Do Ufologists apply the scientific method? Have they formulated any scientific theories or at least a hypothesis?
Certainly, for example:
If the critics are correct and that UFOs are merely misidentified mundane objects, then there should be no difference on defined characteristics (speed, shape, etc) between reports that have been identified as mundane objects and those reports that have not.
You misunderstand. The assumption that is unjustified is that the object is the size and distance of an aircraft. It could be smaller and closer (or, indeed, larger and further away). It is impossible to know, despite many UFO spotters insistence otherwise.
As I pointed out, perception can be biased in many ways, both due to the physical biology receiving and transmitting the information and the psychological heuristics and biases used to process that information. Fortunately the factors involved in all of that have been well researched and documented and we can therefore analyse UFO reports in light of those factors. The inability to accurately determine size on a flat background (sans depth cues such as found with a clear blue sky or a black night sky) is one of those well documented factors.
And movements that appear sudden may look much less so seen from a different angle, e.g. what looks like a 90 degree turn from a particular line of sight may actually be much shallower. Again, the mistake is assuming that there's only one possible interpretation of what you're seeing.
You originally described a series of “sudden” movements in “different directions”. A turning aircraft, no matter how close or from whatever viewing angle necessarily executes timed and curved manoeuvres. If one was investigating your sighting, one of the principle questions one would be compelled to ask would be designed to determine what you meant by “sudden”. If you meant (for example) abrupt, right angled turns, then that would rule out aircraft.
When I say 'wilful' I'm referring to the sort of people who come to this site to share their anecdotal experiences (not just about UFOs) and, despite patient explanations about cognitive biases, the unreliability of their perceptions and the application of critical thinking, simply refuse to consider any other interpretation except the one they arrived with.
Just as you have done in not accepting an alternate interpretation such as a lack of knowledge in the application of critical thinking – as opposed to your “wilful refusal” to consider alternates …perchance?
I would suggest that many upstanding citizens regularly see and hear JC. Presidents, presidential candidates, high ranking military officials, teachers, etc. have all heard from or seen Jesus Christ.
I would be very interested to see the statistics you are relying on as a foundation for that contention wardenclyffe. After all, I assume such a contention is not merely a faith based belief, but is actually founded on sound evidence?
... makes the story completely unbelievable. No-one would simply have stood and calmly watched such a sight.
That is merely your opinion. Clearly you have never experienced such things. When you do, it is often practically impossible to either move or do anything except stare in awestruck, somewhat fearful wonderment. There is also no mention of “calmly” in the passage you quoted – that characterisation would then seem to be a mere unfounded assumption on your behalf.
Some people have a very dry sense of humour, and are capable of telling tall tales to someone they've heard has a particular interest with a completely straight face. Without further information or evidence I see no reason to look further for an explanation.
So then any investigation would set out to determine if your hypothesis was true. An investigator would interview friends and colleagues, they would look at past behaviours and any biographical information that may shed light on the type of character.
This is what critical thinking means. It does not mean you come up with a hypothesis (such as you have done) and on the basis of the mere
formulation of that hypothesis, dismiss the claim or refuse to investigate the evidence that might support or falsify that hypothesis.
Those weren't anecdotes. They were measured observations, applied to mathematical formulas that proved their hypothesis that the planets moved around the Sun in elliptical orbits.
The data gathering was going on for many, many years before anyone got around to using it to deduce a heliocentric model. The data were mere plots of lights moving across the night sky. Besides, the data gatherer was not even the person who made the deductions…
Critical thinking means using our firmly established, common knowledge of how the Universe works—knowledge which has been determined and verified through the methodology of science—to make objective value judgments.
Critical thinking also means being able to analytically question “established knowledge”…
“
Critical thinking is the 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. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.” (
http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm)
A major component of critical thinking is not to take unverified claims at face value, but to look for substantial, verifiable evidence to back them up.
You are generally correct in that critical thinking requires that we examine
all claims for supporting evidence without fear or favour. A danger to the successful application of critical thinking is to fall into the trap of accepting “received wisdom” and considering some claims as having been verified merely because they are authoritatively proclaimed.
In other words, when examining a claim (especially one that challenges what science has proven to be true), we must be critical of that claim. We must put that claim to the test against the standard of objective evidence. That's what critical thinking means
We must apply critical thinking to
all claims, for there are some claims we would like to challenge that do not refute our knowledge of science (for example: claims of UFOs as ET – which in no way refutes any current scientific knowledge).
You also seem to be falling once again into the trap of mistaking evidence for proof. We can have claims with supporting evidence that still fall short of having been proved.
Critical thinking means examining things critically, hence the name. Taking anecdotes at face value without any corroborating evidence is not thinking critically.
Exactly, and by the same token one cannot
dismiss anecdotes without evaluating the evidence. One must think critically about them.
I do have a problem when they try to tell me that what they saw was an alien spacecraft. There is no rational reason to believe such a thing. That's not critical thinking, it's credulous thinking.
The ET hypothesis is a plausible explanatory hypothesis. This is because we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence). This is the type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal fields – so I would suggest your characterisation of “credulous” is a little misguided.
it is not the eyes that malfunction. It is the individuals interpretation of what they saw is what the problem is. How many bright fireballs or re-entering space debris have you seen reported by witnesses as spaceships or triangular UFOs? I can list quite a few. How many times is Venus described as a spaceship/UFO? Vallee' called it the queen of UFOs for a reason.
This is straight back to the “
eyewitnesses can be mistaken, therefore they are mistaken” fallacy. Just because something is
possible does not mean that in a particular circumstance it is probable or even likely.
Understanding UFOs starts first with understanding the mind of those reporting them and second with the various stimuli that can cause such misperceptions.
Now you are back on the right track…
Nor is it critical thinking to take the a priori position that UFO = advanced, intelligent, or intelligently controlled, highly motile entities or craft of non-human, extraterrestrial origin.
The ET hypothesis is a plausible explanatory hypothesis. This is because we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence). This is the type of evidence that sets UFOology apart from other paranormal fields.
Yes, but those bits are not WEAK data. Great trouble is taken to ensure that they are transmitted accurately. If an error is found, the software doesn't say, "Oh, well. We can still fit it in there." Instead, it asks for the verifiably accurate data.
“
“Weight of Evidence (WOE) … is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.”
(…)
“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.””(
http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)
Anecdotal evidence, is probably the one source of evidence that has to be judged most critically because it is not as reliable as other sources of evidence.
Now you are getting it.
You, like Rramjet, are making the numbers argument: A helluva lotta people are saying it, therefore it must be true.
You are simply confusing the
Argumentum ad populum fallacy with the concept of a weight of evidence.
The ET hypothesis is a plausible explanatory hypothesis. This is because we have the observational evidence of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings (not to mention the supporting radar, photographic and film and physical trace evidence). This is the type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal fields.
…it's not about quantity. It's about quality.
Now you are getting it.
