Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[GeeMack]

Thank you ufology, I appreciate the way you think about and approach this topic.

In my own defence – in the other thread – I have been presenting UFO cases which I believe demonstrate that UFO cases exist that simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

... but without successfully demonstrating that.

NEVER have I contended that an explanation for the cases I have presented that defy plausible mundane explanation is ET.

That is, of course, a flat out lie. UFOs: The Research, the Evidence, Post 1...

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that. It is a collection of reports, case studies and general documentary information.

It's the entire premise of that 8800 post thread. But this isn't the thread to continue that discussion.

BTW: If Rramjet is actually a scientist then I would urge the JREF supporters to find a way to work with him instead of constantly against him.

He hasn't provided a mote of evidence that would suggest he's actually a scientist. He is engaging in what we might refer to as "ufology", pretend science, commonly accepted to be pseudoscience. And he's demonstrated hundreds of times that his arguments to support his position consist primarily of anecdotes, combinations of logical fallacies, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and a fair amount of just plain lies while pretending to be scientific, again pseudoscience. If there's any trust building or working-with required before the "ufologists" can get themselves out of their rut of failure and on the road to a successful understanding, the responsibility for that falls squarely on the pseudoscientists, the "ufologists".

Interesting that you can't get past that dishonest tactic of blaming other people for your failure...

So nobody is suggesting that you should lower your standards. If anything, I am suggesting that you ( figuratively ) raise them. Leave the arrogance, prejudice and presumptions behind. We both know "proof" is elusive. Don't use it as an excuse to nail people to the wall and embarrass them. There is a better way to approach this that I'm sure it would reflect better on the JREF. If we can work constructively together, it can benefit everyone.

How about every time the "ufologists" try to use arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, lies, anecdotes, and anything besides objective evidence to try to support their belief in alien visitors, the scientists and skeptics point out those flawed arguments? And then the alien believers set aside those particular failed arguments and move on to something else? And if they run out of arguments, if the "ufologists" don't have anything objective to offer, they acknowledge it and admit that all they have is faith? How would that be for cooperation? At least it would be honest for a change. And the pretense of scientific inquiry would end, and "ufology" would cease to be pseudoscience.

 

[John Albert]

My baseline or "null hypothesis" would be considered that which is normal. In other words, can what I'm looking at be readily explained as a natural or manmade object or phenomenon? If the answer is no. Then I take a closer look and try to find an unusual natural or manmade explanation. I keep doing that until I either find a plausible and likely natural or manmade explanation, or all such explanations ( available to me ) have been ruled out.

This fails to take into account willful deception, mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, and other known human psychological effects such as hypnagogia, waking hallucinations, confabulations, cryptomnesia, and suggestion.

 

[Stray Cat]

Debunk: “ To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debunk)

Yes exactly - And how does one expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claim of an object that someone had seen in the sky, which they can not identify?

UFO reportee: "I saw a flying object I couldn't identify"
UFO Debunker: "Oh stop exaggerating you idiot"

I think you'll find that what is debunked are unfounded claims of aliens piloting space craft around our planet... Which is a totally different concept from the one you think you are describing.

What does that mean? I could have sworn that your (so called) sceptics have argued up hill and down dale that the unidentified reports are simply the result of misidentified mundane objects.

How can something which has not been identified be a misidentified mundane object?
An object that has not been identified is most likely to be a mundane object and that will remain the case until reliable evidence comes along to change that position.

Of course they have: That is the principle contention of the debunkers/sceptics/cynics! And no amount of obfuscation on your part can or will obscure that fact.

Sorry for your continued misunderstanding of the sceptics position.
In subjects where the evidence is really weak and unreliable, we can no more reach a concrete conclusion than you can, what we do is to sharpen our Occams razor, cut away the chaff and settle at a 'most likely' (and yet changeable if contrary reliable, strong evidence comes along) possibility.

It seems then you have simply misread the hypothesis. Here it is again. If you indicate to me what parts of it do you not understand I will of course attempt to clarify it for you:

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.​

Honestly... none of it makes any sense, as it's not our position in the first place.

