cited examples), a large portion of your own posts on these forums also fit the standard criteria for pseudoscience.

Look up "ufology" on Wikipedia, and there's a prominent section addressing the fact that it's generally considered a pseudoscience, and explaining why.

This whole thread has been just another ufology bashing ring.

Well there's some more of that pseudoscience stuff we were just talking about:

• In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Personalization_of_issues

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

The above is not a rebuttal but a proclaimation.

j.r.

I do agree with you that your above post is a proclamation...

 

[ufology]

You copy-pasted the first sentence of the Wikipedia page and then ignored the rest of the page. That's cherry-picking.

Quoting the overiding context isn't "cherry picking" because the rest of the article falls under that context. It's those who cherry pick the little details out of that context who are real cherry pickers.

As for your contention that "Ufology does not purport to be science," that is a lie, and you know it. You are not the god of ufology and you do not speak for all ufologists.

It's not a lie that ufology doesn't purport to be a science, because ufology on the whole is obviously not a science. The MUFON FAQ on "What Is Ufology" says nothing about it being a "science", and USI doesn't call it a science ... so stop the misrepresentaton and dodging of the issue. Instead of providing the pseudoscience cases I asked for, you dodge the issue with proclaimations that attack character instead of the issue. Seems to me you are the one using questionable practises.

Prominent ufologists are commonly known to promote their studies and conclusions as "scientific." Even if they don't rubberstamp "THIS IS SCIENCE!!!" on every page, they collect "evidence" that isn't scientific, apply analysis that is not critical, formulate theories that are totally unsupported by material evidence, and then promote explanations about the material universe that are not scientific. It's the exact same kind of thing that all pseudoscience practitioners do.

Real science can be used to support critical opinion. For example UFO reports can be studied scientifically from a statistical point of view. Those statistics can be used in a report that says, "Scientific Study of UFO Reports". However if that same study said "Scientific Study Proves UFOs Exist", then we'd be in trouble. So care has to be taken to ensure the proper context is used when making scientific claims.

Even the oldest and largest ufology organization in the world advertises their research as "scientific." It's right there in the tagline of their website header.

If you're talking about MUFON, their FAQ defining ufology does not call it a science. So what if their motto advocates the use of science to study UFOs? UFOs in and of themselves aren't "ufology", Ufology is the overall field. Besides, isn't science supposed to be a good thing? Also APRO was around before MUFON.

Also the appeals to popular opinion, especially from one's own camp are not rebuttals. So simply saying that a whole bunch of other skeptics call ufology pseudoscience doesn't validate the argument in any way shape or form.

Brazenly declaring a hasty generalization of all practitioners of ufology from false, self-authority is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. That compound fallacy cannot even support its own weight, let alone balance the obvious fact that ufology fits the definition to a T.

Well that's exactly what you're doing so I wouldn't talk.

Ufology exhibits nearly all of the standard criteria for a pseudoscience that you'll find on Wikipedia and elsewhere. A large portion of your own posts on these forums fit most standard criteria for pseudoscience.

Look up "ufology" on Wikipedia, and there's a prominent section devoted to the fact that it's widely considered a pseudoscience, and explaining why.

Well there goes another example of that pseudoscience stuff we were just talking about:

I've heard the arguments, applied several definitions, used logic and facts based on example and illustration to nullify every argument made that ufology as a whole is pseudoscience. Certainly there may be instances of pseudoscience within the field, but most of ufology doesn't have anything to do with science in the first place. I've mentioned it before, I've got over a thousand titles and only a tiny handful claim to be scientific treatises. Most are just a collection of reports and stories assembled into books for human interest. So if anyone is cherry picking, it's the skeptics. The debate was over a long time ago ... I guess it just won't be settled until someone closes this ill conceived thread.

j.r.

 

[Access Denied]

John's right, you're cherry-picking and insisting the most basic definition is the only correct one in commonly accepted usage as evidenced by, among other things, the fact you completely ignored this for example...

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/

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.

[...]

Bottom line is regardless of whether or not you present your belief in ET visitation as being scientific, it’s a pseudoscience if it isn’t. Otherwise it’s a religion…

Would you prefer we address you as J. R., High Priest of UFOlogy?

 

[John Albert]

Quoting the overiding context isn't "cherry picking" because the rest of the article falls under that context.

Because of your irrational, personal, faith-based bias, you've wrongly assumed that context to exclude ufology.

