Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

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.

No, you are incorrect. It is only plausible to a pseudoscientist engaging in pseudoscience and has already formed their pre-conceived idea that there are pseudoaliens flying in our skies. I think by "observational evidence" what you mean but don't want to say is "anecdote".

And you've forgotten FLIR again. LOL!

I thought you were going to think critically there for a minute but it wasn't to be. Not well done.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You are simply confusing the Argumentum ad populum fallacy with the concept of a weight of evidence.

But we're not talking about evidence here. We're talking about anecdotes. And I don't care how many stupid anecdotes you have, they're still anecdotes and have no value as evidence.

You are indeed making nothing but an argumentum ad populum. When I made the Superman analogy, your only defense was that there's no body of Superman anecdotes, while on the other hand, there's a huuuuge amount of UFO anecdotes. Therefore, the UFOs have to be true and the Superman anecdote is false. What a poor excuse for an argument.

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.

That's just a bunch of anecdotes. Where's the actual verifiable compelling evidence, Rramjet?

Now you are getting it.

I am getting it. Now that's rich.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to get it yet. Anecdotes are not evidence, no matter how big the body of anecdotes you have. No matter how heavy the body of anecdotes you have. It's still a bunch of tales that can't be falsified scientifically.

Anecdotes are not evidence of anything, ever.

Here's another one:
Once I went down to Mac Arthur Park and what do you know, Weird Al Yankovic wasn't that far off with his song Jurassic Park. I actually saw a real live T Rex. It ate me of course, but I had a sea saw with me and I opened his stomach and came out. It was a lotta fun.

Since anecdotes are evidence, you can't deny that's a piece of evidence for the existence of T-Rex now can you?
(Awaiting stupid reply to deny the simple truth that anecdotes are evidence, except when it's not convenient for you)

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Regardless of the strange beliefs you make up for your straw crtics, Rramjet, unidentified ≠ misidentified. Why do you pretend otherwise?

 

[GeeMack]

No, you are incorrect. It is only plausible to a pseudoscientist engaging in pseudoscience and has already formed their pre-conceived idea that there are pseudoaliens flying in our skies. I think by "observational evidence" what you mean but don't want to say is "anecdote".

And you've forgotten FLIR again. LOL!

I thought you were going to think critically there for a minute but it wasn't to be.

Not likely. We have already established that many of Rramjet's arguments are bald faced lies. Much of the body of his arguments are dishonest bastardizations of conventional meanings of terms. And many more of his arguments are logical fallacies which are based on incredulity and ignorance. Most importantly of course is the fact that none of his arguments objectively demonstrate that ETs/aliens even exist. His consistently failed effort to support the existence of aliens with repeated lies, failed arguments, and flawed reasoning cannot be considered critical thinking.

And ufology has frequently established that much of his argument is built on dishonesty. The continued attempts to blame scientists and skeptics for his failures are common among his arguments. Even this thread was started with the premise that the scientific method should be tossed aside because his pet belief in aliens can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. That's called special pleading, another logical fallacy, and wholly removed from what might be considered a rational, objective method...

[...] to help establish the truth, [...]

When it comes to "Critical Thinking In Ufology", at least within the arguments of the alien believers in this thread, there really doesn't seem to be any yet.

Not well done.

Indeed.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Codswallop. You have exactly none of this evidence.

 

[ufology]

Codswallop. You have exactly none of this evidence.

This is a amost interesting cultural contribution to this thread. Apparently, there is aslo no evidence anyplace that definitvely defines the word "codswallop". The best I've come up with is that its origin came from the early days of soft-drink manufacturing when it was used as a form of mockery by drinkers of beer who had a disdain for the non-alcoholic beverage, which is kind of ironic in this case. It's as if the obnoxious drunk were spouting off at the unimpaired intellectual.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

It matters not if they saw it land or not. If they didn't panic but stayed there observing, it still doesn't ring true to me.

Seriously though, if you were utilising critical thinking, you would have at least asked for contact details of the person he was with to get some sort of verification?

