Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[Rramjet]

I just explained to you what a null hypothesis is, in layman's terms. A null hypothesis is something that you don't need any special evidence to prove; it's the default. It makes no extraordinary assumptions, and projects that the research will conclude nothing special.

The null hypothesis is a hypothesis like any that are made. The only difference between it and other hypotheses is that it proposes there to be no difference between samples (or no effect of any change in experimental parameters). It still has to have evidence to support it.

It's not necessary to build complex statistical models to formulate a null hypothesis about a simple subject. The premise of "null hypothesis" itself is very simple.

The statistical analysis that goes into exploring the null hypothesis is only different in that such statistics are exploring a directionless hypothesis - and any tests of significance must take that into account accordingly.

H⁰ is shorthand for "null hypothesis" and H¹ stands for the "alternative hypothesis," or the explanation that the researcher hopes to prove. It's also possible to have additional hypotheses (H², H³, H⁴...) if you conceive alternate outcomes from your research.

H₀ (note the nomenclature) must also be “proved” if it is to have any veracity.

But it's important to always start with H0, because it removes your own personal bias from the research.

The alternative hypotheses are directional hypotheses and it is entirely legitimate to test those hypotheses as well (as long as your statistical analysis accounts for that). It is just as legitimate to begin the experiment with directional hypotheses – so long as your method of analysis accounts for that fact.

 

[John Albert]

So you're saying that "human error or deception" could not be a valid null hypothesis unless I were able to prove that the person telling the anecdote is lying or wrong?

Is it not enough to acknowledge that humans have a tendency to make mistakes, and eyewitness accounts have consistently been proven to be extremely inaccurate?

 

[Rramjet]

The assumption that mysterious, physical objects appear in the skies that defy explanation, and these objects only appear before single individuals or small groups of people who for some reason are never able to produce any material evidence of their existence. Never has anyone conclusively proven that such objects exist. Therefore, it is a pseudoscientific claim.

Just because a claim is purely theoretical, does not make it a pseudoscientific claim (think Dark Energy or Dark Matter for example).

Moreover, we do have evidence (multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic, and physical trace evidence). No matter what you think of the quality of that evidence – it does exist.

The assumption that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth. Never has any evidence been produced that conclusively proves the existence of ET, let alone prove that they've visited Earth. Therefore, it is a pseudoscientific claim.

This is the same argument as above. I would add that there is nothing in science that would preclude ET visitation and also that we have observations of “nuts and bolts” craft, ostensible intelligent control and associated beings. That ET has been hypothesised as an explanation for those observations does not make it a pseudoscientific explanation – merely a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

The conspiracy theory that the US government has conclusive knowledge of the existence of ET, but they're keeping it hidden from the public for some nefarious reason. Despite such allegations, no conclusive evidence has ever come to light that this is anything more than an urban legend. Therefore, it is a pseudoscientific claim.

At this point I guess we must begin to question what your definition of “pseudoscientific claim” is. You seem to apply the appellation to any claim which you consider is not supported by evidence. However, the definition of “pseudoscientific holds that it is “any theory, methodology or practice” that is considered to be without scientific foundation (ie; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudoscientific). Claims and hypotheses therefore do not fall under that definition.

How then can claims and hypotheses be considered to be “based on theories and methods erroneously regarded as scientific” or to be “not consistent with the methods or principles of science; "an unscientific lack of objectivity"? Claims and hypothses exist to be tested by the scientific method. If they fail to be supported when tested under that methodology, then we reject them as unsound. If they are supported, then they have veracity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Whenever a researcher or self-described "expert" makes such claims as these without providing conclusive proof obtained through proper science, that is pseudoscience.

No, they are making claims… often plausible explanatory hypotheses… a claim is typically “ An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.” An hypothesis is typically “ A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”

Claims and hypotheses are starting points for investigation. They carry no assumption of truth whatsoever. The veracity of them is there to be tested. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Rramjet]

So you're saying that "human error or deception" could not be a valid null hypothesis unless I were able to prove that the person telling the anecdote is lying or wrong?

If you make the claim that someone who has related an anecdote is “deceptive” or “in error” then yes, you will have to provide evidence for that claim (assertion).

Is it not enough to acknowledge that humans have a tendency to make mistakes, and eyewitness accounts have consistently been proven to be extremely inaccurate?

You can tender that as evidence for your claim (assertion) of deception/error if you like, but it will be noted in return that just because something is possible does not make it likely or even probable (in the particular case). You will therefore be asked to present a higher standard of evidence if you want your claim to be accepted as having veracity.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Regarding Hynek:

(snip) I do believe that he did his honest best with what he had to work with under the conditions that were imposed on him at the time.(snip)
j.r.