 

[ufology]

If someone reports a UFO to me directly, I don't belittle or ridicule them. I am quite willing to investigate reports and relish the idea of investigating them first hand instead of reading about them on the internet.

The few I have been directly involved in investigating stand out from the usual reports because I find that talking first hand to the people, they are not usually telling tales of alien space craft, but simply things they saw that they didn't understand.

So I don't think ufologists should have to prove cases, but they need to prove the concrete conclusions they often come to (eg: "this defies plausible mundane explanation")

I've pared the whole quote back for the sake of brevity so we know what is being referred to here. This was a very good exchange and I hope we can continue this trend. I'd like to discuss the "proof for concrete conclusions" a little more. But I'm preparing to start a new thread so we don't get this one off track.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Can we call it "Flying Saucery"?

That's got a nice ring to it.

Well done that man!

Thanks, mate. Coming, as it does, from the master I really appreciate it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ah, so someone has at last noticed…

That's not a null hypothesis, Rramjet, it's just a restatement of your multifaceted attempt to redefine 'UFO' to suit your own misguided purpose and a reintroduction of your failed concept of "debunkers".

So you say, but what is the foundation of your objection there?

Exactly what I bloody said, Rramjet. You make up your own definitions in a vain attempt to make your arguments look legitimate.

Is it not a scientifically testable hypothesis?

Your anecdotes and blimp pictures? Yes it's not.

Is it not true that UFO debunkers claim that (apart from small percentage of hoaxes) the “unknown” cases are simply misidentified mundane objects?

There's no such thing as UFO debunkers and unidentified ≠ misidentified no matter how many times you assert that they mean the same thing.

Is it not rue that if that is the case, then there should be no statistical difference (on defined characteristics such as speed, shape, colour, etc) between those UFO reports that have been positively identified as mundane objects and those UFO reports that have not been identified?

Yes, it's not rue. Or true either. Statistics derived from anecdotes are only useful in analysing the nature of anecdotes. In fact, I'd say you've done a sterling job of establishing beyond any reasonable doubt that anecdotes exist. Congratulations.

UFOs are not misidentified mundane objects. They are unidentified (there's a clue in the first letter of 'UFO' if you look carefully) and to pretend that any other meaning is intended by your opponents is nothing more than a transparent strawman argument.

Is it not true that UFO debunkers believe that those UFO reports that have not been identified are simply (and primarily) the result of a misidentification of mundane objects?

Yes, it's not true.

Your claim that there's no difference between "reports that have mundane explanations and those reports that have no explanation" is beyond extraordinary, beyond pseudoscience and beyond ludicrous.

How so? Is not my hypothesis scientifically testable?

Yes, it's not.

If it is scientifically testable, then how can it be pseudoscience?

Your theories about UFOs aren't even pseudoscience. You flatter yourself.

 

[Akhenaten]

You're confusing the concept of ufology on the whole as being a pseudoscience ( which is what we're talking about ) with individuals who may or may not be practicing pseudoscience within the field.

No, in fact it seems rather that you are attempting to distance yourself from all of those other ufologists that are talking codswallop.

It ain't working.

I think that maybe it would be a good idea to have a separate thread titled "Which Ufologists are Practicing Pseudoscience".

Why? The first response would be "All of them." and that would be the end of it.

In such a thread individual cases could be discussed and some good might come of it. This would be similar to discussing "Which Medical Practitioners are Quacks". Not all medicine is Quackery. Not all ufology is pseudoscience.

The bits of ufology that aren't pseudoscience are already covered well enough by existing fields of endeavour, ranging from harmless if pointless star-gazing type activities to properly-conducted scientific pursuits.

Attempting to put all of these things, and especially the genuine science, under the umbrella of the fabricated 'discipline' of ufology is nothing more than a somewhat dishonest attempt to achieve legitimacy for what would better be described as crackpottery. Or flying saucery.