From what you've told us about this so far, you listened to his story and then that was the end of the investigation.

Now as unexpected things are unexpected things regardelss of what they are, we would expect people to react within a certain set of parameters. Why do UFO witnesses (and witnesses of other claimed paranormal events) react outside of the normal parameters of what would be expected?

I did ask if he still had his aide's contact info. They had lost touch years before after he moved here to Calgary. He was in his mid 60s when I interviewed him, and the sighting location was in another town many years earlier. All I had was his word to go on. But like I said, he was of clear mind, and he contacted me because it was something that had left an impression on him. He didn't want money or his identity disclosed. so he wasn't looking for a payout or recognition. I'm pretty good at judging character when I'm sitting right there in front of someone asking questions. I believe it is reasonable to accept that he actually saw what he described.

To answer your question as to why people don't seem to react the way you would think they should is because a UFO incident is not your typical "unexpected" incident. We are hard wired to a certain degree to be afraid of common things like sudden drop offs or loud noises. Then there are all the cultural stereotypes programmed into us by the entertainment industry. So we think people should act certain way. But how they actually act is much different. We imagine that everyone in the theatre will scream when the masked villain with the power saw pops out of the linen closet. But in reality not eveybody does. A lot of them just sit there watching.

Lastly, there is a point in any good UFO sighting when the witness realizes they aren't looking at anything our people made, but that doesn't always happen right away. It's not like OMG it's a UFO let's run. It's more like what is that thing? And unless it's really obvious from the start, you're trying to fit it in with your database of everyday experience, then when that fails, fluid intelligence kicks in and we start matching it to the probable, then when it does something like zoom off straight up without any noise, it leaves you more awestruck than terrified. After all, what's to be afraid of ... it's gone.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm pretty good at judging character when I'm sitting right there in front of someone asking questions.

j.r.

Why do you believe this to be true?

 

[GeeMack]

Lastly, there is a point in any good UFO sighting when the witness realizes they aren't looking at anything our people made, but that doesn't always happen right away. It's not like OMG it's a UFO let's run. It's more like what is that thing? And unless it's really obvious from the start, you're trying to fit it in with your database of everyday experience, then when that fails, fluid intelligence kicks in and we start matching it to the probable, then when it does something like zoom off straight up without any noise, it leaves you more awestruck than terrified. After all, what's to be afraid of ... it's gone.

And for the most part only the most non-critical thinkers, the gullible, people with little understanding of how our perceptions work, people who are unscientific, stupid, mentally ill, or maybe prone to delusions would go to the answer that it's a craft piloted by or controlled by aliens. And of course those who claim to be engaged in the pseudoscience of "ufology", where critical thinking has been shown to be willfully avoided, will take those people's tales and try to turn them into something that supports their belief in aliens.

 

[ufology]

Why do you believe this to be true?

Because when you are sitting with someone in person there are additional clues. In addition to being able to identify internal inconsistencies in the story itself, there is the opportunity to put people under pressure to explain them, and in doing so their answers and reactions add or subtract from their credibility, In addition, there are the so-called "telltale signs", glances away in certain directions when fabricating a lie, cetain kinds of nervousness. How they respond to leading questions and how they react when you imply they could be lying or simply misinterpreting what they saw. Cetainly a practised con artist would have all this worked out, but they usually have some kind of agenda that you can pick-up on.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

Because when you are sitting with someone in person there are additional clues. In addition to being able to identify internal inconsistencies in the story itself, there is the opportunity to put people under pressure to explain them, and in doing so their answers and reactions add or subtract from their credibility, In addition, there are the so-called "telltale signs", glances away in certain directions when fabricating a lie, cetain kinds of nervousness. How they respond to leading questions and how they react when you imply they could be lying. Cetainly a practised con artist would have all this worked out, but they usually have some kind of agenda that you can pick-up on.