And you believe that because.....?

I'm not saying that you are mistaken, I'm just asking what you base this belief on.

Ward

 

[Rramjet]

I should add that of course alternative hypotheses need not be directional…

Let us look at a null hypothesis concerning UFOs:

If it were true that all UFO reports are misidentified mundane objects then a testable null hypothesis would be:

There is no significant difference on defined parameters (speed, shape, brightness, manoeuvrability etc) between those reports that have mundane explanations and those that have not (yet) been identified.

Scientifically testable, no?

The alternative hypothesis here would be that there is a significant difference.

 

[Correa Neto]

Actually there is nothing at all wrong with my definition and the ones for pseudoscience came off Wikipedia and other sites. I didn't just fabricate them. The sites were quoted in one of my posts. What isn't accurate is how you have interpreted what I've said in a manner the is not in keeping with the context of the illustrations.

From where I stand, it looks like you are just making a new definition that suits your needs to defend UFOlogy, shielding it from the rigorous scientific method. It seems a lot like a special pledge for lowering data and methodology QA/QC specs regarding UFOlogy.

Your point about Jules Verne ( a childhood favorite ) is good. Your point about people who write a book about the Earth being hollow, within the context of your illustration ( or at least the one I give you credit for ) is also good, but in another context, for example from a journalistic perspective, it may not be. It could simply be an account of what various other people have claimed, maybe combined with some pesonal experience. That would be neither science nor pseudoscience. It's nothing more than a collection of interesting stories put together by a journalist. By contrast, if it is presented as science, along with genuine scientific data backed up with empirical evidence, then it's science.

If the journalist shows bias towards the hollow Earth fantasy being real, or even tries to remain neutral on the subject, then its pseudoscience, especially if he/she uses one of its trademarks, such as complaints against "mainstream science" and conspiracies to hide the "truth".

There's no way to back the hollow Earth with genuine scientific data; Pellucidar and the Lidenbrook Sea are not there. Any attempt to do so will be pseudoscience at best. The same is valid regarding UFOlogy's claims (with the currently available material) regarding extraterrestrials, beings from other universes, etc.

In the Close Encounters example I would make no claim that The movie maker was doing ufology. I would however make the claim that Close Encounters has become a ufology culture classic and part of ufology history because of J. Allen Hynek's cameo and consulting role. There are discussions about how the media and entertainment affect pubic perception of UFOs and might contribute to higher numbers of UFO sighting reports. It is very relevant to the general discussion of ufology, but it isn't science nor is it pseudoscience, it's just part of ufology culture.

j.r.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is as much UFOlogy as Journey to the Centre of the Earth is Geology. Verne's book was deeply researched and was more faithfull to Geology from Charles Lyell's times than Spielberg's movie was to Hynek's times UFOlogy. Both, however, are just cultural works based on them. The only way to include Close Encounters of the Third Kind within UFOlogy is to consider UFOlogy as nothing but lore, a social construct. Even within this view, those pretending (but failing) to use scientific methods (the "scientific" UFOlogy branch) have been, are and will be doing pseudoscience.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wow...

Rramjet tried to place dark matter's theoretical backing at the same level with UFOlogy evidence. Am I the only one to think this is not to be expected from "a trained scientist and peer-reviewed published author in scientific journals"?

 

[Stray Cat]

I would say that J. Allen Hynek was a geuine scientist. I don't know whether or not all the work he did had all the details required to justify his studies as strictly scientific all the time, but I do believe that he did his honest best with what he had to work with under the conditions that were imposed on him at the time. In other words, he does not deserve to be labeled a pseudoscientist even if you want to start picking away at his studies.

Start here: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Hynek-01a.htm

j.r.

I don't think that anyone would suggest that Hynek was a pseudo-scientist. That however, doesn't mean that some of his work wasn't based in pseudoscientific thinking. Although the cleverest people seem to get by on the very edge by simply making ambiguous claims about 'real mystery' without actually defining what the mystery really is. Nick Pope is another who having retired from the Ministry of Defence's UFO reporting desk (having never seen anything compelling) has gone on to use prevarication to the UFOlogy lecture circuit in order to capitalise on his 'credible' status.

I can give another example from Crop Circle land. A man called W.C. Levengood (Burke, Levengood, Talbot), who wrote several (peer reviewed) science papers in the field of bio-chemistry, then turned his hand to the investigation of crop circles and tried to apply bio-chemistry to the wheat stalks from samples taken form crop circles. His results were amazing (to anyone who didn't really understand science, or crop circles).
Now none of that crop circle work distracts from his earlier work, but we can still legitimately say that Levengood's work with the field of crop circles (no pun intended) is pseudo-scientific.