It's those who cherry pick the little details out of that context who are real cherry pickers.

I didn't cherry-pick "little details." Ufology fits nearly every criterion under that definition!

It's not a lie that ufology doesn't purport to be a science, because ufology on the whole is obviously not a science.

Ufology uses techniques that may superficially appear scientific, but really aren't. Ufologists collect "evidence" that is not reliable, apply analysis that is not critical, formulate theories affirming a consequent that is totally unsupported by material evidence, and then promote explanations about the material universe that are untested and unverified. In other words, it's the trappings of science without the discipline.

It's the exact same thing that all other pseudoscience practitioners do. Your steadfast denial will not change that fact.

The MUFON FAQ on "What Is Ufology" says nothing about it being a "science", and USI doesn't call it a science ...

MUFON advertises what they do as "The Scientific Study of UFOs for the Benefit of Humanity." You can ignore that and cherry pick around their website for definitions that don't use the word "science," but the fact remains that it's prominently advertised in big, italicized text right there in their header banner!

I can't believe you're really arguing this point in such a weaselly manner. It's RIGHT THERE on the top of their HOMEPAGE, yet you're trying to deny it!

Does basic honesty really mean so little to you?

As everyone around here has already told you a bazillion damn times, it really doesn't even matter whether USI or any other organizations actually come out and say "Hey, we're doin' science over here!" They're researching and promoting unsubstantiated paranormal stories as facts, and that makes it a pseudoscience.

Instead of providing the pseudoscience cases I asked for.

I already gave you 26 examples where you personally argued pseudoscientific claims (according to the Wikipedia definition that you chose). You've completely ignored them. Charging me with evasion is another egregious example of your dishonesty.

Real science can be used to support critical opinion. For example UFO reports can be studied scientifically from a statistical point of view. Those statistics can be used in a report that says, "Scientific Study of UFO Reports".

Those ostensibly "scientific" stats can also be misused in a variety of other dishonest and pseudoscientific ways, for example when Rramjet erroneously cited a 1% statistic of confirmed hoaxes as a delimiter to argue that incidence of hoaxed UFO sightings could not possibly be greater than 1%. That was a garbage claim resulting from complete ignorance of how to interpret the stats, or even what they represent.

Homeopaths regularly misuse actual clinical medical studies in dishonest ways to support the efficacy of their pseudoscience. The fact that pseudoscientists occasionally get their hands on some properly-collected data doesn't mean they're aren't still doing pseudoscience.

However if that same study said "Scientific Study Proves UFOs Exist", then we'd be in trouble. So care has to be taken to ensure the proper context is used when making scientific claims.

What about all those false "scientific" claims you personally made?

You've made an awful lot of totally unsupported, categorical statements about the Universe on these forums (even far more than those cited in my previous post). You didn't seem very "troubled" about stating those brazen falsehoods, so what happened to the care? This argument looks to me like more dishonest posturing.

Also APRO was around before MUFON.

...and your point is?

MUFON formed out of APRO, which no longer exists. Therefore MUFON is the oldest. You're trying to correct me about something I was already correct about?

Well that's exactly what you're doing so I wouldn't talk.

It's not the same thing at all. You're purporting to impose your own viewpoint on a huge group of people who clearly don't share your opinion about ufology not being scientific. I'm simply making an observation.

The difference is: by the numbers, I'm right and you're wrong. The vast majority of prominent ufologists (who publicly self-identify as such) are engaged in the promotion of belief in outer space aliens. All the "ufology" organizations I have ever been aware of (including yours) also promote that belief. That belief is, by definition, pseudoscience.

I've heard the arguments, applied several definitions, used logic and facts based on example and illustration to nullify every argument made that ufology as a whole is pseudoscience.

You've ignored or failed to adequately address most of the arguments. You just bulldoze right over your opponents' challenges with arrogant assertions. You've twisted and cherry-picked definitions.

You haven't used logic. You've posited your own opinion (that ufology doesn't pretend to be scientific) as fact. That is not logic. That is assertion. That is promotion. All along, you've been arguing from an authoritarian position that is unwarranted and undeserved.

You've committed numerous breaches of informal logic. Perhaps some were accidental, but others were clearly dishonest. When your fallacious logic has been pointed out, you've hand-waved, dodged the subject, defended your position with even more fallacies, misused terms of informal logic, regaled us with tall tales, and alleged persecution under a conspiracy.

