Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[John Albert]

Even with your misunderstanding of the term "objective" and your admitted unwillingness to differentiate objective reality from a fantasy you've nicknamed "truth", there is no objective evidence that anything which is unidentified is aliens. The report, however objectively provided, does not reach an objective conclusion that it was aliens. To attempt to use it to support the aliens-exist fantasy while bragging up its objectivity is dishonest and a quintessential example of pseudoscience.

↑​

There's also that.

Inferring "aliens" from that story is an entirely unsupported jump to conclusion.

 

[GeeMack]

So the report I posted was investigated by a USAF specialist, so you're implying there were no controls or protocols in the USAF for investigating UFO sightings or launching jet interceptors to chase them. Typical narrow minded thinking. There were plenty of protocols and controls. If our pilots only took action during war based on scientifically proven empirical evidence, they would all be shot down first. Wake up! These are highly trained pros and their experiences are considered extremely valuable.

Yes or no, did the report conclude that the thing the pilot saw was an extraterrestrial craft? This does not require waffling or weaseling, a wall of text, any pseudoscientific excuse making, or dishonest redefining of terms. This is a yes or no question. Did the report conclude that the thing the pilot saw was aliens?

 

[John Albert]

So the report I posted was investigated by a USAF specialist, so you're implying there were no controls or protocols in the USAF for investigating UFO sightings or launching jet interceptors to chase them. Typical narrow minded thinking. There were plenty of protocols and controls. If our pilots only took action during war based on scientifically proven empirical evidence, they would all be shot down first. Wake up! These are highly trained pros and their experiences are considered extremely valuable.

You're making a whole squidboat-load of assumptions based on nothing more than a story you read in a book intended to promote the totally unsupported assumption that UFOs are alien spacecraft. There are any number of reasons why that report might have been falsified, or the author of the book might have embellished or even fabricated the story outright.

Again, this is the wrong place to be discussing this kind of thing.

There's a whole other 220+ page thread specifically dedicated to picking through that whole can of worms.

 

[ufology]

It's sloppy thinking like this that makes me suggest you abandon your pseudoscientific unfalsifiable null hypothesis and adopt one that is falsifiable such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations"

Simple and easily falsifiable. You just need only one verifiable ET. Why would you not want to do that?

The above dodges having to respond to the substance of the report quoted in earlier posts, and tries to impose a scientific method on something that can't by it's very nature accomodate it. All we can do with UFO reports is consider them in a historical context and do our best to determine how reasonable it is to believe the stories happened the way they are told.

In the report I posted we have a USAF jet interceptor pilot who chased a flying saucer in broad daylight for around two minutes. It wasn't a "maybe it was a flying saucer" situation. The pilot clearly saw it and described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole" ... and at the time he was moving near the speed of sound, "at the mach". No null hypothesis is needed here ... "Was it a bird?", "Was it a balloon?", "Was it an airplane?" ... don't be obtuse ... it was a flying saucer, otherwise known as a UFO.

Now maybe someone can tell me if they know of any disk shaped objects that could fly at the speed of sound in 1952 ... how about today? Oh ya and then it just pulled away, "Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it wondered what to do next." ... so let's make that a supersonic flying disk.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above dodges having to respond to the substance of the report quoted in earlier posts, and tries to impose a scientific method on something that can't by it's very nature accomodate it. All we can do with UFO reports is consider them in a historical context and do our best to determine how reasonable it is to believe the stories happened the way they are told.

Then you're admitting that it isn't objective now? Good show!

In the report I posted we have a USAF jet interceptor pilot who chased a flying saucer in broad daylight for around two minutes. It wasn't a "maybe it was a flying saucer" situation. The pilot clearly saw it and described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole" ... and at the time he was moving near the speed of sound, "at the mach". No null hypothesis is needed here ... "Was it a bird?", "Was it a balloon?", "Was it an airplane?" ... don't be obtuse ... it was a flying saucer, otherwise known as a UFO.

So you're saying that your null hypothesis is that it was a flying saucer while saying that you don't need a null hypothesis? The pilot probably saw either a floater in his eye or a piece of debris floating in his cockpit.

Now maybe someone can tell me if they know of any disk shaped objects that could fly at the speed of sound in 1952 ... how about today?