You still seem to be skirting around the issues, maybe you feel like you're dodging bullets, but if your claim that 'UFOlogy isn't always engaged heavily in pseudo-scientific practices' is true, you should be able to provide a single case of a UFOlogist doing UFOlogy (a single investigation/conclusion of a UFO report) where there is no trace of pseudo-scientificness. A biography of someone connected to UFOlogy, isn't really what I was asking for.

 

[Correa Neto]

According to a government release the SR-71s were definitely behind some RADAR reports. There are probably a lot of high tech military craft that get reported as UFOs, especially by foreign RADAR. This is probably also why they have to keep a lot of UFO files secret.

j.r.

Not just secret millitary aircraft, but the stuff non-secret millitary aircraft are known to carry. ECM, chaff, flares, decoys... Imagine a radar operator's reaction to one of them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Just because a claim is purely theoretical, does not make it a pseudoscientific claim (think Dark Energy or Dark Matter for example).

ufology, do you think that someone who claims to be a scientist and equates UFO claims with dark energy and dark matter is doing pseudoscience?

Moreover, we do have evidence (multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic, and physical trace evidence). No matter what you think of the quality of that evidence – it does exist.


This is the same argument as above. I would add that there is nothing in science that would preclude ET visitation and also that we have observations of “nuts and bolts” craft, ostensible intelligent control and associated beings. That ET has been hypothesised as an explanation for those observations does not make it a pseudoscientific explanation – merely a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

ufology, how about someone who begins with their conclusion and then tries to shoehorn evidence into that? Is that pseudoscience?

At this point I guess we must begin to question what your definition of “pseudoscientific claim” is. You seem to apply the appellation to any claim which you consider is not supported by evidence. However, the definition of “pseudoscientific holds that it is “any theory, methodology or practice” that is considered to be without scientific foundation (ie; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudoscientific). Claims and hypotheses therefore do not fall under that definition.

How then can claims and hypotheses be considered to be “based on theories and methods erroneously regarded as scientific” or to be “not consistent with the methods or principles of science; "an unscientific lack of objectivity"? Claims and hypothses exist to be tested by the scientific method. If they fail to be supported when tested under that methodology, then we reject them as unsound. If they are supported, then they have veracity. Nothing more, nothing less.

ufology, how about someone who begins with their conclusions, shoehorns any data to fit, and then doesn't follow his own advice to discard them when they are found to be unsound? Pseudoscience?

No, they are making claims… often plausible explanatory hypotheses… a claim is typically “ An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.” An hypothesis is typically “ A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”

Claims and hypotheses are starting points for investigation. They carry no assumption of truth whatsoever. The veracity of them is there to be tested. Nothing more, nothing less.

ufology, how about when they can't decide whether they are making claims and/or hypotheses or not?



ETA: You haven't answered my previous question about the pseudoscience being offered in the moderated UFO thread yet.

 

[Rramjet]

There's no way to back the hollow Earth with genuine scientific data; Pellucidar and the Lidenbrook Sea are not there. Any attempt to do so will be pseudoscience at best. The same is valid regarding UFOlogy's claims (with the currently available material) regarding extraterrestrials, beings from other universes, etc.

Once can apply scientific methodology to the study of UFOs. The example I raised in my previous post is a case in point:

If the debunkers are correct and all UFOs are primarily misidentified mundane objects, then a scientifically testable (falsifiable) hypothesis would be that there is no difference (in terms of definable parameters such as shape, speed, etc) between those reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation.

I don't think that anyone would suggest that Hynek was a pseudo-scientist. That however, doesn't mean that some of his work wasn't based in pseudoscientific thinking. Although the cleverest people seem to get by on the very edge by simply making ambiguous claims about 'real mystery' without actually defining what the mystery really is. Nick Pope is another who having retired from the Ministry of Defence's UFO reporting desk (having never seen anything compelling) has gone on to use prevarication to the UFOlogy lecture circuit in order to capitalise on his 'credible' status.

I can give another example from Crop Circle land...

The problem here of course is that you have actually provided no “examples” at all. You have merely provided us with some statements of belief with no supporting evidence. For example, when you go on to assert:

…A man called W.C. Levengood (Burke, Levengood, Talbot), who wrote several (peer reviewed) science papers in the field of bio-chemistry, then turned his hand to the investigation of crop circles and tried to apply bio-chemistry to the wheat stalks from samples taken form crop circles. His results were amazing (to anyone who didn't really understand science, or crop circles).
Now none of that crop circle work distracts from his earlier work, but we can still legitimately say that Levengood's work with the field of crop circles (no pun intended) is pseudo-scientific.