The skeptics here are not your enemies. Your biggest enemy is your own arrogance, mistrust and unwillingness to learn from your mistakes. You came here seeking help from us, and have proceeded to tell us we're wrong about everything we know, even things which you obviously don't have the first clue about (like the scientific method, critical thinking, formation of hypotheses, physics, among others).

Certainly there may be instances of pseudoscience within the field, but most of ufology doesn't have anything to do with science in the first place.

This argument holds no water. Ufology is pseudoscience because of what it purports to know about the universe, and the shoddy methodology it employs to prove its case. That's the long and short of it.

I've mentioned it before, I've got over a thousand titles and only a tiny handful claim to be scientific treatises.

Irrelevant.

Most are just a collection of reports and stories assembled into books for human interest.

Books that purport to contain researched, factual accounts about paranormal events happening in the real Universe, without a shred of reliable, material evidence to back up their claims. Just like the ghost hunter or bigfoot hunter stories. That's pseudoscience.

 

[John Albert]

The debate was over a long time ago ... I guess it just won't be settled until someone closes this ill conceived thread.

The debate was over long before you even showed up here. We all knew ufology was pseudoscience then, and we still do.

Hopefully, someday you'll find the wherewithal to face up to reality.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

John Albert, I enjoy your clear and concise posts very much, and I learnt much in this thread(s).
I think you know very well, that you are trying to talk a true believer out of his believe; when you are finished with j.r. do you want to try Pope Benedict to convince that catholicism is nonsense?
J.R. clings to his dearest believe with all of his power, because otherwise his life purpose would be in danger, he would have to confess to himself that he did a 37 years long wild goose chase - that would be unbearable for him.
I really appreciate your efforts, but now you should relax a bit, you know pretty well that you can't reason anybody out of a position reached by feelings and the need to believe.

 

[wollery]

So far in this thread I have seen no argument or evidence that would demonstrate ufology to be a pseudoscience.
Won’t someone actually address themselves to the claim?

Where is the list of arguments? Where are the statements of the form

Ufology is a pseudoscience because… (here is the evidence and/or here is the logical argument).

There just aren’t any.

There are plenty. The fact that you dismiss or ignore them is irrelevant.

If the UFO debunkers are correct in that UFO reports arise primarily from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference between known and unknown categories of reports on defined characteristics (such as speed, shape, colour, etc). After all, if they all arise from the same source, then the described characteristics should be equally represented/interpreted/misrepresented/misinterpreted across all reports.

Not true, and actually pseudoscientific. This relies on the idea that the people observing UFOs make accurate reports, even when they are making erroneous observations. Unfortunately this doesn't hold water. It stands to reason that if someone makes a report about a UFO and it is identifiable as a mundane object then the report must be reasonably accurate, but if they misidentify a mundane object, and their misperception is bad enough that it is no longer possible to identify as that mundane object then they can't be describing it with the same set of characteristics as the identifiable mundane object UFO. If misidentified mundane objects were described with the same characteristics as the identified ones then they wouldn't be unidentified. To suggest that identified and unidentified objects would have the same characteristics is a ridiculous and thouroughly naive suggestion. To quote someone or other, it an unsupported assertion, and may be dismissed as such.

I think you might find some disagreement with Astrophotographer there wollery. As an amateur astronomer he would claim to be conducting astronomy according to strict scientific principles – yet he is has no “qualifications” to be doing so. Are you saying he is then a pseudoscientist conducting pseudoscience?

When did he last publish a paper, or write a story in the press, or claim to have discovered something new? In fact, when did he ever claim to "do science" in relation to his astronomy and astrophotography?

And what “belief” is necessary to assess UFO reports wollery? Are you then claiming that the likes of Klass, Menzel, and even Randi are in fact pseudoscientists merely because they have a belief about the subject?

The vast majority of ufologists believe that UFOs are alien craft. They have ther conclusion before they start out and everything they do is tainted with confirmation bias.

Or are you claiming that if someone holds a belief about a subject they are researching then they are disqualified from science altogether?

No, but when that belief is the only reason they do it in the first place it creates huge problems in their ability to do science correctly.

Oh, so its okay of PhDs (or someone with “qualifications”) to “weigh in” on your side and for you to then use the argument from authority (as you do in reference to yourself) to strengthen your case – but if someone with similar qualifications weighs in on the side of ufology, then ufologists are somehow illegitimately “making a big deal” out of it?

I've never used my PhD as an argument. In fact, I rarely mention it. I do occasionally mention that I'm a professional astronomer, where it's relevant.