Nonsense. If you were actually capable of sorting truth from fiction like that police agencies, the FBI, political organizations, industrial research groups, and all sorts of people would be seeking your services to do just that. As it is your claim amounts to having magical powers. So it's nonsense, and only the most un-critical of thinkers would give your claim any credence whatsoever.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Because when you are sitting with someone in person there are additional clues. In addition to being able to identify internal inconsistencies in the story itself, there is the opportunity to put people under pressure to explain them, and in doing so their answers and reactions add or subtract from their credibility, In addition, there are the so-called "telltale signs", glances away in certain directions when fabricating a lie, cetain kinds of nervousness. How they respond to leading questions and how they react when you imply they could be lying or simply misinterpreting what they saw. Cetainly a practised con artist would have all this worked out, but they usually have some kind of agenda that you can pick-up on.

j.r.

Do you have a link that backs up these assertions? I think that you're crediting yourself with powers that you don't actually possess. The same powers that cause people to know they couldn't possibly be misperceiving something.

Since we're being good skeptics here, we should make sure that our own biases and lack of objectivity aren't influecing us, shouldn't we?

 

[ufology]

And for the most part only the most non-critical thinkers, the gullible, people with little understanding of how our perceptions work, people who are unscientific, stupid, mentally ill, or maybe prone to delusions would go to the answer that it's a craft piloted by or controlled by aliens. And of course those who claim to be engaged in the pseudoscience of "ufology", where critical thinking has been shown to be willfully avoided, will take those people's tales and try to turn them into something that supports their belief in aliens.

GeeMack ...

The only modicum of redemption in your response is the prequalifier "most part". So what about the rest? Since we have so many accounts, that still leaves a lot of explaining to be done.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

GeeMack ...

The only modicum of redemption in your response is the prequalifier "most part". So what about the rest? Since we have so many accounts, that still leaves a lot of explaining to be done.

j.r.

Why?

 

[Stray Cat]

I did ask if he still had his aide's contact info. They had lost touch years before after he moved here to Calgary. He was in his mid 60s when I interviewed him, and the sighting location was in another town many years earlier.

I don't have magical powers but I could have predicted your response, it's textbook.

A good myth takes a long time to develop.

All I had was his word to go on. But like I said, he was of clear mind, and he contacted me because it was something that had left an impression on him.

Not enough of an impression to encourage him (or the other witness) to report it to anyone at the time?

He didn't want money or his identity disclosed.

Of course he didn't, it makes life difficult if the lie can be traced back to you.

so he wasn't looking for a payout or recognition. I'm pretty good at judging character when I'm sitting right there in front of someone asking questions. I believe it is reasonable to accept that he actually saw what he described.

The thing about a good conman is that you don't realise he's conning you. Now of course that such an amount of time has passed since the sighting and he told you the story (none of which you were able to verify), you are passing the second hand unverifiable story on to us and we don't know if you remember it accurately because you didn't write or record it anywhere at the time (I'm guessing)... So as far as critial thinking goes, we can rule out this story, it adds nothing to the veracity of UFOs.
Unless we continue to use it as an example of why anecdotes are less than pointless in providing evidence of anything except that people can tell stories.

To answer your question as to why people don't seem to react the way you would think they should is because a UFO incident is not your typical "unexpected" incident.

What is a typical unexpected incident?
Like I already said there are plenty of unexpected incidents that some people would describe as untypical, and yet people always react within a certain set of parameters, UFOs and other paranormal claimed event reactions always fall outside these parameters. To anyone looking into such events with a critical mind, they would seem not so much like 'reactions' but more like excuses for why the story can not now be verified... very much in the "dog ate my homework" category.

We are hard wired to a certain degree to be afraid of common things like sudden drop offs or loud noises. Then there are all the cultural stereotypes programmed into us by the entertainment industry. So we think people should act certain way.

People do act in certain ways, it doesn't take much knowledge of psychology to learn how and usually why.

But how they actually act is much different.

No, it's usually only markedly different when the person is claiming something paranormal or is mentally ill or suffering from some other delusion or physical illness.

We imagine that everyone in the theatre will scream when the masked villain with the power saw pops out of the linen closet. But in reality not eveybody does. A lot of them just sit there watching.