Everything in the cockpit of the plane.

Oh ya and then it just pulled away, "Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it wondered what to do next." ... so let's make that a supersonic flying disk.

j.r.

Not "let's", just you and other pseudoscientists who don't use critical thinking. You wanted to present this story as objective when it isn't. Nor can it be falsified, just like your null hypothesis.

Why would you not want to adopt a null hypothesis that is falsifiable such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations"?

Simple and easily falsifiable. You only need just one confirmed ET. Not anecdotes.

 

[John Albert]

The above dodges having to respond to the substance of the report quoted in earlier posts

This entire discussion is off-topic of this thread.

and tries to impose a scientific method on something that can't by it's very nature accomodate it. All we can do with UFO reports is consider them in a historical context and do our best to determine how reasonable it is to believe the stories happened the way they are told.

And there's a whole other thread for that.

In the report I posted we have a USAF jet interceptor pilot who chased a flying saucer in broad daylight for around two minutes. It wasn't a "maybe it was a flying saucer" situation. The pilot clearly saw it and described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole" ... and at the time he was moving near the speed of sound, "at the mach". No null hypothesis is needed here ... "Was it a bird?", "Was it a balloon?", "Was it an airplane?" ... don't be obtuse ... it was a flying saucer, otherwise known as a UFO.

Now maybe someone can tell me if they know of any disk shaped objects that could fly at the speed of sound in 1952 ... how about today? Oh ya and then it just pulled away, "Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it wondered what to do next." ... so let's make that a supersonic flying disk.

I hate to make threats, but if you continue to derail this thread when there are plenty of on-topic points made by myself and others that you've completely ignored, then I'm going to report it.

 

[ufology]

You're making a whole squidboat-load of assumptions based on nothing more than a story you read in a book intended to promote the totally unsupported assumption that UFOs are alien spacecraft.

Again, this is the wrong place to be discussing this kind of thing.

There's a whole other 220+ page thread specifically dedicated to picking through that whole can of worms.

Actually, if you ever read the book, it doesn't promote the concept of alien spacecraft at all. It simply outlines cases and the personal experiences of the author, who was an official USAF investigator.

To keep this post within the context of the thread, I'll point out that the book and the author are major historical figures in ufology and that because the book is written as a collection of incidents and personal experiences and is not presented as science, it therefore falls outside the parameters of the pseudoscience definition. Therefore I've just provided another example of why ufology as a whole cannot be lumped in with pseudoscience. In ufology each case must be considered on its own merit.

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

What are you suggesting exactly? That the report isn't objective because it was written by an actual UFO investigator? That means geology reports aren't objective because they are written by geologists, and physics reports aren't objective because they're written by physicists and so on. Of course the specialists in the field aren't objective, but they're still the best sources of information.

As noted previously, this is an anecdote. We have no name for the pilot and the report was never filed with bluebook. It was based on Ruppelt's memory and nothing else. I am sure something may have happened but without reliable information from the source (i.e. the pilot), it is subject to distortion because it was told by Ruppelt after he left the service (years after the event), who heard it from the intelligence officer, who interviewed the pilot. Then there is a question of the pilot's potential for error. History has shown that pilots are not god-like and impervious to error. All of these factors make this story worthless for evaluating UFOs. Too much potential for error from the time of the incident to the subsequent retellings. If you want to discuss it further, take it to the evidence thread.

 

[GeeMack]

The above dodges having to respond to the substance of the report quoted in earlier posts, and tries to impose a scientific method on something that can't by it's very nature accomodate it. All we can do with UFO reports is consider them in a historical context and do our best to determine how reasonable it is to believe the stories happened the way they are told.

So what? If the stories happened the way they were told, all we know is someone believed they saw something and was unable to identify the thing they allegedly saw. So what? To make a leap from that to extraterrestrials is irrational. It's starting with a preconceived conclusion and force fitting an unknown event or occurrence into that conclusion. It is definitively pseudoscience. It is definitively the antithesis of critical thinking.

In the report I posted we have a USAF jet interceptor pilot who chased a flying saucer in broad daylight for around two minutes. It wasn't a "maybe it was a flying saucer" situation. The pilot clearly saw it and described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole" ... and at the time he was moving near the speed of sound, "at the mach". No null hypothesis is needed here ... "Was it a bird?", "Was it a balloon?", "Was it an airplane?" ... don't be obtuse ... it was a flying saucer, otherwise known as a UFO.