I do not, however, introduce a paper with the fact that the author is a PhD. If the paper is worth anything then it will stand on its own, regardless of the author's qualifications. And as we all know, having a PhD is no guarantee of being right. Ufology introduced the paper as "by a PhD" as though that fact gave the paper more weight.

This is a strange argument to make. First it is un-refereed - as if somehow science can only be conducted by “qualified” elites and therefore this report can be dismissed - then you reference the report’s conclusions as if they now can be considered legitimate and should not be dismissed…

Either the report was scientifically sound and the conclusions reached legitimate in that respect – or it is not scientifically sound and the conclusions can therefore be dismissed on that basis. Which is it wollery? You cannot have it both ways.

Neither. I was pointing out the flaws in ufology's use of the paper as some sort of argument. The first flaw is that ufology offered it as an argument from authority. The second flaw is that it isn't refereed, and therefore anything it says is unchecked and must be treated with caution. The third flaw is that it doesn't even support the argument ufology was trying to make. I have no idea why ufology thought it was a good paper to use, or a good way to introduce it, but that isn't my problem.

Are then you contending that all those mundane explanations that have been determined for UFO reports by various researchers can simply be dismissed as pseudoscientific because those researchers were involved in ufology - because they were merely researching UFOs - and were thus indulging in pseudoscience?

The fact that most of those mundane explanations are put forward by "debunkers" rather than ufologists seems to have escaped you.

The unwanted consequences of your overgeneralisation should be readily apparent to you wollery. Not all UFO researcher are involved in bad science, just as not all astronomers are – merely because they lack “qualifications”. Some researcher are “qualified”, some are not, but it is not the “qualification” that really counts, it is whether the science is sound.

Certainly, not all UFO researchers are involved in bad science, but the vast majority are. I note that you don't contradict that argument.

So I ask again, where are the rational arguments, supported by evidence, that ufology is a pseudoscience? I see a lot of illogical proclamation (as evidenced in wollery’s statements above) but I see no rational argument.

It's very interesting the posts and parts of posts that you choose to respond to. There are plenty of good arguments, but you ignore most of those.

It's also interesting that ufology hasn't responded to my post.

 

[John Albert]

John Albert, I enjoy your clear and concise posts very much, and I learnt much in this thread(s).

Thank you! I've learned quite a few things myself.

I think you know very well, that you are trying to talk a true believer out of his believe;

At this point, I'm merely trying to make him realize that I and everyone around here can plainly see his arguments are not honest. It appears he doesn't even realize what a shifty and dodgy mode of thinking he's stuck in.

Maybe I'm wrong, and he's really a deliberately dishonest person who cares little for the truth, but I have a feeling there's some part of his mind that feels this cause is altruistic enough to justify some degree of leeway. Hopefully, I can make him realize that misleading others through fraudulent discourse is neither acceptable nor justified, assuming he's not genuinely that confused.

when you are finished with j.r. do you want to try Pope Benedict to convince that catholicism is nonsense?

Ha! I'd be content to give "His Holiness" a few pointers on how to fake a beatific smile instead of leering like a dirty old coot every time a camera comes out. His looks really don't do much to help the Church overcome the pedophile priest stereotype.

J.R. clings to his dearest believe with all of his power, because otherwise his life purpose would be in danger, he would have to confess to himself that he did a 37 years long wild goose chase - that would be unbearable for him.

Aside from that, he also has social and economic interests in promoting flying saucers. He runs his own ufo fan club, a website and a mail order business. At this point, it's obvious that flying saucery is his bread and butter and alternative lifestyle. It's also a field where he can claim some authority, however misguided and misplaced that authority may be.

I really appreciate your efforts, but now you should relax a bit, you know pretty well that you can't reason anybody out of a position reached by feelings and the need to believe.

Meh, yeah I've pretty much made my case. This guy really makes you work for your argument, and I might have appreciated that challenge if we'd been discussing something of relevance and importance.

Frankly, I've seen enough flying saucery to tide me over for awhile. Now I'm in the mood for something a little more esoteric and abstract. Anybody know if we have any threads yet on orgone energy or timewave theory?

 

[Akhenaten]

The debate was over a long time ago ... I guess it just won't be settled until someone closes this ill conceived thread.

j.r.

The debate, if ever there was one, was over in September 2008 after a mere eight posts.

It makes one wonder why then, if you considered it to be ill-conceived, did you resurrect it in the first place.

