Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[RoboTimbo]

Hey Stray ...

j.r.

So the object that the pilot claimed to see never appeared on radar?

 

[Rramjet]

A trained military pilot who reports being followed and surrounded by several UFO's that don't show on radar, he turns on his FLIR system and films them whilst giving a running commentary. He lands and the footage is analysed by other trained military staff who are also baffled by the UFOs which are keeping pace with the fighter jet and can be clearly seen skipping though the clouds on the video. The military decide to go public and it splashes the UFO story on the international news. Only then does someone look at it critically and discovers that what the highly trained ("credible") military pilot saw and filmed and which was confirmed by several other trained ("credible") military staff was in fact a group of oil wells in the Campech Bay, burning off natural gas. So the UFO's were actually easily identifiable not flying oil wells.

You are simply not telling either the truth or the whole story there Stray Cat.

Before the FLIR incident there were a number of anomalous radar contacts and the aircrew became intent on discovering what those contacts were. It seemed as if the was a UFO out there, yet they could make no visual contact. Then psychologically primed for a visual contact they saw (what has subsequently been contended) the oil well flares. Naturally they thought they had their visual confirmation. You can access the full details of the story here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

So remind me again, what makes a military person any more credible than a non military person?

It has been shown that military pilots are in reality no better observers than the man on the street, they are after all no less susceptible to the factors that bias all our perceptions (interestingly, the people least susceptible to misinterpretation are scientist and engineers – see The Hynek UFO Report (1978) p. 271) – but the comparison data is different between the groups as well – pilots are flying, often at night, and have much fewer reference points that does the “man on the street”.

However, when it comes to reliability, then the military people come into their own. Their reports are generally much more detailed (providing a much greater opportunity to falsify or verify) and they don’t tend to simply make things up when reporting back to their superiors. They may misidentify, but their detailed descriptions allow us to determine more easily what that misidentification might actually have been. (swings and roundabouts…)

I can present other cases if you like.

You can present all the cases of misidentification you like, but that does not mean that all cases are misidentifications. No-one is denying that misidentifications occur, but just because misidentifications are possible, does not mean that every case is a misidentification.

Ouch....As an amateur astronomer, I think I can say I look up at the sky a significantly greater amount of the time than the average person. I notice a lot and have seen a lot. However, I have yet to see anything I can not identify. I am over 50 years old and consider myself to have been an amateur astronomer for close to 40 of them. Am I unlucky? Am I unobservant? Am I an "unbeliever"? What prevents me from seeing these magical craft but allows tens of thousands of people to see them?

Ummm… I thought your contention was that “tens of thousands of people” DO NOT see UFOs, but merely misidentified mundane objects.

Genuine UFO sightings are relatively rare (per capita), it is not unusual for the majority of the population to go a lifetime without seeing one. While over many years there may accumulate many thousands of sightings, they are not what you would call a common event. I could give you the names of a few professional astronomers who have seen UFOs if that would help…

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is example Three as well: Apparently reliable set of credible witnesses who all turn out to be talking blx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jolCqH9_I
A trained military pilot who reports being followed and surrounded by several UFO's that don't show on radar, he turns on his FLIR system and films them whilst giving a running commentary. He lands and the footage is analysed by other trained military staff who are also baffled by the UFOs which are keeping pace with the fighter jet and can be clearly seen skipping though the clouds on the video. The military decide to go public and it splashes the UFO story on the international news. Only then does someone look at it critically and discovers that what the highly trained ("credible") military pilot saw and filmed and which was confirmed by several other trained ("credible") military staff was in fact a group of oil wells in the Campech Bay, burning off natural gas. So the UFO's were actually easily identifiable not flying oil wells.

So remind me again, what makes a military person any more credible than a non military person?

Oh yes, Campeche, the pseudoscientist's Waterloo. The reason Rramjet always forgets FLIR. LOL!