A UFO is, by definition, unidentified. Once more for those who have difficulty understanding simple concepts simply described: To make a leap from unidentified to aliens is irrational. It's starting with a preconceived conclusion and force fitting an unknown event or occurrence into that conclusion. It is definitively pseudo science. It is definitively the antithesis of critical thinking.

Now maybe someone can tell me if they know of any disk shaped objects that could fly at the speed of sound in 1952 ... how about today? Oh ya and then it just pulled away, "Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it wondered what to do next." ... so let's make that a supersonic flying disk.

Your personal ignorance or incredulity does not constitute evidence to support any particular thing... well except for that incredulity and ignorance itself. Obviously you haven't taken the helpful cooperative advice of the skeptics you so badly want to cooperate with. Go look up "argument from ignorance" and "argument from incredulity" and come back when you actually understand why you continue to fail so miserably when you attempt to use them.

And you missed this...

Yes or no, did the report conclude that the thing the pilot saw was an extraterrestrial craft? This does not require waffling or weaseling, a wall of text, any pseudoscientific excuse making, or dishonest redefining of terms. This is a yes or no question. Did the report conclude that the thing the pilot saw was aliens?

Yes or no?

 

[GeeMack]

Actually, if you ever read the book, it doesn't promote the concept of alien spacecraft at all. It simply outlines cases and the personal experiences of the author, who was an official USAF investigator.

To keep this post within the context of the thread, I'll point out that the book and the author are major historical figures in ufology and that because the book is written as a collection of incidents and personal experiences and is not presented as science, it therefore falls outside the parameters of the pseudoscience definition. Therefore I've just provided another example of why ufology as a whole cannot be lumped in with pseudoscience. In ufology each case must be considered on its own merit.

So yes or no, did the report conclude that the thing the pilot saw was an extraterrestrial craft? No waffling or weaseling please. No walls of text, pseudoscientific excuse making, or dishonest redefining of terms. Did the report conclude that the thing the pilot saw was aliens? Yes or no?

 

[Akhenaten]

The above dodges having to respond to the substance of the report quoted in earlier posts, and tries to impose a scientific method on something that can't by it's very nature accomodate it. All we can do with UFO reports is consider them in a historical context and do our best to determine how reasonable it is to believe the stories happened the way they are told.

What you can, and should, do with your UFO reports is start with the perfectly reasonable null hypothesis that it wasn't an alien flying saucer and work from there. It would at least stop you from going through your pseudoscientific charade of having eliminated all possible mundane explanations.

The problem with your topsy-turvy null hypothesis is that you're starting with the least reasonably believable explanation and working backwards.

Or at least you would be, except that you don't appear to ever move much from your initial assessment of "OMG . . . aliens!"

In the report I posted we have a USAF jet interceptor pilot who chased a flying saucer in broad daylight for around two minutes.

No, we don't.

It wasn't a "maybe it was a flying saucer" situation.

If you weren't so entrenched in your pseudoscientific approach to these things you'd realise that a "maybe it was a flying saucer situation" should be at the other end of the list of possibilities that you're working off.

The pilot clearly saw it and described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole" ... and at the time he was moving near the speed of sound, "at the mach". No null hypothesis is needed here ... "Was it a bird?", "Was it a balloon?", "Was it an airplane?" ... don't be obtuse ... it was a flying saucer,

That's it, is it? Running the entire gamut of your much-lauded list of all possible natural and manmade explanations consists of bird . . . no, balloon . . . no, aeroplane . . . no, "OMG . . . aliens!!!"

Geeze Louise.

otherwise known as a UFO.

No. A UFO is something that can't be identified. A flying saucer is a conclusion leapt at by pseudoscientific ufailogists. Try and keep that straight, at least.

Now maybe someone can tell me if they know of any disk shaped objects that could fly at the speed of sound in 1952 ... how about today? Oh ya and then it just pulled away, "Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it wondered what to do next." ... so let's make that a supersonic flying disk.

j.r.