And why on Earth do you imagine the thread might be closed, especially when it's done such a great job of demonstrating that ufology is pseudoscience?

If anything, it should be made into a sticky.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I think you might find some disagreement with Astrophotographer there wollery. As an amateur astronomer he would claim to be conducting astronomy according to strict scientific principles – yet he is has no “qualifications” to be doing so. Are you saying he is then a pseudoscientist conducting pseudoscience?

My astronomy/astrophotography is a "hobby". I don't recall ever stating what I did was scientific or that I was a scientist. I observe and photograph the night sky for the simple joy of it. I have made observations for various amateur astronomy groups and have done so in the past (Occultation timings, meteor observations, comet observations). I have also had one of my comet photographs published in a scientific paper. It was not my intention when I took it but it showed a disconnection event a scientist was interested in writing about. I leave the science of astronomy to the professionals. If I can contribute with a unique photograph or an observation of something, I will but that is the limit to me using "strict scientific principles".

 

[ufology]

Ufology uses techniques that may superficially appear scientific, but really aren't. Ufologists collect "evidence" that is not reliable, apply analysis that is not critical, formulate theories affirming a consequent that is totally unsupported by material evidence, and then promote explanations about the material universe that are untested and unverified. In other words, it's the trappings of science without the discipline.

Perhaps there are individual instances of what you suggest, but you are ignoring the wider issue and cherry picking individual cases within a small subset of the field as a whole to justify slapping the label over the whole thing.

MUFON advertises what they do as "The Scientific Study of UFOs for the Benefit of Humanity." You can ignore that and cherry pick around their website for definitions that don't use the word "science," but the fact remains that it's prominently advertised in big, italicized text right there in their header banner! I can't believe you're really arguing this point in such a weaselly manner. It's RIGHT THERE on the top of their HOMEPAGE, yet you're trying to deny it! Does basic honesty really mean so little to you?

Uh ... using MUFON's exact article "what Is Ufology" is hardly "cherry picking". It's totally relevant. On the other hand, it is you, who by using an out of context motto advocating the scientific study of UFOs in particular, which is not applicable to ufology as a whole, are the one who is cherry picking. Add to that your character attacks and it's pretty obvious who is being the "weasel".

As everyone around here has already told you a bazillion damn times, it really doesn't even matter whether USI or any other organizations actually come out and say "Hey, we're doin' science over here!" They're researching and promoting unsubstantiated paranormal stories as facts, and that makes it a pseudoscience.

Now you want to take out the primary context of the definition of pseudoscience ( that it must be presented as scientific ), and just say it applies to anyone who tells their story? I guess everyone who ever wrote a biography is a pseudoscientist too then. After all, they are telling people the facts about their life and aren't offering any "scientific proof". You aren't being fair minded or logical or rational.

I already gave you 26 examples where you personally argued pseudoscientific claims (according to the Wikipedia definition that you chose). You've completely ignored them.

I don't know what cases you are referencing here. Can you please provide a link back to them ... I must have just missed them.

Those ostensibly "scientific" stats can also be misused in a variety of other dishonest and pseudoscientific ways, for example when Rramjet erroneously cited a 1% statistic of confirmed hoaxes as a delimiter to argue that incidence of hoaxed UFO sightings could not possibly be greater than 1%. That was a garbage claim resulting from complete ignorance of how to interpret the stats, or even what they represent.

I wasn't following that argument. But I'll speak to it here. I'm aware of studies done at the onset of the Modern Era in ufology by the USAF that cited statistics for several thousand sighting reports, and out of those reports, there was a low percentage of hoaxes. Certainly, if this were applied to all sighting reports, the percentage would have to include a margin of error like any other statistic, which is usually expressed as + or - x times out of x. If we move up to the present day, my opinion would be that we would likely find an even higher percentage based on the prevalence of faked YouTube videos.

Homeopaths regularly misuse actual clinical medical studies in dishonest ways to support the efficacy of their pseudoscience. The fact that pseudoscientists occasionally get their hands on some properly-collected data doesn't mean they're aren't still doing pseudoscience.

Well ... we aren't talking about homeopathy here, but I'll entertain the analogy. First of all we'd have to see how the homeopaths define what they do for themselves. Do they see it as a legitimate science? From everything I've seen about it, they do. They treat is just as seriously as any other medicine. So condition one is met ( It is on the whole presented as science ). Do their "best paractises" fall into the parameters of accepted scientific standards? Well some say they do, and some say they don't, but from what I've read, the dilution of active ingredients can be so high that there are actually no active ingredients at all in a particular dosage, thereby making all case studies useless. So this would be a strong point, backed by solid math and science, in favor of homeopathy being a pseudoscience.