 

[ufology]

Ouch....As an amateur astronomer, I think I can say I look up at the sky a significantly greater amount of the time than the average person. I notice a lot and have seen a lot. However, I have yet to see anything I can not identify. I am over 50 years old and consider myself to have been an amateur astronomer for close to 40 of them. Am I unlucky? Am I unobservant? Am I an "unbeliever"? What prevents me from seeing these magical craft but allows tens of thousands of people to see them?

Hey Astro ...

In 1952, astronomer J. Allen Hynek conducted a survey of 45 colleagues, and among them 5 (11%) admitted that they had a UFO sighting. A more exhaustive study was done by Hynek with the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in 1980 which included 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations. 24% responded that they had observed an object which resisted [their] most exhaustive efforts at identification.

Astronomers do see UFOs too ... and not just one or two astronomers who might otherwise be ostracized or ridiculed. Hynek himself began his work as a skeptic. So there is still hope for you yet. I'll tell you right now, with your experience, if you have a good sighting, you aren't going to need to ask yourself too many questions ... you will just know.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey Astro ...

In 1952, astronomer J. Allen Hynek conducted a survey of 45 colleagues, and among them 5 (11%) admitted that they had a UFO sighting. A more exhaustive study was done by Hynek with the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in 1980 which included 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations. 24% responded that they had observed an object which resisted [their] most exhaustive efforts at identification.

Astronomers do see UFOs too ... and not just one or two astronomers who might otherwise be ostracized or ridiculed. Hynek himself began his work as a skeptic. So there is still hope for you yet. I'll tell you right now, with your experience, if you have a good sighting, you aren't going to need to ask yourself too many questions ... you will just know.

j.r.

So you've given up any pretense of appearing to be critically minded?

 

[Rramjet]

People lie, are mistaken, are delusional, misunderstand what they've experienced, are easily fooled, see what we want to see, and are often mentally ill, hallucinatory, or insane.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

I demand reproducibility.

That people are often mistaken or simply misunderstand I can agree with.

As for the statistics on hoaxes, delusions, insanity etc, then I think you will find that the percentage is actually tiny (statistically insignificant). Unless of course you have any information that would support your own contentions in that regard?

I guess you also missed this:

”The expression anecdotal evidence refers to the use of particular instances or concrete examples to support a general claim. Such information (sometimes referred to pejoratively as "hearsay") may be compelling but does not, in itself, provide proof.” (http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/anecdoteterm.htm)​

” Despite its limitations, anecdotal evidence is important in some areas of research, such as case study research, where the emphasis might be on learning as much as you can about a specific situation and you have to depend on a person's own experience for information/data. Even in areas where anecdotal evidence is not considered valid or reliable for the type of study that you want to conduct, it can strongly suggest lines of research.” (http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/anecdotal.html)​

As for reproducibility, go out and look up on a regular basis, one day you might get lucky – unless of course you are Astrophotographer

 

[Astrophotographer]

Ummm… I thought your contention was that “tens of thousands of people” DO NOT see UFOs, but merely misidentified mundane objects.

That is true but I was taken the UFOlogical point of view. For instance, I thought it was your contention that something like 25% of all UFO reports can not be explained (rather than the generally accepted value of <10%). There are thousands of these UFO reports filed with JUST NUFORC every year (they usually get between 200-400/month over the past decade). If 25% of these are truly unidentifieds, then the value would indicate a significant number of reports (assuming 2400 total reports = 600 reports) every year. Since the UFO phenomenon has been ongoing for over 50 years, the numbers work out into the tens of thousands. I was just using your numbers on this. I guess those truly unidentifieds are not so rare after all.

 

[Astrophotographer]

A more exhaustive study was done by Hynek with the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in 1980 which included 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations. 24% responded that they had observed an object which resisted [their] most exhaustive efforts at identification.

Actually, that is a misquote of Gert Herb's study. 24% of those that responded to his mailing mentioned this. However, Herb assumed those that responded would have been more prone to fill out the form if they had seen a UFO. The actual number of reports out of all those that were mailed the survey was more like 5%. This was discussed by Bob Young in SUNlite 1-3 (p. 14-15).