It isn't rationally possible to paint everyone and every facet of ufology with the same brush. Therefore it isn't rational to label ufology as a whole to be pseudoscience.

j.r.

If one chooses to identify oneself as belonging to a group that's widely regarded as being made up of an overwhelming majority of space cadets and fruitcakes then one is going to need to get used to being painted with the same brush as the rest of that group.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've only scanned Rramjets responses. I haven't really studied them.

<snipped due to uninformedness>

Are you familiar with the expression "Don't try to teach your Grandma to suck eggs"?

BTW: If Rramjet is actually a scientist then I would urge the JREF supporters to find a way to work with him instead of constantly against him.

What if he's just an anecdotologist? What if he's just a blimp debunker?

The JREF needs scientists who have an in-depth understanding of the topics to help people wade through the misconceptions and nonsense.

Believe it or not, Padawan, we already have those. That's how we know that Rramjet's flying saucer stories aren't evidence of anything, allthough in truth one doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon to figure that out.

The JREF needs to earn the trust and respect of those they are trying to reach. When you are dealing with smart educated people, you can't expect to gain their trust and respect by constntly dismissing and disrespecting them.

j.r.

What's this got to do with people who believe in flying saucers?

 

[Humanzee]

Evidence stands on its own merit. It doesnt require respect or trust for or from anyone. Should the messenger be slighted, mistrusted or disrespected doesnt change it.

To value the truth means to welcome questioning of your evidence even if you feel slighted, etc.

 

[Rramjet]

NEVER have I contended that an explanation for the cases I have presented that defy plausible mundane explanation is ET.

That is, of course, a flat out lie.

I love it when the debunkers accuse me of lying by asserting a lie – it adds a whole other level of interest to the thread. But you are invading RoboT’s territory there GeeMack …oh terribly sorry, just for a minute there forgot that you were clones… LOL.

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

(...)

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of your story …please, do carry on.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think that in common understanding, when you say 'alien' at least in the context of UFOs, 'alien' = ET.

Hans

 

[Akhenaten]

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

(...)

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality.

Well if that's what it “““simply””” means then you'll be able to “““simply””” explain to us where these aliens are coming from.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think that in common understanding, when you say 'alien' at least in the context of UFOs, 'alien' = ET.

Hans

Prepare for a Wall o' Waffle™ explaining to you why “““common”””, “““understanding”””, “““alien”””, “““context”””, “““UFO””” and “““ET””” don't mean what you've always thought they mean.

 

[Pixel42]

do you have some unique and hitherto unknown ability to discern the size and distance of these objects? Maybe you'd be better off studying this useful ability rather than silly flying saucer stories.

I'm pretty sure that such an ability would be eligable for the JREF $1m paranormal challenge.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm pretty sure that such an ability would be eligable for the JREF $1m paranormal challenge.

You could do a lot of pseudoscience with that kind of money.

 

[RoboTimbo]

NEVER have I contended that an explanation for the cases I have presented that defy plausible mundane explanation is ET.

That is, of course, a flat out lie.

I love it when the debunkers accuse me of lying by asserting a lie – it adds a whole other level of interest to the thread. But you are invading RoboT’s territory there GeeMack …oh terribly sorry, just for a minute there forgot that you were clones… LOL.

That's because you lie. Are you the only pseudoscientist who does?:

I have however stated that the ET hypothesis is a plausible explanation

You've stated it but you've never shown it to be true. That makes it pseudoscience.

Secondly, I know you'd like to forget but have a look at this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6443526#post6443526
where you were caught flat footed in your outright lying.

And thirdly, out of the other side of your mouth calling Randi a liar. In CAPS, even:

if I believed Randi actually knew better I would call him a LIAR at this point. However, I cannot because it is possible (even probable) Randi is completely ignorant of the facts. Whichever, either a LIAR or IGNORANT of the facts, Randi is evidently someone who we should not take notice of on (at least) the topic of UFOs and the abduction phenomenon.

