Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[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.

What about the rest? Any sighting which cannot be explained cannot be explained. Only a dyed-in-the-wool believer, or maybe a moron would jump from unidentified to aliens. To do so would demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking. Guessing at any particular unevidenced explanation which has never been objectively demonstrated to exist would be a fool's folly, although obviously there's no shortage of those particular fools engaging in "ufology".

There's a god who hates you, who enjoys taunting you, who gets pleasure out of teasing you. And that god creates visions of mysterious flying things in your mind and in some other people's minds. That god puts the thought in your head and those other people's heads that those flying things are craft piloted by aliens. Of course that explanation has exactly as much supporting evidence as your silly conjecture that aliens might actually be visiting Earth. Odd, isn't it, that those who believe in aliens don't seem to have the critical thinking skills and/or imagination to come up with that explanation. I'm sure you agree anyone who doesn't give it equal weight in explaining unevidenced unidentified flying things isn't applying critical thinking.

ETA:

A good myth takes a long time to develop.

Maybe for believers and those who don't have very well developed critical thinking skills. I came up with the above conjecture in just minutes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

j.r.

Well, no. That is what is in contention. You claim you can judge a person's character and I doubt that you can. You've talked about things that trained investigaros and such do but you've not tied it back to your ability. My experience with other people's abilities is that because we can't be objective about ourselves, we overestimate them. You've not said anything that would make me change my impression. So the only obvious thing is that you aren't thinking critically.

It reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Bart and Millhouse are on a hill with binoculars watching some people down below and Millhouse says, "You said you could read lips!" and Bart, with a puzzled look on his face, replies, "I assumed that I could."

 

[ufology]

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.

Actually con men don't get away with it all the time. If you are looking for the con you can often catch it. Not everyone falls victim. It's not naive at all to suggest that if you are looking for a possible con, that it's more likely you will not be taken advantage of.

Assuming that because there are con men they must always get away with it is false logic. The mere fact we know there are con men is a testament to that fact.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually con men don't get away with it all the time. If you are looking for the con you can often catch it. Not everyone falls victim. It's not naive at all to suggest that if you are looking for a possible con, that it's more likely you will not be taken advantage of.

Assuming that because there are con men they must always get away with it is false logic. The mere fact we know there are con men is a testament to that fact.

j.r.

Con men have found that the easiest people to dupe are the ones who have such a lofty opinion of their own ability to judge character.

 

[EHocking]

Actually con men don't get away with it all the time. If you are looking for the con you can often catch it. Not everyone falls victim. It's not naive at all to suggest that if you are looking for a possible con, that it's more likely you will not be taken advantage of.

And here's a twist - even when you know it is a con, in fact BECAUSE you know it is a con, you can get conned.

(anecdote alert) a couple of years back in a square in Prague I was watching someone pulling off the classic Three-card Monte^WP con.

I actually stood there and explained the con to my wife, and while doing so picked the right card something like 10 times in a row.

I actually had €50 out of my wallet after they'd paid out three or for times (€10) in a row, when I realised that, of course, the "winners" were plants and part of the con.

Ruefully shaking my head I put my euros back in my wallet while rather shamefacedly admitting to my wife that I should have been aware that the 3 "winners" and 2 others egging me on to bet were plants, a lot early that me pulling out my wallet.

Yep, I nearly convinced myself I could beat the con because I was "smart" enough to recognise the con.

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually con men don't get away with it all the time. If you are looking for the con you can often catch it. Not everyone falls victim. It's not naive at all to suggest that if you are looking for a possible con, that it's more likely you will not be taken advantage of.

But if you fail to understand the gamut of their possible motives for conning you, how can you ever be so sure you'd be the person to catch them 'at it'.

Assuming that because there are con men they must always get away with it is false logic. The mere fact we know there are con men is a testament to that fact.

That's a strawman.
I'm not saying that they never get caught, I'm saying that the good ones are less likely to be caught. Especially if they are conning people who have no understanding of their possible motives. And I qualified that by pointing out that Hoaxing isn't always about fame/notoriety or money.
No one has ever got famous, notorious or wealthy from spreading urban legends (made up, unverifiable stories told as personal truths) and yet people still pass them on as their own (or usually as "a friend of mine told me.....")

 

[ufology]

Well, no. That is what is in contention. You claim you can judge a person's character and I doubt that you can.

It reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Bart and Millhouse are on a hill with binoculars watching some people down below and Millhouse says, "You said you could read lips!" and Bart, with a puzzled look on his face, replies, "I assumed that I could."

Some Simpson's episodes are funnier than others. But you are reaching pretty far to compare what I've said with a cartoon. Are you denying that a live interview affords an oppotunity to catch inconsistencies? Are you denying that if you catch an obvious inconsistency and the person turns red, that this does not suggest embarrasment? Or are you just denying that people sometimes turn red when you catch them lying?

If you are simply excercising your right to doubt because that is the role of a skeptic, then I can respect that, but now we've clearly reached the point in this particular issue where it is no longer reasonable to continue doubting. The purpose has been served. Perhaps you might propose another issue we can explore?

j.r.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You know, all of the eloquence and sophistry and smart sounding arguments in the world aren't gonna change the fact that anecdotes are not evidence.

So put up or shut up. Either present compelling evidence for UFOs or forget about it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Some Simpson's episodes are funnier than others.