What about all those false "scientific" claims you personally made? You've made an awful lot of totally unsupported, categorical statements about the Universe on these forums (even far more than those cited in my previous post). You didn't seem very "troubled" about stating those brazen falsehoods, so what happened to the care? This argument looks to me like more dishonest posturing.

What are you talking about and what does it have to do with the topic? I entertained the homeopathy comment for the sake of discussion, now what are you saying?

You're purporting to impose your own viewpoint on a huge group of people who clearly don't share your opinion about ufology not being scientific. I'm simply making an observation. The difference is: by the numbers, I'm right and you're wrong. The vast majority of prominent ufologists (who publicly self-identify as such) are engaged in the promotion of belief in outer space aliens. All the "ufology" organizations I have ever been aware of (including yours) also promote that belief. That belief is, by definition, pseudoscience.

Again a watering down of the definition to suit your bias. Besides, as I've said before, appeals to the popular vote are not rebuttals. Logic and reason are the tools here, and again, of over a thousand titles that I own related to ufology, only a small subset claim to be "scientific", and of those, the context is largely commentary rather than analysis. So cherry picking a small subset of a much larger field to suit your bias and slap an innacurate label over the entire field isn't logical or rational or fair minded.

You've ignored or failed to adequately address most of the arguments. You just bulldoze right over your opponents' challenges with arrogant assertions. You've twisted and cherry-picked definitions. You haven't used logic. You've posited your own opinion (that ufology doesn't pretend to be scientific) as fact. That is not logic. That is assertion. That is promotion. All along, you've been arguing from an authoritarian position that is unwarranted and undeserved.

Quite the reverse, the quote above is a simple proclaimation combined with out of context misrepresentation. For a review of my logic, start with the previous quote above.

"Of over a thousand titles that I own related to ufology, only a small subset claim to be "scientific", and of those, the context is largely commentary rather than analysis. So cherry picking a small subset of a much larger field to suit your bias and slap an innacurate label over the entire field isn't logical or rational or fair minded."

You will also notice that I've responded to each issue raised. I've not avoided or "bulldozed" anyone. As for assertions of "arrogance", attacking the arguer isn't part of the process, however I will point out that I ate some dirt on the error I made matching the songs to the right album name. I've proven I can admit when I'm wrong. That's hardly "arrogant". So what's your problem?

You've committed numerous breaches of informal logic. Perhaps some were accidental, but others were clearly dishonest. When your fallacious logic has been pointed out, you've hand-waved, dodged the subject, defended your position with even more fallacies, misused terms of informal logic, regaled us with tall tales, and alleged persecution under a conspiracy. The skeptics here are not your enemies. Your biggest enemy is your own arrogance, mistrust and unwillingness to learn from your mistakes. You came here seeking help from us, and have proceeded to tell us we're wrong about everything we know, even things which you obviously don't have the first clue about (like the scientific method, critical thinking, formation of hypotheses, physics, among others).

This argument holds no water. Ufology is pseudoscience because of what it purports to know about the universe, and the shoddy methodology it employs to prove its case. That's the long and short of it.

Books that purport to contain researched, factual accounts about paranormal events happening in the real Universe, without a shred of reliable, material evidence to back up their claims. Just like the ghost hunter or bigfoot hunter stories. That's pseudoscience.

The above are just more proclaimations and attacks on the arguer ... sad really that you think it qualifies as anything meaningful in this discussion.


j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Uh ... using MUFON's exact article "what Is Ufology" is hardly "cherry picking". It's totally relevant. On the other hand, it is you, who by using an out of context motto advocating the scientific study of UFOs in particular, which is not applicable to ufology as a whole, are the one who is cherry picking. Add to that your character attacks and it's pretty obvious who is being the "weasel".

Do you even read the guff that you quote?