Wherever Rramjet goes, there goes hypocrisy. The mark of the pseudoscientist.

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

(...)

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of your story …please, do carry on.

Don't you let the truth get in your way Which of your posts showed evidence of “aliens”. The truth is, you haven't. I've proven that all of your cases positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" that I don't mean mundane, but it is well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

From now on, what you're trying to prove exists is “pseudoaliens”.

 

[ufology]

Critical Thinking In Ufology

The focus here is on cooperative participation through the use of critical thinking as applied to any aspect of ufology, including ufology culture, belief, methodology, mythology, various hypotheses ... whatever you find interesting and worth pursuing in a genuine and constructive manner.

It differs from the Research & Evidence thread where debates based on a presumption of scientific research and empirical evidence are the norm. The opinion of a JREF moderator was also sought prior to posting this thread to be sure that it would be considered in the proper context, and not as an attempt to circumvent the Research & Evidence thread.

In critical thinking, the word "critical" is not to be equated with criticism or condemnation. Rather it is a method to help establish the truth, or at least determine what is most likely to be the truth given the information at hand, and it can make use of anything that advances that effort.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as, “an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

The basic process for applying critical thinking to ufology is to put some aspect of the phenomenon up for discussion and then search out ways of explaining it until we have reached the best possible answer given the data available at the time. It isn’t necessary for the answer to be conclusive, only that the process brings us closer to the truth. From there it may be possible to extrapolate through logic and deductive reasoning whether or nor not one idea or hypothesis is more or less reasonable than another.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

In critical thinking, the word "critical" is not to be equated with criticism or condemnation. Rather it is a method to help establish the truth, or at least determine what is most likely to be the truth given the information at hand, and it can make use of anything that advances that effort.

Since we have a massive body of evidence right here on the JREF forums that the typical position of "ufologists" is based on logical fallacies, blind faith, and a whole lot of dishonesty, in order to help establish the truth, how about every time the "ufologists" try to use arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, lies, anecdotes, and anything besides objective evidence to try to support their belief in alien visitors, the scientists and skeptics point out those flawed arguments? And then the alien believers set aside those particular failed arguments and move on to something else? And if they run out of arguments, if the "ufologists" don't have anything objective to offer, they acknowledge it and admit that all they have is faith? How would that be for cooperation and a method to help establish the truth?

 

[ufology]

Since we have a massive body of evidence right here on the JREF forums that the typical position of "ufologists" is based on logical fallacies, blind faith, and a whole lot of dishonesty, in order to help establish the truth, how about every time the "ufologists" try to use arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, lies, anecdotes, and anything besides objective evidence to try to support their belief in alien visitors, the scientists and skeptics point out those flawed arguments? And then the alien believers set aside those particular failed arguments and move on to something else? And if they run out of arguments, if the "ufologists" don't have anything objective to offer, they acknowledge it and admit that all they have is faith? How would that be for cooperation and a method to help establish the truth?

Hey there GeeMack ... thanks for dropping in!

The critical thinking approach does not rule out any evidence including anecdotal evidence. In many ways anecdotal evidence is the best evidence there is. It's based on direct observation of the phenomenon. There is no filter or third party for the data to pass through before it hits the witness's retina and becomes a stimulus for optical observation. It's pretty rare that people actually see something for which no stimulus has been provided.

Regarding simple ignorance. We can help overcome that by posting up clarifications and working it out in a constructive manner. We can deal with fallacies in logic the same way. As for lies and deception, let's smoke them out and expose them for what they are. We don't need them in ufology any more than anyone else does.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The basic process for applying critical thinking to ufology is to put some aspect of the phenomenon up for discussion and then search out ways of explaining it until we have reached the best possible answer given the data available at the time. It isn’t necessary for the answer to be conclusive, only that the process brings us closer to the truth. From there it may be possible to extrapolate through logic and deductive reasoning whether or nor not one idea or hypothesis is more or less reasonable than another.

j.r.

Which aspect of UFOlogy would you propose to discuss first?