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite1_3.pdf

If you read the issue of the reflector where the survey was discussed, Herb provided three of the most choice UFO reports. They were simply lights in the sky (one may have been an orbital burn by a spy satellite) or irregular clouds. There were none describing immense triangles, flying discs, or other such "craft" that are commonly described in non-astronomer UFO reports.

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, why do you keep posting anecdotes about UFO sightings when we've already established that they're useless as objective evidence?

It can't be that you don't understand the argument. We've been over it enough times.

You said you wanted to promote a critical approach to the subject of UFOs, but then you refuse to accept the advice of everyone in this educational community devoted to critical thinking. If you already know so much about critical thinking and you're convinced we're all wrong, then what are you doing here? Seems to me this is all a pointless waste of time.

Critical thinkers are not going to change the rules of informal logic out of concession to your special pleadings, and you're obviously uninterested in hearing that one of the primary touchstones of your entire field of research is completely unrecognized in this community. Five pages into this thread, and we've been stuck at the same impasse since post #3.

So let’s put my null hypothesis to the test. Or are you afraid of it too?

There should be no difference in defined characteristics between UFO reports that have been determined to have mundane explanations and those reports that remain unidentified.

A simple, straightforward test of the hypothesis that most UFO reports are the result of a misidentification of mundane objects.

You talk the talk. Can you walk the walk?

I'm not afraid of your null hypothesis. I have no idea how to address it because it makes no sense. The parameter "defined characteristics" is vague to the point of meaningless.

Take the lens cap off?

Patrick Moore once took a series of photographs of a total eclipse and only realised he hadn't taken the lens cap off after it was all over.

I remember reading that story and laughing. Astrophotography FAIL!

 

[Rramjet]

So you've given up any pretense of appearing to be critically minded?

I hesitate to speak for him (and he can correct me if I misconstrue his meaning) but not at all, ufology means that if you see a genuine UFO you will know it is a genuine UFO - principally but not only because it will be doing things that are just not possible - and no amount of critical analysis will make whatever it is doing possible. You will not have to ask questions about whether it could have been this or that, because it will be immediately obvious that it is just not (and simply cannot be), “this or that”. If you see one, you will know…

 

[ufology]

So I think everyone agrees that anecdotal evidence is best reserved for pseudoscientists looking for pseudoaliens.

Uh ... Robo ... not everyone agrees, especially when we are dealing with firsthand knowledge from known reliable sources, or are talking about these experiences in another context besides what constitutes "proof".

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Hey Astro ...

In 1952, astronomer J. Allen Hynek conducted a survey of 45 colleagues, and among them 5 (11%) admitted that they had a UFO sighting. A more exhaustive study was done by Hynek with the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in 1980 which included 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations. 24% responded that they had observed an object which resisted [their] most exhaustive efforts at identification.

Astronomers do see UFOs too ... and not just one or two astronomers who might otherwise be ostracized or ridiculed. Hynek himself began his work as a skeptic. So there is still hope for you yet. I'll tell you right now, with your experience, if you have a good sighting, you aren't going to need to ask yourself too many questions ... you will just know.

So between 11 and 24% of professional and amateur astronomers saw a UFO. Big whoop. People see them all the time, I saw one last week. It wasn't until a few days later that I looked it up on the Internet (thanks to the aid of Astropohotographer) and figured out exactly what it was.

They saw a UFO, an unidentified thing in the sky. Not aliens, not spacecraft, not interdimensional time machines.

 

[ufology]

I hesitate to speak for him (and he can correct me if I misconstrue his meaning) but not at all, ufology means that if you see a genuine UFO you will know it is a genuine UFO - principally but not only because it will be doing things that are just not possible - and no amount of critical analysis will make whatever it is doing possible. You will not have to ask questions about whether it could have been this or that, because it will be immediately obvious that it is just not (and simply cannot be), “this or that”. If you see one, you will know…

Yup ... almost anyway, there will come a point in any good sighting when that will happen. It may not happen the first second you see it ( or it might ), but it will happen just as Rramjet describes ... there will be no doubt.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

I'm not afraid of your null hypothesis. I have no idea how to address it because it makes no sense. The parameter "defined characteristics" is vague to the point of meaningless.