You have provided no examples of how Levengood’s crop-circle analysis is pseudoscientific, you have merely made the unfounded assertion.

…if your claim that 'UFOlogy isn't always engaged heavily in pseudo-scientific practices' is true, you should be able to provide a single case of a UFOlogist doing UFOlogy (a single investigation/conclusion of a UFO report) where there is no trace of pseudo-scientificness.

I can do that. The Batelle Study for example (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf), the published peer-reviewed works by Dr Maccabee is another example (Maccabee, B. (1987). Analysis and Discussion of the Images of a Cluster of Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed off the Coast of New Zealand. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1, 149; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZF...hingLight.html)
Maccabee, B. (1999). Atmosphere or UFO. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13, 421; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc), works by Hoyt (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) and Sturrock ((http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf) – and the list could of course go on … and even an organisational example (on a different topic – but still on the paranormal) may be found here (http://www.spinvestigations.org/). Quite simply, these people are practising science. If you can provide substantive examples in those works that would demonstrate that, rather than science, pseudoscience was being conducted, then please, go right ahead.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Once can apply scientific methodology to the study of UFOs. The example I raised in my previous post is a case in point:

ufology, according to your definition and parameters earlier in the thread, UFOlogists who claim to use scientific methodology make it pseudoscience, right?

If the debunkers are correct and all UFOs are primarily misidentified mundane objects, then a scientifically testable (falsifiable) hypothesis would be that there is no difference (in terms of definable parameters such as shape, speed, etc) between those reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation.

ufology, how about when a pseudoscientist proposes a strawman hypothesis? That is definitely pseudoscience, isn't it?

The problem here of course is that you have actually provided no “examples” at all. You have merely provided us with some statements of belief with no supporting evidence. For example, when you go on to assert:


You have provided no examples of how Levengood’s crop-circle analysis is pseudoscientific, you have merely made the unfounded assertion.


I can do that. The Batelle Study for example (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf), the published peer-reviewed works by Dr Maccabee is another example (Maccabee, B. (1987). Analysis and Discussion of the Images of a Cluster of Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed off the Coast of New Zealand. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1, 149; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZF...hingLight.html)
Maccabee, B. (1999). Atmosphere or UFO. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13, 421; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc), works by Hoyt (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) and Sturrock ((http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf) – and the list could of course go on … and even an organisational example (on a different topic – but still on the paranormal) may be found here (http://www.spinvestigations.org/). Quite simply, these people are practising science. If you can provide substantive examples in those works that would demonstrate that, rather than science, pseudoscience was being conducted, then please, go right ahead.

ufology, with all of the claims that science is being conducted, contrary to your earlier assertion that UFOlogy does not make claims to being science, does this make UFOlogy a pseudoscience? When someone has their unfounded belief system in UFOs as alien space vehicles and uses sciencey things to shore up that belief system, is that pseudoscience?

 

[carlitos]

The definition of ufology I use is located at: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

Yes, and the definition of "UFO" found there is this:

Many different shaped UFOs have been reported, but the most ubiquitious are spheres and disks. Disk shaped UFOs often have a raised section in the center-top of the craft that is presumed to be a crew cabin. Most UFOs are fairly small, usually under 150 feet wide. However on rare occasions gigantic UFOs have also been sighted that merge with the smaller craft. This merging has caused most ufologists to believe that the larger UFOs are carriers, also often referred to as mother-ships. Lgically the smaller UFOs are probably shuttles or probes that have been dispatched to fulfill some mission. The artist's rendition ( top-left ) depicts a saucer shaped UFO purportedly under study at a USAF test facility known as Area 51 in Nevada USA.

That ain't science, mate.

 

[Stray Cat]

The problem here of course is that you have actually provided no “examples” at all. You have merely provided us with some statements of belief with no supporting evidence.

I provided an "example" I didn't claim to have provided evidence to support it.
So which bit do you need evidence for?
It's out there and I can back it up, although I know you are quite willing to protract a discussion well beyond what is necessary so pedantic requests will be ignored, but if you want for instance substantiation of "Hynek's "there is a mystery" but without actually defining what the mystery is (a statement I could have made myself!, I can provide it. If you want links to Nick Popes ;walking the tightrope between having nothing and yet still displaying a willingness to entertain UFO believers at conferences, i can provide that too.

For example, when you go on to assert:
You have provided no examples of how Levengood’s crop-circle analysis is pseudoscientific, you have merely made the unfounded assertion.