That was one of the funny ones because of that one scene.

But you are reaching pretty far to compare what I've said with a cartoon.

Well, no. The comparison was apt. Why do you think it wasn't?

Are you denying that a live interview affords an oppotunity to catch inconsistencies? Are you denying that if you catch an obvious inconsistency and the person turns red, that this does not suggest embarrasment? Or are you just denying that people sometimes turn red when you catch them lying?

How much straw did it take you to build that one? Are you denying that con men can lie through their teeth without turning red? Are you denying that hoaxers won't have internal inconsistencies in their stories? You are easily making my point for me. You've just stated what it takes for you to recognize when someone is having you on. Do you see any obvious problems with it that everyone else has already seen?

If you are simply excercising your right to doubt because that is the role of a skeptic, then I can respect that, but now we've clearly reached the point in this particular issue where it is no longer reasonable to continue doubting. The purpose has been served. Perhaps you might propose another issue we can explore?

j.r.

Why do you say it is no longer reasonable to continue doubting when you haven't addressed any of the problems with your self-assessed abilities to judge character?

 

[ufology]

And here's a twist - even when you know it is a con, in fact BECAUSE you know it is a con, you can get conned.

(anecdote alert) a couple of years back in a square in Prague I was watching someone pulling off the classic Three-card Monte^WP con.

I actually stood there and explained the con to my wife, and while doing so picked the right card something like 10 times in a row.

I actually had €50 out of my wallet after they'd paid out three or for times (€10) in a row, when I realised that ... Yep, I nearly convinced myself I could beat the con because I was "smart" enough to recognise the con.

That was a fun story. Thanks for sharing!

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Why do you say it is no longer reasonable to continue doubting when you haven't addressed any of the problems with your self-assessed abilities to judge character?

Why do you continue to say haven't addressed the questions when I have? This reminds me of a Monty Python skit ... The Argument Clinic.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why do you continue to say haven't addressed the questions when I have? This reminds me of a Monty Python skit ... The Argument Clinic.

j.r.

Huh, it reminds me more of the Black Knight.

You haven't addressed the points I made in my last post. In fact, you snipped them out to avoid answering them.

 

[ufology]

Huh, it reminds me more of the Black Knight.
You haven't addressed the points I made in my last post. In fact, you snipped them out to avoid answering them.

The only points I snipped out were your references to me personally. Are you saying you want to make this personal? Are you suggesting that I am not able to catch an inconsistency in someone's statement and that being with that person live would not afford me the opportunity to confront them with it to see how they react? Are you suggesting that I'm color blind and couldn't tell if they flushed out of embarrassment at being caught in the inconsistency? Are you suggesting that I need to prove all these things to you? How might I do that? Would being there "in person" help you assess whether or not I'm telling the truth?

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The only points I snipped out were your references to me personally. Are you saying you want to make this personal? Are you suggesting that I am not able to catch an inconsistency in someone's statement and that being with that person live would not afford me the opportunity to confront them with it to see how they react? Are you suggesting that I'm color blind and couldn't tell if they flushed out of embarrassment at being caught in the inconsistency? Are you suggesting that I need to prove all these things to you? How might I do that? Would being there "in person" help you assess whether or not I'm telling the truth?

j.r.

Simmer down. It wasn't directed at you personally beyond how far you made it about you personally. You claimed that you have the power to read people and detect their motivation and when they were being dishonest with you. Nowhere did I say that you couldn't see someone turning red. Nowhere did I say that you wouldn't be able to catch an obvious inconsistency in their story. That's why I referred to it earlier as a strawman argument, meaning it was not one that I made, you made it and then became defensive about it to the point where you weren't reading my actual arguments.

The point was, that you missed, people don't always give themselves away when they are hoaxing or lying or whatever they are doing.

Would you like to start over?

 

[wollery]

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.

I guarantee, 100%, that I could tell a complete lie to your face about something I claim to have done, and you wouldn't be able to tell it from a completely truthful story.

And I'm not even a particularly good liar.

 

[John Albert]

 

[RoboTimbo]

[qimg]http://oi55.tinypic.com/2wg8wax.jpg[/qimg]

I am so stealing that.

 

[John Albert]

You can't steal that which has been given away freely!

 

[ufology]

You know, all of the eloquence and sophistry and smart sounding arguments in the world aren't gonna change the fact that anecdotes are not evidence. So put up or shut up. Either present compelling evidence for UFOs or forget about it.

This thread isn't about "putting up or shutting up". Perhaps we don't have the same views on what constitutes "anecdotal evidence". Please let me know. We might be talking about the same thing and not realize it. Also, by all means see if you can find something scientific to discuss. I'm open to discussing scientific findings.

Firsthand knowledge is not anecdotal evidence. Technically anecdotal eveidence is "secondhand or hearsay". A report from a firsthand witness is not anecdotal evidence. Typically what most people mean, and what I presume you and most other people presume to be anecdotal is a "verbal account", which is in actual fact not anecdotal unless it relays an account. For example, "I heard so and so say they saw a UFO" is anecdotal. The phrase "I saw a UFO", is not anecdotal. Also, if you missed it earlier, consider anecdotal medical case reporting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_report

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Now Rramjet ufology wants to redefine anecdotal.

<shakes head sadly>