I've never heard anyone scream in the cinema... well there was that one time, but I quickly put my trousers back on.

Lastly, there is a point in any good UFO sighting when the witness realizes they aren't looking at anything our people made, but that doesn't always happen right away.

No, sometimes it happens many years later when the fog of time has made verifying the story impossible, sometimes in only happens the next day, but that's usually when there really is nothing that can be verified.

It's not like OMG it's a UFO let's run. It's more like what is that thing? And unless it's really obvious from the start, you're trying to fit it in with your database of everyday experience, then when that fails, fluid intelligence kicks in and we start matching it to the probable, then when it does something like zoom off straight up without any noise, it leaves you more awestruck than terrified. After all, what's to be afraid of ... it's gone.

Sorry are we still in the critical thinking thread or did we quantum jump into the humour subforum?

 

[John Albert]

I've heard that same argument made that multiple bits of weak data cannot add up to better data. It seems to me that we can quite literally demonstrate that it does.

No, this is wrong. Bad data do not aggregate into good data. If I were making the argument that mice have the capability to speak the English language, sing and dance around, I could present the entire Disney catalog as evidence but all those faulty pieces of evidence would not constitute a single piece of good evidence.

All you have to do is go back to using your 14.4. modem to download a picture. You can literally watch how bits of data are gathered and put together to form a meaningful image.

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.

This is exactly true. In the HTTP protocol, the integrity of every packet is verified using a checksum delivered in the packet header, and if it is garbled or missing, it is then re-requested by the receiving machine and resent by the server.

Then there is HDR photography, the use of three sets of different photos combined with special software to produce a picture that is better than any single picture alone. Then ( and this is one of the best ), there is fingerprint ID software than can be used to assemble a single fingerprint from numerous partials ... a glass here, a doorknob there ... the knife stuck squarely in the carrot cake that wasn't supposed to have been eaten until Sunday.

You're confusing multiple bits of accurate, yet incomplete data that can be logically aggregated and reassembled (like packets in an HTTP bitstream) with unverifiable, bad data. It's apples and oranges.

You could take all the garbage from every kitchen in your neighborhood and throw it into a trash compactor, and you'd never end up with a solid gold brick.

 

[Stray Cat]

Cetainly a practised con artist would have all this worked out, but they usually have some kind of agenda that you can pick-up on.

What a very naive way to think.

If people picked up on con men's agendas, there would be no con men.
And people do do the oddest things for their very own reasons, they don't necessarily fit in with your perception of why they would be doing it. Hoaxing isn't always about fame/notoriety or money for instance.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Again, demonstrated, some people don't understand that more of the same crap will never add up to something valuable.

 

[ufology]

Do you have a link that backs up these assertions? I think that you're crediting yourself with powers that you don't actually possess. The same powers that cause people to know they couldn't possibly be misperceiving something.

Since we're being good skeptics here, we should make sure that our own biases and lack of objectivity aren't influecing us, shouldn't we?

I thought I was pretty much stating the obvious, especially when comparing a static written report to an interview. The chance to revisit information and catch inconsistencies during a live interview is self-evident. One can become one's own "cross-examiner" if you will. The other issues involve what is generally termed "body language" or "nonverbal communication". It is contentious as "proof" of deception, but has proven useful to investigators and recruiters. I suggest you look them up yourself. I don't claim to be an "expert", just that I pick up more of these subtleties when I'm with someone in person, as I suspect most of us do. I'm not claiming any "psychic" power here.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

There is much anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus. More for Santa Claus than for UFOs as pseudoalien space vehicles. Does your weight of evidence cause you to believe the jolly old elf lives at the North Pole? If not, why not?

In support of Kris Kringle, a "santaclausologist" could easily make a website presenting anecdotes of sightings, every news report of NORAD tracking his travels across the continent, all the songs and movies in the popular culture, plus the "material evidence" of Christmas cards, children's letters, etc., but of course it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans from a critical thinking perspective.