Anyone but a pseudoscientist would prefer to make it something that was known to exist and then try to eliminate that, then move on to the next most likely known-to-exist thing and try to eliminate that.

Only a pseudoscientist would start with something not known to exist and then not bother at all with trying to eliminate it.

 

[ufology]

What you can, and should, do with your UFO reports is start with the perfectly reasonable null hypothesis that it wasn't an alien flying saucer and work from there. It would at least stop you from going through your pseudoscientific charade of having eliminated all possible mundane explanations.

The problem with your topsy-turvy null hypothesis is that you're starting with the least reasonably believable explanation and working backwards.

Or at least you would be, except that you don't appear to ever move much from your initial assessment of "OMG . . . aliens!"

That's it, is it? Running the entire gamut of your much-lauded list of all possible natural and manmade explanations consists of bird . . . no, balloon . . . no, aeroplane . . . no, "OMG . . . aliens!!!"

No. A UFO is something that can't be identified. A flying saucer is a conclusion leapt at by pseudoscientific ufailogists. Try and keep that straight, at least.

Only a pseudoscientist would start with something not known to exist and then not bother at all with trying to eliminate it.

The above is a misrepresentation. I didn't say it was alien. I said it was a flying saucer. I said that because it was saucer shaped and it was flying ... therefore it fits the description. I also asked for information showing that supersonic flying disk technology existed on Earth then ... or exists even now. But of course the question was dodged with irellevant commentary and mockery in the form of a statement I never made.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

Why would you not want to use a falsifiable one such as:

"All UFO sightings are the result of mundane explanations."​

It's simple and falsifiable and would help elevate UFOlogy above its current status of pseudoscience. I understood you to want to cooperate with skeptics to raise UFOlogy's game? We can only do so much. Won't you meet us halfway? Won't you start with a null hypothesis that is falsifiable rather than one that keeps UFOlogy in the realm of pseudoscience?

What RoboTimbo has been saying is absolutely correct. You need to start with a null hypothesis like:


"All UFO sightings are explainable by mundane causes."


...and then start honestly looking for substantial evidence to falsify that hypothesis.

Okay, lets start with that then:

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, etc) between “known” reports and “unknown” reports.​

There is your testable, falsifiable null hypothesis.

I am not surprised that the UFO debunkers continue to ignore that null hypothesis. They are trying their level best to remove any properly constituted science and scientific analysis from ufology because they know that any such analysis always (that is, invariably) refutes their particular belief systems.

Oh and I have yet to see any evidence or logical argument that demonstrates ufology to be a pseudoscience.

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.
• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.
• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

 

[ufology]

Why is it so damned difficult to be honest for just one moment and answer a simple, unambiguous, clearly worded question? I'll try again, in part because I'd like to see the answer, honest and simple, and in part because every time you intentionally avoid answering it, it goes to demonstrate the typical state of willful ignorance and dishonesty we've come to expect from the pseudoscientific practice of "ufology".

The question: Yes or no, did the report conclude that the thing the pilot saw was an extraterrestrial craft?

What's the matter Gee ... it's pretty obvious that the author made no conclusion on what the object was. For that matter, the entire book makes no firm conclusion on what UFOs are. It does say some people have one opinion and other people have a different one. In the end, it leaves the question open. I can't believe you haven't read The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects. It's like ufology 101. If you haven't even read that, what makes you think you are so well informed?

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above is a misrepresentation. I didn't say it was alien. I said it was a flying saucer.

Sigworthy.

 

[ufology]

Okay, lets start with that then:

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, etc) between “known” reports and “unknown” reports.
​

There is your testable, falsifiable null hypothesis.

I am not surprised that the UFO debunkers continue to ignore that null hypothesis. They are trying their level best to remove any properly constituted science and scientific analysis from ufology because they know that any such analysis always (that is, invariably) refutes their particular belief systems.


Oh and I have yet to see any evidence or logical argument that demonstrates ufology to be a pseudoscience.

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.
• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.
• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

Good post there Ramjet. I've seen you post that response several times now and the skeptics never provide a reasonable answer. They also tend to think that science is impervious to errors and fraud. Science always has a margin of error and there have been plenty of false claims and mistakes. I recently posted a report of over 700 incidents in the medical field alone. These skeptics need to expand their view of reality and start applying their skills to a wider view.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

What's the matter Gee ...