Let’s define some of them specifically then:

Colour
Shape
Speed
Number of objects

Fair enough?

There should be no difference in defined characteristics (listed above) between UFO reports that have been determined to have mundane explanations and those reports that remain unidentified.

 

[John Albert]

Uh ... Robo ... not everyone agrees, especially when we are dealing with firsthand knowledge from known reliable sources, or are talking about these experiences in another context besides what constitutes "proof".

It's not firsthand knowledge when you hear it from somebody else, so please just stop saying that because it's incorrect.

And when it comes to anecdotes, no source is reliable enough to provide unfalsifiable evidence.

How many times and from how many people do you have to hear that, before you start believing that maybe some of the people here—in this educational community devoted to the promotion of skepticism and critical thinking—might know a little bit more than you do about the discipline of critical thinking?

Go ahead now, and Google up another fascinating rebuttal for us.

 

[John Albert]

Let’s define some of them specifically then:

Colour
Shape
Speed
Number of objects

Fair enough?

There should be no difference in defined characteristics (listed above) between UFO reports that have been determined to have mundane explanations and those reports that remain unidentified.

It still makes no sense. Even if it could be proven or disproven, what bearing would it have on whether the accounts are real?

People can make up anything they want and tell it to a paranormal or UFO researcher. They can be as imaginative or as pedestrian as they wish. The fact that there's already a huge body of accepted pop culture lore about UFOs, aliens, men in black, etc. makes no difference to the question of whether those things exist outside peoples' imaginations.

 

[Rramjet]

That is true but I was taken the UFOlogical point of view. For instance, I thought it was your contention that something like 25% of all UFO reports can not be explained (rather than the generally accepted value of <10%). There are thousands of these UFO reports filed with JUST NUFORC every year (they usually get between 200-400/month over the past decade). If 25% of these are truly unidentifieds, then the value would indicate a significant number of reports (assuming 2400 total reports = 600 reports) every year. Since the UFO phenomenon has been ongoing for over 50 years, the numbers work out into the tens of thousands. I was just using your numbers on this. I guess those truly unidentifieds are not so rare after all.

That’s 600 reports in what population? Just the US? That’s just one sighting per 500,000 people per year. To put it into perspective, that’s around the same odds as being struck by lighting. NFORC actually receives reports from all over the world though… then you are talking odds of seeing a genuine UFO that are so small that it is little wonder you have not seen one…

 

[GeeMack]

So you've given up any pretense of appearing to be critically minded?

Oh he gave that up right out of the gate when he set up the premise of leaving science behind and pursuing this conversation as if any fantasy or delusion was acceptable, well, as long as it seems to support his preconceived belief in aliens. No critical thinking will be going on among the "ufologists".

 

[mike3]

And I say your claim to have seen what you believe to be aliens could easily and simply be explained by you lying. You have been dishonest, so there's support for that possibility.

Though he could very well believe that the "dishonest" things are actually valid (as opposed to engaging in willful deceit, which would imply he does see the reality on some level), i.e. delusion.

(Interesting principle: never attribute [without more evidence] to malice that which can be adequately explained by self-deception.)

 

[mike3]

Uh ... Robo ... not everyone agrees, especially when we are dealing with firsthand knowledge from known reliable sources, or are talking about these experiences in another context besides what constitutes "proof".

j.r.

Even the most damned-honest never-tell-a-lie-in-a-million-years person on the planet is still subject to error.

This does not mean they did err, it means they could have. But you're not going to know that from the anecdote. And that is why anecdotes are worthless. There is no way to tell from them how accurately they reflect reality.

And note that even most "skeptical" explanations are most often offered only as plausible hypotheses, and not as proven facts -- especially when all there is to go on is anecdote. Even they cannot be proven on the basis of anecdotal "evidence" alone. Such "evidence" really is that useless!