• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

Went over to MUFON.com and thought these quotes were particularly apropos.

MUFON.com FAQ said:
In strictest terms, a UFO is just that - an apparent unidentified flying object, origin unknown. The best scientifically accepted definition of a UFO is probably that provided by the late astronomer J. Allen Hynek, who said that the UFO is simply "the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." (The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.)

What is MUFON?

Founded in 1969, the Mutual UFO Network, Inc. (MUFON) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated, through its volunteers, to resolving the scientific enigma known collectively as unidentified flying objects (UFOs).

How does MUFON conduct an investigation?
We receive UFO reports via contacts with local authorities and news media as well as at MUFON headquarters where an email team is on hand to respond. When alerted, the state or provincial director assigns one or more field investigators in the vicinity. On-site investigations usually entail personal interviews with the witnesses; completion of appropriate sighting forms, written accounts and drawings to depict the scene; and assessment of the immediate environment. Collateral contacts with neighbors, police, air traffic control staff and others often shed light on a possible misperception or uncover more witnesses. Investigators prepare a case report for review by their state/provincial director and MUFON's director of investigations. Any materials needing technical analysis (e.g., photos or soil samples) are sent to experts in those fields. Ultimately, all essential factors are entered into a computerized database for comparative analysis. We thus gain insights into the nature of aerial phenomena.

Are there major conferences?
Every summer since 1970, MUFON has hosted the International UFO Symposium. Authors, scientists, and other experts from around the world offer their latest research findings in sessions open to the public over a three-day weekend.


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!

Dennis Stacy, Former Editor, MUFON UFO Journal


Looks like they're taking it all quite seriously and fully intend people to understand they are scientifically studying these phenomena.
 
Last edited:
That "direct observation" argument is so weird, I can't even imagine where in the world you ever came up with that idea.


Wikipedia:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

======================================

We keep seeing the concept of empirical popping up as evidence that is observable by the senses. Why we accept evidence that isn't observable by the senses is because it falls into the "consequences" category, which can actually get kind of murky and depends a lot on how chains of logic are combined to validate that the "consequences" we perceive with our senses are actually connected to the thing we would like to observe directly with our senses but can't, either because it is beyond the range of our senses or is blocked from direct sensory contact.

In the case of ufology, when the case is made for scientific study, it is both direct observation and this chain of logic based on consequences that the scientist depends upon for validation, and in some cases, such as RADAR, the tools may even be the same as for other kinds of study. The longer the chain of logic becomes between the subject matter and the perceiver, the more likely there will be a weak link, so the shortest chain of logic is always preferable, and in the end it all still comes down to observation of the instrument that presents the data, be it a computer monitor or digital readout ... whatever. In ufology, both the strongest and weakest links in the chain of logic are people.

The thing that makes them the best is because people are often the direct perceiver of the phenomenon, no intermediary filters or converters to provide an abstract representation ( people see them directly ). On the other hand, amazing as we are, there are problems with retention, translation and precise measurement.

Nevertheless there is a chain of emipircal evidence in human perception that is based on the stimulus response. In vision we have photons impacting the retina which are translated to nerve impulses which are in-turn processed by our brains and interpreted as a visual pattern. The limits of human vision, resolution and so on are fairly well understood scientifically, and a scientist can use the data provided from visual observation in their study, and when this kind of study is taking place, it can be fairly claimed that science is taking place. However this is still different than saying ufology is in and of itself a science. It just means that a real scientist is looking at data scientifically ... nothing more. Ufology on the whole encompasses more than the sciences ... and we've already been through that.

j.r.
 
Last edited:
Went over to MUFON.com and thought these quotes were particularly apropos.

Looks like they're taking it all quite seriously and fully intend people to understand they are scientifically studying these phenomena.


I fully support the idea of using real scientists to do actual science that can help illuminate the truth regarding UFO sightings. But that doesn't make ufology a science in and of itself, it just means ufology uses real physicists, astronomers, meteorologists ... whatever to assist during investigations. The other aspects of ufology are its history, articles, books, lore, and it's impact on culture, including arts, entertainment, religion and even politics. The topic has become deeply embedded in modern culture and to ignore the strictly non-scientific aspects would be to ignore some of the most interesting things about it.

j.r.
 
Last edited:
I fully support the idea of using real scientists to do actual science that can help illuminate the truth regarding UFO sightings. But that doesn't make ufology a science in and of itself, it just means ufology uses real physicists, astronomers, meteorologists ... whatever to assist during investigations. The other aspects of ufology are its history, articles, books, and it's impact on culture, including arts, entertainment and politics. The topic has become deeply embedded in modern culture and to ignore the non-scientific aspects of it would be to ignore some of the best things about it as well.

j.r.