The matter isn't with me. I understand plain English. I asked a plain yes/no question, and even asked politely that you answer it simply without a bunch of waffling and weaseling. Obviously you can't honestly answer a simple yes/no question posed in plain English. Again it goes to demonstrate the typical dishonesty involved in the pseudoscience of "ufology".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Okay, lets start with that then:

If the UFO debunkers are correct and UFO reports principally arise from misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (shape, speed, etc) between “known” reports and “unknown” reports.​

There is your testable, falsifiable null hypothesis.

Let's see, what did you miss? Oh yes, perhaps this:

Well, no. You've proposed an idiotic pseudoscientific hypothesis. I've given you an actual falsifiable null hypothesis. Why would you not want to use it?

Or perhaps this:

Well, no. I haven't ignored it. I've explained to you why it is idiotically pseudoscientific. Why do you ignore that it is idiotically pseudoscientific?

Here's a null hypothesis that should satisfy you if you want to shed the mantle of being pseudoscientific:

"All UFO reports are the result of mundane explanations."​

Why would you not want to use a falsifiable null hypothesis? Why do you want to continue to play the pseudoscientist? All it takes is one confirmed ET. Do you see yet why UFOlogy is a pseudoscience and you prove it every time you post? If not, why not?

Now that you understand your hypothesis is idiotically pseudoscientific...

I am not surprised that the UFO debunkers continue to ignore that null hypothesis. They are trying their level best to remove any properly constituted science and scientific analysis from ufology because they know that any such analysis always (that is, invariably) refutes their particular belief systems.

Ooops! I spoke too soon. You still don't get it.

Oh and I have yet to see any evidence or logical argument that demonstrates ufology to be a pseudoscience.

• Ufology does not claim to be a science.
• Ufology can however legitimately claim to adhere to scientific principles during its investigations without it being a science – think History for example.
• There are quacks and charlatans in any field (medicine is a good example) but that does not mean we write the whole field off as pseudoscientific.

So you must have also missed this:

See above about there being no examples of non-quacks or non-charlatans in UFOlogy and then see your example of a quack (charlatan) hypothesis.

Now that you should see that your hypothesis is idiotically pseudoscientific, why wouldn't you want to use an actual falsifiable null hypothesis, Rramjet?

"All UFO sightings are explainable by mundane causes."​

Really, Rramjet and ufology, what frightens you about that simple falsifiable null hypothesis? Rramjet, why do you screech the loudest when an actual falsifiable null hypothesis is proposed?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above is a misrepresentation. I didn't say it was alien. I said it was a flying saucer. I said that because it was saucer shaped and it was flying ... therefore it fits the description. I also asked for information showing that supersonic flying disk technology existed on Earth then ... or exists even now. But of course the question was dodged with irellevant commentary and mockery in the form of a statement I never made.

j.r.

What you quoted had him describing it as a donut without a hole, not a saucer. Why did you make that pseudoscientific leap? Why don't you call it a flying donut without a hole?

 

[Akhenaten]

Good post there Ramjet. I've seen you post that response several times now and the skeptics never provide a reasonable answer.

Despite your fawning adoration, Rramjet's (note the spelling) proposed null hypothesis is prattling nonsense, and no matter how much he spams the various ufailogy threads with it, prattling nonsense is all it will ever be.

They also tend to think that science is impervious to errors and fraud.

No.

Science always has a margin of error and there have been plenty of false claims and mistakes. I recently posted a report of over 700 incidents in the medical field alone.

Science, however, is equipped to identify and correct its errors, thus constantly improving itself and moving forward.

Ufailogy, on the other hand, is completely oblivious to even the possibility of its own shortcomings and even if it was, it's incapable of self-correction because it's nothing more than a motley collection of pseudoscientists each with his or her own peculiar version of a methodology. Wishful thinkers who wish they could do real science, but can't let go of the silly non-subject that they chose, hoping to gain a chimera of respectability by gleaning dropped snippets of information carelessly left within reach of their sticky little fingers by genuine scientists.

These skeptics need to expand their view of reality and start applying their skills to a wider view.

j.r.

Which of the broad range of discussions in which you have involved yourself here do you feel is most in need of skeptical skills?