Levengood's crop circle analysis is pseudo-scientific for many reasons, not least because his tests were not double blind.
But for a more in depth critique of Levengood's work, you may try this:
Balls of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles

I can do that. The Batelle Study for example (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf),

See this is another point in which you get confused.
The Special Report concluded that sometimes people see things they can't identify. No one's disputing that, science support the assertion.
Where is starts to fall into Pseudo-Science is where UFOlogists point to such studied to support their 'Aliens' beliefs. The UFOlogists regularly point to studies such as these, whilst ignoring the fact that the studies didn't conclude Aliens. In other words the UFOlogists are mis-applying science (pretending to be scientific).

the published peer-reviewed works by Dr Maccabee is another example (Maccabee, B. (1987). Analysis and Discussion of the Images of a Cluster of Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed off the Coast of New Zealand. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1, 149; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZF...hingLight.html)
Maccabee, B. (1999). Atmosphere or UFO. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13, 421; (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc), works by Hoyt (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) and Sturrock ((http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf) – and the list could of course go on …

Yes, I'm sure your list could go on. However, just because Maccabees sums all add up doesn't mean that when applied to real life they can be represented to reach the conclusion he (and you) claim they do.
This is pseudo-science. As you already know I've examined Maccabee's work in detail in the past and the assumptions he makes in order to come up with a (on the face of it) rational method to support his 'belief' are, when looked at in detail irrational and sometimes based upon strawman like arguments.
Take his recent updating of the Rogue River Blimp Theory as an example (thanks BTW to Dirk Biddle ) where he goes to great lengths to show how it couldn't be a blimp heading straight towards the observer (he uses geometry and diagrams and everything), whilst ignoring the fact that the (possible) blimp was not heading straight towards the observer and the shape of a blimp when viewed from slightly below could still appear round if it was travelling at roughly a 10° angle and not straight toward the observer. Once again Maccabee shows he is only looking for confirmation of his belief and not actually looking at evidence and seeing where it leads. pseudo-science again.

and even an organisational example (on a different topic – but still on the paranormal) may be found here (http://www.spinvestigations.org/). Quite simply, these people are practising science. If you can provide substantive examples in those works that would demonstrate that, rather than science, pseudoscience was being conducted, then please, go right ahead.

Again you can claim 'science' for this group and maybe they give the outward appearance of science. However, again it is misapplied science in order to support a 'belief', they fall short of the mark in providing anything conclusive and yet still promote the mystery as paranormal.

 

[Pixel42]

Nick Pope is another who having retired from the Ministry of Defence's UFO reporting desk (having never seen anything compelling) has gone on to use prevarication to the UFOlogy lecture circuit in order to capitalise on his 'credible' status.

He's speaking at this month's meeting of Cheltenham's Sceptics in the Pub group. I'm in two minds whether to go.

 

[Correa Neto]

Once can apply scientific methodology to the study of UFOs. The example I raised in my previous post is a case in point:

If the debunkers are correct and all UFOs are primarily misidentified mundane objects, then a scientifically testable (falsifiable) hypothesis would be that there is no difference (in terms of definable parameters such as shape, speed, etc) between those reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation.

...snip...

Rramjet, you really want actual scientists to spend time, technical resources and money to study anecdotes? Anecdotes like those you present at that "evidence" thread, which quite often are decades-old, cold trail dead-enders? Anecdotes whose reliabilities are at least questionable?

This real scientist here says its a waste. Want to build and present a solid case for some UFOs having no mundane explanations? Go acquire some new, reliable, non-anecdotal data. This sort of UFO evidence would be... Extraordinary.

 

[Stray Cat]

He's speaking at this month's meeting of Cheltenham's Sceptics in the Pub group. I'm in two minds whether to go.

He's well worth the investment in time. An interesting, entertaining and thoroughly nice bloke.

 

[John Albert]

Rramjet, you really want actual scientists to spend time, technical resources and money to study anecdotes? Anecdotes like those you present at that "evidence" thread, which quite often are decades-old, cold trail dead-enders? Anecdotes whose reliabilities are at least questionable?

Now that I consider it, I guess ufology may be right about not being able to form a null hypothesis regarding UFO sightings if all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence.

It's really impossible to form a falsifiable null hypothesis if all you have to go on is nothing more than stories. How do you go about proving "human error or deception"? In many cases you really can't prove or disprove it unless you actually catch the "witness" in a lie, or find some evidence of hallucination, mental instability or the like.

That being the case, the study of UFO sightings cannot be reliably conducted according to strict scientific guidelines. Hence, making any kind of determination based on such "evidence" would be pseudoscience.

 

[Stray Cat]

Can we call it "Flying Saucery"?

That's got a nice ring to it.

Well done that man!