Yes, that's what I see people trying to explain: science is a methodology. In essence, a child is doing science when he holds his hand close to a pot sitting on the stove to see if it's hot because at one point in the past, he touched a hot pot and got a minor burn.

What are UFO's is the question that's being answered by methodical collecting of data, organizing them, and putting them under scrutiny.

That's science whether or not a/the group of ufologists calls itself a science.
 
What are UFO's is the question that's being answered by methodical collecting of data, organizing them, and putting them under scrutiny. That's science whether or not a/the group of ufologists calls itself a science.


Like I said, if ufology employes real scientists to do real science, and they actually do real science then real science is taking place as one facet of ufology, but that doesn't make ufology a science unto itself, and if it makes no claim to being a science unto itself, it cannot legitimately be claimed to be a pseudoscience either ( which is the question posed by this thread - Is ufology a pseudoscience? ). It is obvious to me that it is neither science nor pseudoscience, but a field of study that can be approached from many angles, including, but not limited to science.

j.r.
 
Unidentified Flying Objects refers to an actual physical and real object.

Nuff said.
 
No. You left out "that the person observing the object could not identify it.

Norm

Indeed and it is a very important bit. If something is the sky is a UFO for me, a complete lay for whatever fly over our head at more than a few meters/foot altitude, that does not mean that what I saw would be an UFO to somebody knowledgeable in satellite. Or it could even be an optical illusion (aka not a real physical object).
 
Last edited:
Like I said, if ufology employes real scientists to do real science, and they actually do real science then real science is taking place as one facet of ufology, but that doesn't make ufology a science unto itself, and if it makes no claim to being a science unto itself, it cannot legitimately be claimed to be a pseudoscience either ( which is the question posed by this thread - Is ufology a pseudoscience? ). It is obvious to me that it is neither science nor pseudoscience, but a field of study that can be approached from many angles, including, but not limited to science.

j.r.


A Rramjetette. How odd.
 
Like I said, if ufology employes real scientists to do real science, and they actually do real science then real science is taking place as one facet of ufology, but that doesn't make ufology a science unto itself, and if it makes no claim to being a science unto itself, it cannot legitimately be claimed to be a pseudoscience either ( which is the question posed by this thread - Is ufology a pseudoscience? ). It is obvious to me that it is neither science nor pseudoscience, but a field of study that can be approached from many angles, including, but not limited to science.

j.r.

I'm disappointed that the claims you made about being a different sort of UFOlogist seem to be unfounded. A lot of members here (myself included) have explained why UFOlogy is considered to be pseudo-science and you basically ignore the relevant points and simply re-state your misconceived idea that to be pseudo-science the UFologists have to first claim it is science. This, as has been explained is not so.

It constantly presents itself as if it has done research, investigation and analysis and implies some sort of sientific method; "The Scientific Study of UFOs for the benefit of Humanity" Any single incident of this happening where the conclusion is Alien, non terrestrial intelligently controlled craft or other such is a clear example of pseudo-science.
Now go look at some UFO cases (famous or otherwise) and tell us how scientific method hasn't been misapplied.
 
Edited. Do not make sockpuppet allegations in-thread; doing so is considered a breach of Rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has it somehow escaped your notice that this is page 107 of a thread which for the past 10 months and in its own meandering way has discussed nothing else but what is arguably the most famous quotation from Cosmos?


I just need 50 posts to get my avatar. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post another reply.

j.r.


Interesting priorities.
 
MUFON - other side of the coin

While their statements sound honorable (or at least qualify under my previous reequirement "all sciencey and stuff"), when you get down to reality, they're steeped in woo.

This year's speakers at their annual confab....

Linda Moulton Howe - that staple of Coast-to-Coast. Supporter of the Brazilian abduction fraud, hawker of her own website.

Barbara Lamb - most famous for her support of hypnotherapy and regression therapy (both dubious at best) and for the interesting little wrinkle that many of her results have proven that her patients' problems stem from early age alien abduction. (Hey, I'm not making this up. She made my Woo of The Week award the only time I ever offered one, five years ago.)

Their old steple George Filer's going to speak on the traces that the Martian civilization left on that planet, you'll be pleased to hear.


Yeah, serious investigative organization, this one.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Squid Fishing Monthly is considering a commemorative edition to celebrate?
Did you have a precognitive dream about it?

Squid-Mag4.jpg
 
GeeMack ... I just noticed you are pretty good at taking notes, and your style is really quite ... something ... have you considered applying for the job of Court Reporter on the Raj Rajaratnam trial. If not, do your country a favor and get in there ... ya ... Thanks GeeMack ...


Your continued ignorance of my relevant question is again noted. And you're welcome.
 

Back
Top Bottom