While it is true that rumor, speculation and tabloid sensationalism surround the UFO subject, it is with the collection, analysis and verification, as far as possible, of sober reports like the above that MUFON and other responsible UFO organizations are most concerned. The phenomenon can and should be approched dispassionately and scientifically from a variety of angles, perceptual, psychological and sociological, to name but a few. If objects from another planet are indeed visiting ours, what form of propulsion system and other technologies are employed? What kinds of biological lifeforms might be onboard? What God or gods will they worship? And how will UFO occupants - now or in the future, immediate or remote - perceive humans: as mental, emotional and spiritual equals or as vastly subpar inferiors? Should the skeptics prove right, in a "worst-case" scenario, and UFOs turn out out to be nothing more than a convoluted space age myth of our own making, surely our perceptions of the UFO phenomenon will tell us much about the contents and inner working, the built-in "plumbing" of the human mind and perhaps consciousness itself? In either event - including other scenarios and potential explanations as yet unformulated - many unanswered questions remain. It can hardly be against human nature, or the scientific method in principle, to ask and to seek answers to those questions. We welcome your assistance!

Source

Are you still claiming that MUFON does not present it's self as scientific?

 

[ufology]

Do you even read the guff that you quote?

Source

Are you still claiming that MUFON does not present it's self as scientific?

All that was done with the quote is present an opinion that science can and should be used within the field. Nowhere does it say ufology is a science, which is the actual issue at hand. One can and should use science for many things, but that doesn't suddenly mean every time it's used it's pseudoscience. The article also makes it clear that they have drawn no firm scientific conclusion regard based on any of the science that has been done.

So again we're just seeing an out of context twisting of an opinion to suit a particular bias in order to unfairly slap the label over the entire field.

Other websites such as "Science Of Astrology" or "Science Of Homeopathy" are really clear cut on the issue, they are saying Astrology is a science and Homeopathy is a science. Nowhere does the MUFON article say Ufology is a science.

And even if you find a bunch of their scientific studies that meet the definition of pseudoscience ( claims to be science or presents itself as science or wears the trappings ... bla bla bla, but don't adhere to the scientific method ), all you've done is expose a bunch of reports to scrutiny ... good for you ... you'd have done something useful in ufology. But it wouldn't make the other 900 ufology books I have on my shelf that don't present themselves as science suddenly pseudoscience.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

All that was done with the quote is present an opinion that science can and should be used within the field. Nowhere does it say ufology is a science, which is the actual issue at hand.

There really isn't enough laughing dogs to express the amusement at your ostrich avoidance.

Let's assume it is merely an opinion... OK, but it's come from the Editor of the MUFON UFO journal it is obviously endorsed by MUFON otherwise it wouldn't be included in the 'What is UFOlogy' article.

It clearly states that UFOlogy should approach the subject scientifically.
The evidence is that it it doesn't, therefore it is pseudo scientific

All your weaseling out of it isn't going to change that.
If MUFON say science should be used and the evidence is that science is misused, it is pseudo science.

[/thread]

 

[Akhenaten]

All that was done with the quote is present an opinion that science can and should be used within the field. Nowhere does it say ufology is a science, which is the actual issue at hand.

j.r.

The issue is that ufology is pretending to be science, and Stray Cat's quote demonstrates that MUFON is doing exactly that.

Your own pretence that you can't see this is quite telling.

 

[AdMan]

In 1982, when members from several UFO organizations called for greater cooperation between organizations, the 1982 MUFON UFO Symposium in Toronto became the ideal vehicle to bring the leaders of the various UFO organizations together to discuss the issue. MUFON hosted a one-day meeting following the symposium where 50 people met in a brainstorming session to chart the direction for a proposed federation for North American UFO groups. The theme of the meeting was: “Cooperation, Sharing, and Establishing Ufology as a Science Through Professionalism in Investigation and Research.” The meeting resulted in the formation of a steering committee comprised of representatives attending the summit conference to meet, develop an organization structure, address the goals and objectives, and communicate this information to participating groups.

http://www.mufon.com/MUFONHistory.html

So ufology, your claim is that they've been trying to do this for 29 years but still haven't been successful, or that they gave up trying?

 

[Stray Cat]

your claim is that they've been trying to do this for 29 years but still haven't been successful, or that they gave up trying?

Apparently not:

What is MUFON's relationship to the U.S. Government?

MUFON has federal tax-exempt status as a scientific research organization.

Source

What say you now ufology?
Still keeping up the pretense or looking for another get out clause?

 

[ufology]

The issue is that ufology is pretending to be science, and Stray Cat's quote demonstrates that MUFON is doing exactly that. Your own pretence that you can't see this is quite telling.

Acually it doesn't and I dealt with that in my respose to him, so I'm not going to repeat it here.

j.r.